HARDLIE shall vve fynde a subiect so disloyall, or priua­te man so imprudent, vvho vvill arrogate vnto him self the honourable office of an Imbassadour, to deale betvvixt Prince and Prince in de­nounicinge [Page 2]vvarre or offeringe peace, of in establishinge a nevv league or rene­vvinge an olde, vnles he haue authoritie from his Prince in vvhose name he dea­leth, and canne by letters of credit or other tokens make an euident remōstran­ce of his legatine povver and commissiō. For if he goe vnsent, he abuseth his prin­ces name, and if he cannot shevv his co­mission, he runneth on a sleeueles arran­de. If this be so (as experience teacheth vs that it is so and reason telleth vs that it must be so) and thath betvvixt man and mā: vve haue noe reason to thinke almig­htie god to be so deuoid of princelie pru­dence, as to sende his Apostles and prea­chers to denounce his vvill and impart his minde to his people, and not to giue them vvith all letters patentes of their cōmission; or to be so vnreasonable as to bynde vs to giue credit or audiēce to such Imbassadours, vvho cāne only bragge of their ēbassage but cānot by ani probable proofes acertaine vs of it: for so vve might imbrace a false preacher and Apostle vvhen in deed vve haue a levvd and lying prophet by the hand. This Moyses vvell knovving, Exod. [...]. neuer dreamed of that great embassage in vvhich he vvas sent from God to Pharao to deale for the deliuerio of the oppressed Israelites, vntill God had [Page 3]called him and tolde him that he inten­ded to send him, knovvinge that if he shoulde haue gone vnsēt he should haue abused his lord and masters name. Aaron also durst not aduenture vppon preestlie function, Exod. [...]. Leuit. [...]. before that Moyses by Gods commaundement, had consecrated him vvhose example Sainte Paule proposeth vnto all pas [...]ours as necessarie to be fol­lovved saying; [...] Nec quisquam sumit sibi hono­rem sed qui vocatur à De [...] tanquam Aaron; Neither doth any man take vnto him selfe honour but he vvho is called of God as Aaron vvas. The prophetes likevvoise presumed not to tell vnto the people gods mynd and vvill nor to fortell the thinges to come, of vvhich god vvouldehaue his people for vvarned, vvith out an expresse commaundement from god as maie appeare by the prohe­me and beginninge of their prophecies. And those immortall creatures vvhich are by nature spirites are by office called An­gells, bicause they are sent from god as his legates, and imbassadoures, for so much the greeke vvord [...] imylyeth from vvhich our Inglish vvord Angel, is deri­ued. Vvherfore the Angel that came to Daniel declareth vnto him his con mis­sion before h [...]e telleth him his message. Daniel (saieth he) stam gradu tuo nunc enim missus sum ad te: Dan. 10. Daniel stande in thy stepp for [Page 4]novve I am sent vnto the. And sainte Luke describing that great embassage of the Archangel Gabriel vnto the blessed vir­gin Marie, Luc. 10 saieth that he vvas, sent from God into a citie of Galilie vvhich vvas called Na [...]a­reth vnto a virgin despoused vnto a man vvhose name vvas Ioseph. In like manner S. Ioh [...] Baptist the precursour of Christ and mo­re then a prophet of God, vvhonot only for told the Messias but also poynted him out vvith his finger, Malach. 3. Mat. 11. Ciril. l. [...] in Io. c. 17. Beda in c. 1. Mar. is called an Angel, not bicause he vvas an Angel by nature as Origen imagined, but bicause he vvas an Angel by office as beinge sent to make the vvaie and to prepare it for the Mes­sias. Yea Christ him selfe vvould not vn­dertake the office and function of a Mes­sias and Mediatour before he vvas sent by his father: Io. [...]. For I (saieth he) came not of my selfe but he sent me and therfore he saieth his doctrine is not his ovvne but his fa­thers because although he preached the same, [...]. yet bicause he preached it in his fa­thers name vvho sēt him he calleth it his fathers doctrine. And as Christe vvas sent frō his father sovvere his Apostles frō him, Io. 20. els had not their name aggreed to their person, bicause the vvorde Apostle co­meth of the greek vvord [...] vvhich signifieth a messenger or Imbassadour. And if they had not been sent they could [Page 5]not haue preached, bicause as faith and re­ligiō is reuealed only by God, Matth. 1 [...]. so none can haue authoritie to preach it but from God accordinge to that of S. Paul: Rom. 10. Hovv shall they preach vnles they be sent? And as it is pro­per to all true Apostles not to presume to preach before they be sent, so is it as com­mon to all false Prophetes to rōne before they be sent, and to preach their ovvn fan­cie vvith out mission, or commissiō; vvho therfore in diuers places of scripture are saied to come but neuer to be sēt. All they (saieth Christ) vvho came before me are theeues and nobbers. Io. 10. Vvhere you must note that he saieth not all they vvho vvere sent, bicause Moyses and the prophetes vvere sēt befo­re him, and yet vvere nether theeues nor robbers, but hesaieth, all they that came be­fore me, are theeues and rohbers, Maldonatus in Io. 10. that is vvho came of their ovvn heades nether sent nor commaunded, by cause they stole au­thoritie frō God, and arrogated that vnto them selues, vvhich he neuer gaue them, vsing & abusing his name and crying that the lord saieth so vvhen he neuer sayed so nor ment so. Of vvhich kinde of theefe our sauiour speakinge noteth him vvith the same marke of a false Prophet vvhich is, comminge. Io. 10. A [...]theef (saieth he) doth not come but to steale and kill. The like manner of speech vseth saint Paul saying; 2. Cor. 17. If he that [Page 6]cometh shall preach vnto yon any other Christe. To be breefe he that cannot he bicause he is the prime and first veritie, and vvill not lie bicause he is goodnes it self, giues vs this marke to knovv a false Prophet by Bevvare (saieth he) of false Prophetes, Mat. [...]. but vvhat marke doest thou giue vs (o lord) to knovv them by, that vve maie take heed of them? Vvho come (saieth he) vnt [...] you in the garmentes of sheep but in vvardlie are rauening vvolues. So that if any preachers come only, that is, come vnsent they are thee [...]es that steale authoritie vvhich vvas neuer giuen them, and they are false Pro­phetes vvhich conne on their ovvn hea­des before they be sent, and preach their ovvn deuises, before they haue commis­sion. If then our nevv reformers and Pro­phetes of the lord (as they call them sel­ues) be sent frō god (as they saie they be) to reforme the church not onlie in man­ners, but also in faieth and religion, lett them tell vs their mission and shevv vs their commission, and vve vvill reuerence them as the messengers, and respect them as the Imbassadours and Angells of god. But if they come on their ovvne heades or cannot giue vs assurauuce that they are sent from god they must pardon vs if vve giue not eare vnto them: for if they be not sent they haue noe authoritie to dea­le [Page 7]vvith vs, and if they cannot proue their mission vve haue noe vvarraunt to deale vvith them. Tvvoe manner of missions vvhich god vseth insending preachers vn­to vs I fynde in holy vvrite, vvhich also haue bene practised in the church of god, the one an extraordinarie the other an or­dinarie mission. The extraordinarie mis­sion is made immediatly from god, the ordinarie mission god maketh by meanes of some other vvhom he hath sent imme­diatlie from him selfe. For as god ordina­tilie doth nothing immediatlie by him­selfe, but by meanes of secōde causes, cau­sing light by the sonne, and heate by the fire, producing fruites by trees, men and beastes by some of their ovvne kinde, yet he doth not so tye him selfe vnto his crea­tures, but that some tymes extraordinari­lie he vvorketh by him selfe vvithout any concurrence of them as he did vvhen vvith a vvorde, or touche, he restored health, vvhich ordinarilie he doth by phi­sitions and secōd causes, so likvvise ordi­narilie god sendeth pastours and prea­chers, and giueth thē authoritie by others, yet sometymes also extraordinarilie he sendeth them immediatlie from him sel­fe. As for example: Moyses and Aaron in the olde lavve vvere sent immediatlie frō god to recall his people out of Aegipt, and [Page 8]to rule and gouerne them in matters of religion; but the highe preestes vvhich succeded Aaron and vvere consecrated by him and his successours, vvere sent by an ordinarie mission. In like manner in the nevve lavve, saint Peter and the rest of the Apostles vvere called and sent ex­traordinarilie & immediatlie from Christ but they vvhich succeded the Apostles and vvere ordained by them by imposi­tion of hādes and other ceremonies, vve­re sent by an ordinarie mission, bicause oure sauiour Christe vvhem he instituted his Apostles did also appointe a cōtinuall order, by vvhich others should succeed them in their offices, vvhich vvas imposi­tion of hādes by a Bishop lavvfullie con­secrated and so the Bishops vvhich novv are, maie trulie affirme that they are sent from Christe to rule & gouerne his chur­che, bicause they are consecrated & insti­tuted by the order vvhich Christe hath appointed and they succeded the Apo­stles vvhom Christe immediatlie sent to preach, teach, and minister sacramentes. Novv betvvixte these tvvoe missions, this amongest others, is one difference; that an extraordinarie mission must be proued by miracles or plaine prophecies, els eue­rie one maie bragge that he is sent extra­ordinarilie and noe man shall controlle [Page 9]him, but an ordinarie mission needeth noe such proofe, and therfore he vvhoe is sent by an ordinarie mission if he can shevve that he vvas instituted by the or­dinarie meanes vvhich Christe hath lefte in his church, and that he succedeth them vvhoe vvere counted lavvfull pastours and preachers, he giueth sufficient testi­monie of his ordinarie mission & com­mission. If then oure nevv preachers be sent by an ordinarie mission le [...]t them shevv their succession & tell vs the pede­gree of their predecessours that vve maie see vvhoe vvere bishops before them, and vvhoe consecrated and instituted them, and vvhoe gaue them commission and authoritie to entermeddle in the rule and gouerment of the church: for so Christe ordinarilie sendeth preachers & pastours to his churche. [...] prescr. c. 38. Thus Turtullian vrged the heretikes of his tyme. Let them (saieth he) shevve vs the origen of their churches, let them vnfolde the order of their bishopes vvhich by successours, so ronneth on from the beginning, that the first bishop haue for his autour and pre­decessour some one of the Apostles or apostolicall men vvhich liued in the Apostles tyme, &c. As the churche of the Smyrneans doth register Polycarpe placed by [...]hon, as the churche of the Romaines hathe Clement ordained by Peter, &c. To this proofe S. Augustine putteth the [Page 10]heretikes of his age: e [...]n. partem [...]Donati. nomber (saieth he) the preestes euen from Peters seate and looke vvhich to vvhich succeeded in the order of those ffathers. And in an other place he saieth that this succession of preestes is the thing, cont. ep. fun­damenti c. 4. vvhich holdeth him in the catholike church, bi­cause he knevve, that there is the true Churche, vvhere is true religion, there true religiō, vvhere true pastours to teach it, and there true pastours, vvhere one suc­cedeth to another by an ordinarie succes­sion. And thus vve must vrge our nevve reformers to declare vnto vs the pede­gres of their ancetours, & to shevve vvho be the predecessours to vvhom they bee successours, if they vvill haue vs to admit­te them as the ministers of God sent by an ordinarie mission. But this they can never doe for vvhoe I praye yon vvas the immediate predecessour of Luther and Caluin? or vvhoe vvas hee that made the first superintendent in Inglande? I am sure and all the vvorlde, yea they them selues vvill vvitnesse, that they are noe succes­sours to the catholike bislopes and pa­stours, bicause they degenerate frō them altoge-ther, and they vvere faine to con­temne & disobey them before they could open their mouthes in pulpites. Yea our pastours vvere so farre from ordayning them, or instituting them & giuing them [Page 11]authoritie, that they cried out against thē as nevve startuppes, cōdemned them for heretikes, Antipastours, and nevve, yea false Apostles. Nether can they deriue thē selues from any other lavvfull pastours for before they them selues tooke vppon them the name and office of pastours, there vvere none at the tyme of their ri­sing, but oure catholike pastours. Yea as in the next booke is proued, they cannot de [...]iue their descente from ancient here­tikes, bicause in all poyntes they agree not vvith anie of them; and if they could, yet vvere not that sufficiet, for they vvere counted & condēned for arrāt heretikes, and intruded them selues as these men doe into the true pastours offices, & vvere thē selues as these men are, the first of their familie, succeding to noe predecessours. Here they fynde thē selues much pressed, & knovve not I dare saie, vvhat to ansvv­ere, but yet they vvill playe smalle playe rather then sirte out, and vvill make harde shifte rather then noe shifte, and shape a mishapen ansvvere rather then noe ansvvere. And vvhat is that? They saie that the Apostles vvhich vvere the first bishops, & pastours, had for a tyme [...]heir lavvfull successours, but at the lengthe the Churche failed and the pastours vvith it, & vvith them the succession decaied; but [Page 12]yet aftervvard Luther & Caluin reuiued this dead Churche againe, & restored the pastours: And so (saie they) vve succeed the Apostles and their immediate succes­sours, but by interruption of manie hun­dred yeares. But this God knovves is a poore shifte & a stale shifte. For this vvas the ansvvere of the heretikes of Tertul­lians tyme, against vvhome he vseth noe other argumēt then the absurditie vvhich follovveth so absurde an ansvvere. l. prese. ‘Then (saieth he) truth vvhich vvas imprisoned expected Marcionites her redeemers and in the meane tyme pastouts preached falsly, and the christians belecued erro­niouslie, manie thousandes vvere vvron­glie baptized so manie vvorkes of faithe ministred a misse, so manie chrismes evil­lie vvrought, so manie preest-hoodes and ministeres not rightlie done, so manie martyrdoomes all invayne.’ The like maie be saied against Luther, Zuinglins, Calui­ne, and other nevve Apostles of this tyme If the Church failed before youre com­ming, then she expected manie hundred yeares for you in particular, then all mi­nisterie in the Churche vvas all this vvhile vvronge, preaching & teaching vvas false, they vvhoe boare the name of true pa­stours vvere not so, that societie vvhich vvas dispersed throughout the vvorlde [Page 13]& vvas counted the only christiā Churche and vvas persecuted for the same by the deuill & his ministers, vvas a synagogue of the deuil, established and vpholdē by the deuill; & so one deuill psecuted another, all martyrdomes in that Churche vvere in vaine, all actes of religiō vvere supersti­tious, all conncells vvhich vvere gathered in this Churche, all pastours that ruled in it, all doctours that vvrote & tanght in it and for it, deceiued, & vvere deceiued. Happie then vvas the daie in vvhich Lu­ther leaped out of his Monasterie, diso­beied the Pope & Churche, and hauing gotten a yoke fellovv, out of a cloy ster of professed and vovved virgins, deuised a nevve religion to cloake his villanie. And could not Christe all that vvhile fynde out a man fitte to restore his Churche frō death to life? vvas there noc Ambrose, noe Austine, noe Hierome, noe Gregorie fitte for such a purpose? and vvas Luther the only man vvhoe for learninge & vert­ue (thonghe he vvere an apostata) vvas according to God his harte and likinge, vvhome God vvished for, & expected so longe? But if I demonstrate that the true Churche cānot die nor decaie, thē is their Churche a bastarde synagogue vvhich as they saie once florishing in the Apostles tyme, and after their tyme also for some [Page 14]smalle tyme, and astervvardes died for noe litle tyme, but rather for some hund­red yeares: or elfe they must of necessitie shevve a succession of their Churche and Religion from age to age, & of their pa­stours from pastour to pastour; and if they canot they are not sent by an ordinaire mission bicause they succeed to noe pre­decessours but are the first of their fami­lie. Chap. 5. This I haue demonstrated in the secōd booke as the reader maie see if he please to tourne oner a fevve leaues; & so heare I maie suppose it, & supposinge conclude that they are not sēt by an ordinary missiō bicause they succeed to none. But if this ansvverre vvill not serue as a blinde man maie see that i [...] doth not, then they haue another in store: and vvhat is that? they saie forsooth that they are true successours to the Apostles and that they haue their predecessours vvhoe beleeued as they doe, ruled the Church, ministred & recea­ued sacramentes, but secretly, & inuisibly bicause their Churche it selfe vvas all that tyme inuisible. And so if you demaunde of them vvhoe vvere their predecessours, they vvill ansvverre that they had prede­cessours but they vvere inuisible. This is another blinde shifte of theirs vvhich I shall refute in the next booke at large. Heare onlie I demaunde vvhether this in­uisible [Page 15]Churche vvas inuisible to them selues, Chap 5. or to papistes only and paganes vvhoe vvere not of their religion. If it vvere inuisible to them selues, hovv can­ne they tell that ther vvas anie religion li­ke to theirs before their tyme, or that there vvere anie pastours of their kinde? for that vvhich vvas inuisible vnto them coulde not be seene of them, and so vvee are noe more to be leeue them in sayinge that they had a Churche & pastours be­fore Luthers tyme then a blynde man that vvill determine of coulours. If they saie it vvas inuisible only to papistes & pagānes & others vvhich vvere not of their Chur­che; then as it is like, Luther and Caluine vvhoe vvere members of that Churche knevv vvell the pastours to vvhome they succeeded, & of vvhome they receaued authoritie. Lett them telle vs then vvhoe they vvere else vve cannot receiue them as ministers of God sent by an ordinarie mission, bicause they can not shevve vs their predecessours to vvhom they suc­ceeded. Thus I haue plainlie proued that these men are not sent by an ordi­narie missiō bicause they succeed to none vvhoe vvere their predecessours. Vvhat novv can they saie vvhy vvee should not reiecte them as false prophetes, vvhoe rō ­ne before they be sent & preache before [Page 16]they be called to that function? They vvill saie as osten tymes they doe, that they vvere sent immediatly from Christe by an extraordinarie missiō. But then vve must put them also to the proofe of this their mission. And first of all in sayinge that they are sent extraordinarilie, they bevv­raie thē selues to be those Apostles vvhich ronne vnsent, bicause it is manifest in scri­pture that Christe appointing Apostles, Ephes. 4. ordained a succession of pastours to the ende. For as he instituted a visible Chur­che vvhich is neuer to faile or falle (as shall be in the next booke demonstrated) so did he appoynte ꝑpetuall gouernours & pastours to gouerne & rule this Church in a visible manner as there also shall be proued, Chap 5. else should that visible & goodlie misticall bodie of Christe, haue bene lefte headlesse vvith out a visible head, and bicause the same pastours could not alvv­aies lyue to gouerne the Churche visiblie, it follovveth that Christe instituted a suc­cession of them, & consequently that Christe sendeth none to rule it his Chur­che but by succession to some others by vvhome they vvere ordained & institu­ted, & therefore he that enters into the gouerment of the Churche and not by this entrie, and dore of succession, he is a theefe that seeketh vvindovves, corners, [Page 17]& by-vvaies as them selues doe, vvho bi­cause they meane noe good, dare not en­ter into the house as honest men doe by the ordinarie vvaie. Let not then the re­formers bragge of their extraordinarie mission bicause Christe hauinge instituted a perpetuall succession of ordinarie pa­stours meaneth not to sende any extraor­dinarie preachers, rather they maie be ashamed of their monstrouse natiuities for they are like vnto those heretikes of vvhom Optatus speaketh qui de se prodigio­sè nasci voluerunt: l 1. cont. Pa [...]. Vvhich vvould be borne of them selues prodigiously vvithout any ffather or mother. They are like to Victor the Dona­tiste vvhoe as Optatus affirmeth vvas a sōne vvithout a father, l. 2. cont. Par. & a disciple vvith­out a master. They are not vnlike the Nouatianes vvhoe as saint Cipriane auer­reth, l. 1. ep. [...]. Nemini succedentes à seipsis episcopiordina­ti sunt, Succeding to noe man, they vvere ordained bishops of them selues. But lett vs giue them leaue to saie at least that they vvere sent extraordinarilie, that so vve maie see bet­ter hovve they canne proue their extra­ordinarie mission, and hovve vve can dis­proue the same. First I demaunde of them vvhere they read in scripture that after Christe had established a succession of pastours to gouerne his Churche to the ende, Ephes. [...]. he vvould sende somtymes extraor­dinarie [Page 18]ministers to put them out of offi­ce, & to enter into the gouerment of the Churche to reforme all absurde abuses [...] for if they can not bring scripture for this they are not to be credited, & that by their ovvne confession. But I knovve they can not alleage anie one lyne of scri­pture for that purpose, and I am sure, & they are not ignorant, Mat. [...]. that Christe saied he builded his Churche vppon a rocke so that it should not need the repairin­ge of these nevve masons, & establi­shed a kingdome and consequenly go­uernours vvhich should continevv for euer and so should need noe innoua­tion, Second booke vvhich pointe hear after shall be more amplie proued. chap 5. But suppose that our sauiour had foretolde the fall & ruine of his Churche & ordinarie pastours, and had fore vvarned vs of nevve Apostles & pastours to be sent to make a reformatiō, Hi [...]r. e. 1 [...]. yet seing that God hath also vvarned vs of false prophetes vvhoe vvill falselie pro­phecie in his name vvheras he sent them not, & vvhoe shall deuine & foretell lyes & vanities saying that the lorde sayed so, and seinge that the Apostle cōmaundeth vs vearie straitlie to take heed of false prophetes vvhich come in sheepes fleeses yea in coates of true pastours, Gal. 2. bearing the name of pastours & alleaging scriptures [Page 19]for a cloke to their heresies, as true pa­stours doe for their true doctrine, yea sithence that Christe him selfe biddeth vs to bevvare of false prophetes vvhoe co­me in the garmentes of innocent sheepe but in vvardlie are raueninge vvolues, Mat. 70 that is (as Vincentius Lyrinensis expoundeth) vvhoe inuest them selues in the goodlie garmentes of the prophetes & apostles testimonies but in vvardlie, l cont proph [...] nas haresu [...] nouitates c. 37. if you vn­maske them by expounding the testi­monies vvhich they alleage, yon shall espie raueninge vvolues vnder sheepes & sheepcherdes coates ad bytīge yea deuou­ringe heresies couered verie coninglie vvith the sayinges of the Prophetes & Apostles: seing that I saie vvee haue such vvarninge of false prophetes, vve haue good reason to suspecte these reformers for such kinde of cattle, and vve haue noe reason to harken vnto them as vnto true prophetes, vnlesse they can proue their extraordinarie mission by extraordinarie signes and tokens of prophecies or mira­cles, & so can giue vs a note to distingui­she them from the false prophetes, vvho­se cominge is so often & so plainlie fore­tolde. Other vvise if it be sufficient that they can saie they are sent extraordinari­lie, then doe vvee open the gappe to false prophetes, vvhoe vvhen they come vvill [Page 20]not lett to say yea & to svveare as much, and so they can not be excluded if these men be admitted. Yea vve make God most vnreasonable, to thinke that he vvill sende extraordinarie messengers & yet giue them noe letters of credite, noe ex­traordinarie signes or tokens of their im­bassie. For in so doinge he should either cause them to ronne on a sleeules arrande or else he should bynde vs to giue eare vnto them vvhoe can proue their com­mission noe better then false prophetes can, Exod 4. of vvhom not vvith stādinge he com­maundeth vs to bevvare. This Moyses vvell perceiuinge vvould not take vppon him that great imbassie vntill that God had promised him the guifte of vvorking miracles by vvhich he might proue his mission. Non credent mihi (saieth he) neque au­dient vocem meam, sed dicent non apparuit tibi dominus: They vvill not beleue me, nor giue eare vnto my voice, but vvill saie God did not appeare vnto thee. As if he had saied; thou saiest o lorde that thou meanest to sende me into Aegipte vnto the Tyrant Pharao to deli­uer thy people from his tyrānie, but hovve shall I make it knovvne either vnto him or vnto thy people that thou in deed doest sende me? my bare vvord vvill not be takē bicause they vvil saie I am a stran­ger vnto them, & for any thinge vvhich [Page 21]they knovve, maye come as vvell in myne ovvne name yea in thedeuills name as god his name. Exod. [...]. This seemed to God so reasona­ble an excuse, that he gaue him by & by the guifte of vvorkinge miracles, by vvhich he might proue his extraordinarie missiō. For he saied vnto Moyses, Vvhat is that vvhich thou hast in thy hande Moyses ansvv­ered, a rodde; and God saied, cast it on the grounde. He cast it, and it vvas tourned into a serpent. And this saieth God I doe that they maie beleeue that I appeared vn­to thee. vvherfore vvhen after his comin­ge into Aegipte he had vvrought so straun­ge miracles, and admirable vvorkes, the Israelites beleeued that he vvas sent to deliuer them, Lue. 1. & accordinglie they fol­lovved him, thoughe Pharaoes harte vvas so obdured, that all those miracles could neither breake, nor mollifie it, he by his free vvill resistinge gods graces, & forcci­ble callinges. In like manner saint Ihon Baptistes mission vvas proued not only by the prophecie of Malachie, but also by his miraculous natiuitie and the testi­monie of an Angell; although he came not to preache any nevve doctrine but only to exhorte the people to penaunce, vvhich before by other prophetes had been in­culcated, and to poynte out the Messias vvith his finger, vvho me all the prophetes [Page 22]had fortolde so plainlie, that vvhen Chri­ste appeared, it vvas almost euident that he vvas the man on vvhom had ronne so longe a bead rolle of prophecies and pre­dictions. The Messias also him self Christe Iesus, bicause he succeeded to none but came vvith extaordinarie autoritie, sent immediatlie from his ffather, proued his mission by so manifest vvorkes & mira­cles, that se saied his vvorkes did testifie, from vvhome he vvas sent, and the peo­ple also confessed that he coulde not haue vvrought such vvonders, if he had not been of God. And altough Christe had sufficientlie by miracles and prophecies vvhich ranne of him, proued that he vvas the Messias: Yet he thought not that suffi­cient for the proofe of the mission of his Apostles, but bicause they vvere sent im­mediatly from him, and vvere successours to none (for to Christe they vvere only vicegerentes) he gaue them also povver to vvorke miracles by vvhich they might proue their mission and confirme their do­ctrine vvith signes that follovved. Meth. [...]. Novve then if our ghospell spillers be sent by an ex­traordinarie mission immediatly from God, let them (hevve vs some miracles for proofe of their extraordinarie com­mission, or else vvere vve more then mad­de to credit them being forevvarned that [Page 23]false prophetes shall come, from vvhom these men can not distinguishe them sel­ues, vnlesse they can shevve vs some ma­nifest prophecies, or vvorke some vvoun­ders amōgest vs. Let Luther then the first man of this nevve familie, vvhoe as he & his saie, So Cocleus. vvrites. is sent by God extraordinarilie to reforme the christiane vvorlde & to ma­ke vs nevv-noe christianes, let him I saie shevve his miracles if he vvill haue any au­diēce for else vve may iustly fear least he be one of those false ꝓphets of vvhō be­fore hande God hath vvarned vs. In deed I graunte that he on a tyme to shevve him selfe a true prophet, auouched veric boldy after tvvoe yeares preachinge that he vvould be the death of all Popes, & vvould banishe Cardinalls, Mōkes, Nunnes, mas­ses, & bells out of the christiane vvorlde. But Luther is gone longe since and yet Popes raigne, Cardinalls flourishe, Mon­kes and Nunnes possesse their olde mo­nasteries, sauing in Inglāde, & some fevve other corners; masses also are not only saied but sounge solemnlie, and bells doe ringe still and the vvorlde doth ringe of bells. He caused also to be engrauen vppō his tombe this verse in Latine.

[Page 24]But yet Popes liue and maie treade vppō Luthers graue, still Popes raigne, & thou­ghe they be excluded from Inglāde, Ger­manie, Scotlande, and some fevv other places, yet doe they exercise their autho­ritie still and as muche as euer in Italie, Spayne, France and other countryes, and haue by the Benedictins, Dominicanes, Iesuites, Lopes l. r. c. a. Gen. l. 4. [...]ron. [...]nno Christi 1492 Gōzal. 2. p hist de la Chine. c. 24. l. 3. hist gen. c. 28. [...]. care [...]. Regem Angl. Augustines, and Franciscanes meanes and industrious laboures, exten­ded their iurisdiction to the Indies and other nevve-founde landes & countreys Likevvise the same Luther in his railing booke againste kinge Henry the eight thus againe prophecieth: Dogmata mea sta­bunt & Papa cadet: viderit Deus vter prímo fes­sus defecerit, Papa, an Lutherus. My opinions (saieth he) shall stande, and the Pope shall falle lette God looke to it vvhether the Pope vvearied out or Luther shall first fayle. And yet vve see that Popes liue and raigne, & Luther is deade & descended to hell, and his do­ctrine decaieth more and more, and ma­nie are novve vvearie of it and see more and more into his absurdities. On a tyme also this man of God, this greate patriar­ch [...] and fifte Euangeliste, this secōde Elias and eight vvise man, to gette him self a name, Stephilus [...]pol. 2. Genebr chrō [...]. 4. ann. Chri­sti 166. assaied vvhat he coulde doe in dis­possessing of a deuill, but it vvoulde not be, & the reason I thinke vvas, bicause one [Page 25]deuill vvill not or cā not cast out an other, yea the deuill so scarred Luther for attem­ptinge so greate a matter, that the dores beinge shutte by the deuil, the man of God vvas fayne to breake the vvindovves least thedeuill should teare him in peeces. But peraduenture he vvill bragge of his natiuitie. in deed that vvas straunge for althoughe he vvas not borne by miracle as saint Ihon Baptiste vvas, yet some are of opinion that he is descended either by fa­ther or mother from the deuill him self vvho vvas incubus to his mother, Fout in tract. sacr de stat [...] rel. or suc­cubus to his ffather. Ihon Caluine also an other patriarche of the nevve Church ma­de the like attemptes but they had the li­ke successe. Bolsec. [...] 13. He aggreed on a tyme for a peece of money vvith a man to fayne him self first sicke, & after deade, and he con­iured his vvife to vveepe and lament the deathe of her husbande that by her teares and lamentations the iest might seeme more probable. The sicke man vvas com­mended at euerie preache to be praied for, after vvarde the man fayned him selfe to be dead, his vvife crieth out, Caluine goeth a vvalkinge vvhich a great troupe, and passinge by the sicke mans house de­maunded as one altogeather ignorante of the matter vvhat vvas the cause of those cryes and lamentations, and ansvverre [Page 26]beinge made that one vvas deade, he en­treth in, falleth dovvne on his knees, praieth to God to shevve his povver in raising the deade to life, and their in to glorifie his seruaunte Caluine, that the vvorld might knovve that he vvas the mā vvhom God had culled out to be the only man vvhoe should reforme & repaire the Churche of Christe. And haiunge ended his praier, he takes the man by the hande & commaundes him in God his name to a rise. But the man after muche callinge not a risinge, his vvife calleth on him also, & rubbes him on the side, to signifie that novve vvas the tyme to rise, but he nei­ther could ansvvere nor moue, but by God his inste indgment (vvho neither vvill nor can vvorke a miracle to main­taine a falshoode) vvas stone-deade and as colde as claye, & so the ieste vvas tour­ned into good earnest and the comedie into a tragedie. vvhich his vvife percea­uinge cried out on Caluine and called him a cooseninge knaue, and murderer of her husbande; but Caluine departeth vvith a flea in his eare saying that ouer much greef had operessed the vvife & depriued her of her vvittes. Vvherfore since that the nouellers can vvorke noe miracles, rayse noe deade men, dispossesse noe deuills, foretell noe future thinges, heale [Page 27]noe diseased, not so much as a lame dogge to proue their authoritie, vvhat reason ha­ue vve to harken vnto them? And if vve giue eare vnto them; vvhoe maie not cha­lenge audience at our handes? For sup­pose some branisicke Brovvniste, some brother of the ffamilie of loue or some other if it maie be, more phantasticall, should preache the dreames of his drovv­sic head, & vayne conceiptes of his idle brayne, calling them nevve points of religion, and reformations of the olde, might he not alleage some scripture for euery fancie of his thoughe neuer so vay­ne, and make a shevve also of proofe if he expounde it as he please? might he not discannon bookes of scripture vvhich seeme to stande in his vvaie? & being de­maunded by vvhat authoritie he taketh all this vppon him, might he not saie that he is sent from Christe immediatlie? And being further requested to shevve some miracles as extraordinarie signes to proue an extraordinary mission, might he not easilie ansvvere and that out of scripture also that miracles are for insidells and that Luther & Caluine are accepted of vvho neuer coulde so much as heale a haltinge dogge, and therfore that he & his prea­chinge cannot be refused if they & theirs be admitted? And so vve see that if vve [Page 28]accept of the reformers of this tyme as the true Apostles, ministers, & messengers of God, not vvith standinge that they can nether shevve succession for their ordi­nary, nor miracles for their extraordinary mission, vve open the gappe to all false­apostles, and heretikes vvhatsoeuer: the dore is open for them, they maie enter in thicke & threefolde into the ministerie and can not be excluded if these nevve re­formers be receiued, vvithout playne and palpable partialitie. And so thon seest gēt­le reader that in Inglande and other pla­ces vvhere this nevv doctrine hath taken roote that they haue noe probable assu­rance of their religion by the authority of their preachers, bicause they can saie noe more for proofe of their authoritie, then can the false Apostles. Sithence therfore thou art vvarranted that the Churche and succession of her pastours shall neuer fall nor fayle, and arte fore­vvarned also, that false prophetes shall come and saie they are sent vvhen God neuer sent them at all, hovve canste thou hange thy saluation on these nevve mini­sters vvhome thou canst not distinguishe from false prophetes, bicause they can shevve noe more probabilitie of their or­dinarie or extraordinarie mission, then they did, and to vvhō thou canst not giue [Page 29]care, but thou must harken also by the same reason vnto all false propheter vvhoe canne saie as muche for them selues as thy preachers can do, & therfore can not be reiected if these be receiued, vvith out playne partialitie.

THE deuil hathe alvvaies played the ape euen from the beginning: for af­ter that he perceiued that he could not be God in deed, to vvhich dignitie by cli­ming thoughts he had ambitiously aspi­red, he endeuoured by al meanes possible so to bringe his intentes to passe, that he might at least go for a God, and be ta­ken for a God; and therfore like an ape he hathe euer imitated God so neerly, that he vvould be honoured and serued in the same fashion and manner as he savve the true God vvas vvorshipped. Tert l. pras. c. 40. God is ser­ued vvith sacrifice, as vvith a seruice devv vnto diuine Maiestie, the deuil vvas euer honoured amōgest the paganes vvith his Hecatombs and Sacrifices euen by the Emperours of the vvorld, God hathe his preests, the deuil his flamins, God hath his [Page 30]sacraments the deuil his expiations and ceremonies, God hathe his baptisme, his Euchariste, his Nonnes, and the deuil hath his vvashings, his oblation of bread, and his vestal virgins, and as God promi­seth a heauen to his seruanntes and vvor­shippers so dothe the deuil promise his Elisian feelds and threatneth his stigiane lake. Tert. ibid. And euen as the deuil by idolatours hathe imitated Gods sacrifice, Sacramen­tes, and manner of vvorship, so by here­tikes he hathe alvvaies affected to be as like as may be to Christe and his Apost­les, in citation and allegation of scripture. Vvherfore Vincentius Lyrinensis noteth it to haue been the practise of heretikes the members of the deuil, l. cont. proph. [...]. [...]7. to alleage scri­ptures against the true Christians and mē ­bers of Christe, as once the deuil their head, against Christ Iesus our head, vvre­sted a place of scripture to proue that he must needs caste him selfe headlong from the pinnacle of the temple to proue him selfe the sonne of God. Mat. 4. Marcion (as Vvit­nesseth Tertullian) to prone that the vvorlde (vvich he imagined to be of an cuil nature) vvas created of an euil God, l prase. c 51. vsed that place of Saint Matthevv: Mat. 7. Non po­test arbor bona malos fructus facere, a good tree can not bring forthe euil frutes. l. de carne Christie. 20. Valentinus (as the same autour relateth) to persvvade the [Page 31]vvorld, that Christs body vvas framed of the substance of the heauens and conse­quētly vvas noe true flesh nor truly con­ceued & borne of the Virgin Marie but ra ther passed through her vvōbe as through a Pipe, taking noe substaunce of her; al­leaged saint Paules vvords vvho compa­ring the first Adame from vvhome vve fetch our carnal pedegree, vvithe the se­cond Adame Christ Iesus, from vvhom vve are descended spiritually, vseth these vvords: The first man of earth earthly, 1. Cor. [...]. the se­cond man from heauen heauenly: Not knovv­ing or not vvilling to knovv that Christe is called heauenly, ether in respect of his diuinitie and diuine person, or bicause he vvas not earthly that is subiect to sinne vvhich proceedeth from earthly and ter­rene desires, or bicause his body by right vvas from the first moment of his conce­ption, celestial, that is glorious, as are the bodies of the blessed (vvich therfore saint Paule calleth also spiritual) and aftervvar­de vvas the first body that rose to that glo­rie to vvich it euer had good right, Ibidam. bicau­se a gloriouse soule such as Christs vvas from the first infusion of it into the body, Io. 4. required as devve a glorious body but Christe vvould haue his body to vvant this devve vvhilest he liued vvith vs, that he might suffer for vs, vvich hee could [Page 32]not haue doone in a glorified body. The Arrians to proue God the sonne infe­riour to his father, and not consubstan­tial nor coaequal vnto him, brought his ovvn vvords against him: the father is grea­ter then I: omitting many pregnaunt pla­ces vvich auouch the sonne to bee con­substantial and aequal vnto him, to vvich places this also is not contrarie, August. l. 1. Trin. 6.7. bicause it proueth only that Christ as man is infe­riour to his father. The Nestorians by tho­se places by vvich vve proue tvvo naturs in Christ the one humaine the other diui­ne proued tvvo persons in Christ. The Eutichianes by the same places of scriptu­re by vvich Catholikes do proue that in Christ vvas but one person, endeuoured to proue that in Christ vvas but one natu­re. And it hath been the propertie of all heretikes to make no bones of scriptures, but prodigally to spende them and to la­uis he them out to proue therby their he­resies, vvere they neuer so phantastical. Supra. Hic fortasse (sayeth Vincentius Lyrinensis) aliquis interroget, an & haeretici diuinae scriptu­rae testimonijs vtantur, Vtuntur planè & vehe­menter quidem, nam videas eos volare per singula quaeque diuinae legis volumina: Here perchaunce some vvill demaund vvhether that heretikes do vse the testimonies of holy scripture? they vse them assuredly and that vehemeutly, for you shall see [Page 33]them flye through euery volume of the heauenly lavve. Read (sayeth he) the vvorkes of Paulus Samosatenus of Priscilianus, Iouinianus, or Euno­mius, and thou shalt fynd an infinite heap of examples, allmost noe page omitted vvich is not dyed and coloured vvith sentences of the olde and nevv Testament Remember (sayeth Hilarius) that there is no her tike vvhich doth not fayne that his blasphemies vvhich he preacheth are according vnto Scriptures. Orat. [...]. con [...]. Const. And faint Austine is of opinion that heresies proceede from no other fountaine then scriptures vvrō ­gly expounded and crookedly vvrested: Non aliunde natae sunt haereses, Tract. 1 [...] in 10. nisi dum scripturae bonae non intelliguntur benè: From no other place heresies doe proceed, but vvhilest good scripturs, are euilly vnderstood. But yet herin these he­retikes are liberal of that vvhich is none of their ovvn, and like Aesops crovve they proudly decke them selues vvith other byrds fethers. For vvhat right or title haue they to scriptures of vvhich they are so prodigal? or hovv came they to get the possession of scripturs? truly as theeues ta­ke possession of other mens goods. For Catholikes haue had the scripturs in their keeping tyme out of mynde, as all histo­ries, all vvritings of the fathers, all coun­cells and ancient tradition vvill vvitnesse for vs: and so at least by prescription, Ca­tholikes are the true and lavvful posses­sours [Page 34]of scripturs. Yea histories, and the ancient bookes of the fathers, vvho from the first age alleaged scriptures, are argu­ments that vve are the lavvfull heires to the Apostles concerning the inheritaun­ce of scripture, Second booke chap. 1. bicause as herafter shalbe proued vve only are the successours to the ancient fathers and Apostles them selues. And seing that such arguments vvould cast them in lavve, if the cōtrouersie vve­re but about apeece of ground, I see noe reason, but that if the reformers of this tyme and the Catholike should put this case to any indifferent iudge, to vvit vvhe­ther they or Catholikes are the lavvfull possessours of scripture, the iudge must needes giue sentēce for the Catholike par tie vvhich vvas the first possessour, & pos­sessour euen from the Apostles of holy scripture. Yea the Reformers of this age Luther and Caluin vvhen they began to preach, receiued not the Bible of any of their praedicessours, bicause before Lu­ther, ther vvere no Lutheranes, nether vvere there Caluinists before Caluine, but they found the Bible in the Catholike & Romain Churche vvhich euer had the custodie of this treasure, and out of this Churche they tooke the Bible else had they neuer come to the knovvledge of it, and seing that they tooke it vvith out the [Page 35]lavvfull ovvners leaue, it must needs fol­lovv that they are theeues and noe lavvful possessours, and consequently haue no right to vse it especially against the right ovvner. Vvherfore if they vvill fight vvith vs vvith noe other vveapons then scriptures vve must first put them to the proofe of their title, least vve admitte thē to scriptures, vvho haue no right vnto them, and permit them to vse our ovvn vveapon, to cut our ovvn throats. And seing that they can not proue them selues lavvfull possessours of scripture, nether are vve bounde to dispute vvith them by scri­pture, nether haue they any right or rea­son to alleage scripture against vs. But yet as I haue declared, heretikes fingers itche, and are neuer vvell but vvhen they are fingring of Scripturs, and their tongues are neuer so glibbe, as vvhen they are fauced vvith textes of scripture. And vvhy thinke you do they so vvillingly alleage scripture, and decide all by the bare letter of scripture? Many reasons there are vvhy they do soe. For first their guiltie consci­ence vrgeth them therevnto. For as the fovvle and beautilesse mayde, perceuing her defect and vvante of natural beautie, is fayne to vse extrinsecal colours, to make a shevv of beautie vvher in deed is none, so the heretikes ether doubting in con­science [Page 36]of the veritie of their opinions, or at least not able othervvise to defende thē from errour, are cōstrained to vse scriptu­res as colours, to make at least a shovve of veritie vvher in deed no veritie is to be soound. Amb in [...]. vlt. ad Tit Fos as S. Ambrose sayeth, impie­tie seeing authoritie to be esteemed; co­uereth her selfe vvith the veale of scripture that vvheras by her selfe she is not accep­table byscripture she may seeme most cō ­mēdable. Vvherfore Vincentius Lyrinēsis sayeth, Supra [...]. 17. that heretikes herin are like to slut­tes vvho perfume vvith svvet odours and pouders those things vvhich of thē selues are stinking, or to those nurses vvho a­nointe the cuppe brimmes vvith hony to make heedles children to drinke dovvn the bitter potion, or to those Apotheca­ries vvho vppon the boxes vvhich cōtein poison, vvrite the names of soueraine re­stauratiues: for so heretikes vvith the svveet odours of scriptures perfume the ordurs of their heresies, & vvith the svveet hony of Gods vvord vvhich tasted to Da­uidlik the hony combe, Psal. 11 [...]. deceue the vn­heedy and make them drinke poison in their golden cupps, & applying scripture to their poisonfull doctrine they make the simple to buy of them deadly poison in steed of holsome medicins, that is he­resies insteed of true faith and religion. [Page 37]Let not then our Reformers bragge so much of scripture, nether let them thinke to cary avvay the bucklers bicause they alleage scripture for euery thing, and let not the simple people thinke them selues secure, bicause their minister proueth vvhat he preacheth by scripture, bicause euery heretike doth the same & the deuil him selfe hathe alleaged scripture, Mat. [...]. and vvould haue proued that Christe must cast him selfe headlong from the pinnacle if he might haue had that libertie vvhich all heretikes do take, Li praescrip. c. 19. that is to expound scripture as he pleaseth. Vvherfore Tertu­lian refuseth flatly to dispute vvith hereti­kes by bare scripture, and countes it but lippe labour. And good reason had he, bi­cause ether they vvill deny scripture vvhē they can not dravve it to their byas, or they vvill expound it as they liste, if it may abide glossing; and so they shape not their doctrine according to scripture but ra­ther scripture according to their doctrine. yea it is so vsual a thing amongest them to discanon bookes of scripture or to dis­member and may me them if they stande in their vvay that ther is almost no part of scripture vvhich by one heretike or other hathe not beene reiected or mangled. Cast no [...] Scriptura. Si [...]t [...] l [...]. [...]. Bibl. Marcion vvas so coning in this point that Tertulian calleth him mus Ponticus the mo [...] ­se [Page 38]of Pontus, Li. [...]. contra Marcionem. for gnavving of scriptures. Cerdon denyed saint Matthevves Ghos­pel bicause it settes dovvn the Genealogie of Christe vvhich could not stād vvith his heresie that avouched that Christe had no true flesh, Ters. l praescr. c. [...]1. and that he vvas not truly borne. Iron l. 1. c. 28. Epiph. ser. [...]0. The Ebionits refused saint Paules Epistles bicause they reiecte the Ievvish ceremonies vvhich those heretikes allovv ed of. Prefat in Euang Cocl. in vitae. And vvhy did Martin Luther the Archeretike of this age disallovv of S. la­mes epistle but bicause it is so opposite to his solafidian iustice? othervvise vvhat mo­re certaintie hath he of saint Paules epist­les then of that of sainct Iames, especially he hauing noe knovvledge nether of the one nor the other but by the Romain and Catholike Church, vvhich esteemeth of both alike: Saint Austine vvas so farre frō doubting of the veritie of this epistle of Sainct lames that he affirmeth it to haue beene vvritten of purpose against certain heretikes vvho misconstred Saint Paules epistles, V. de operibus [...]. 14. Infra l. vltio c. 3. as Luther and Caluin doe. Vvhy dothe Luther discanon Iob? Vvhy iesteth he at Ecclesiastes? Vvhy contemneth he all the Glospells but saint Ihons, the epist­le to the Hebrevves, and that of Iudas? Vvhy dothe not Caluin like of Ecclesia­sticus, Iudith and the Machabees, but bi­cause that these bookes are opposite to [Page 39]some pointe or other of their doctrine? Vvhat merueil then if vve refuse to deci­de controuersies vvith them by bare scri­pture, vvho if vve bring a place of scriptu­re, against them, vvill deny it to be scrip­ture though all the vvorld saye contrarie? And although they admit some bookes of scripture, yet those they so admitte, that they vvill haue the bare letter, or ioined vvith their voluntarie exposition, to bee the iudge of controuersies, that so they may make scriptures to speake as they li­ste, and to giue that sentence vvhich plea­seth them. For bare scripture is of a vvaxie nature, and is as plyable to admit diuers expositions as vvaxe is to take diuers im­pressions. Vvhich is the cause vvhy here­tikes out of scripture so easilie can excogitate and deuise euen contrarie heresies. Li [...]. contrae Brent. Luther therfore calleth scripture the boo­ke of heretikes, and Hosius relateth hovv­one compared scripture to Aesops fables, bicause you may as diuersly interpret scri­pture as you may moralize those fables. Others calle scripture a nose of vvaxe, bi­cause it may be vvrested and vvried euery vvaye: vvhich comparisons although they bee odious, and litle beseeming the maie­stie of scripture, yet are they true if by scri­pture you vnderstand the bare letter of scripture, vvithout an assured interpre­tour, [Page 40]as the Reformers doe. For the ba [...]e letter of scripture is so ambiguous & may haue so many senses and meanings that it may be applyed to vvhat you vvill, & may be, & already hath been vsed for the proo­fe of the moste absurde heresies that euer vvere. But vvhilest they alleage the bare letter of scripture for cōfirmation of their doctrine, vvel may they so delude the vnlerned, but men of learning and intel­ligence, are vvel assured that the bare let­ter is no more scripture, then the body of a man is a man. For as the soule is the life of the body, & that vvhich maketh a man, so the sense is the life of the vvorde and that vvhich giueth scripture life, essēce, & being. Com. ad. Gal. Vvherfore sainct Hierome sayeth that The ghlospel is not in the vvorde but in the sence, not in the barke but in the sappe, not in the leaues of the vvords but in the roote of the mea­ning. Let not therfore out Reformers va­unte in their pulpits that they trye their doctrine by the touchstone of scripture, nether let them insulte ouer Catholikes as though they relyed only on mens decrees, and Popes Bulles for if they giue vs the letter of scripture vvith the true meaning vvhich is the formal cause and life of the vvord, vve vvill reuerence it as the vvord of God, and preferre it before all the de­crees and vvritinges of Pope and Church, [Page 41]but take the true sense from it, and it is no more scripture then is a man vvithout a soule, bicause as the same body may be the liuing body of a man and a dead carcas also, so the same letter vvith the true mea­ning is the vvord of God, vvith a false meaning, it is the vvord of the deuil. As for example, those vvords of our Sauiour: The father is greater then I, Io. 1 [...]. taken in the right sence, that is according to Christes hu­main nature, are the true vvord of God, but taken in the meaning of the Arrians vvho imagined Christe a creature inferi­our euen in person to his father, they are noe vvord of God but of the deuil, vn­lesse you vvill graunte heresie to be the vvord of God. The reason of this is, bi­cause vvords, are vvordes, in that they are signes of the myndes meaning, and do explicate her invvard conceipt, and consequently that is Gods vvord vvhich explicateth his meaning, and diuine con­ceipt; but if it explicate the mynd of the deuil or of his ministers such as all hereti­kes are, then is it not the vvord of God but rather of the deuil. Vverfore vvhen the letter of the scripture is ioyned vvith the right meaning, then do vve graunt though men vvrote it, that is is the vvord of God, bicause it explicateh his meaning, vvho spake vnto the holy vvriters in that [Page 42]meaning, and directed their hartes and handes in the vvriting of the same. Isa. 1. In so much that God sayeth to Isaie: Heb. 1. Behold I haue put my vvords in thy mouthe. And saint Paul saieth that God diuersly and by diuers meanes spake in tymes paste vnto our forfathers, in the Prophets, that is in the mouche of the pro­phets, puttīg in their mouthes that vvhich they vvere to speake and directing their, hands to vvrite it. For as the vital spirit of man frameth his vvordes in his mouthe and giueth them their meaning, so the vvords of the prophets and other holy vvriters vvere framed in their mouthes by the spirit of God. Vvhich is the very cause vvhy diuines saye that God vvas the principal speaker and vvriter of scrip­ture, and that the Prophet, Apostle or Euangeliste, vvas his instrument, and as it vvere the pen, mouthe, and tongue of God, Psal 44. Praefat. in Mat. 1. Li. 7. conf. [...]. vlt l [...]. Ciuit. c. 38. Hom 10. in [...]exam. in that he vvas guided & directed by him and his holy spirit. Vvherfore Dauid vvho vvas one of these vvriters sayeth that his tongue is the penne or quill of him that vvriteth svviftly; and saint Gregorie and saint Austine affirme scripture to bee the venerable stile of the holy ghost, and saint Basil sayeth that not only the sense of scri­pture but also every vvord and tittle is in­spired by the holy ghost. Vvherin a diffe­rence is put betvvixte scripture and defi­nitions [Page 43]of the Church, Pope, or Councels. Bicause these are assisted by the holy ghost, only that they may define the truth, and so the sense of a Councells definition confirmed by the Pope, is of the holy ghost, but it is not necessarie that euery vvord or reason in a Councell proceed from the holy spirit of God, and therfore diuines say that in a Councell, that thing only is necessarilie to be beleeued, vvhich the Councell of set purpose intended to define. But as for other thinges vvhich are spoken incidently, and as for reasons vvhich the Councel alleageth, they are not of that credit, although vvithout cui­dent cause they are not to be reiected. And this is the cause vvhy the ancient fa­thers do vvay and ponder euery vvorde and tittle, vvhich interpretours of the Councels canons, or definitions, do not. Vver [...]ore (as I sayed) let them not charge vs vvith contempt of scripture, for our opinion and estimation of scripture is most venerable, if it be in deed scripture, yea vve auouch that in it selfe it is of farre greater authoritie then is the Church or her definitions, bicause though God assiste both, yet after a more noble manner he assisteth holy vvriters in vvriting of scri­pture, bicause he assisteth them infaillibly not only for the sense and veritie but also [Page 44]for euery vvord vvhich they vvrite, and euery reason and vvhatsoeuer is in scri­pture, vvheras he assisteth the Pope and Councell infallibly, only for the sence and veritie of that vvhich they intēde to defi­ne, but nether for euery vvord nor for eue­ry reason, nor for euerie thing vvhich is incidently spoken as is already declared. And yet vvee say also that although scrip­ture of it self be greater then the Church, and indepēdent of her, bicause not from her but from God it hathe authoritie and veritie, yet the Church is better knovvn to vs then scripture, and therfore though she make not scripture, yet of her vve are to learne vvhich is scripture, and vvhat is the meaning therof; vvhich is noe more disgrace to scripture then that faint Ihon and the Apostles should giue testimonie of Christe bicause they vvere better knovvn then he, though his authoritie in it selfe vvas greater thē theirs & not depē ­ding of them. yea the reformers euery one in particuler be he a Cobler, is according to their doctrine to iudge by his priuate spirit vvhich is scripture and vvhat is the meaning of scripture, vvhich seemeth to haue more difficultie then that the Chur­che, and her common spirit, vvhich Chri­ste promised her, [...]. 1 [...].1 [...]. should chalenge vnto her such authoritie. Giue vs therfore true [Page 45]scripture and vve vvill reuerence it as the vvord of God, but corrupte this scripture by putting a false sense and signification to the letter, as the reformers do, and then vve vvill not acknovvledge it for the vvord of God, bicause it explicateth not his mynd and meaning, but rather vve de­test it aboue all other vvords & vvritings vvhatsoeuer, bicause in that it beareth the name of the vvord of God and yet is not, it is the most pernicious vvord that is. For as the sovvrest vyneger cometh of the best vvine, so the moste pernicious vvord is the letter of scripture corrupted and misinterpreted. If then our aduersaries vvill haue scripture to be iudge in contro­uersies of religion, let them alleage true scripture, that is the letter vvith the true meaning, of vvhich not euery priuate spi­rit, but the common spirit of the Church must be iudge, as shall herafter be proued. But if they vvill make the bare letter to be iudge, vvee deny first that the bare letter is scritpure, and then vve auouch that the bare letter is noe good rule nor lavvfull iudge of religion, bicause the letter of scri­pture, may haue diuers senses, and may serue euery heretike for his purpose, as before is declared, and so can be no rule nor iudge, vvhich bothe must be assured, and certaine. To this they ansvver that [Page 46]scripture is so easie that the meaning is euident to euery one that hathe eyes to see it, & so he may as easilie see the con­formitie of their religion vnto the rule of scripture. For as vvhen the measure is knovvn it is euidēt hovv long the cloth is vvhich is measured by it, so scripture as they say being easie, it is most euident vvhen religion is true, bicause it is euident vvhen it is agreable, and conformable to the assured, and knovvne measure of scri­pture, by vvhich all religiōs are to be squared out and measured. But that scripture is not easie to be vnderstood, it is easily to be proued and so this ansvvere is as ea­silie to be reiected. [...]. Pet. 3. For first scripture her selfe confesseth her ovvn obscuritie. For sainct Peter in his epistle vvhich is a parte of scripture, auoucheth that in S. Paules Epistles, vvhich our reformers vvill not deny to be another part of scripture, are certain hard things, hard to be vnderstood vvhich the vnlearned and vnstable depraue, as also the rest of the scriptures, lib. de fid. & op. c. 14. to their ovvn perdition. And saint Austine saieth plainly that those hard thinges are his commendations of faith vvhich the ignoraunt euen from the Apostles tyme did so miscōster, as though his meaning had been that only faith vvithout charitie and good vvorkes doth iustifie. Act. 1 [...]. The Eunuch could not vnder­stand [Page 47]Esaie vvithout an interpretour, Psal 1 [...]8. Da­uid cryeth for vnderstanding at Gods hands before he dareth aduenture to se­arch the lavv, Luc 24. the Apostles could not vn­derstand scripturs till Christ opened their sense and eyes of vnderstanding, and yet our reformers are so eagle-eyed that they can see clearly and that at the first sight into the darkest and obscurest place of scripture. The ancient fathers affirme that scriptures are obscure, and amongest them sainct Hierome sayeth that the beginning of Genesis and the end of Ezechiel, Ep. ad Paul. in ty­mes past vvas not permitted to be read of any till he vvere thirtie yeares of age, and vvhy but for the obscuritie vvhich might rather deceue, thē direct the yonger sorte? l. 2. con. c. 14. S. Austine that great light of the Church & miraculous vvitte, vvho vvhen he vvas but tvventie yeares of age vnderstood the predicamētes of Aristotle at the first sight, thought nether so highly of him selfe nor so basely of scripturs, as to thinke him selfe able by reach of vvit to attain vn­to the profound sence and meaning of them, but rather though he had studied them more dayes & nightes then our mi­nisters haue done dayes only, Ep. 3. ad V [...] ­lus. yea or hou­res, and had vvritten more for the inter­preting of scripturs then euer they read, yet saieth he: So great is the profunditie of [Page 48]them that I might euery day make profit in them if I should vvith greatest leisure, greatest studie, and a better vvitt, endeuour to come vnto the knovvledg of them only, and that from my tender youth vnto crooked olde age. And in his boo­kes vvhich he vvrote vppon Genesis, in his tractes vppon sainct Ihon, and diuers other partes of scripture he moueth many doubtes and difficulties; Prafat. assert. [...]rt da [...]. and yet Luther sayeth that scripturs are more playn and easie then all the fathers commentaries. Petrus Lombardus commonly called the master of sentēces, Li [...]. [...]. d. 12.1. p. q 65. saint Thomas & other diuines armed vvith philosophie, and fur­nished vvith the schoole literature, apply not vvithstanding all their vvittes to the explicating of the first chapter of Genesis and the creation of the vvorld in the first six dayes, [...] Hexam [...]. as also saint Basil, saint Ambrose & others doe. And yet Luther boldly af­firmeth that no parte of scripture is to be called our counted obscure. l. de seru [...] ar. bit. Saint Gre­gorie Nazianzeen and saint Basil studied scriptures for thirtene yeares together, and yet durst not svverue a iotte from the interpretation of the auncient fathers. Ruff. l. 11. c. 4 Saint Hierom not vvithstanding that he vvas so vvel seen in the Greeke and He­brevv tongue, ep. tot. [...]. and other both prophane and sacred literature, yet vvent he as far­re as Alexandria to conferre vvith Didi­mus. [Page 49]Vvho also ronning after a cursorie manner ouer al the bookes of scripture fyndeth such difficultie in euery one, as though he vnderstood this only in scrip­ture that he vnderstandeth not scripture, or as though this only in scripture vvere easie to be vnderstood, that Scripture is not easie, & ending vvith the Apocalipse thus he concludeth: Apocalypsis Ioannis tot habet sacramenta quot verba, parum dixt pro me­rito voluminis, laus omnis inferior est, in verbis singulis multiplices latent intelligentiae: The Apo­calipse of Ihon hath as many sacramēts as vvords, I haue sayed litle for the merit of the volume, all prayse is inferiour, in euerie vvorde there lye hiddē many senses and meaninges. And yet Luther and Caluin and commonly Puritanes and Protestants auouch scripture to be facile and perspicuous, that by the ovvne light you may see it, and see into it, and neede noe more helpe of an interpretour thē of a candle to see the sonne vvhen it shineth in the midde-daye. But if this doctrine be true vvhy is ther such contention a­mongest the Reformers for the true ex­plication of diuers places of Scripture? Vvhy did the fathers, and vvhy do the Reformers make so large commentaries vppon scripture? Vvhy retayne they a di­uinitie lesson in Oxford and other Vni­uersities, especially novv that they haue [Page 50]turned the Bible into the vulgare ton­gue, vvhich being done, by the priua­te spirit of the minister at the first sight it is easilie vnderstood? If this be true then certainly had the ancient fathers very dull pates, vvho vvith all their studie, industrie, prayer, fasting, solitude, tōgues, philosophie, and sanctitie of life, could not attain to that knovvledge of scriptu­re in a longe lifes tyme, vvhich a minister by and by getteth at the first opening of the Bible. But tell me in good sadnes: are you in iest or earnest vvhen you say that scripture is easie? Vvhen you read the first chap. of Gen. the prophecies especial­ly of Daniel, the Psalmes of Dauid, Iobes vvitty sayinges, Salomons Prouerbes and Canticles, sainct Paules epistles, S. Ihons Apocalipse, do you fynde no difficultie? I can not thinke it, bicause euen experien­ce teacheth that nothing is more euident then that scripture is not euident. For first the very letter and phrase of scripture is obscure and ambiguous. Secondly many speeches in scripture are prophetical, ma­ny parabolical, many metaphorical, vvhich commonly are full of obscuritie. Thirdly it is proper to scripture to haue many sen­ses vnder one letter, as the literal sence vvhich the holy vvriter first intended, and this sense some tymes is signified by pro­per [Page 51]vvords, some tymes metaphorical, yea sometymes also this literal sense vnder one letter, is diuers. Sometymes the sence is spiritual vvhich is that vvhich the thin­ges vnder the letter do signifie as for ex­ample those vvords of sainct Paule Abra­hame had tvvoe sounes one of the handmayd ano­ther of the free vvoman, Gal. [...]. literally do signifie Abrahames tvvo sonnes, bicause that the letter importeth and that first is intended, but these tvvoe sonnes vvere figures of the old and nevv Testament or the tvvoe peoples vvhich liued vnder those Testa­ments, and so this is the spiritual signifi­cation of those vvords vvhich they not immediatly but by meanes of those tvvoe sonnes do signifie. And this sence is ether moral or tropological vvhen it tendeth to manners, or allegorical vvhich tendeth to fayth or the Churche, or anagogical vvhich tendeth to heauen or life euerla­sting. Vvherfore this vvorde Hierusalem literally signifieth the citie so called, mo­rally, the soule of man vvhich God inha­biteth by good life or the deuil by badde, allegorically, the Church militant, and anagogically, heauen and the Churche triumphant. Novv vvho is he that dareth promise to tell vs infaillibly vvhen a place of scripture is to be vnderstood literally or spiritually and in vvhat literal or spiri­tual [Page 52]meaning? in c 16. Ezec. Sainct Hierome affirmeth that Apollinaris, Tertulian, and Lactan­tius, and other millenarians, imagined af­ter the resurrection, a reedification of the Temple and terrestrial Hierusalem, and that Christ in it should raigne for a thou­sand yeares and vve that tyme should liue in all corporal pleasurs, bicause they vn­detstood certain places of scripture literal­ly and properly, vvhich should haue been vnderstood spiritually & metaphorically. And contrarivvise the same father ascri­beth Origens errours in the exposition of the beginning of Genesis to no other cau­se, ep. ad Paul. then that he imagined that the sayed chapter ought to bee vnderstood meta­phorically and spiritually, vvhich should haue been interpreted historically, pro­perlie, and literallie. And vvhat man in his vvitte can thinke it so easie to hit allvva­yes of the right sense, vvhere the senses are so diuerse and in vvhich so many learned men haue banguered. Truly vvhen I con­sider vvith my selfe hovv euident a thinge it is that scriptures are hard and obscure, I meruaile hovv our Reformers can per­svvade thē selues that scriptures are easie. and some tymes I ame induced to think that vvhen they say so they speake not as they thinke? but yet vvhē I call to mynde another opiniō of theirs, vvhich is that the [Page 53]true meaninge of scripture is that vvhich euerie ones priuate spirit imagineth, I see it to be as easie to interpret scripture, as to imagin, vvhich is most easie, bicause the imagination is free and can as vvell ima­gin Chimeraes as true obiectes. As for ex­ample if that vvere the true meaning of Aristotle vvhich euery one vvould ima­gin, then vvere it an easie matter for euery cobler to vnderstand Aristotle vvere he in Greek or Latin, bicause he can imagin vvhat it pleaseth him vvith great facilitie. And this if I be not deceued is the cause vvhy novv euery sister of the lord vvhom sainct Paule commaundeth to be silent in the Church, vvill needs bee a bibliste and an interpretour of Scripture. For if that bee the true sense of scripture vvhich the priuate spirit imagineth, if she haue the spirit (as vvhy should she not as vvel as the minister especially it being a receued doctrine amongest them that euery one by his priuate spirit can iudge of scripture) vvhy may not she comment vppon the scripture, and mount also into the pulpit, there to preach the doctrine of her spirit. But o fancies, o Luciferiā pride, to vvhich heresie leadeth euen the frayle and imper­fect Sexe vvhich nature seemeth to haue debarred from pulpits. Lib. praesc. This pride Tertu­lian espyed in the heretical vvomen of his [Page 54]tyme. Ipsae mulieres hereticae quam sunt procaces quae docere audent, contendere exorcismis agere, curationes repromittere, forsitan & tingere: Euen the heretical vvomen hovve malapert are they, vvhich dare be so bold as to preach, and to take vppon them to exorcise, and to promise miracu­lous cures, yea perhaps to baptize. And vvheras Apprehētices are bound seauen yeares to an occupation, to learne only a mechani­cal trade, the arte and science of expoun­ding scripture vvhich is the highest scien­ce that is, seemeth to these subtile vvittes so easie, Ep. ad Paul. that as saint Hierome obserued in some of his tyme, euery cobler, euery olde trotte, and doting foole can vvith out a Doctour fynde out the secret meaning of scripture, and teach before they be taught. But let them saye and beleeue if they can or vvill, that scripture is easie, the experience & reason vvhich I haue allea­ged vvill proue the contrarie. And truly if hony bee hidden in the combe, marovv in the bone, and pretiouse stones in the sea, if gold be gotten vvith labour out of the bovvels & secret vaines of the earth, and roses be hedged in vvith pricking thor­nes, if nature hath hidden all perfection and naturall sciences & vealed them vvith such obscuritie that vvithout great indu­strie they can not be discouered, good rea­son vvas there that the mystical meanings [Page 55]and sacred senses of scripture should be vealed vvith an obscure letter and coue­red vvith many aenigmatical speeches. For first by reason of this difficultie the study of scripture asketh a mās vvholle life, and so keeping him occupied, distracteth him from prophane, idle, and euil occupatiōs. Secōdly the difficultie of scripture makes a man to haue a better esteem and higher conceipt of the same, bicause things easily learned are easilie cōtēned, Li. 2. doct. Christ. c. 6. & knovvledg hardly gottē is highly priced. And therfore as S. Austine noteth, the holy ghost in scripture hath prouided easie things to sa­tisfie our honger, & obscure places also to take avvay lothsomnes. Bicause our vn­derstāding vvith easie things only, vvould be soone cloyed, & vvith obscuritie only vvould easilie be deterred. Thirdly this difficulcie imprinteth in our memorie the vvord of God more deeply. For as the irō is more harde to receue impression then vvax or vvater, yet keepeth it more firm­ly, so that vvhich vve learn hardly, vve forget not easilie. Fourthly it controleth our high-clyming and deep searching vvittes & maket [...] vs to acknovvledge the vveaknes of our intellectuall eye-sight, vvhich if it bee so dim ne, that it can noe more susteyne the blazing splēdour of na­turall verities, thē can the night-crovves [Page 56]eyes the beames of the sonne, much less [...] can it behold (vnlesse it be by a glimse and glimmering) the splendent rayes of super­naturall verities, revealed throughe the darke veale of holy scripture. Fiftly this difficultie increaseth merit and deserte, vvhen so constantly vvee beleeue those verities vvhich in scripture are rather vea­led them reuealed. Sixthly this difficultie preserueth scripture from prophanation, and is the cause vvhy euerie one can not babble of scripture as they do of easie thinges, and as the heretiques of this tyme do, bicause they imagin scripture to be easie. Seauenthly it hides our sacred my­steries frō ꝓphane infidells vvhoe are noe more vvorthy of this diuine knovvledge then are the beastly svvine of preciouse pearles. Orig. li. 1. in Le [...]it. Eightly as Cirill or rather Ori­gen very vvell obserueth, these obscure phrases and figures vvherin the diuine ve­ritie is cladde, are as it vvere a seemly ha­bit vvhich graceth the vvorde of God and makes it seeme the better vnto our vvea­kish eyes. For more are vve delighted to see the veritie of the sacred Eucharist vn­der the figure of Manna, and of the Sacra­ment of Baptisme, in that shadovve of the redde sea, then if vve savve the same sett forth to ourvevve in bare vvordes though neuer so playn. But novve let vs see vvhat [Page 57]our ghospellers can saye to this experien­ce and reason by vvhich I haue proued scriptures to bee hard and difficile? It is true sayeth Luther, scriptures are in many places harde, but vvhere they treat of thinges necessarie to saluation, there are they playn and perspicuouse. Is it true (Luther) that so me partes of scripture are harde? Supra. then must thou eate that vvorde of thine in vvhich thou sayedst. Ego de tota scriptura dico, nullam eius partem obscuram dici volo. I say of all scripture, I vvill haue no part of it called obscure. And vvilt thou stand to it, that vvhere scripture treateth of thinges necessarie to saluation, ther it is plain and easie? I aske then of thee, vvhether the doctrine of Baptisme bee not necessarie to saluation? And if thou say yea, then is some parte of scripture vvhich treateth of thinges necessarie, harde and difficile, for othervvise Caluine vvould neuer haue cauilled so much about those vvordes of Christ. Io. [...]. Vnlesse a man be borne agan of vvater and the holy ghoste. Is not the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament necessary to bee belee­ued? And yet vvho seeth not, hovv many diuerse expositions the ghospellers haue deuised vppon those fevv vvords. Mat. 26. Luc. 22. This is my bodie? Is not the doctrine of iustifica­tion necessarie? And yet it is so obscurely set dovvn in scripture, that Osiander a [Page 58]voucheth, Ex Bol to 3. l. 3. l. 2. de Iustif. initio that amongest the confessio­nistes there are tvvētie different opinions about the formall cause of iustificatiō, and euery one is deduced out of scripture. At least they vvill graunt mee that the doctri­ne and fayth of the blessed Trinitie and of Christes diuinitie, and humanitie is of ne­cessitie to bee beleeued; & yet the Ebioni­tes, Arrianes, Nestorians, Eutichians, Va­lentinians, Monothelites, and Appolli­naristes, vvho helde diuerse heresies con­cerning the Trinitie and Incarnatiō, pro­ued thē all to their thinking out of scriptu­re. Vvhich is a signe that scripture is not easie, for vvher al is playne, all men com­monly aggree, and if scripture vvhere it speaketh of those mysteries vvere perspi­cuouse they vvould neuer haue bangue­red so grossely in expounding them. But rather then my aduersarie vvill stand out, he vvill bee content to play smalle play. If sayeth hee thou bee a good Grāmarian, all vvill seeme easie vnto thee. And vvas not I pray thee S. Austin vvho read Rhetori­ke in Millan, vvas not S. Hierōvvhoe vvas excellent in all the three tongues, a Gram­marian? They vvere, They vvere, and yet they cōfessed as I haue declared, that scri­ptures vvere full of difficultie. Yea in En­gland our ministers haue the Bible in En­glish, and so haue no need of any helpe of [Page 59]Grammer, and yet can they not aggree about the scriptures meaning. Yea in all sciences, it is one thing to be a gramma­rian another thing to attayn to the knovv­ledg of the science, for many a school maister in England can constrevv Aristo­tle vvhich yet can not vnderstand him, and if grammer vvere sufficiēt, then after grammer, vvee should need no studie ne­ther in diuinitie nor philosophie, nor any other science: And to vse no other argu­ment then experiens, let our Grāmarians in Ingland after they haue constrevved the psalmes, tell me vvether they do yet vnderstand the psalmes? But my aduersa­ry vvill shevv that hee is not tongue tyed and therfore vvill not bee put to silence. If (sayeth hee) you confer one place vvith another, one vvill explicate another. This is another starting hole vvhich hee hath found out. But this also is but a poore shi­fte. For although one place conferred vvith another many tymes giueth a great light to both, yet doth it not so allvvayes fall out. For diuerse haue conferred the same places and yet haue gathered diuerse meaninges, yea somtymes conference of places augmenteth the difficultie, and ma­keth a shovv of contradiction vvhich be­fore appeared not. Novv gentle reader thou vvouldst think that this man vvere [Page 60]satisfied or else that his mouth vvere stop­ped, but yet he desireth one ansvvere mo­re, and if that vvill not serue, he vvill ether yeeld or hold his peace. If you pray to God (sayeth he) to illuminate you, he vvill reveal the meaning of scripture vnto you, or if you haue the spirit & be not carnall but spirituall, or if you be praedestinate, you shall finde all as playne in scripture, as the kinges high vvay. This ansvvere is so poore, that it vvell argueth that our ad­uersarie is put to an harde shift and to a last reply: bicause in this ansvvere hee de­clareth ignotum per ignotius, an vnknovven thing by that vvhich is more vnknovven. As for example, I vvould haue him to assure vs vvhether that vvee expound scripture rightly or vvrongly & hee telleth vs that if vve praye as vve ought to do, or if vvee bee of the electe, or if vvee bee spirituall men, vvee shall easiilie finde out the mea­ning of holy scripture. And seing that no­thīg is more vncertayne thē vvhether vve praye as vvee ought to doe, vvhether vvee bee electe or noe, or vvhether vvee bee true spirituall men or noe: by this rule vvee shall neuer, bee assured of the true sense of scripture. And vvere not I praye you sainct Austine, sainct Hierom, and other ffathers before mentioned, the ele­cte Saintes of God? vvas it not like that if [Page 61]any prayed a right, that they did so? vvere not they liker to bee spirituall men, then our fleshly ghospellers, vvhom their vvi­ues can not content? Or can the reformers assure vs that they them selues are electe, that thy praye iuste as thy ought to do, that they are spriritual menne vvhoe haue the right spirit of interpreting scripture? It follovveth therfore vvhich I inten­ded to proue that if vve beleeue these re­formers, bicause they alleage scriptures according to their ovvne expositiō, vvee must of necessitie giue eare vnto all false prophetes, vvho can, and haue already & herafter vvill alleage scripture for vvhat soeuer they shall preach; and so if these Reformers be admitted no heretikes nor heresies can be excluded or reiected. Vvhich conclusion although it necessari­ly ꝓpceedeth frō the premises, vvhich be­fore are layed dovvne, yet to helpe the readers memoire, I vvill laye thē dovvne again breefly, that out of them he maye gather the intended conclusion more ea­sily. Thou must therfore (gentle reader) calle to mynde vvhich before is proued; to vvite that it hathe allvvayes been the manner of heretikes to alleage scripture, and vvith such cloakes to conceal their heresies; That they had no authoritie to vse scripture against our vvilles vvhoe ar [Page 62]the only lavvfull possessours; that all thou­ghe they perforce haue ever vsed them, yet in very deed they gained nought ther­by, bicause that vvorde vvich they vsed vvas no scripture, and is so harde, ob­scure, and ambiguouse that vnless the meaning be first aggreed vppon, it may ferue for a proofe of all heresies, as hether to it hath done; and seing that our refor­mers vse no other proofe for their doctri­ne, but the letter of scripture interpreted at their pleasure, vve can giue no credit vnto their doctrine, vnlesse vve vvill al­lovve of all anciēt heresies, nether cā vve admitte their persōs for lavvfull preachers vnless vve vvill admit also al false apostles, vvho haue alvvayes alleaged scriptures for their heresies, and so can not vvithout plain partialitie be reiected, if our nevv pretended reformers, be receiued.

SELFE-loue (sayeth one) is as good as guilding, vvhich maketh that to seem [Page 63]goodly, vvherin our selues be parties. For as guidling maketh all to seem gold, be it but stone or vvood vnderneath; So selfe­loue maketh to our selues, euen our sel­ues, and all our actions to seem comelie & seemly, be they neuer so absurd & vn­seemly. Suum cuique pulchrum (sayeth the) latin adage, to vvhich is ansvvearable our English prouerb, Euerie man as he likes quoth the good mā to his covve. To Pan, his ovvne pipe and piping sounded more melodiousely thē A pollo his harpe & har­ping. Euery mayd thīkes her selfe of all to be the fayrest, or if she acknovvledg any one defect in beautie, she thīks that to be counteruayld in many other perfections. Euery mother deems her ovvne children the most vvel fauoured, to euery henne her ovvn chicken is most pleasing, yea euery ovvle and crovv thinkes her ovvn youngone fayrer & better fethered then the vvhite doue, hauke, or Eagle. Arti­zanes prayse most their ovvne vvorke­manship, Poets price their ovvn poemes at the highest rate, & euery scholer thinks his ovvn vvitte most pregnaunt, and eue­ry doctour preferres his ovvne books & vvritinges before all other. Yea all men by nature not ruled by reason, nor corre­cted by grace, fall most vvilling ly in loue vvith their ovvn cōceipts, and the broods [Page 64]and youngones of their ovvn deuising vvitts. The reason herof is, ovvne selfe, to vvhich, as euery one is more near, then to another, so is he most addicted and af­fected. For to our selues vve are one, to others vve are only vnited, and so first vve like our selues & our ovvne doings, next of all, those and their actions, vvho arnea­rest and most vnited vnto vs. Vvherfore although, in that God is the cheefest good and goodness it selfe, hee should by all reason be first and best beloued, yet bicau­se he is not so neere vnto vs, as vve are to our selues, vve giue the may denhead and prime of our affection vnto our selues. l. de diligende Deo. This sainct Bernarde in his book vvhich hee made of the loue of God obserued longe since. Imprimis (sayeth hee) diligit hemo seipsum propter se, caro quippe est & nihil sapere valet praeter se, cumque se videt persenon posse subsistere, Deum sibi quasi necessari [...]m incipit diligere, at verò cum Deum coeperit occasione, pro­priae necessitatis colere & diligere, Deus illi dul­cessit, & sie gustando quam suauis est Dominus, transit ad tertium gradum & diligit Deum pro­pterse: First of all man loveth him selfe for him selfe, bicause he is flesh, and can like of nothing but him selfe, and vvhen he seeth that of him sel­fe he can not stande, he beginnes to loue God as a thing necessarie vnto him, but vvhen he begin­neth to loue God vppon occasion of his ovvn neces­sitie, [Page 65]then God beginneth to vvax svveet vnto him, and so by tasting hovv svveet God is he pas­seth to the third degree and loueth God for him selfe. And as vve loue our selues and our ovvn thinges best, so doth this selfe loue blynde vs and hide from our ovvne eyes our ovvne defectes. Vverfore Demosthe­nes vvas vvont to saye that it is a most easie thig to deceiue our selues, for vvhile vvee desire especially to haue our ovvn actions liked, vve easilie persuade our selues that they are to be liked. l 9. de leg. [...]. p. And therfore Plato counsayleth euery man to flye this vice of selfe loue vvhich the Grecians call [...] and not to bee ashamed to learne of o­thers especially vvhen they are our bet­ters. Novv if euer any vvere sick of this disease, it is the heretike especially of our tyme, vvho preferreth his ovvne opinion before the common cōsent of fathers, and his ovvne priuate and particular spirit be­fore the common spirit of the Churche: vvho thoughe a generall councel, in vvhich all the grauitie, sanctitie, vvisdom, and learning of the Church is assembled together, define the contrary, vvill neuer chaunge his opinion, but vvill prefer his ovvne particuler opinion and priuate spi­rite before all councelles, fathers, ages, & Churches, and he but one, vvil stande a­gainst all, and he but one, vvill be iudge [Page 66]of all in interpretation of scripture, and vvill be iudged of none. l. [...]. cont. haer. [...].2. This intolerable pride & self loue of their ovvne opinions Sainct Ireneus auoucheth to bee a com­mon disease amongest heretiques. Vnus­quisque (sayeth he) fictionem quam à semet­ipso adinaenit, illam esse sapientiam dicit, seque indubitate & incontaminate & sincere abscon­ditum scire mysterium. Euery one sayeth that his ovvne fiction vvhich he hath deuised is vvis­dome, and that he vndoubtedly, incontaminatly, and sincerely doth knovv the hidden mysterie. A rius that famous or rather infamous he­retike, not for spoiling Dianaes temple but for robbing Christ of his diuinitie, vvas so vvise in his ovvne conceipte, Nic l. 8. c. 7. l. 4 c. 12. that he thought none of the ancient fathers vvorthy to be compared vvith him. Aetius another souldiour of Lucifers bā ­de vvas vvonte to say that he knevv God as vvell as he knevv him selfe. Theodoreth. l 4. her. fab. Manicheus bragged that he vvas not only an Apostle of Christe, Aug. cont. ep. fund. but also a Paraclete. Nestorius eloquent indeed, though not so svveet in vttering, Socr l. 2.3.22. as forvvard to come to the vtte­raunce, took such pleasure therin, that he had noe mynde to read the anciēt fathers. But to leaue the olde and to come to our nevv-borne heretikes, you shall see that in this selfe loue and liking of their ovvn opiniōs, they degenerate not a iotte from [Page 67]their ancetours. Luther seing him selfe oftentymes to be pressed vvith the old fa­thers authority, preferreth his ovvne pri­uate opinion before their common sen­tence, and decree, and blusheth not a vvhit at the matter. Li, cons. [...] ­gem Angl. Nihilcuro (sayeth he) si mille Augustini, mille Cipriam, mille Ecclesiae contra me sentiant; I care not if a thousand Au­gustines, a thousand Ciprianes, a thousand Chur­ches thinke othervvise then I do. Pro l. lib con­statut [...] E [...] ­clesiae. And in a no­ther place: Doctrinam meam (sayeth he) nolo iudicari à quoquam necab Episcopis, nec ab An­gelis ommbus, volo per eam & Angelorum iu­dex esse: I vvill not haue my doctrine iudged of any nether of Bishops nor of all the Angells, I vvill by my doctrine be iudge euen of the Angels. And againe in another booke of his: L do s [...]r [...] arbier [...]. Ego (sayeth he) in hoc libro non contuli sed asserui, & assero, net penes vllum, iudicium esse volo, sed omnibus suadeo vt praestent obsequium. I haue not conferred in this booke but I haue affirmed, and I affirm, nether vvill I that any man iudgè herof, but I counsayle all to obey myn opinion, But especially he triun phe [...]li [...]n another place of the afore sayed booke vvhich he vvrote against Henry the eight. I oppose (sayeth he) the ghospel (but expounded as hee pleaseth) against the sayinges of fathers and Angeles (as though Angeles vver in opi­nion cōtrary to the ghospell.) Here I stand, here I remain, here I glorie, here I triumphe, here I [Page 68]insulteagainst the Papistes, Thomistes, Henricistes, Sophistes, and all the sayings of men though neuer so holy. See hovv this man pleaseth him self in his ovvn opinion, and hovv he prefer­reth it before all men and Angeles. For all though he vvill seeme to preferre only y ^e ghospelle before them, yet seing that the controuersie is not betvvixte scriptures, & fathers (bicause the fathers reuerenced scriptures more then euer Luther did) but vvhether Luther or they expounded scri­pture most righthy, hee in deed prefer­reth him selfe before all the fathers that euer vvere, and in conceipt, triumpheth ouer them all, but before the victorie. Caluin also in this selfe pleasing opinion shovveth him self as bragging and Thra­sonicall as Luther for his harte, and con­tēdeth vvith him vvho shall stout it most. l. 4. Inst. [...].9. Nulla Conciliorum (sayeth he) Pastorum, Fpis­coporum, nomina, nos impedire debent, quo minus omnes omnium spiritus, ad diuini verbi regulam exigamus: No names of Councells Pastours, Bis­hops, ought to hinder vs from examining the spi­rits of all men by the diuine vvord. And in a­nother chapter of the same book, c [...]. expli­cating those vvords of scripture This is my body in a contrary sense to the Lutheranes he sayeth that he having by diligēt meditatiō examined those vvordes doth imbrace that sense vvhich the spirit telleth him, Mat. 26. and leaning to this (sayeth he) I despise thevvisaō of all mē vvhich [Page 69]can bee opposed against mee. See, see, the pride of an heretike, may not Luther and euery false prophet say that he hath vsed dili­gence and that the spirit telles him the contrary? Vvere not the fathers as dili­gent as Caluin, as Vvise, as learned, and as vertuouse, vvho expounded those vvor­des in their proper sense? No, no, one Caluin in his ovvn conceipt surpasseth them all, and his opinion and priuat spirit must take the place and vpper hand of all the Austines, Ambroses, Gregories, Hie­romes, of all the Councells, yea and Chur­ches allso, all though they vvere thou­sands in number. Virg. Aeneid. 9. Ouid. meo. 1. Of these mens priuate spirits may be sayed that of the Poet Sua cuique Deus fit dira cupido: Euery ones cruel lust is his God. Sibi quisque profecto est Deus: Euerie one truly is to him selfe a God. For these men especially, vvho preferre their priuat opi­nions before Fathers, Councells, Chur­ches, yea and Angells also, Vvhat do they but adore the idolls of their ovvne ima­ginations, as their God? Truly these men vvhich are not sicut caeteri homines, like other men at ether goddes or beasts, and that by the sentence of Aristotle the prince of Philosophers. For if by this philophers verdit, solitarie men or rather haters of societie, vvhom the Grecians vse to call [...], bee other gods or sauage beasts, [Page 70]vvhat are these men vvhoe flying allvv­ayes the company and common consent of Christians, v [...]ill go alone in all their opinions, and symbolize or sorte them selues vvith no men. But this it is to leaue the Catholike Church, vvhich vvhen the heretike forsaketh, he bidds adevv to all fathers, councells, antiquitie, and commō consent, vvhich only are to be founde, in this Charch; and must of necessirie stande post-alone, and stick to his priuat spirit & opinion against all the Christiā vvorld. I vvould saint Bernard had been to deale vvith these singular spirits, but bicause he is ridde of these troublesom companions, vve vvill at least alleage his vvords vvhich he once vsed against one Petrus Abailardꝰ possessed vvith the same euill spirit, vvho sayed that man vvas not deliuered by Christe from captiuitie of the deuill: and although (sayeth he) the doctours of the Church think the cōtrary, yet other vvise it seemeth vnto me. Vvhat (sayeth sainct Bernard) shall I deem more intolerable in the­se vvords? Epist. [...]0. blasphemie, or arrogancie? Vvhat more damnable? rashnes or impietie? Vvere it not more meete that such a mouth should be bobbed and beaten vvith stones then refuted by reasons? doth he not iustly prouoke all mens hands against him, vvhose hands are against all? All (sayeth he) shink thus, but I think othervvise. But vvhat [Page 71]doest thou think? vvhat bringest thou bet­ter? Vvhat more subtilitie doest thou find; Vvhat greater secret doest thou boste to haue been reuealed vnto thee, vvhich hathe not been knovven to so many saincts, vvhich hath escaped so many vvisemen? yet tell vs, vvhat that is vvhich seemeth true vnto thee & unto no man else? And so forth. If to these vvords of Sainct Bernard gentle reader thou adde Luther or Caluin in steed of Petrus Abai­lardus, and putting out his singuler opiniō put one of theirs in the place, thou vvilt easilie peroeiue that these vvords maye as vvell be vsed against them as him, for they are noe lesse singuler then he as appeareth by their proud assertions vvhich I haue alleaged, Luth. art 27.28. Ca u l. 2. Inst. and may appear more by their opinions of the priuate spirit vvhich in o­ther places they make the iudge of the meaning of scriptures & of all other con­trouersies of religion. Do not they saye still in effect that vvhich sainct Bernard calleth intolerable and damnable: I say so, let all the vvorld saye the contrarie? Do not they prefer their ovvne exposition of scripture before fathers, councels, Chur­ches, yea Angels also? Do not their mou­thes out of vvhich haue proceeded such arrogāt speaches deserue rather to be bea­ten vvith stones then to be refuted by rea­sons? Behold England my deare & fovvly [Page 72]deceaued countrie, to vvhat pride these Lucifers haue induced the. Why didst thou forsake the Romain Church vvhich vvas euer taken euen of infidels for the only Christian societie? Vvhom diddest thou follovv vvhē thou didst leaue that Church, but only a singuler spirit? And vvhereon novve doest thou rely, vvherō doest thou ground thy religion? Not vppon fathers, nor councells, nor antiquitie, nor Church, nor common consent, for al these, thy nevvapostles vvhom thou hast follovved haue reiected. doest thou then rely vppon Luther or Caluin or the nevvfound mini­sters? Thou seest by the first chapter hovv they can not proue their mission nor di­stinguish them selues from falle prophets, vvhich are assuredly to come and are all ready come. And vvhat reason hadst thou to forsake thy graue & learned for fathers for these skipiacks, and the common spi­rit of the Churche for their fingular spirits vvhich are so priuate that thou shalt har­dly finde tvvoe of them conspiring in one opinion. Doest thou ground thy self on scripture? Bare scripture as I haue proued in the second Chapter is no sure ground vvithout the true sense, and hovv doest thou knovv that thou hast the right mea­ning of scripture? I knovve thy ansvver: My spirit (sayest thou) telleth me so. This [Page 73]then is thy staye, this is thy ground in reli­gion, this is thy last refuge to vvhich thou must needs stick vnto as I haue declared, vvhen thou leauest the Catholique Chur­che. But is not this intolerable pride to make thy priuat spirit to be iudge of scri­pture and sense of scriptur? Is not this in­tolerable arrogancie to make thy ovvne priuate spirit iudge of councels, fathers, Churche and all, and to prefer thyn ovvne priuat opiniō, before their cōmon cōsent, as though thou being but one, couldst see further into scripture and that at the first reading, then they all could do by great studie and labour? But vvhat assured stay thou hast in this thy spirit vve shall see anone. novve I vvill put a difference herin betvvixt these spiritual men, and that ab­surd heretike Suēkfeldius, least I seeme to do, iniurie to my aduersarie, and not to be able to ouercome him, vnless I bely him. Suenkfeldius therfore denieth all Sacra­ments and scripture, and is so spirituall, that he vvill liue only of the spirit, and ne­ther of the vvorde, nor Sacraments. But Luther and Caluin admitt both Sacra­ments, and the vvorde of scripture, mary yet they vvill haue the spirit to giue sen­tence of scripture and the meaning of scri­pture. For if you aske them hovv they knovve that fayth only iustifieth? they [Page 74]vvill ansvver by scriptur. But aske them hovv they knovv that vvhich they alleage for that opinion to bee scripture, or that to be the true meaning of scripture in vvhich they take the scriptures by thē al­leaged? They vvill not say that by the fa­thers, councells, or Church, they at assu­red, but by their ovvn priuat spirit. So that although Caluin vvriteth against the Li­bertines for relying only on the spirit, yet at last hee falleth into the same labyrinth him selfe, for vvhilest he vvill be iudged by scripture, yet so that his spirit must gi­ue sentence vvhich is scripture, and vvhat is the meaning therof, he pronounceth the last sentence, from vvhich is no appeal, by his priuat spirit. Against this spirit of theirs I could bring many arguments, but of it self it is so phantasticall, that these fevv shall suffice to refute it. First I say, that allthough God might haue gouerned his Churche by internall reuelation of a pri­uate spirit, vvhich should propose vnto euery one in particuler, vvhich is scriptu­re, & vvhat is the meaning therof, vvhich is true fayth, vvhat is the vvill of God, vvhich is the vvay to saluation, and vvhat are the cōmaundemēts, neuer theless this vvere a gouernmēt rather for angels then for men. for men are visible and haue a vi­sible conuersation, and therfore are tobe [Page 75]directed by visible pastours, visible lavves, and rules, and nor by an inuisible spirit? For this cause allmightie god vvhoe could sanctifie vs as he dothe the angells vvith­out any visible meanes, yet bicause vvee ar men, he hath alvvaies bestovved his graces vppon vs by sensible signes and sacraments and by a visible dispēsation of men. Secondly suppose God should go­uern euerie one by his invvard spirit, yet this vvere not sufficient for others amon­gest vvhom vve conuerse for hovve shall they knovv my spirit to be of God, and not of the deuill? Vvherfore this spirit is not sufficient to gouern and directe men in a peaceble cōuersation: bicause vvhilest euery man vvould bragg of his spirit, and none could proue the same vnto othersno more then our spirites in Inglād can, they vvould fall together by the eares about their spirits and neuer should bee able to parte the fray or to end the controuersie. Thirdly nether is this spirit vnless it be ioined vvith a plain reuelation (as our spi­rituall heretiks see by experience that it is not) sufficiēt for a mans ovvne selfe to rely on for the assuraūce & quietness of his cō ­sciēce. For I ask of him that thiks him self most assured, hovv he knovves that his spirit is of God & not of the deuil? If he an­swere, that the spirit bringes, vvith it a certain [Page 76]firme persuasiō vvhich makes a mā to his thinking aslured; I say that this is not sufficiēt, bicause euerie heretike yea euery Turk hath this invvard persuasion, and Suenkefeldius vvho denyed all Sacramēts and scriptures, and vvould be guided only by the spirit, vvas fully thus persuaded by his spirit, vvhich he also did verilie think to bee of God. If these mē thought verily that they had the spirit of God, and yet vvere deceiued; vvhy may not Caluin, vvhy may not euerie brother, begin to doubt of his spirit? Yea vvhy should vve beleeue him on his bare vvord, to haue the true spirit vnless he can proue it by miracles or the authoritie of the Churche to vvhom Christ promised this spirit, vvhich he can neuer do. For as for mira­cles heneuer could rayse a dead lovvse frō death to life, and to proue his spirit by the authoritie of the Church, vvere to proue it conformable to the cōmon spirit of the Christian Church, vvhich he nether can nor vvill do, bicause be vvill be singuler. If he proue his spirit by the scripture he vvindes him self in a circle out of vv ^ch he can neuer get him selfe out vvith honour or honestie. For euen novve he proued scripture and the meaning therof by his spirit, and novv he proueth his spirit by the scripture, and if you aske again hovv [Page 77]he knovves this to be scripture, he vvill ansvver, by his spirit, and so vvill neuer get out of this circle but vvill still proue scripture by his spirit, & his spirit, by seri­pture, for vvhich kinde of argument the Logicians, vvill deride him and hisse him out of the schoole. For to proue scripture by the spirit, and the spirit by scripture, vvhich scripture according to Caluin is not knovven but by the spirit, is to proue the spirit by the spirit, and idem, per idem. But behold I pray you to vvhat the deuill can persuade man vvhen he hath blin­ded his eyes by depriuing him of the light of fayth. Ther is nothing so secret vnto man as is this spirit; bicause the harte of man is a bottomless pitt, vvhose depth a mans ovvn self can not sound, it is a laby­rinth into vvhich vvhē you enter you can hardly finde the vvayto get out, spirites al­so are diuerse, & vvant not in mans [...]arte, places to shrovvd & means to trāsform [...] them selues: They vvill osten times make a shevv of the spirit of God, vvhē indeed they ar the spirite of the deuill, vvho long since promised that he vvould be a lying spirit in the mouths of all false prophets, and yet every brother of the nevv religiō vvaranted nether by miracle, nor euident reuclatiō, nor Churche, nor councell, vvill needs be persuaded yea and assured also, that his spirit is of God. Fourthly God had [Page 78]been vnreasonable if he had giuen vs no other iudge to interpret his lavves, then this secret spirit. For he hath bound vs to a religion vvhich is aboue reason and often tymes against sence and sensua­litie, and this he hath deliuered vnto vs in a booke very obscure and harde to vnderstand, and vvith all he hath obli­ged vs to the beleef, and obseruarion of this lavv and religion, vnder paine of ae­ternall damnation. Novv if he hath giuen vs no other interpretour of this lavve but our ovvn priuat spirit vvhich is to secret and subiect to errour, he should seem to haue intended and desired our damna­tion, and to haue giuen vs a lavve not for a rule to direct vs but for a snare to catch vs, and a pitfall to ruinate vs, by cause vve can not keep this lavve vnless vve vnder­stand it, and not keeping it vve shalbe da­mned. Truly better had princes prouided for their subiectes then God for his, bicau­se princes make plain lavves and yet least the subiectes shousld plead ignoraunce or complain that they are punished for not keeping a lavve vvhich they vnderstand not, they haue prouided interpretours vvhose glosses are playne; and yet Christ our lavvegiver according vnto Caluins opinion, hath giuen vs an obscure lavve, and a more obscure interpretour to vvit [Page 79]the secret and vncertain spirit, and vvith all exacteth hell paines of vs if vve obser­ue not his lavve in the right sence & mea­ning. Fiftly if this priuate spirit be admit­ted for an vmpier in matters of religion all Hierarchie and order in the Church, falleth, for then all are heades none are feet, all are eyes to directe none are infe­riour members to be directed, all are pa­stours noe sheep, all are masters noe schol­lers. Avvay then vvith Bishops yea and superintēdēts also; avaunte preachers vve are not tyed to any mens spirit in perticu­ler, no not to the Churches spirit in gene­rall, bieause euery man is [...] taught of God immediatly by his priuat spirit. It is not true vvhich S. Paule sayeth that Christ gaue vs some pastours some doctours, Ephes [...] bi­cause all ar pastours; It is not true vvhich the scripture affirmeth in many places vvhich shall herafter be alleaged that the gouern­ment of the Church is monarchicall, no nor Aristocraticall, but rather Democra­ticall and populare, bicause euery one of the people by his priuate spirit is supreme iudg and a supreme head in matters of re­ligion, euery cobler or tinker if he be a faithfull beleeuer, iudgeth all & acknovv ledgeth no superiour; bicause vvhilest his spirit iudgeth vvhich is scripture & vvhat is the meaning of scripture, to vvhich all [Page 85]are subiect, he sumoneth all to stande to his iudgemēt, and he vvill be adiudged by none: & so vvhilest all are superiours, no­ne are inferiours yea none are superiours bicause a superiour can not be vvith out an inferiour, and vvhere is noe superiour nor inferiour there is noe subordina­tion, vvhere is noe subordination, ther is noe order, vvhere noe order, ther is con­fusion, and so vvhere the spirit ruleth, ther can not be the Church, bicause it is com­pared to a citie, yea vnto a kingdome all­so, in both vvhich is a seemly order. Lastly this spirit openeth the gapp vnto all he­retikes and heresies vvhich according to my promise I shall proue euidently and laye open manifestly. For if that be true sense of scripture vvhich the priuat spirit suggesteth, if the reformed nevv religion bee the sincer religion bicause it is squa­red and ruled by scriptur, or rather by scripture interpreted by the priuat spirit, then certainly by the same vvay that this pretended religion is entered in to the vvorld for currant; by the same vvay, may all heretikes and heresies, al false prophetes and false apostles, claime free passage also, and by no equitie can be excluded if Luther, Caluin and their brotherhood bee admitted. For euery lying prophet can alleage scripture as [Page 81]vvell as they, he can bragge of his spirit as vvell as they, he can say and svvear that he hath the right spirit vvhich assureth him also that he expoūdes scripture right­ly, and preacheth truly; and seing that the reformers of this age can saye noe more (for they haue nether miracles nor other authoritie to proue their spirit as all ready is proued) it follovveth euidently, that if they bee admitted and receiued, noe false prophete, though neuer so phantasticall, can bee reiected.

PArricide, and murder of parents, in old tyme vvas deemed so hainous an offence, & so vnvvorthy a facte (as being not only contrarie to reason but also re­pugnaunt vnto nature) that Solon the fa­mouse lavv-maker decreed no lavve a­gainst it, not for that he thought it not vvorthy punishment, but bicause [...]ee counted it more barbarouse, and inhu­main, then could be by man comitted. And in deed mans nature so much ab­horred this vn naturall fact, that vntill six hundred yeares after Rome vvas built, no man euer is read of so vnkīde as vvho could finde in his hart to imbrevv his hā ­des [Page 82]in his parētes bloud. Cic. pro Roscio Lucius Ostius, as some do think, vvas the first vvho laying aside all humanitie, against natures pro­pension and naturall affection, layed vio­lent hands vppon his father, & depriued him of being, of vvhom he had receiued being. Vvhich facte vvas no sooner com­mitted but nature abhorred it & the Ro­maines then the most ciuill people, to re­present the enormitie of the offence, di­uised a punishmēt vvhich should not on­ly be a iust payne but also an embleme of the fault. Cic supra. Iuuen Sa [...]yr. [...]. Plut. in vi [...]a Ostij. They decreed first of all that the murderer should be sevved vp in a le­ther sack. Secōdly that sacked, he should be cast into the vvater. thirdly vvith him vvere included a cock, a viper, an ape, and a dogge, to acompanie him at his death, vvhose natures he had imitated in his life. he vvas inclosed in a sack and so cast into the riuer, that so at one tyme he should lose the light of the sonne, vvhich he could not see, of the fyer, vv ^ch he could not feele, of the aire, in vv ^ch he vvas not permitted to breath, of the vvater in vv ^ch he svvimming vvas not refreshed, of the earth vv ^ch he touched not; and so he vvas depriued at one tyme of the benefit of the sonne, and the fovvre elemētes of vvhich all vvere produced, bicause he had been vnkind and vnnaturall to him, of vvhom [Page 83]he vvas begotten. His companions at his death vvere a Cocke, bicause as this byrd fighteth vvith his fire, and treadeth the hēne vvhich hatched him, so he hath been iniuriouse to him that begotte him; A vi­per, bicause as this beast eateth him selfe out of his damnes belly, so he ruineth him vvho gaue him being, an ape, bicause as he imitateth man in his actions and some vvhat resembles him in forme of body, yet is in deed no man, but a beast, so this vnnaturall murderer, caryeth the shape of a man, but in conditions is noe man, bi­cause he hath cast of all humanitie; And lastly a dogg, that this creaturs faythfull seruice to his master vvho only feeds him, may confound this monster and cōdem­ne his treacherie vvho hath been so false to his parēt vvho hath not only fedd him but begotten him. This kinde of death in myne opinion vvere a punishment not vnfitly to be layed on heretikes especially y ^e most mallicious (for vvith thē vvho erre not of mallice I vvishe more gētle dealīg) vvho are so vnnaturall children to Christ their father as shall appear in y ^e third boo­ke, vvho so reuile & miscall the anciēt fa­thers of vvhom they receiued fayth and religion, and are so vnkind vnto the Ca­tholique Church their mother, vvhich by the Sacrament of Baptisme regenerated [Page 84]them, and gaue them their spiritual being. For they deserue to be depriued at one ty­me of the heauens and elemētes of vvhich all thīgs are in some sorte produced, vvho cōtemne the Churche, the councells, the fathers, and cheef pastours, of vvhom and by vvhome they receiued their superna­turall being by vvhich they are Christia­nes. They deserue a cock at their death, bicause as the cocke fighteth often tymes vvith his sire, and abuseth the henne that hatched him, so they contend vvith an­cient fathers and as much as in them lyeth deflovver their mother the Churche vv ^ch bare them spiritually; a viper also ought to dye vvith them, bicause like vipers by schismes and heresies they eare them sel­ues out of the vvombe of the Church; an ape must also suffer vvith them, bicause as he resembleth man but is in deede a beast so they like apes imitate true Christians bearing the name of Christe as they do, admitting certayne scriptures and Sacra­mentes as they do, deuising superinten­dētes for the bishops of the Church, mi­nisters for preestes, tables for aultars, & a prophane Cene and supper, for the sacred Eucharist, and yet in deed are no true christianes but monstrouse infidells and vvorse then Ievves and Paganes; Th. [...].2. q. [...]. ar. 6. a dogge also to make vp the number they vvor­thily [Page 85]deserue, to put them in mynd that dogges may teach them fidelitie for dog­ges though they receiue some tymes blo­vves, and neuer any greater benefit then crustes and bones, yet are so faythfull to their masters, that they vvill not leaue thē todeath, vvheras the heretike is so vn­gratefull and vnfaythfull to Christe and his spouse the Churche, that for no other cause then an itching humour of pride and self love, hee vvill ronne after euery sectmaster that can only dropp a fevv textes of scripture interpreted by his ovvne spirit, leauing the Churche & anciēt fathers, and consequently Christ him selfe bicause they ever vvent together, and vvho heareth one, heareth the other. But least I condemne them to the punishmēt of parricides for contēpt of anciēt fathers, before I proue them to bee guiltie of the fault, I vvill sett dovvne vvord by voord, their ovvne sayings and assertions, by vvhich shall appear, vvhat respect they beare, and vvhat kindnes they shevv, to­vvards their ancient forfathers. Ex Epiph. her. Basilides an infamous heretike vaunted that he and his only knevve the truth, and that all his forfathers vvere sues & canes, hogges and dogges, not vvorthy of the margarites of his doctrine. Lib. s.c. [...]0. The Valentinians (sayeth Ire­neus) if you vrge them vvith scriptures [Page 86]vvhich they can not ansvver, vvill denye them, if you prouoke them to be tryed by tradition deliuered vnto vs by a suc­cession of preestes and fathers, aduersantur traditioni dicentes se non solum presbyteris, sed etiam apostolis existentes sapientiores, sinceram inuenisse veritatem: they oppose against tradition saying that they being vviser then the preests and apostles, [...] 3. haue found out the sincere veritie. Arius as before I haue rehearsed thought none of the fathers comparable vnto him: Ne­storius disdained to read their vvorks; and our reformers of this age, shevv by their vnreuerent, and rayling speeches against the fathers, that they are descen­ded of the same race of parricides and re­uilers of their ancient fathers. To begin­ne therfore vvith the first patriarch of this nevv religion, Martin Luther that man of God (although by his ovvne con­fession he vvas so familiar vvith the deuill that he hathe eatē a bushell of salte vvith him) in his book against the king of En­gland hauing called him blokhead, l. [...] cont Reg. Axgl. fol. 348 beet­lehead, grossehead, dull pate and such like names, for pressing him vvith the autho­ritie of fathers thus he decideth the mat­ter Hencricus dicta patrum inducit pro sacrificio missario &c. Henrie for his massing sacrifice bringes in the sayinges of fathers. Here say I, that by this meanes, my sentence is confirmed: for this [Page 87]is it vvhich I sayed, that the Thomisticall asses, haue nothing vvhich they can alleage but a mul­titude of men, and the ancient vse. But I against the sayings of fathers, men, angells, and deuills, put dovvne the ghospell vvhich is the vvorde of the aeternall maiestie: here I insult ouer the sayings of men thoughe neuer so holy, so that I care not though a thousand Austines, and Ciprianes, should stand against me. Thus one Martin Luther braueth them all & thus this good child reuerenceth, and respecteth his an­cient fathers: for as I sayed in the last cha­pter, although he seemeth only to prefer­re the scripture, yet seing that they admit­ted, and alleaged scripture also, the que­stion is, vvhoe hath better skill in ex­pounding scripture, and if vve beleeue this man all the fathers might haue gone to schoole to him. in expos. a. 6 [...] ▪ fol. 167. Zuinglius vvill not be behind Luther in this matter. They affirme (sayeth he) and vve deny that the masse is a sacrifice. Vvho shalbe iudge of this controuersie? The sole (say I) and the only vvord of God. But by and by thou beginnest to crye, The fathers, the fathers haue thus deliuered vnto vs. But I bring to thee not fathers, nor mothers, but [...] require the vvord of God. Caluine desireth to be counted modest, but herin also he could not conteine him self. l. [...]. Inst. ca. 8. [...]. 10. Vvhen the aduersaries obiect to me (sayeth he) that this vvas the cus­stome, I ansvverre that the old fathers in this [Page 88]matter vvanted both lavv and exemple, & vvere caryed avvay into an errour, vvhilest they attributed to much to the name of poenaunce, and the common peoples opinions. [...] And again, I ame litle moued vvith those things vvhich occurre cuery vvhere in the vvritings of fathers concer­ning satisfaction. I see truly many of them yea (I vvill speake simply as it is) all allmost of them vvhose bookes are extant, vvere in this matter dece [...]ued, and spoake hardly. And in another booke of his he calles the fathers of the councel of Trent hogges & asses. in Antid. can [...]. Peter mar­tyr calleth papistes, Patrologos, not Theo­logos, [...] votis. for alleaging fathers. Doctour Humphrey in the life of levvell, percei­uing that levvell had offered to much vvhen in the heat of his sermon he vvas content to be tryed by fathers; sayeth that he might haue vsed a better defence for him sel [...]e, then the authoritie of fa­thers, Vvhoe (sayeth hee) if they teache con­trarie it litle skilleth, for vvhat haue vve to do vvith fathers, vvith flesh, & bloud, or vvhat perteineth it to vs vvhat the false Synods of bis­hops do decree. Vide [...]undem in praefat in Orig. Beza calleth Athanasius Sata­nasius, and the fathers of the Nicen Coun­cell, blind sophistes, ministers of the beast, and staues of Antichrist. [...]ont. Papatū And althoughe Luther affirme [...]h that sainct Gregorie the great, vvas the last good Pope, yet Bibli­ander calleth him in derisiō the Patriarch [Page 89]of ceremonies. Melancthon condemneth him for allovving of the sacrifice of the masse, for the dead. praef. ep Zui [...] gl. & Mel. Paulus Vergerius vvrote a booke of the toyes and fables of Gregorie. Horne in his booke against Abbot Fecnam, calleth this sainte (to vvhome vve English men ovve noe lesse then our conuersion from paganisme to christiantie) a blind bussard. Cent 1. pag. 66 72 Cent. [...] par. 678. Bile the cro­nicler sayet [...] that this saint, sent Austin the monke to plante in England his Ro­mish religion, but yet (sayeth he) Lat [...]mer is much more vvorthy to be counted En­glands apostle, bicause Austine brought nothing but mans traditions, masse, cros­ses, letanies, vvheras Latimer vvith the hooke of truth cut of these superstitions. Vvhitaker in his booke called reprehen­sion, Pag. 8 [...]. sayeth that the fathers for the most part vvere of opinion that Antichrist is but one particular man, but in that as in many other things the [...] erred. The like respecte they bear to generall Councells in vvhich the vvisest and grauest fathers of the Church vver allvvayes assembled. Luther in his booke of Councels calleth them Sicop [...]ants, and flaterers of the Po­pe, and sayeth that the canōs of the Coun­cell of Nice, vvhich Constantine reuerē ­ced and honoured vvith his presence, are hay, stravve, stickes, and stubble. Ibidem. Yea in this [Page 90]councel he findeth a playn cōtradiction, bicause the councell forbiddes all Eunu­ches to be promoted to preesthood, and yet commaundeth preestes to liue chastly As though only they vvho are gelded could liue chast, and as though ther vvere no mean betvvixt vviuing, and gelding. Yea sayeth Luther, l. [...]nt. Regem Angliae. if all the decrees of councells vvere povvred into theee vvith a pipe, yet vvould they not make thee a christian. l. 4. Inst c. 9. sect. 8. Caluin vvill examine all coun­cells by the vvord, before he vvill giue any credit vnto them, and seing that the fathers in councells examined their de­crees by scripture also, Caluin vvill make an examination vppon their examinatiō, and so vvill bee Iudge of them all. But least I vveary the reader vvith to longe a catalogue of reuiling speeches of these contumelious chammes and parricides, I report me vnto the indifferent reader, vvhether they deserue not the punish­ment of parricides, vvho so scoffe, taunte, contemne, and reuile their forfathers? But my meaning vvas not to condemne them vppon vvhom God his sentence must passe, my drifte is herby to shevv hovv much in reuiling fathers they crack the credit of their religion, and hovv vvithall in reiecting this authoritie, they open the gapp to all heretikes and heresies. And as [Page 91]concerning the first point, it is vvell kno­vvn, that antiquitie vvas allvvayes reue­renced: old age vvas euer respected, olde coynes priced, ancient statues admired, old vvritings esteemed, and in all artes, the moste anciēt professours of the same, bear the bell a vvay. In painting Appelles hath the credit aboue all painters, in sta­tuary vvorks Lycippꝰ; in comedies Plau­tus and Terence; in Tragedies Seneca; in histories Liuie, Salust, Iustine; in Poetrie, Homer, Virgil, Ouid; in Rhetorick De­mosthenes, and Cicero; in Philosophie, Plato, and Aristotle; in Diuinitie, Peter Lombard, sainct Thomas of Aquin, Sco­tus, and such other subtile schoolmen; And shall not the ancient fathers and do­ctours of the Church, vvho by their arte professed exposition of scripture, be re­uerenced, and credited in their arte befo­re oure vnlearned and vpstart ministers? shall antiquitie giue credit to Poets and painters, and not to Doctours & interpre­tours of scripture? Vvhat is this but to preferr ꝓphane literature before religiō, Philosophie before fayth & diuinitie, pa­ganisme before Christianitie, yea Poetes & painters before Doctours & fathers of the Church? If any one novv should say, that Plato, and Aristotle vvere but doltes and Asses, that Appelles vvas but a blurting [Page 92]painter, that Cicero vvas but a railīg Rhe­torician, that Virgil & Ouid, vvere but ri­ming Poets, Vvhose eares could abide, such cōtumelies? Think then (indifferent reader) hovv fovvle mouthed the hereti­ques of this age are, vvho thus miscall the ancient fathers, renovvmed for their skill in interpretatiō of scriptur, and other lear­ning, as appeareth by their learned com­mentaries, homelies, and other vvorkes? Think hovv arrogāt these men are, vvho preferre them selues before all ancient fa­thers, euen in that learning, vvhich vvas their profession, and for vvhich they haue been for many hundred yeares, as famou­se, as euer Cicero vvas for eloquence, Ari­stotle for Philosophie, or Virgil & Ouid, for Poetrie. But vvhilest they contemne the authoritie of ancient fathers, vvhat greater authoritie do they bringe but vp­starte and vnlearned ministers? Vvhilest they reiect the fathers as mē vvho might­erre, are they godds or angells? are not they men as the fathers vvere, and not vvorthy to be their men & seruauntes to cary their books after them? But novve accordīg to my promise, I vvil declare y ^e first pointe by me proposed, to vvit hovv in reiecting fathers, they cracke their ovvne credit. For these fathers vvere lear­ned, graue, vvise, gloriouse in vvorking [Page 93]miracles, and great in bearing of authori­tie in the Churche of God. Their profes­sion vvas preaching, teaching, and inter­pretīg of scripture, in vvhich arte they are ancient, and famouse for many hundred yeares: Some of thē vvere schollers to the Apostles, others succeeded immediatly the Apostles schollers. The nevv Apostles are nevv and yong, vvho beganne but the other day to study, and to interprete scri­ptures, and peraduenture many of them vvould neuer haue bene able to make a sermon, had they not the helpe of the fa­thers commentaries & homelies. Let then the indifferent reader be iudge, vvhether the religiō vvhich the fathers taught and professed or that vvhich these nevv Apo­stles haue deuised, be likest to be true, and vvhether it be not more probable, that they preached & teached according vnto scripture, rather then our nevv and later Bible-clerkes. Truly to say that a Lu­ther, Caluin, Zuinglins, Beza, is herin to be preferred before Austines, Ambroses, Hieromes, Gregories, vvere as absurdly spoken, as if one should preferre the pain­ters of these dayes, before Appelles, or the Phisitions of this age before Galen. More ouer vvhere these fathers vvent, ther al­vvaies vvente religion, vvhere they vvere Doctours, that vvas the Churche of Chri­ste, [Page 94]vvher they vvere pastours, ther vvas allvvayes the folde of Christe, of them cōsisted all the general councells, by them vvere the ancient Canons decreed, and old heresies condemned, all the Bishopri­kes, seas, and Churches, by them vvere gouerned, and by their meanes erected. They vvere the men vvho in all ages op­posed them selues against heretiques, as true pastours against the rauening vvolues vvho had only the coate of shepheards, against them & their people, vvere raysed all the persecutions as against the only Christianes, their actions, their offices, in God his Church, their bookes, their mira­cles, their liues, their deathes, do fill Ec­clesiasticall histories, the vvriters vvherof intending to vvrite the begining & pro­gress of the Christian Church, vvrite only of the Romaine and Catholike Churche, the pastours and Doctours vvherof, vvere the ancient fathers. So that vvhilest our reformers refuse the authoritie & doctrine of the fathers, they cut them selues from the Church of Christe, bicause that, & the fathers (as all histories & monumētes de­clare) vvēt euer together, and they ioyne in parte vvith all old heretikes, vvhō the fathers by doctrine, and censure, euer con­demned, bicause in one heresie, or other, they aggree vvith them all, as shalbe in [Page 95]the next booke demonstrated, and they let not to cōfesse, vvith Tobie Matthevv, that no man can read fathers and beleeue them, & imbrace this nevv religion. Read Genebrard (gentle reader) and thou shalt see hovv in the end of euery age he set­teth dovvne a catalogue of all the ancient fathers vvho vvere counted the only true pastours, as allso a liste of all the heretikes. them the Catholiques vvhich novv liue professe to follovv as the heretikes of this age vvill confesse, those infamous hereti­kes, the reformers adore & embrace their doctrine, as I shall proue hereafter in the second booke. Iudge thou then vvhether the Church and Christian religiō be vvith these reformers and reuilers of fathers, or vvith the Catholiques vhom they haue. Nicknamed Papistes. This argument of the fathers authoritie, put Luther many tymes to his trompes, and sometymes af­flicted him, vvith no litle scrouples; but bicause he had a large cōscience, he svval­lovved them vp, Praefat l. de abrog. miss [...] priuata. & in tyme digested them all. Hovv often (say eth he) did my trembling harte beat vvith in me, and reprehending me, ob­iect against me that most stronge argument? Art thou only vvise? Do so many vvorldes erre? Vvere so many ages ignoraunt? Vvhat if thou errest and dravvest so many into errour to be damned vvith thee aeternallie? And in an other place. To. 5. ann [...]. breniss. Doest [Page 96]thou, a sole man, and of no accounte, take vppon thee so great matters? Vvhat if thou being but one man offendest? If God permit such, so many, and all to erre, vvhy may he not permit the to erre? Hether to apperteyn those arguments. The Chur­che, the Churche, the fathers, the fathers, the Councells, the custome, the multitudes, & great­nes of vvise men. Vvhom do not these hilles of ar­gumentes, To. [...]. in Gal. these cloudes, yea these seas of examples ouer-vvhelme? And yet again this scrouple assaulte [...]h him. Some (sayeth he) vvill say vnto me: The Churche so many ages hath so thought and taught, So haue thought, & taught, all the primitiue Churches, and Doctoures most holymen, much more great and more learned then thou. Vvho art thou that darest dissent from all these, and obtrude vnto vs a diuerse doctrine? Thus God moued Luthers hart, vvhich might haue been a sufficient calle, to haue recalled, and reclaimed him; but he being obstinate; thus put this motion by: Vvhen satan thus vrgeth, and conspireth vvith flesh, and reason, the conscience is terrified and despai­reth, vnless constantly thou retourn to thy selfe, and say, vvhether Cipriane, Ambrose Austin, or Peter, Paule, and Ihon, yea an angell from hea­uen, teach other-vvise, yet this I knovve for cer­tain that I counsayle not men to humane but di­uine thinges. Art thou sure Luther, vvhen thou hast so many, Se Reinolds in his refut. c. [...]. and so learned fathers against thee? Darest thou preferr thy ovv­ne [Page 97]particuler iudgment, before their com­mon consent? Yea (layeth M. Vvhitakar) Luther in some case may prefer him selfe before all the fathers, & a thousand Chur­ches. For vvhen his doctrine is according to scripture then is it to giue place to noe fathers. But this is as much to the purpose as the patch beside the hole, bicause the cōparison is not betvvixt fathers and scri­ptures, vvhich are to be preferred: bicause the fathers allovved and alleaged scriptu­re euen for those pointes of doctrine for vvhich Luther doth, and all the Luthers in the vvorld can not proue that all the fathers held any one opinion against scri­pture; but the question must be, vvhether Luther or all the fathers did best vnder­stand the scripture; and therfore if Luther hold against the fathers in exposition of scripture, he preferreth him selfe before them all. As for example, Luther alleageth scripture to disproue free vvill, all the fa­thers alleage scripture to proue it, and Luther expoundes scripture one vvay, they another, else they could not both alleage scripture for contrarie doctrine. Vvherfore if Luther sayeth that he ex­poundeth scripture truly, and therfor ca­res not for all the fathers, he preferreth his ovvne iudgment before them all, and so can not ansvvere that argument groun­ded [Page 98]in the fathers authoritie, nor com­fort, him selfe vvith this, that he forsooth hath the vvord of God vvhich is aboue thē all. And so Luther must giue vs leaue to come vppon him vvith his ovvn argu­ment, vvhich he shall neuer ansvver. The Church from the begīning hathe taught, and expounded scripture other vvise then thou doest, so many Austines, Ambroses, Ciprianes, Councells, and ages, haue prea­ched other vvise. Are they all deceiued hast thou only found out the truth? What if thou rather arte deluded? Thou art but one, they are many, thon art of late, they of ancient standing, thou a sinner, they saintes, thou some scholler, but they vvere learned doctours, thou hast a vvitte, but all their vvittes vvere of a greater reach, thou seest some thing, but so many eyes must needs haue a greater insight; Thou hast studyed scripture but they more, thou hast vvatched at thy booke, but they in night-studie haue spent more oyle then thou, though thou peraduenture more vvine thē they, & thou alleagest scripture for thy doctrine, they for y ^e cōtrarie. And so their iudgemēt must be preferred befo­re thine, & cōsequēly theirs shalbe y ^e true doctrine, they y ^e true Pastours, theirs the true Churche; & so ours novv is the true Christiane religion, vvee the right Chri­stianes, [Page 99]vvho aggree vvith those fathers, and the Church of vvhich they vvere pa­stours and preachers: and Luther and the reformers, vvho vvill haue noe parte vvith the fathers, are no members of the true Churche, bicause the ancient fathers and the true Churche vvere neuer yet se­parated, but alvvayes vvent together. The first point being proued vve vvill come to the secōd, in vvhich I shall proue that in reiecting fathers they open the gapp to all heretiques vvho may say vvhat they vvill (as the reformers do) if that authori­tie be contemned. But first it shall not be amisse to declare vvhat authoritie the fa­thers haue, & vvhether they haue infailli­ble assistaunce of God to expound scri­ptures righthly; for if they haue not: nether are Catholiques assured of their fayth by their authoritie, nether do the heretiques open the gappe to heresies by reiecting their authoritie, vvhich if it be not infal­lible, may it self also authorise and coun­tenaunce heresie. Ephes. [...]. Sainct Paule sayeth that God hathe prouided vs of some Apostles, some Prophets, others Euangelists, others Doctours & Pastours to the consummation of saintes to the vvorke of the ministerie vnto the edifying of the body of Christ, that if for y ^e instruction of his Church. Vvhere the first place is giu [...]n to Prophets, Apostles and Euāgelistes vvho [Page 100]vvrote the scripture, in the second place follovv doctours and pastours bicause their office is not to vvrite scripture but to interpret it; And the reason is yeelded vvhy these doctours are giuen vnto vs, least that vvee should vvauer like childrem and be caryed about vvith euery vvind of the doctrine of men. Ibidem. Novv if all the pastours and doctours vv ^ch vve call fathers should of could erre, then vvere they not appoin­ted to keepe their sheep from vvādering, rather should they be the cause of their errour, for the sheepe must here the voice of their pastours, and so if the pastours erre, the sheepe must erre vvith them, if they vvander the sheepe vvho knovv nothing but by their pastours, can not keepe the right vvaye. And if thou saye that in case of errour the people must leaue the pastours, I demaund of thee hovv they shall knovv vvhē the pastours erre, vvho knovve nothing but by the voice of their pastours? And suppose they should leaue their pastours. then is the frame of the body of Christes Church dissolued, and the members are separated from the head, and the Church is a head­less body: then do they leaue the salte, by vvhich they should be salted and preser­ued from corruption in religion: Mat. 5. Then do they leaue the ligt, by vvhich they should [Page 101]be illuminated. Mat. 2 [...]. And hovv then is that true; vppon Moyses chear sit the Scribes and Pharisies do those thinges vvhich they saye? are the pastours of the Church of lesse authoritie then the pastours of the synagogue? If they can erre, then is it not true vvhich Christe sayed vvhoe heareth you heareth me, vnless you vvill say that Christe allso may erre in them and vvith them. But our heretiques vvill say that all the fathers are men. I graunte it but they are men directed by the holy ghost, and Christ vvas a man, and yet not only as God, but as man also, he could not erre; and the vvriters of scripture as Moyses, and Salomon, and the prophetes of the olde lavve, and the Apostles and Euange­listes in the nevv lavve, vvere men, and yet they erred not, nor could not erre, vnlesse vve vvill call scripture in question. But vvhere (saye they) read you, that the fa­thers haue the infallible affistaunce in ex­position of scripture? Vvhere I read that they are light, that they are salte, that they are pastours to vvhom vvhen vvee har­ken vve harken to Christ; Mat. [...]. Io. 21. Vvher I read that vve must doe vvhat they say, vvhere I read that the Church cā not erre vvhich must follovve her pastours, vvhere I read that the Church vvhich learneth all of her pastours, is a piller of truthe. 2. Tim. [...]. But some [Page 102]fathers haue erred. I graunte it, but neuer all aggreed in one errour together: neuer all the fathers of all ages, yea not all of one age (for to these also vve must har­ken) haue conspired in an vntrutrh. And I demaūde of our reformers. Vvhether they bee not men also? And I thinke they vvill not denye it. If they be men, I aske vvhe­ther they can not erre in expounding scri­pture? If they can then haue nether they nor others by them any assuraunce. If they can not erre bicause euery one of them hathe the spirit: Then say I, that more pro­bable it is that so many spirits of the fa­thers conspiring in one can not erre, then that noe particuler and priuate spirit can erre, especially seing that these priuate spi­rites are diuerse and contrarie, and vve haue noe more assuraunce of one then a­nother. Iudge novv (gentle reader) vvhe­ther that the Catholiques religion vvhich is conformable vnto the fathers and pa­stours of the Churche be the sincere chri­stian religion, or rather the religion of the heretiques, vvhich is aggreeable to noe common but only to a priuat spirit; espe­cially seing that vvee haue such vvarraunt for the common consent of fathers but non at all for the priuate spirit of euery priuate man. Novve let vs see in a vvord hovv by reiecting this infallible authori­tie [Page 103]of fathers, they leaue noe certain rule for exposition of scripture, and so open the gapp to all heretiques and heresies. For lay avvay fathers vvhich vvere in all ages counted the only pastours of the Church, the authoritie of Councells is nothing vvorth, for they consisted of fa­thers, the authoritie of the Church is of as litle esteeme, bicause she all vvayes belee­ued as her pastours did, yea she could not tell vvhat to beleeue but by their instru­ction: scripture therfor is only lefte and the priuate spirit, & seing those tvvoe ba­re authorities, as before is proued, open the gappe to all heresies, the denyall of the fathers authoritie must needs do the same. For suppose a nevv heretique, yea a deuill from hell in the likeness of a man, should preach a nevve heresie contrarie to all the heresies that euer vvhere, might he not alleage scripture for it, expounding it as he pleaseth? And if you demaund of him hovv he knovveth that he expoun­deth it aright, might he not say that his spirit telles him so? And if you alleage that all that euer taught before him vvere of another opinion, and gaue another expo­sition of scripture; might hee not say as ca­silie as Luther and Caluin do, that they vvere men & erred all the packe of them▪ And so if authoritie of fathers be reiected [Page 104]he or any other might say vvhat he vvould and noe man could controle him. Vvher­fore to conclude if vve giue eare vnto the ghospellers of this tyme vvho haue reiected, the authoritie of fathers & vvill consequently iudge all by scripture sensed by the priuate spirit, vve must harken to all heretiques, and open the gappe yea the dore to all false apostles, vvhoe can not vvithout manifest partialitie bee exclu­ded and repelled, if these men bee admit­ted.

IT is a common opinion amongest the ancient fathers and diuines, that our fay the being supernaturall, can not be de­monstrated by reason, as opinions of Phi­losophers may bee, bicause it aymeth at thinges a boue reason Philosophie, soa­res no higher then reason giues her lea­ue, and so in Christian religion vve ought more to rely on fayth and authoritie, then reason, and vve can not shevv our selues more reasonable, then to leaue of reasoning in thinges aboue reason. But all [Page 105]though it be so that vve can not proue our religion by reason, yet vve may set it forth vvith such testimonie of miracles, antiquitie, common cōsent, and such like motiues, as shall conuince a man of rea­son, that this religion inuolueth noe eui­dent absurditie against reason, but rather is very probable, and most credibly to be belceued. 2.2 [...] ar. [...] For although as sainct Thomas sayeth our religion be not euidētely true, yet is it euídenter credibilis, euidently credible, bicause though in it self it be obscure, yet hath it been so credibly deliuered vnto vs by credible signes and tokens, that no man can vith reason thinke it othervvise then very credible, if he vvell consider vvhat testimonies maye be alleaged for it, vvhich as Dauid sayed are credibilia nimis, Psal. [...]. [...]o to credible, that is so credible as vve cā not vvith reason desire greater testimonie for things aboue reason. In the beginning God cathechised man in this religion by Angells vvhom he sent, and by Patriar­ches & Prophetes vvhom he inspired, by vvhome he taught the people vvhat sa­cramentes to vse, vvhat sacrifices to offer, and other pointes of religion, such as then men vvere capable of. In the lavv vvritten he deliuered his vvill and meaning con­cerning lavv, and religion, and the cere­monies, and sacraments belonging ther [Page 106]vnto by his seruaunt Moyses, [...]u [...]d. [...]. to vvhome he appeared by an angell in thundering, and other such signes, and by vvhom he vvrougth in Aegipt, and in the desert so many miracles, for proofe and confirma­tion of this religion. After vvards in the lavv of grace and fullnes of tyme, and ty­me of spirituall plenty and ritches, as in more ample manner, so vvith greater te­stimonies and signes, this fayth vvas de­liuered vnto vs. For first our Sauiour proued his mission by all the ancient pro­phetes, vvho had fortold his coming, and the manner, of his coming, his office, the place and circunstances of his natiuitie, life, and death, vvhich all aggreing to him concluded him to be the Messias. Se­condly by infinite miracles he proued his authoritie & doctrine in so much that he sayed, [...]. 10. [...]. that the vvorkes vvhich he did, gaue testimonie of him, yea the Ievves confessed that he could not haue doone so straung thinges if he had not been of God. And seing that he vvrought these miracles to proue him selfe to be the Mes­sias, & his doctrine to be of God, it could not be othervvise, bicause as God can not deceue being prima verita [...], the first veritie, nor be deceiued being vvisdom it selfe, so cā he not giue testimonie of an vntruth by miracles, for so should he be bothe a [Page 107]lyer & a deceiuer. Act. 2. The apostles in like ma­ner, after that in Pentecost they had re­ceiued the holy ghoste in a visible forme and manner, receiued povver also to giue this holy spirit visibly to others, and to vvorke miracles also to proue their mis­sion, and doctrine; Mar. vi [...]. in so much that sainct Mark sayeth that they preached, and God confirmed, their doctrine by miracles, and si­gnes that follovved. Vvherfore allthough the doctrine vvhich they preached vvas out of reasons kenning, yet it vvas made euident by testimonie, and so vvas eui­dently credible, bicause if God can not giue testimonie to an vntruth, then in that he gaue testimonie by miracle of their doctrine, it must needs follovv that it vvas of God. Secondly the straunge con­quest vvhich the Apostles made of Idola­trie in despite of all the Philosophers and Tyraunts of the vvorld, and the miracu­louse planting of the Christian fayth, is an argument to proue our religion to be of God most pregnaunt, & a motiue to per­suade any reasonable man, most forcible. For as once the Israelites by making a procession about the vvalles of Hierico, Iosus [...]. and sounding of their trompetes (an vnlikely stratagem to surprise such a citie) dismant­led the tovvn & leueled the vvalles vvith the ground, so Christ Iesus by the circuit [Page 108]of a fevv Apostles and disciples about the vvorld, and by the blastes of their mou­thes, vvhich vvere the golden trompetes vvhich promulgated the nevv lavve, ran­saked the citie of idolatrie, vvhich then vvas as great all most as the vvorld, ma­de the Romain Empire subiect to Chri­stes Churche, and caused the Scepter to yeeld to Christes crosse, and made Philo­sophie as an handmayd, to serue and at­tend [...]ppō the fayth of Christe. A straun­ge conquest certes, vvhether you cōsider the vvarryers, or the manner of fight, or the force of the enemie, against vvhō they vvaged battayle. And as concerning the souldiours, good lord hovv vnlikely mē, to atcheue such a victorie? Vvarriers should bee men of force and strenght to make the assault, and to giue the onsett, to defend or offende: These vvere feeble fisher men. 1. Cor. 1. Infirma mundi elegit Deus: God chose the vveakelings of the vvorld. Vvarryers especially y ^e kīg or generall should haue ritches and treasures good store; bicause armies can nether be releeued, nor leuied vvithout mony, vv ^ch therfore is called, ner­uus belli, the sinevv or strēgth of vvarre: These mē vvere poore fishers vvho had no other treasur then ragged nettes, & their Gene­rall Christe Iesus, vvas as poore as they, li­uing on almes, & not hauing sometymes [Page 109]that vvhich vvolues and vvilde beastes haue, a chamber to lodge in. Lus [...]. Vvarriers especially if they be the leaders, must be of noble birth, and parentage, for sould­ious are hardly ledd by them vvho are ba­se, and not easilie commaunded by them, vvho are as meane in qualitie and condi­tion as them selues: These men vvere fis­her men the basest kinde of People, if vve beleeue Plutarche, that are to be found: vvho therfore by their trade are banished humain societie, and cōuerse more vvith fishes then men, and liue more on the vvater then on the lande: ignobilia & con­temptibilia huius mundi elegit Deus: 1. Cor. [...] God hath chosen the ignoble and cōtemptible of this vvorld. Vvarriers should be vvise and ingeniouse to lay plottes, to deuise stratagemes, and to vse force of vvit, vvher force of armes vvill not serue: These vvere simple Fish­ermen, neuer trayned vp in scholes, and more coning vvith a hooke, then vvith a booke: Stulta huius mundi elegit Deus: [...]. Cor. [...]. God chose the foolish of this vvorld. Souldiours should be many in nūber least the grosse troupes of the aduersarie terrifie them vvith the sight of the multitude: These vvere a small army, and a silly flocke, Luc. 1 [...]. only tvvelue Capitaines, the tvvelue Apostles, and 72. priuat souldiours I meane seauen­tie tvvo disciples. And yet these vveake­lings, [Page 110]vvere to vvrastle vvith the might of the Romain Empire, These poore beg­gers vvere to deale vvith them that had the vvelth of the vvorld, These base fis­hers vvere to cōtende vvith the nobilitie of the vvorld, These simple soules vvere to encounter vvith the Vvisest Philoso­phers; and these fevv vvaged battayle a­gainst all nationes vppon earthe, yea all the deuills in hell, vvho also opposed a­gainst them all their hellish forces. And as touching the manner of the fight, that made the victorie more incredible. For the enemies came vvith the florish of elo­quence, these vvith halfe barbarouse sim­plicitie, they came armed vvith povver, these vvith infirmitie in vvhich vertue is perfited, [...]. Cor. 1 [...]. they vvith pride, these vvith humilitie, they shot maledictions, the­se benedictions, They layed on blovves, these boare them patiētly, they cried, kill, kill, these cryed, suffer, suffer. A strange manner of fight, vvhere the souldiours ouercame, by putting vp iniuries, not by reuenging, by bearing not by giuing blo­vves, by laying the body open to the ene­myes vveapon, not by close vvarding or defending. But if these fevv souldiours so ill armed, might haue kept together, they had been more stronge, bicause for­ce vnited is greater then the same disper­sed; [Page 111]but these fevve souldiours diuided forces, and one man single vvent against a vvholle countrey, yea somety mes ma­ny Countries. Sainct Peter setts vppon Pontus, Bithinia, Galatia, and Rome it self, sainct Paule goeth against Illiricus, Cappadocia, Ciprus; sainct Iames the el­der encounters vvith all Spain: sainct Ia­mes the younger vvith Iurie; sainct Tho­mas vvith India, sainct Matthevv vvith Aethiopia; others vvith other countries, and in fine, thus they conquered the grea­test parte of the vvorld. Novve if vve con­sider in vvhat consisted the victorie it vvill yet appeare more admirable. This victo­rie consisted not in surprising of a citie, in vndermining a castle, in burning of vil­lages, in gayning of rauelings, in maymīg, and killing bodyes, but in extinguishing of idola [...]rie, in extirpating vice, in subde­vving mens vnderstanding, in ouercom­ming their vvilles, in curbing & bridling their affections, in planting a nevv religiō neuer hard of before, vvhich commaun­deth men to beleeue firmely thīgs aboue reason, and to obserue lavves contrarie to sensualitie, vice, and pleasure, vvhich by longe custome vvere become all most na­rurall vnto men. And to this they persua­ded not a fevv, but all the vvorld, nor foo­les but philosophers, such as Dionisius [Page 112]Areopagita, Iustinus martyr, and others vvere; not poore men but Kings, yea and Emperours, such as Philip, and Constan­tine vvere, and that in despite of all the ty­raunts in earth and maugre all the deuills in hell. Yea so firmely they persuaded m [...] vnto this nevv religion and nevv life, that thousandes by and by vvere ready to suf­fer all torments, rather then to deny the least article of this nevv beleefe. Let not any therfore obiect vnto vs that our reli­gion is obscure, and that it teacheth thin­ges aboue reason, for all though vvee can not by reason see the truthe, nor proue the truth of this religion, yet it can not but bee true and of God; bicause such men as the apostles vvere, to such as all thevvorld but they vvere (that is nusled and persua­ded in a contrarie religion) and after so straunge a manner, could neuer haue plā ­ted so hard a religion, and that in despite of the tyraunts in earth and deuills in hell, vnless God had seconded and assisted thē. Let not thē the A theiste of this godless ty­me, call in questiō the miracles of Christe and his saintes vvrought by them in con­firmation of this religion▪ and related in the scripture, and ecclesiasticall histories, as though they vvere but olde vviues ta­les vvhich they tell amongest their mayds spinning by the candle; Let them not say [Page 113]that neuer miracle vvas vvrought for this religion, by this they shall gaine no­thing, I vvil come vppon them vvith that of sainct Austine; that such a religion by such, and in such a māner should be plan­ted in the vvorld vvithout miracles, is the greatest miracle of all, and so in denying miracles, vvill they, nill they, they graunt a miracle. Deny if thou vvilt our miracles (for vvhich not vvith standing vve haue as good, & better histories, then thou hast for the Romain Emperours, Captaynes, legions, vvarres, and victories) thou canst not deny, but that a fevv fishermen, ob­scure, base, vnlearned, haue turned all the vvorld vpside dovvne, for this thou seest: Thou canst not deny but that the vvorld is dissuaded from idolatrie vnto Christian religion, from sensualitie to chastitie, from gluttony to fasting, from ritches to volun­tarie prouertie, from vsuall vice to vnac­quainted vertue, from the broad and easy vvay vvhich leadeth to perditiō, vnto the strayt and narrovv vvay vvhich tendeth to saluation. Thou canst not deny, but that men vnlearned, and impotent, haue done this, vvhome thou canst suspect ne­ther to haue vsed deceit, nor compulsion. Thou canst not deny, but that many Em­perours haue resisted these men, and yet they haue gottē the victorie. Let then this [Page 114]religion be neuer so repugnaunte to sence neuer so high aboue reason, I beleeue it is of God, I beleeue it is true, else by such men and after such a māner, it could neuer haue been persuaded. Hugo de 8. Ʋi [...]t. Yea I vvill boldly saye vvith a certain lerued man: Si error est (domine) à te decepti sumus: if this vvhich vve beleeue bee an errour, thou (ô lord) hast deceiued vs: But thou canst nether deceue nor be deceued, therfore vve are assured of our religiō. God therfore vvho hathe alvvayes deliuered fayth vnto vs so credibly, and in­duced vs vnto it so svvetly by probable meanes, yea by euident signes and testi­monies; if he hath permitted this fayth to decay or to lye hidden for many hundred yeares, or if corruption and errour in reli­gion, hath for longe tyme been taken for sincere religiō, then noe doubte by them by vvhom he restoreth this religion a­gayne, and deliuereth it in the former per­fection, by vvhom he reformeth these er­rours vvhich haue gone for truthes, he vvil giue vs probable & credible meanes, by vvhich like reasonable men, vve may be induced vnto this reformation. For if vve haue many hundred yeares by our for fathers beene taught that ther are seauen Sacramētes, that the sacrament of the Al­t [...]r is a sacrifice, and conteyneth Christes body and blood reallie, that ther is purga­torie, [Page 115]that vve haue free vvill, that good vvorkes are necessarie, that our euill vvorkes, are no vvorkes of God, that prayer to sainctes and reuerence done to them and their images is not superstition; thē noe doubt if God vvill haue vs to lea­ue of these old opinions, and to imbrace nevv, he vvill in so importaunt a matter as this is, vvhich toucheth saluation and damnation, vse probable and credible meanes to dissuade vs from our olde er­rours, least that seing noe reason vvhy vve should leaue them, vve persist still in thē, or least that vve expose our selues to dan­ger of imbracing nevv heresies, for old re­ligion, as easilie vve may, if vvithout any reason at all, vve vvill forsake that fayth in vvhich vve and our great graund fathers vvere baptised. For allthough fayth be a Theologicall vertue and therfore as diui­nes say cōsisteth not in a meane betvvixte tvvo extremes in respect of God, vvho is the obiecte (bicause he is prima veritas, vvhome vve can not credit to soone nor to much) yet in respect of vs, and the mea­nes by vvhich vve come to knovv God his authoritie, vve may exceed in belee­uing, and vve may be vvanting in beleef. They are deficient and to slovve in be­leeuing, vvho vvhen God his mynd and vvill is proposed by sufficient motiues, & [Page 116]tokens, yet vvill not giue credit. This vvas the fault of the Ievves vvho vvere so slovv and hard of beleef, that thoughe Christe by miracles and prophecies had proued him self to be the Messias and his doctrine to be of God, yet they vvould not beleeue him. This also vvas the faulte of the Apostles though not in so high a degree, vvhose eyes vvere so blinded vvith Christes passion, that all thoughe the stone of his sepulchre, Luc. 14. vvas remoued, and that the angell had affirmed that he vvas risen, yet they vvould not beleue it, vvho therfor vvere called tardi corde ad credendum slovve of hart to beleeue.. They are rashe and to hastie in beleeuing vvho beleeue vvith out sufficient reason or testimonie. Such vvere the Galathians vvho vvere to easi­ly caryed avvaie from that vvhich vvas preached vnto them. Gal. 1. Vvherfor the vvise man sayeth, Eccl. 19. that he is light of harte vvhoe beleeueth to quickly. And in deed if God vvould haue vs giue oure assent vvher vve se no reason nor testimony sufficient, he should first do vs great iniury, bicause it is the nature of our vnderstanding to be moued at least by probabilitie, or credi­bilitie. Secondly he should expose vs to daunger of errour, for he that vvill belee­ue vvhen no probabilitie moueth him, may easily fall into an errour. Vvherfor it [Page 117]may vvell be supposed for certayne, that God vvill not haue vs to beleeue any reli­gion, thoughe it be preached in his name, vnless vve haue some credibilitie or pro­babilitie to persuade vs ther vnto. If then our reformers vvould haue vs to beleeue that in these and these pointes vvee and our forfathers haue erred, and that hence­forth thus and thus vve are to beleeue; they must at leaste shevv vs probabilitie that vve haue beene deceiued, and that they are sent to put vs into the vvaye. For other vvise vve being for vvarned of false prophets and commaunded allso to hat­kē vnto our pastours, vve haue no reason to forsake our ancient religion and to im­brace nevv opinions, nor to leaue our an­cient pastours, and to ronne after straun­gers, vnless they can bring some proba­bilitie, yea and that greater then the old fathers can bring for that vvhich they haue taught vs. Tvvoe meanes only I finde vvhich a doctour or preacher can vse to persuade his auditours. The first is euident reason vvhich conuinceth the vn­derstanding of the hearer or scholler. And by this meanes our religion can not be proued, bicause reason can not reach vn­to mysteries of fayth vvhich are aboue reason. And so the reformers can not con­uince vs by reason that they are sent from [Page 118]God to reforme vs and that their doctrine is the veritie, bicause they teach many things aboue reason as vvell as vve do, to vvit the Trinitie, Incarnation, Resurre­ction, fayth, iustificatiō, and such like: yea as I shall proue herafter many thinges al­so against common sense and reason. not the firste, bicause they are aboue reason, not the second, bicause they are against reason. The second meanes to persuade is the authoritie of him vvho teacheth. This meanes Pithagoras is sayed to haue vsed in his schoole, A [...]l. Gel. l. 1. [...].9. vvho commaunded his schollers to silence for the space of tvvo yeares, all vvhich tyme, they might only harken, but not aske any questions: and for that tyme they vveare called [...] hearers. After vvards they might aske que­stions of their Master, but vvhen he had ansvverred they might aske noe reason, but must content them selues vvith his authoritie, and count it sufficient that [...] he sayed so. Novv, authoritie is vvonne ether by vvitt and learning, or by vertue, or antiquitie, or number, or office and dignitie. And the reason herof is, bi­cause vvise and learned men are likest to see farthest into matters, and so the more vvillingly vvee beleeue them; vertuouse men are dearest vnto God, and so vve are more easilie persuaded to thinke that God [Page 119]imparts his mynd vnto them most amply; Truth allso is the daughter of tyme, vv ^ch in tyme bringes the truth to light, and therfore vve are most prone to beleene olde men, to vvhome longe tyme brings great experience, and vvee vvell imagin that to bee true vvhich for a longe ty­me hath been holden for true; And bi­cause many men see more they one alone, vve count the voice of many men, the voice of God, and vve reuerence that for a veritie, vvhich most men haue auerred; Rom. 1 [...]. and lastly bicause all authori­tie is of God, and men in office are appoin­ted by him to gouerne, vve are ready to thinke that God especially directeth thē, vvho haue charge not only of them sel­ues but of others also, vvhich is the very cause vvhy vve vse to reuerēce superiours decrees, vnless vve see a manifest absurdi­tie in them. If then the reformers vvill ha­ue vs to forsake old pastours, and to har­ken vnto nevv, if they vvill haue vs abiu­re old religion and imbrace a nevv; let them shevv vs greater authoritie then that of the ancient fathers, else vve haue no reason to preferr them and their doctri­ne, before old doctours, and old religion. But this they can neuer doe, and so they can neuer bynde vs in reason to accept of their religion. For if vve compare them [Page 120]vvith the olde and ancient fathers in all the meanes alleaged, by vvhich credit and authoritie is gotten, vve shall finde them to come shorte by many furlongs in eue­ry one of thē. And first for vvitt and lear­ning I think nether Luther nor Caluine nor any of them all, vnless theyr faces be brasen, haue the face to compare vvith the ancient fathers. For they vvere Gregories, Austins, Ambroses, Basilles, Hieromes, Cirilles, and such like, vvho vvrote more then euer they read, and studied more then euer they loytered, and vvere in all literature so learned, that the reformers vvere scarse vvorthy to cary their bookes after them. And allthough Luther and Caluin vvanted not altogether learning, yet they came short of these men; And as for their follovvers vv ^ch vvere neuer tray­ned vp in our schooles, vvell may they prattle in Greeke, and florish in a fevve vayne latin phrases, yet solid learning ether in diuinitie or philosophie, they ha­ue not. Let the vniuersities of Oxford and Cambridge, of Basill and other places, let the confraternitie of Geneua, shevv vs a Bellarmine, Baronius, Molin, Suares, Vas­ques, Bannes, Gregorie of Valence, an Allene, Hatding, Bristovve, Gregory Mar­tin, Stapleton, if they can? Vvhat vvorkes haue they set out cōparable to the bookes [Page 121]of these Catholique vvriters? Let an in dif­ferent reader pervse the learnedest booke of these reformers, Ievvel. Plessis. & he shall see in them false allegations of fathers, corruptions of scriptures, fathers and councells, lyes, im­postures, affirmations vvithout proofes vvordes vvithout matter, & praeterea nihil, and nothing else. As for vertue, if they haue any modestie remayning, they vvil not (being guiltie of so vicious liues) make any comparison vvith the former fathers vvho by the common report of all vvere saintes; and their vvritinges, miracles al­mesdeedes, fastinges, austere penaunce, prayer, chastitie, mortification, contem­pte of the vvorld, and such like, vvill testi­fie no lesse. And althoughe they may ob­iect that many amōgest vs also haue liued viciously, yet vvee can giue thē herin a ma nifest differēce. For first, the first founders of our religiō vvere mē of great perfectiō, as the Apostles & their successours in the primitiue Churche, yea as the planters of religion in euery countrie vvere. l. 1. c. 23. & 26. Read sainct Bede and you shall see that the be­nedictines vvhome S. Gregorie sent in­to our country to recall vs from idolatrie, vvere Sainctes, & moued m [...]e the kinge by their holy cōuersatiō, thē by their prea­ching and miracles? And yet euen the first of these nevve families, the first preachers [Page 122]of this reformation, euen Luther and Cal­uin then selues, vvere notorious, and in­famous for euil life. Luther vvas an Apo­stata, he maried a Nonne, he liued beast­like, & dyed accordingly. for after a mer­ry and a moyst supper, he vvas found dead the next morning in his bedde, vvith his tongue hanging out. Caluin liued like an epicure serued his belly for his God, he vvas a man giuen to reuenge & puffed vp vvith pride, and ambition. True it is, hee caryed markes on his backe but not such as saint Paule caryed, but such as the mini­ster of iustice noted him vvith all for his abominable lethery, [...]lsec. in vita qius. & Gen. l. 4. an. Chri­sti [...]66. and as he liued so hee dyed, an Herodes death: bicause lise vvere his executioners. Secondly although ma­ny be badde amongest vs, yet I thinke, moe amongest them. Thirdly euill life amongest vs, is a fault of our ovvne per­uerse vvill and nature, but amongest them it is the frute of their doctrine, vvhich (as by many arguments I shall proue here­after) leadeth and induceth vnto all dis­honestie. In the seuenth booke. Lastly they vvhich amongest vs lead a viciouse life, are neuer amended by comming vnto you: vvhich experience hath taught, & proued in some loose Ca­tholiques, vvho partely for feare, partely for libertie, haue repayred vnto you. For they vvere soe farre from being reformed [Page 123]by you, that so long as they conuersed vvith you, they fell dayly from one vice to another, and neuer stayed, till they came to the depthe of iniquitie. And yet vve haue seē many vvilde Gallaūtes loose in life, and rioutouse in cōuersation, vvho after that they bee admitted into our Church ad societie, and instructed in our fayth and religion, do cast of all euil cu­stomes, become modest in behauiour, temperat, sober, and vvho before feared nether sinne, nor God, nor the deuill, vva­xe scrpulous, and fearfull of conscience, and vvho before could not spare one hal­fe hovver in a day for prayer, thīke novve vvholle dayes to short a tyme. Yea, you seem to giue good life vnto vs. For you vvill trust our vvord more then an obli­gation of one of your ovvn secte, and if you see a man milde, modest, chaste, tem­perate, giuē to prayer, fasting, almesdeeds vpright in all his actions, and exemplair in conuersation, you suspect him for a papi­ste. Yea vvhen our preests vvould the bet­ter escape your Pursiuauntes, they must fayne then selues in out vvard shevv and habit to be roistours ruffions and dissolu­te companions, as though vice vvere the badge of your religion. As for number vvee exceed them by many countries and ages in vvhich they neuer liued, and for [Page 114]one nevv minister vvee haue hundred [...] of ancient pastours and learned fathers, For antiquitie, although they fayne an in­uisible Church before Martin Luther, yet as I haue proued in the first chapter and shall again herafter, their preacher are vp startes, theyr doctrine is as younge and vvheras vve can shevv a succession of our religion and pastours for the space of sixteen hundred years euen from the A postles, they can deriue their pedegree noe higher, then from Martin Luther Lastly our doctours vvere pastours, and boare great offices in the Church of God and the first of them in our countrie and in euery countrie proued theyr authoritie by miracles, [...]. 31. and their successours proued the same by succession; but as yet the nevv preachers could neuer proue their authoritie and mission to bee ether extra­ordinarie, by miracles, or ordinarie, by succession, as is allready demonstrated in the first chapter. So that for learning, ver­tue, antiquitie, number, dignitie, by vv ^ch authoritie is gotten, vve and our religion, doe carye the bell avvaye. Vvhat reason then haue men to forsake Catholikes and their pastours, and preachers, to harken vnto these nevv prophets, vvho nether in learning, nor vertue, nor antiquitie, not number, nor dignitie, can make any iuste [Page 125]comparison vvith them? Suppose some one should be vvauering, and doubtfull [...] religion, and deliberating vvith him [...]olfe vvhether to follovve the olde fathers [...] nevv preachers, should make this dis­course vvith him selfe. I haue been bapti­aed, and brought vp in the Catholike re­ligion, and so vvere my fore fathers ty me out of mynd, but of late yeares some haue been so bold as to auouch that they vvere all deceiued and damned also vnless igno­ [...]unce excuse them, vvherfor seing that vvithout true fayth noe man can bee sa­ [...]ed, it is good that I looke into bothe the old and nevv religiō, to see vvhich by all reason I ought to imbrace. But before I giue eare vnto these Reformers vvhich say that they come to correct old errours, let me see vvhat probabilitie they bring for their pure and reformed religion. First I see they aggree not, and yet euery one sayeth that he teachethe the true fayth and reformed religion, and seing that one bringeth noe more authoritie then ano­ther, that is, scripture interpreted by his ovvn spirit, I see no reason vvhy I should giue credit more to one then to another, and therfor bicause I can not giue credit to all, I see no reason vvhy I should credit any of them all. Hier. [...]. Secondly I ame forvvar­ned that false propheres shall come vn­sent [Page 126]and yet auouche also that they are sent from God, and therfor vnlesse these men can say more for them selues then they cā, I see noe reason vvhich can byn­de me to giue eare vnto them. They saye they are sent from God. So vvill false pro­phets say. And I examining vvhat is their mission, finde therin a great defect: for ether it is an ordinarie mission; and then they must shevv a succession of pastours vvhose roomes they supply, vvhich I see they can not do, bicause noe historie ma­kes mention ether of their pastours or their seruice, or practise of their religion; or it is an extraordinarie by vvhich they are sent immediatly from Christ, and then they must proue it by miracles, else I must by the same reason harken vnto euery fal­se prophete. Nether doth it suffice to say that they preach no other doctrine then the Apostles did, and therfore need no other miracles then those vvhich vvere vvrought by them; for so euery archere­tique may saye, and you can not controle him, vnless you put him to his miracles. But they alleage scripture for their do­ctrine; so haue all heretiques doone as is shevved in the second chapter. But he­retiques expounded scriptures amiss, the­se men haue hitten vppon the right mea­ning. Hovv shall I knovv that? they say [Page 127]they haue the true spirit in interpreting of scripture. And hovv shall I, or hovv cā they [...]ell that, seing that nothing is so secret as is this spirit, as is proued in the third chapter? And did not Arius say that he interpreted scriptures by the true spirit, vvhen he alleaged them to proue that the sonne vvas a creature, & netherequall, nor coequall, nor consubstantiall, to his fa­ther? Yea do not all heretiques say so, doe not all the Reformers say so, euen vvhen they hold contrary opinions? I see noe reason therfore not so much as probable vvhy I should harken vnto these refor­mers, vnless I vvill harken allso vnto all the heretikes that euer vvere or shall bee. Much lesse can I see any reason vvhy to forsake my ancient pastours, vvho made me and my for fathers Christians, and to preferre these pretēded reformers before them. For as for learning they surpassed these reformers, and for vertu they excel­led, and so vvere more likely men to see into the sense of scripture, and veritie of religion, and vvere fitter instruments for God to vse, and vesselles more capable of God his spirit and reuelations. In antiqui­tie they are before thē by many hundred yeares, in number they are an hundred at least for one; for authoritie they vvere honourable Prelats, and Bishops of the [Page 128]Church, vvho proued their mission, com­mission, and authoritie by succession, yea and by miracles also; nether of vvhich proofes the reformers can alleag for their mission, and authoritie. Shall I then leaue such learned men for such young clat kes, so vertuouse men for so vicious, so ancient Pastours for so nevv & so late vp­startes, so many for so fevv, and men of such pastorall dignitie, for them that can not proue their commission, no more then a false prophet can doe? Surely I see no reason vvhy I should, and seing that God vvil not bynde me to giue credit to them that can bring no probabilitie, for their ovvn or their Doctours authoritie, I see not hovv vvith any shevv of iustice God can at the latter day condemne me, for not harkening vnto them; for I might ansvver vvith reason that I savv noe rea­son vvhy I should harken to them, rather thē to euery false prophet, much less vvhy I should forsake myne ancient religion for a nevv, and myne old & graue fathers for a fevv yonge ministers vvho vvere borne but yesterday. By this gentle rea­der thou mayest see hovv litle reason men of vnderstanding haue to giue credit vn­to the nevve religiō. But least I may seem to partiall or thou (gentle reader) mayst be to timorous in pronouncing the sen­tence, [Page 129]let the matter bee brought before an indifferent iudge, vvho is net her of the old, nor the nevv Religion. l. 1 [...]. A [...]. In Iose phus his historie I finde an example in the like case of controuersie. The Ievves (sayeth he) and the Samaritanes contended once about the place, vvher God should be vvorshipped; The Ievves sayed Hierusalē vvas the place; Deus. 19.4 Reg. 17.10.4. The Samaritanes vvould haue it to be y ^e mount Garizim. The mat­ter vvas brought before a Pagan king, yet a discreet and indifferent Iudge: Prolo­quutours vvere appointed on bother sides to plead the cause, Sabeus, and Theodo­sius for the Samaritanes, Andronicus for the Ievves. Andronicus had leaue graun­ted to speake first; vvho recounteth a suc­cession of the high precstes frō Aaron vn­to his tyme, all vvhich tyme the Ievves vvere counted the true vvorshippers of God; he declareth the Antiquitie of the Temple of Hierusalem, and of the sacri­fices there offered; hee telleth hovv that place vvas euer taken for the true place of vvorship, and that therfore it vvas ador­ned and enriched not only by the guifts of their ovvne kinges, but of straungers also, & hamely by the kinges of Asia, and that ther vvas neuer doubt of this, till the Samaritanes made a schisme. After that Andronicus had tolde this tale, the pro­loquutours [Page 130]of the Samaritanes beganne to speake; but being demaūded to shovv the like antiquitie and succession they could not, but rather vvere enforced to bevvray their infancie, and the reuolte vvhich longe after that God had beene vvorshipped in Hierusalem, they made from the Ievves. Vvherfore the king pro­nounceth sentence for the Ievves, and de­clareth them to be the right vvorshippers & the Temple to be y ^e right place vvhere the Ievvish religion vvas to be exercised. If in like manner before the like Iudge, I for the ancient Catholique religion, and some one of the ministerie for the nevv religion vvere appointed proloquutours, for vvhom, thinkest thou (gentle reader) vvould the sentence be pronounced? If I should beginne to shevv a succession of our pastours and religion, by all histories and monuments euen from the Apostles▪ Iren. l. [...]. c. 3. If I should shevve a catalogue out of Ire­neus of all the Popes from sainct Peter to Eleutherius, l. [...] cont. Do­natist. Epist. 16 [...]. out of Optatus vnto Da­masus, out of sainct Austin vnto Ana­stasius, out of Eusebius, Genebrard and others, euen vnto these dayes, and that in this succession by noe Historiographer vvas euer noted any chaunge, or falle in Church, or religion? If I should proue out of the same histories that this ancient [Page 131]catholike Church vvas that vvhich vvas persequuted by the euill Emperours, and aftervvards enriched by Constantine and other good Kings and princes; that for this Church, Churches and monasteries vvere builded, that in this Church all the generall Councells vvere holden; that by this Church all heretikes vvere condem­ned; that this Church vvas euen by paga­nes counted the only christiane Church, that all anciēt fathers, doctours Martyres, & Saintes, vvere mēbers of this Church; should I not incline the Iudge to my par­te? If vvhen I had doone, some one of the Ministery should rise vp and beginne to tell his tale and saye that all the ancient Christians vvere deceiued and liued in errour and ignoraunce vntill that Luther, or Zuinglius, or Caluin, like so many son­nes appeared in our horizont, that the re­ligion of these men, is the reformed reli­gion thoughe it vvas neuer hard of befo­re. And if being by me demaunded hovv their preachers proued their mission, he could alleage no proofe at all; or being as­ked hovve they proued their religion he should ansvvere, by scripture sensed by his priuate spirit, vvhich allvvayes hath been the proofe of all heresies; and being commaunded by the Iudge to shevv (if their Church bee Christian) a succession [Page 132]of their bishopes preachers, and practise of religion; he should fly vnto an inui­sible Churche, or saye that the Chur­che Christian decayed quite after the Apostles tyme, and yet could nether tell the tyme, nor the occasion of so no­toriouse a fall, nor alleage one historio­grapher that vvriteth of so great a muta­tion in the vvorld; If I should tell y ^e first tale, and he the second (for I see not vvhat better ansvvere hee can make) for him selfe; thinkes not thou (gentle reader) that the iudge vvould ansvvere, that although hee beleeued not at all in Christe or his religion, yet that it seemed most proba­ble that Catholikes are the true Christia­nes, and that their Churche is the place of the practise of this religion, as the Tē ­ple of Hierusalem vvas of the Ievvishe seruice and vvorship of God. If thē there be no probable reason by vvhich these Reformers can persuade vs to their refor­matiō, there is noe reasō vvhy vve should forsake our ancient pastours to follovv them, vnless vve vvil byndeour selues also to harken vnto all false prophetes, preach they neuer so absurde & improbable do­ctrine, and so open the gappe, vnto all he­retikes and heresies.

AS yet ther vvas neuer seen any so­cietie vvell ordered, vvere it great or litle, but some gouernour or moderato­ur ruled and menaged the same. for many men as they haue many heades, so haue they diuers opinions and as they are of different complexions and constitutions, so are they of diuerse conceipts and incli­nations, and therfor vvill neuer aggree in one, vnless they be directed and comman­ded by one, or at least by diuerse vvhich aggree in one. Vvherfore vve see that e­very kingdom hath his king, euery duke­dome a duke, euery common vvelth a magistrate, euery Citie a Maiour or Baily, euery army a Generall, yea euery village allmoste hathe a constable, euery familie a good man of the hovvse, euery schole a scholemaister. And shall not the Chur­ch of god, the societie of his faythfull and chosen seruauntes, haue a visible head to direct it, and a Iudge to rule it by lavves, and gouern it by authoritie? Or shall vve think that he hath left that societie vv ^ch hee calleth his spouse, & vvhich he loued [Page 134]so dearly that he dyed for it, as a king­dom vvith out a kinge, a Citie vvith out a maiour, an army vvith out a Generall, a shipp vvith out a Pilot, a fold vvith out a pastour or a body vvith out a head? No no, I vvarraunt you, he that descended from heauen to earth to establish this spi­ritual kingdome, and shedd his blood to enrich it, hath vvell prouided for the go­uernment of the same, and so vvell, that therby you shall perceiue the skill and vvisdome of the Gouernour. And truly if by the effect vve may take a scantling of the cause, the good ly order, the firme pea­ce, and longe continuance of the Church, vvill beare vvitnesse of a most prudent princes gouuernement For as diuerse sto­nes in a building could neuer haue kept that order as to make a goodly pallace, had not some intelligent vvorkeman dis­posed them, so this goodly order & Hie­rarchie in the Church could neuer haue beene established, had not some prince and gouuernour put euery subiect in his roome and place. And as many stringes or voices can neuer make one musicall har­monie, vnless some coning musician tune the stringes, and giue vnto euery voice his tone, so shall many people of diuerse, dispositions, nations, sexes conditions, (such as are in the Church) neuer liue in [Page 135]peace, free from iarres & discords vnless ther be a Superiour to tune these diuer­se natures, & a head to direct these diuer­se membres of the body of the Church. And as the Sheep vvhich vvant a Shep heard can not longe keep together, but are like to vvander and to come in daun­ger of the vvolfe; as an armie can not lon­ge vvithstand the enemie, vnless some Generall appoint, and commannud euery souldiour to his standing; and as the Ship­pe, is neuer any longe tyme free from sandes or rockes, vvhen the mariner is ab­sent: so could neuer the Church of Christ, especially against so many violent perse­quutions, for so longe a tyme, haue endu­red, vnless some potent and prudent gou­uernour, by his lavves, vvisdome, and au­thoritie, had vpholden, guided, and di­rected it. And y ^e reason is, bicause in a so­cietie and especially that of the Church, are diuerse men, yea diuerse nations, and diuerse men haue diuerse natures, and di­uerses natures, haue diuerse dispositions, and diuerse dispositions cause diuerse opinions, and diuerse opinions moue cō ­tradictions, and contradictions ende in factions, and factions make an end of all societies, vnlesse ther be a moderatour to preuent them by his vvisdom, or appease them by his authoritie. A head then is ne­cessary [Page 136]in all societies, and not only ne­cessary, but also principalle. For although the obedient & complying nature of the subiect doth help much to the mainte­naunce of peace and order, yet the head and Superiour most of all preuaileth. For as the head is the principall part, so doth it beare most svvay in the gouernment of the body; vvich is the cause vvhy the bo­dy is affected according to the head, and vvhy the subiect follovveth the princes humour. Yea euen as vvhen the head in mans body is intoxicated the vvholle bo­dy reeleth, and if the head vvant eyes the body tumbleth into ditches, and falleth into daunger; so if the head of a societie be inconstaunte, the vvholle societie vva­uereth, if the superiour vvant eyes of cir­cumspection, the subiectes are in daun­ger. Vvherfore Philip King of Macedo and father to Alexander the great, vvas vvonte to say, that he had rather haue an armie of fearfull harts gouerned by a Lion, then of lions ruled and commaun­ded by a harte: insinuating ther by, that as the head in a societie is the principall mē ­ber, so is it the most necessary. If then the Church of Christe be a peaceble, and vvell ordered body, it hath a head to gui­de and rule it. And if vve looke into the gouernment of the same euen from the [Page 137]beginning, vve shall finde that this good­ly common vvelth neuer vvanted a Prin­ce and gouernour. In the lavve of nature first of all Adam our first parent, as he vvas our common father according vnto flesh, so vvas he a preest and pastour of the sou­les of all those vvhoe liued in his tyme, and a gouernour of his familie vvhich vvas descended of him, not only in do­mesticall, ciuill, or temporall, but allso in spirituall matters concerning fayth and religion. For this cause he vvas indevved vvith all knovvledg and science, that as the first doctour he might instruct and di­rect his posteritie; and although by his falle, he lost all infused knovvledg, yet did he still so longe as he liued, remain pa­stour and supreme head of the Church. Vvherfore Theophilus Bishop of An­tioche sayeth, l. 2. ad. Autol. ‘that God for no other cause framed Eue out of Adams side but to de­monstrate vnto vs a mysterie and figure of the monarchie of his Church: that as Adam vvas head of the same in his tyme, so euer after ther vvas one pastour the cheef of all.’ Ho 34.1. Cor. And sainct Chrisostom sayeth plainly that Adam vvas one head giuen vnto all; and his reason is bicause (sayeth hee) God Knevv, that aemulation could not be auoided amongest aequalls, vvherfor he vvould haue no popular gouernment but a kingdom. Af­ter [Page 138]Adams death, Seth and others succee­ded him in the like pastorall authoritie euen vnto Noe. Noe dying, Sem his el­dest sonne vndertooke the same charge; and euen vnto Aaron the first high preest of the Leuiticall lavve, all the heires males of euery familie (if vve beleeue sainct Hierom) vvere preests, q. heb. q. 7. vvho ministred sacramentes and offered sacrifices euery one in his familie. And amongest all the preests of diuers families, one vvas the su­preme pastour and Iudge of the rest to vvhom belonged the finall sentence in matters of religion; and this supreme au­thoritie as it seemeth belonged allvvayes vnto the most ancient, to vvhom all the rest as they vvere in age inferiour so vvere they subiect in authoritie. As for example Abrahame and Sem, vvere preests at one tyme, bicause Abraham vvas the eldest sonne of Thare, Sem of Noe, yet bicause Sem vvas the moste ancient, he vvas the higher preest, Gen. 11. and therfore to him (for the Hebrevves as sainct Hierom vvitnes­seth, affirm that Sem and Melchisedech vvere all one) Abraham offered tithes and vvas blessed of him as of his supe­riour. Yea it seemeth probable that Mel­chisedech in his tyme vvas y ^e highe preest and supreme head of the Church. Vvher­for Theophilus speakig of Melchisedech, Supra. [Page 139]vttereth these vvords [...]. This man vvas a preest the first of all the preestes of God the highest. Vvhere he can not mean that Mel­chisedech vvas the first in tyme & yeares, bicause Adam, Abel and Noe vvere be­fore him, and therfore his meaning must bee that Melchisedech vvas the first preest in dignitie, & the highest of all the preests of his tyme. So that euen in the lavv of nature, that is from Adam to Moyses, ther vvas allvvayes an highe preest to rule the Church, and to compose controuer­sies, that might arise in matters of religiō. After that, in the lavve vvriten the high preest ruled all in ecclesiasticall affayres as is playn in the books of Exodus and Le­uiticus. In Exodus vve read hovv Moyses like a spirituall Iudge giueth sentence in causes ecclesiasticall and ansvvereth all doubtes and questions vvhich arose con­cerning the obseruation and interpreta­tion of the lavv, Exod. 1 [...]. and although to ease him selfe he vvas persuaded to lay part of his charge & burden vppō others shoulders, yet still he reserueth to him selfe the iudg­ment of all marters concerning the lavv and ceremonies. c. 17. And in Deuteronomie vve finde that the people vvere commaū ­ded in all difficulties of religion to haue recourse vnto the preest of the Leuiticall [Page 140]lavv vvho ruled at that tyme, and God threatneth that if any bee so proud and stubborn as to refuse to obey his senten­ce, he shall suffer death by the decree of the Iudge. Vvhere a blind man may see that the synagogue had her Iudge to de­cide all cōtrouersies in religion. And shall vve imagin that the Church and spouse of Christe, vvanteth a head to direct her, and a Iudg to giue her satisfaction in all doubts of religion? No, no, in the lavve of grace, as God hath bestovved more grace on his Church then on his Synagogue, so hathe he prouided her of a Iudge and gouernour, vvhom for his Churches sake he assisteth more particulerly. And first of all Christe him selfe vvhilest he liued gouerned this Church him selfe, and in all points played y ^e parte of a supreme head, high preest, and pastour. For he instituted a nevv lavv, a nevv sacrifice, & nevv sacra­mentes, he ordayned preestes and mini­sters and gaue them authoritie to preach, & to minister, and to gouern in the Chur­che, vnder him. And after that he had vvithdravven his visible presence from vs, he lefte vs not vvith out an vnder-pa­stour, but presently after his resurrection, he appointed saint Peter his vice-gerent in earth, that still the Churche might haue a visible iudge to vvhom she might re­payer [Page 141]in all her difficulties. Io. 21. For after his resurrection he appeareth to his Apostles and singling out sainct Peter from the rest, he demaundeth of him three tymes not only vvhether he loued him, but also vvhether more then the rest; and finding in deed that he did so, and that conse­quētly he vvas the fittest (for the cheefest thing in a pastour is loue) he maketh choi­se of him before the rest, and comitetth vnto him the charge of his sheep, in so ample manner, that he excepteth none, but giueth him authoritie ouer all both lambes and sheepe, that is lesser and grea­ter Christianes, euen Apostles & Bishops, vvho all must acknovvledge Peter for their pastour, if they vvill be the sheep of Christ. For as sainct Bernard noteth, l. de consid. vvhe­re ther is no distinction, there is no exce­ption. And seing that after sainct Peters death the Church hath noe lesse need of a visible pastour, then before it had, as Christe left him for his vicegerent, soe in him did he appoint a cōtinuall succession of his successours, that the Church might allvvayes be prouided of a visible pa­stour. And therfore as bishops are the suc­cessours of the other Apostles, so some one must succeed sainct Peter and must haue that superioritie ouer other Bi­shops, vvhich sainct Peter had ouer the [Page 142]Apostles. And truly to omitt other proo­fes, noe man more likely to be this man then the Bishop of Rome. For in the Sea of Rome saint Peter did last of all reside, there he dyed, and there, before his death he appointed Clemens, vvho refusing, Li­nus succeeded, and after him Cletus, after him Anacletus, after him Clemens, and so forth euen vnto Clemēt the eight vvho novv in Rome residing, ruleth the Chur­che not only of Rome but of all the chri­stian vvorld. Vverfore the Bishops of this Sea vvere euer called the vicars of Christ and successours of sainct Peter, they haue euer called generall Councells and con­firmed the same, they made generall la­vves to vvhich all bishopsyea all Chri­stians acknovvledged themselues bounde and obliged; they haue excommunicated Bishops and Emperours vvhersoeuer they liued, thinking none that are Chri­stianes to bee out of their iurisdiction, they haue taken appellations from all par­tes, and shevved them selues in all these actiōs supreme pastours not of Rome on­ly, but of all the vvorld, and yet vvere ne­uer counted vsurpers; and therfore sithen­ce that saint Peter must haue a successour, and that needs ther must be one visible Iudge vnder Christe, to vvhom in all dou­btes vve must repayr, the Pope of Rome [Page 143]is likest to be hee, or else if any one be more like, then let the aduersarie name him. And if they name any other but him, I vvill auouch that the Church hathe been vvithout an head these 1600. yeares, for all this vvhile neuer any executed that of­fice but hee. S. Hierom I ame suer tooke the Bishop of Rome to be the man, for he in a doubte and controuersie of the highe mystery of the Trinity flyeth vnto Damasus Bishop of Rome, Epistol [...] ad Dam. not that he vvas learneder then sainct Hierom, but bicause he Knevv that for sainct Peter & consequently for his successours Christe prayed that he might not erre, Luc. 22. but rather confirm his bretheru. A pastore (sayeth he) praesidium ouis flagito: Of my pastour I demaund the helpe devv to a sheep. Novv then let our nevv Christianes, if they be the Church of Christ, vvhich euer had a visible head, tell vs vvho is their supreme Iudge, and pa­stour? They vvill saye peradue [...]tur that Christ him self is their Iudge and pastour, and that they need no other, bicause as he planted his Church, so still he ruleth the same. But this shifte vvill not serue the turne; for Christe novve conuerseth not visibly amongest vs, and so beside him, the visible Church must haue a visible head, as hether to she hath euerhad. And altoughe Christe still remayneth our highe preest, Io. 10. [Page 144]doctour, and pastour, yet he offerreth not sacrifices immediatly but only by his vnderpreestes, nether doth he teach vs by his ovvne voice, Ephes 4. or reuelations, but by doctours vvhom Sainct Paule sayeth hee hath appointed; nether doth he feed vs by his ovvne hand but by the hande of inferiour pastours, vvho minister his Sa­cramentes vnto vs, and deliuer his vvorde in the true meaning, by vvhich the soule liueth. Mat. 4. Vvherfore besids him the Church being a visible body, must haue a visible head, else vve may say of it, as once Epaminondas sayed of a great armie vv ^ch vvanted a Generall, Video pulcherimam be­stiam, sed sine capite: I see a very fayre beast but vvithout a head. And the reason herof is bicause a head and Iudge in the Church is necessary to decide controuersies in reli­gion vvhich arise all most euery age, yea [...]ome tymes often tymes, in the same age. sith then vve can not novv haue accesse to Christ, beside him vve must haue a vi­sible Iudge. vvhich Christe him selfe vvell knovveing, presently after he had left vs, appointed S. Peter as his vicegerent, as is all ready proued. I demaund then of all the professours of this nevv religion, espe­cially of them in Ingland, vvho is their Iudge in controuerlies of religion? They can not say that Scripture is this Iudge, [Page 145]bicause scripture is but a vvrittē lavv vv ^ch can not speak, nor interpret her selfe, and therfore if the controuersie bee vvhich is scripture or vvhat is the meaning of it, scripture can giue noe sentēce; yea I haue demonstrated in the second Chapter that bare scripture is no sufficient Iudge in any matter of religion. Supr [...]. They can not alleage the spirit to bee this Iudge, as is euidently proued in the third Chapter: nether vvill they confess that the Pope, fathers, or co­uncels are this Iudge, and if they vvould, all they vvould condemne them, as is de­clared in the fourth Chapter. Peraduentu­re they vvil be Iudged by their founders, Luther, Caluin, and such others. But first these aggreed not, nether one vvith ano­ther, nether vvith them selues: for vvhat one affirmeth another denyeth, and vvhat one of them taught one yeare, he corre­cted the next. but and if they had aggreed yet vvere they no sufficient Iudges bicau­se they can not proue their mission, as is proued in the first Chapter and so are not to be admitted for lavvfull Iudges, vnles­se vve vvill admitt also all false prophets. Vvho thē is this Iudge to vvhom in con­trouersies they repayr, and by vvhose iud­gement they square out theyr religion? They vvil say perc [...]nce that the Prince is this Iudge. But this is as vnlikely, and as [Page 146]flatte against scripture and practise of the Churche as any thing can be. And al­though her Maiestie of late memorie and her Father before her, did chaleng as devv vnto them authoritie in cause Eccle­siasticall, of vvhich I dispute not at this ty­me, yet I am sure they vvould not enter­meddle in matters of religion to giue sen­tence vvhat is the meaning of scripture, vvhich bookes are canonicall, and vvhat opinions are hereticall and contrary vnto god his vvord, no more then they vvould entermedle in ministring of Sacramēts or preachīg of Gods vvord. For they knevve full vvell vvhat Iosaphat that good king sayed, [...] par. 19. to vvit, that Amarias the high preest vvas to rule in matters of religion, and Captain Zabadias to menage matters belonging to the Kings office. And ozias may be a sufficient example vnto all prin­ces, [...] par. 26. vvho vvas stricken vvith a leprie for vsurping the preests office in incensing. Vve read in deed that Christ commaun­ded Saint Peter to feed his sheepe and to gouerne his Church, Io. 21. Act. 2 [...]. Ephes 4. preests also and pa­stours haue the same charge committed vnto them: yea the prophet Isaie sayeth that Princes are Nurces, furtherers, and fauourers and defenders of the Church, Is. 49.38.60. but he neuer calles them rulers of the Church, nor Iudges in religion. Vvher­fore [Page 147]saint Ambrose Bishop of Milā vvri­ting to his sister sayeth that he told Valen­tinian the Emperour vvhat belonged to his office in these vvordles: Ep. 13. ‘ Trouble not they self, O Emperour, as to thinke that thou hast any Imperiall right to meddle in diuine matters. Ex­tolle not they felf, but if thou vvilt raygne longe, be thou subiect to god. It is vvriten giue to god vvhich is belonging to god, and to Caesar vvhich belongeth to Caesar. Vnto the Emperour pallaces appertain, vnto the preest Churches. The charge of the publique vvalles is commited to thee, but not of sacred and holy things.’ A sentence vvorthy to be set in a tablet of gold, and to hange about a Princes neck. And truly if Princes vvere Iudges of religion vve must chaunge religion at their pleasures, and so vve should haue allmost as many religions as Princes. Much lesse can the parlament be Iudge in religion for that cōsisteth of temporall men, and although in Englād the lordes spirituall are ioyned vvith the temporall, yet are they all ruled by the prince. And vvher I pray you doth scripture vvarraunt vs that the parlament is our Iudge in matters of religion? yea vve see that parlamentes varye in religion, and so they can giue noe certain sentence for religion. In Fraunce the Parlament is Catholike and is content to be subiect to the Pope, and in no vvise vvill meddle [Page 148]vvith matters of religion. In King Hen­ries tyme the eight of that name, the parla­ment enacted six Catholike articles. In King Edvvards tyme the parlament allo­vved of another religion, in Queen Ma­ries tyme of another, and in Queen Eli­zabethes tyme of another. If then the sa­me man had liued in all these princes tyme (as many haue doone) then if the Parla­ment be Iudge he must in cōscience thou­ghe religion be but one haue chaunged fovvre tymes his religiō, else had he been fovvre tymes an heretike and as often: traytour. Yea I thinke if the parlament vvere demaunded to define vvhich boo­kes of scripture are canonicall, and vvhich is the true meaning, they vvould ansvvere that such matters belonge not vnto them. But they vvill ansvver that the parlament is Iudge vvhen it is conformable to scri­pture, as it is at this present, but vvas not in Queen Maries tyme. Thus they may ansvver but vvith hovve litle reason, it vvill easily appeare. For ether the parla­ment precisely, or the parlamēt aggreeing vvith scripture is this Iudge? If they graūt me the first, then must vve in conscience chaunge religion as often as the parlamēt chaungeth decrees; If they graunt only the second, then is the parlament noe in­fallible Iudge, yea no Iudge at all; for yet [Page 149]vve must haue a Iudge to Iudge the parla­ment and to determine vvhen the parla­ment follovveth the vvord of God, else shall vve neuer be satisfyed. And vvho I pray you is this Iudge? Novve I see not vvhom they can name, vnless it be my lord of Canterbury, or the ministerie of England, or of all countries vvhere their religion florisheth. But then I demaund of them, first vvhere they read in Scriptu­re that their Clergie is an infallible Iudge in matters of religion? They vvill say that the scripture commaundes vs to giue cre­dit to our pastours. True, but if I deny that they are true pastours, they can not proue them selues to be soe, bicause they can not proue their mission, as in the first chapter is proued most euidently. Secondly the Clergie of England since King Henry the eight, hathe chaunged religion diuers tymes, and this nevve Clergie vvas neuer yet constant in fayth for one vvholle year together, yea they aggree not amongest them selues, and so can be no assured and infallible Iudge. Thirdly ether the Cler­gie of England is Iudge in matters of re­ligion, bicause it is the Clergie of Englād, or bicause it is the Clergie of a vvholle countrie, or bicause it conspireth vvith the vniuersall Clergie of their religion. If they graunt me the first, then doth it fol­vvith [Page 148] [...] [Page 149]vve must haue a Iudge to Iudge the parla­ment and to determine vvhen the parla­ment follovveth the vvord of God, else shall vve neuer be satisfyed. And vvho I pray you is this Iudge? Novve I see not vvhom they can name, vnless it be my lord of Canterbury, or the ministerie of England, or of all countries vvhere their religion florisheth. But then I demaund of them, first vvhere they read in Scriptu­re that their Clergie is an infallible Iudge in matters of religion? They vvill say that the scripture commaundes vs to giue cre­dit to our pastours. True, but if I deny that they are true pastours, they can not proue them selues to be soe, bicause they can not proue their mission, as in the first chapter is proued most euidently. Secondly the Clergie of England since King Henry the eight, hathe chaunged religion diuers tymes, and this nevve Clergie vvas neuer yet constant in fayth for one vvholle year together, yea they aggree not amongest them selues, and so can be no assured and infallible Iudge. Thirdly ether the Cler­gie of. England is Iudge in matters of re­ligion, bicause it is the Clergie of Englād, or bicause it is the Clergie of a vvholle countrie, or bicause it conspireth vvith the vniuersall Clergie of their religion. If they graunt me the first, then doth it fol­lovv [Page 150]that only the Clergie of England is this Iudge, and so all other countries must be subiecte to the Inglish Clergie, to vv ^ch they vvill neuer aggree. If they graunte the secōd, then euery Clergie of a vvholle countrie is iudge, and so vve shall haue as many religions al most as countries: and although the nevv Clergies of Ingland, Germany, Scotland, Holland, Geneue, are cōtrarie the one to the other, yet the peo­ple of euery country must acknovvlege them as Iudges in religion, and so must imbrace cōtrarie opinions. If they graunt the third, I must desire them to aggree all amongest themselues, before vve stande to their iudgement; for if this nevv Cler­gie be deuided into many sects, as all the vvorld seeth that it is, then seing that vve haue noe more assuraunce of one Secte, then another, vve may refuse to be iudged by any of them, especially they them sel­ues refusing to be iudged by one a nother. Yea not all this nevv Clergie, nor any sect of the same can proue their mission, and therfore are not to be admitted for true pastours and iudges in religion vnless vve vvill receiue all false prophets also & false Apostles. Is ther no iudge then nether in Ingland nor in all the nevv Church of the ghospellers? If ther be, let them name him, if they can; if ther be none, as it seemeth [Page 151]that ther is not (for I haue named and te­iected by good reason all vvhom I thinke they can name) then is not their Churche the Churche of Christ, in vvhich, as is be­fore proued, is alvvayes resident a visible iudge to compose controuersies: yea then the Churche (vvhich as I shall proue in the next booke is a peaceble kingdom) shall be a commō vvelth the vvorst proui­ded for that euer vvas; it shall be a body vvithout a head, a kingdom vvithout a king or Prince to commaund, a conuen­ticle of vvranglers, the vvorst ordered and the most dissētious societie that euer vvas; to be breef, the Church militaunt in earth, shall more resemble that mutinouse route of the damned in hell then the peaceable societie of the Church triumphant in hea­uen: yea then shall that follovv vvhich I intented to proue, to vvit, that in the nevv Churche of the ghospellers, there are noe meanes to compose & determine cōtro­uersies, bicause vvhere there is no visible Iudge, there euery man may beleeue and preach vvhat he lift, and no man can con­trolle him, and if diuers preach contrarie doctrine, they may go together by the eares and noe man shall be to part the fra­ye, bicause ther is noe iudge to take vp the matter betvvixte them; and so the gappe is open to all false prophetes vvhose do­ctrine [Page 152]must goe for currant be it neuer so absurd, bicause ther is no Iudge to giue sentence of the truthe or falshood of the same. And to make the matter more plai­ne, suppose that novv in Ingland some nevv preacher should preach a nevv here­sie, yea that many at once should preach contrary opinions, and so fall together by the eares: ther vvould be no meanes to compose these controuersies bicause ther is no Iudge to take vp the matter, nether is ther any vvay to preuent them, bicause vvher there is no Iudge to define, euery man may teach vvhat he list, and vvhere euery one may teach vvhat he vvill, there arise iarres, and discords, and vvhere no meanes are to appease them, the societie is ruined: [...]. 11. Bicause euery kingdom diuided vvith in it selfe, shall be made desolate. But in this case peraduenture they vvould call a Prouin­ciall or generall Councel, and so compose matters by common cōsent. Bee it so that they could call such a councell, and could also, all, or the most parte aggree, yet I see not hovve vve are vvarrāted to assure our selues that they all can not erre, and that therfore vve may rely vppon their senten­ce; for if they say that vve are vvaranted bicause they are the true pastours, I cā tell them that this is not so sure, bicause they can not proue their mission, & I demaund [Page 153]of them vvhether the Catholike Clergie, vvhich is farre greater and vvhich for fi­fteen hundred yeares before Luther vvas hard of, vvas counted the only Clergie, may not haue their voice, and if they may, certainly their voice vvil be nega­tiue and opposit to their affirmatiue. But this is spoken vppon supposition, that they could calle a councell and aggree al­so in the same, for I haue good cause to doubte that they nether can call a coun­cell nor aggree in a councell. For if ther bee no visible supreme Iudge nor Pastour in their Church, as I haue proued that ther is not vvho should calle this councell & sūmone all the Clergie to appear? Lut l cont. [...] Calu. [...]i [...]. Inst. 6.7. Lu­ther and Caluin say that this belongeth to the Emperour: but seing that this is an Ecclesiasticall office concerning religion, it can not appertain vnto a temporall Prince, and novv that the Emperour is a Catholike and a Papist as they terme him, I thinke they vvould not obey him if he should summone them to apeare, especi­ally bicause he vvould call Catholike bis­hops & vvould giue the preeminence to them. But I haue proued all ready that the Emperour though in the name of the Pope as an assistaūte, he may by the Chur­ches permission call a councell, yet of him selfe he can not meddle in spirituall mat­ters. [Page 154] Act. [...]. Vvherfore the Councell vvhich the Apostles called vvas, called vvithout the Emperours authoritie, vvhere thē there is noe Suprem Pastour (as I haue proued that amongest them is none) vvhosoeuer should take vppon him to call a councell, should vsurpe, and the others might refu­se to obey his calle. Peraduenture they vvould choose one by common consent, and so vvould all stande to his arbitermēt. But in this also is difficultie, for vvhere ther is none to commaund, vvho shall call them together to aggree in the election of this one man? Yet let vs suppose that they should meet by chaunce, as crovves do in the Pease-feeld; vvhen they are met, it is not so easie to aggree vppon one, & vvhen they haue aggreed, it is not so easie to ag­gree vnto his sentence. For if he prono­unce sentence for the Protestaunte, the Puritane vvill repine, and may say that he hath noe vvarraunte of his sentence vvho is but a man, constituted by men, and can shevv noe scripture to proueth at he can not erre. But truly I can not thinke that in this matter, they vvould euer proceed so farre. For as yet they neuer called a Co­uncell together out of all partes of their Churche, and those that vvere called to­gether, for vvant of a Iudge to deter­mine, could neuer aggree in any one [Page 155]point of religion. Anno 1554. Surius relateth hovv on a tyme tvvelue Catholique Doctours and tvvelue Ministers met at Vvorma­tia to make some attonement bet­vvixte the Confessionistes, Gen. Cron. but after a litle disputation fiue of the tvvelue ministers vvere excommunicated by the rest, Stapl l 4. de prim fed. c. 13. and cast out for vvranglers; and so nothing vvas concluded. Diuerse other assem­blies and meetings they haue attemp­ted, but all ended in thundering excom­munications, bitter taunts, and infamous libels, and as yet they neuer could aggree in any councell vppon any controuersie in religion, and all for vvant of a visible Iudge, and pastour, to vvhom all the rest are subiect. And this they haue gotten by leauing the ancient Catholike Churche vvhich acknovvledgethe the bishope of Rome as Sainct Peters successour, and Christes Vicaire, and relyeth vppon his sentence as infallible, Luc. 22. bicause Christ in fainct Peter prayed for him that his fayth might not fayle; and bicause he hathe su­prem authoritie (vvhich all Catholike Bishops haue euer acknovvledged) he hathe called many Councells and deter­mined many controuersies, and vvhilest the Church euer standeth to his Iudge­ment vvhich neuer yet vvas contrary to it is selfe, she enuoyethe great peace, and [Page 156]vnitie in faythe and religion: vvher as the ghospellers bicause they haue noe visible head, could neuer call Councells, neuer aggree vppon any one point of religion vvhich vvas before in controuersie, and neuer shall hereafter; bicause matters of religiō are hard, and therfore vvher ther­are many heads, there are many opinions, & vvhere are many opiniōs, there are ma­ny cōtradictions, & so no peace, nor vni­tie, bicause noe one supreme visible iudge to determine. And as for vvant of a visi­ble Iudge they can not appease dissensiōs after they are arisen, so can they not pre­uēt them. For if ther be noe visible Iudge euerie Cock-brain may preach his ovvne fancies for true fayth, and religion, and no man shall controlle him, nor condemne his doctrine, nor forbid his preaching: bi­cause if ther bee no visible Iudge, no man hath the authoritie, & so the gapp is open to all false prophetes, vvho may enter into the nevve Church thicke and three fold, bicause noe man therin is, of authoritie to forbid them: vvhence it follovveth that if vve accept of the nevv religiō and incor­porate our selues to the nevv Church, vve expose our selues to all false prophetes vvho may preach vvhat they please bi­cause no man hath authoritie to control­le them.

THEY say commonly, that al­though the deuill disguise him self neuer so much, yet by one marke or other he bevvrayeth him selfe. For although sometymes hee in­ueste him selfe in the habit of a younge gallaunte, or of a mortifyed religiouse man: yea although in out vvard shovve he transforme him selfe into an angell of light, yet so it happeneth (and I think bi­cause God vvill haue it so) that by one marke or other, he is discouered. For ether his staring eyes, or stinking sauour, or hor­ned head, or forked feet or base voice, dis­cryeth this gallaunt creature, to be not as [Page 158]he seemeth, but as he is indeed, a fovvle and deformed mēber of the deuill, vvho though he shrovvd him selfe vnder the goodly name of a christian, and vvrapp & lapp him selfe from top to toe, in the in­nocent habit of a pastour, Ʋincent. Ly­tin [...]. contra proph heres. nouit. c 36. vvhich is scri­pture, and the vvord of God, yet by one marke or other, yea not by one only but by many, he descrieth him selfe to be as he is an heretike. And the reason is bicau­se the counterfet neuer attayneth vnto the perfection of the currant, and arte though she may imitate nature, yet shall she allvvayes be vvanting in one thing or other. The counterfet gold of the Alchi­mistes hath a great resemblaunce vvith the true gold, but ether the sound, or vvay­te, or operation vvill proue the old pro­uerbe to be true: that all is not gold that glisters. Appelles paīted grapes on a boyes head so liuelie that the byrds pecked at them, but yet arte came short of nature, for if the boye had been painted as vvell as nature frameth her vvorkes, the byrds vvould not haue been so imboldned, yea the grapes vvanted some thing, for at least by pecking the byrds perceiued, that all is not grapes that seemeth so. Lysippus could in marble stone make so goodly a portrait of a man, that he vvould shevv euery bone, vaine, and vvrincle vvith all [Page 159]proportion, but the vvant of life and mo­tion vvell declared vvhere in arte vvas en­forced to yeeld to nature. Vvherfore let the heretike counterfett neuer so conin­gly, let him vse all y ^e arte possible to shevv him selfe a sincere and true Christian, yet the counterfet must come shorte of the currant, and arte must yeeld to nature, and hee in one point or other vvill bevvray him self to bee no true christian vvhich he professeth him selfe to bee, but a fayth­less heretike vvhich he vvould not seem to bee. And the first mark by vvhich he is bevvrayed, is his breach vvhich he ma­keth out of the Church and Christian so­cietie. For as the vvandring sheep vvas once of the fold, and the rebell vvas once a subiect, and the bovve cut of, once liued and florished in the tree; so heretikes es­pecially Arch-heretikes, vvere at least for the most part, once sheep of Christes fold subiectes of his kingdome, and members of his body the Church. Vvherfore sainct Ihon giues vs this mark to knovv an here­tike by: Ex nobis prodierunt, l. Io. 8. sed non erant ex nobis: They vvent out from vs, but they vvere not of vs. That is, they liued amongest vs (for else they could not haue gone out) yet so that they vvere not vvorthy our compa­ny and therfor as rotten bovves are soone broken of, so they vver soone shaken of [Page 160]and took occasion to go from vs vvho before for their euill life in desert vvere none of vs. Or else, to follovv another ex­position, Aug tract. 3. in cp 10. they vvere emongest vs in out vvard shevve bicause they frequented sa­craments vvith vs, but they vvere hereti­kes in mynde and so none of vs, and ther­fore they vvēt out from vs. They vvere in the Church but as euill humours in mans body, and therfor vvere to be expelled bi­cause they vvere hurtfull to the body, and no part of the substaunce. For com­monly heretikes liue some tyme secret befor they open and disguise them selues, and so before they vvēt out from vs open­ly, they vvere none of vs secretly. Or else according to another interpretation: they vvere once amongest vs and like true Christianes liued vvith vs, Aug tract. [...]. [...] 10. but euen then vvhen they vvere by present fayth and iu­stice mēbers of our Church, God forsavv by his diuine foresigt, that they vvould not continevv amongest vs, and therfor they vvent out from vs, bicause euen then vvhen they vvere amongest vs, they vvere none of vs finally, to perseuer vvith vs: not that God his presciēce vvas the cause, but bicause he forsavv vvhich vvas to be, that is, that they vvhich vvere as yet of our so­cietie, vvere of their ovvn free vvill to leaue vs and so in God his foresight vvere [Page 161]finally none of our company. So that one euident marke of an heretike is, that he makes a breache out of the body of the Churche, of vvhich hee ether vvas, or see­med to bee a member. The same marke sainct Paule giueth vs also to knovve an heretike vvhen he sayeth that Some shall depart from the fayeth, 1. Tim. [...] Heb. 10. and that some are ac­coustumed to forsake the assembly, and that some going out from vs, Act. 1 [...]. doe trouble others vvith vvords. [...]o. 6. So the first Sacramentaries I meane the Capharnaites vvho vvould not beleeue that Christ could giue his body to be eaten, left Christ and his Apo­stles and vvould vvalke noe more vvith thē. So that going out, or breakinge for­the of the Church, is a note and marke of an heretike. Vvherfore Tertulian sayeth, l. praesc. c. 8. that vve must not meruaile nor thinke the vvorse of our Church vvhē some doe lea­ue vs, bicause (sayeth he) this shevveth vs to bee of the true Christian company, ac­cording. vnto that: they vvent out from vs, Ibid. [...]. 10. but they vvere not of vs? Yea he sayeth that all heretikes vvere once Romaines in re­ligion, and therfore novve are heretikes bicause they separate them selues as Mar­cion, and Valētinus did, of vvhom (sayeth he) it is certain that they beleeued once in the Romain Churche, vntill vnder Pope Eleutherius they vvere cast out of the sa­me. [Page 162]And this note is so certaine that if you rōne ouer the catalogue of all the an­cient heretikes you shall fynde that they all vvere once members of that societie, vvhich vvas cōmonly called and counted Christiane, and vvhen they left the same, they vvere by & by noted for rebels runne gates, and Apostatates. & as the scripture noteth the tyme and occasion, 3. Reg. 18. vvhen the Samaritanes left the Tēple of Hierusalem and vvould vvvorship God no more in that place as the Ievves euer had doone; so haue Ecclesiasticall histories noted the tyme, & occasion of the breach of euery arch-heretike from the Churche: and as yet vve vvell remember (it is not so lon­ge) the tyme and occasion of Luthers re­uolte from the Catholike, and Romain Churche. Yea him selfe confesseth that once he vvas a Papist and that in the hig­hest degree, for these vvords he once vt­tered in his commentaries vppon the first Epistle to the Galarhians: [...]n t. cp. Gal. Si quisquam alius, certè ego ante lucem [...]uangelij pie sensi & Zelaui pro Papisticis legibus, & patrum traditionibus, easque magno serto vt sanctus, & earum obserua­tionem tanquam necessariam ad salutem v [...]si & defendi: If euer any, truly I, befoee the light of the ghospell (be meanes his ovvn ghospell) thought holily and vvas Zealons. For the Papi­sticall lavves and the fathers traditions, and I [Page 163]vrged and defended them, Ibidem. and their obseruation as necessarie to saluation. Yea he confesseth hovv he vvatched fasted prayed, and ta­med his body vvhen he vvas a friar, yea sayeth he: Tanta erat authoritas Papae apud me, vt vel in minimo dissentire ab ipso, putarem cri­men aeterna damnatione dignum: So great vvas the Popes authoritie vvith me, that I thought it a crime vvorthy eternall damnation to dis­sent from him in the least pointe. Ibid. Yea on­ce sayeth hee. I vvas so zealous for the Pope that I thought Ihon Husse a vvic­ked heretike and vvould haue burnt him vvith myne ovvne handes. And as Luther vvas, so vvere all the packe of their first fathers, children of our mother the Catho­like Churche; and sithence they are gone out, they vveare the badge and cognisa­unce of an heretike. They vvil ansvvere peraduenture that vve vvere not the true Church, but vverelōge before metamor­phized and chaunged into the synagogue of the deuill, & that therfore it vvas tyme for them to leaue vs. But if vvee vvere de­generated I demaund of them vvhen? vnder vvhat Pope, or Emperour? and in vvhat age? and from vvhat Church did vvee degenerate? out of vvhat Churche did vvee make a breache? for as nothing degenerateth but from that vvhich it vvas before. And if they can not tell vs vvhen [Page 164]vvee begone to degenerate, nor nō vvhat Churche then cā they not put this marke vppon vs. Yea I shall in this booke pro­ue that our Churche vvhich novv is, ag­greeth vvith the Churche vvhich in all ages euen from the Apostles vvas coun­ted the only Christian Church. Nether is it sufficient to saie that vvee vvere not the true Churche, for so Arrius, Nestorius, Eutiches, and euery heretike vvas accu­stomed to say, vvho notvvithstanding bi­cause they vvent forth of that Churche vvhich vvas commonly called and coun­ted the Christian Church, vvere counted heretikes. Sithe therfore Luther, Caluin, and the rest haue departed frō our Chur­che, vvhich vvas and still is called the Christian Churche, ether they are hereti­kes, or else Arrius, Nestorius, yea Simon Magus, Cerinthus, and Ebion, vvere noe heretiks. Nether cā they bragge that ma­ny haue lefte them also and seuered them selues from their company; for that vvas allvvayes the manner of heretikes, not longe to continevve in one religion, but to diuide them selues into many sectes. And if they counte those heretikes vvho goe from thē & make nevv sectes, then are they all euen the first of them hereti­kes, bicause the first of thē vvent out frō vs. Vvherfore in fevve vvords to cō prise [Page 165]all, and to conclude vvhich I intended, They can not name the Churche from vvhich vvee departed, nor the tyme, nor the occasion; vve can tell vvhen they de­parted, and from vvhat Churche, that is the Romaine Churche, vvhich vvas and is still commonly counted, the true Chri­stian Churche; vvherfore it follovveth euidently, that vve are still in the right Churche bicause there vvas neuer any o­ther out of vv ^ch vvee could breake forth, they are ronne out, vve vveare the badge of true Christianes vvhich is neuer to goe out, neuer to forsake that vvhich once vve haue professed, they are noted vvith the marke of heretikes, vvhich is to goe out, and to forsake the common receiued Churche; and so if euer there vvere any heretikes so called, and counted, for brea­king forth, and going out, then are they heretikes, and neuer shall be able to hide this marke goe they neuer so disguisedly.

GOod goeth before badd, truth be­fore falshood, the currant before the counterfet, and art before nature: bi­cause, [Page 166]euill is but a priuation of the good, and falshood is that vvhich svverueth from the truth, and the counterfet is but a resemblaunce of the currant, and arte is but an imitation of nature; and so these come after, those of necessitie must goo before. No meruayle then if religiō take the precedence of superstition, and Chri­stian fayth, of heresie, vvhich is but a pri­uation of that good; a falsitie svveruing from that truth, a counterfet resemblaun­ce of that currant, and an artificiall imita­tion, of Christiā sinceritie. Religion vvas plāted before superstitiō tooke roote, ver tue vvas rooted before vice vvas sovved, Mat. 18. and the seed of true fayth vvas sovved before the enemie scattered the euill coc­kle of heresie, and as the true Apostles liued and preached before Simon Magus and other false-prophetes his successours, so true fay the vvas sovved rooted, & co­me to some height and ripenes before euer the false Apostles scattered the nett­leseed, and hempseed of their heresies. Yea not only by the Apostles generally in the vvorld, but also by their successours particulerly in euery particuler country, fay the grevv and florished before heresie vvas sovved, [...]i. [...]. for as Bozius in his fourth booke of the signes of the Churche lear­nedly proueth, the first conuersion of [Page 167]euery country frō paganisme vnto Chri­stianitie, vvas not to heresie but to the true fayth & Romain religion, and vvhen that vvas receiued then heresie being but a corruption of true fayth as vineger is of vvine, begane to take place then the coc­kle spronge vp after the good corne. And therfore Sainct Paule giues vs this marke to knovv an heretike, and for he­resie, that they arise after the true religiō. Act. 80 I knovve (saieth he) that rauening vvolues that is heretikes after my departure shall enter amongest you not sparinge the flocke. So that after sainct Paule had preached and per­suaded true fayth, the false prophetes en­tered, to ruine the spirituall building vv ^ch he had framed. In like māner the ancient fathers haue euer noted heretikes & their heresies of later standing and noueltie. l. praesc. c 2 [...] In all things (sayeth Tertulian) the veritie goeth before the image, and last of all cometh the similitude. Yea sayeth he it is a folly to thin­ke, that heresie in doctrine is the first, es­pecially seing that the true religion for­telleth heresies. And in another place, ll. 4. aduersus Marcionens. thus hee concludeth; Insumma si constatid verius quod prius, id prius quod est ab initio, ab initio quod ab Apostolis, pariter vtique constabit idesse ab Apostolis traditum quod apud Ecclesias Apostolicas fuerit sacro-sanctum. In breef if it be manifest that that is truest vvhich is first, [Page 168]that first vvhich is from the begining, that frō y ^e. begining vv ^ch is from the Apostles, it shall like­vvise be manifest, that that is deliuered by y ^e Apo­stles vv ^ch hath been inuiolably holdē in the apo­stolicall Churches. And in his booke against Praxeas he sayeth that it is adiudged a­gainst all heresies, that that is true vv ^ch is first, that is coūterfet vv ^ch is later. And this he shevveth by a similitude, for (sayeth he) ‘as the vvilde oliue springeth out often tymes out of the svveet oliue nutte, l. praesc. c 36. and the vvilde figtree out of the good figge, so heresies haue grovvne out of our gro­und vvhich yet are not ours, degenera­ting from the true graine of fayth.’ Ireneus also subscribeth to Tertulians opinion in these vvords: l 5. circa m [...] ­dium. Omnes illi valde posteriores sunt quam Episcopi, quibus Apostoli tradiderunt Ec­clesias. All they (he meaneth heretikes) are of much later standing then the Bishops, to vvhome the Apostles deliuered and comitted the Churches. And as heretikes are noted of later standing so is their doctrine, coun­ted to sauour of noueltie. Vvherfore Zozomenus sayeth, l. 1. c. 1 [...]. that Arrius vvas not a frayed to affirme that vvhich neuer any durst auouch, to vvit that God the sonne vvas created of nothing. And Vincentius Lyrinensis vvriting a booke against here­sies intitleth it: against prophane nouel­ties, and vvisely obserueth that the Ca­tholike [Page 169]Churche Keepeth the olde, and deuiseth noe nevv doctrine, to vvhich sense he explicateth those vvordes of saint Paule: O Timothee depositum custodi, c. 2. ô Timo­thee keep that vvhich vvas deposed vvith thee and committed to thy custodie: Depositum custodi (sayeth he) non quod à te inuentum sed quod tibi creditum est, quod ac­cepisti, non quod excogitasti, rem non ingenij, sed doctrinae, non vsurpationis priuatae, sed pi [...] ­blicae traditionis, in qua non author esse debes, sed custos, non institutor sed sectator, aurum accepisti, aurum redde, nolo mihi pro alijs alia subijcias. ‘Keep that vvhich is deposed; not vvhich is inuented by thee, but vvhich is com­mitted to thee, vvhich thou hast receiued not vvhich tho hast deuised, a thing not of vvit, but of doctrine, not of priuate vsurpation, but of publique tradition, in vvhich thou oughtest not to bee an au­tour, but a keeper, not an institut our but a follovver, thou receiuedst gould, restore gould, I will not haue thee put in one thīg for another.’ Vvherin he putteth a playn difference bettvvixt Catholikes and he­retikes; that they sticke to the olde, these are euer deuising nevve doctrine. For although the Churche by nevv councells and definitions addeth greater explica­tion of her religion, and although by the labours and endeuours of the Doctours [Page 170]of the Church, vvhich in no age are vvan­ting many points of our fayth are more illustrated and dilated, yet in substaun­ce, our fayth is still one and the same. And therfore diuines saye that fayth ne­uer from the beginning hathe increased in substaunce but only in explication, and that the Churche since the tyme of the Apostles neuer had nevv reuelations in the articles of beleef, and that in general Councells she defineth noe nevv things, but rather those things vvhich before vvere extaunte in scriptures, fathers, or tradition, shee by her definition, decla­reth more certainly, and proposeth more plainly to the vevve of the vvorld. So that as Vincentius Lyrinensis sayeth, [...]. 29.30. euen as mans body increaseth by nutrition and augmentation, yet gayneth no nevv lim­mes and members, but only getteth more quantitie and strength in the former, so christian fayth by noe increase did euer yet gaine nevv articles, but only hath gotten greater and clearer explication of the former. Vvherfore the same doctour counsayleth euery preacher and teacher so to explicate thinges after a nevv man­ner, that he preach not nevv doctrine: Ea­dem quae accepisti (say eth hee) ita doce, c. [...]. vt cùm dicas nouè nō dicas noua: The same things vvhich thou hast receiued, so doe thou teach, that vvhen [Page 171]thou speakest after a nevv māner thou speake noe nevv things. And the reason vvhy faythe admitteth no noueltie is this: bicause God speaketh once and neuer recalls or amēds his vvorde; Iob 33. Psal. 6 [...]. and in him that prouerb takes no place: Secunda consilia meliora; second coun­sayls are the best. For God is as vvise and cir­cumspect at the first as at the last, & ther­fore he hauing once reuealed and planted fayth, that must stand for good, and he that seeks to chaunge, declares him selfe a corrupter not a correctour, and in that he cōmeth after vvith his diuising vvit to adde, ordetract frō the olde receiued faith he bevvrayes him selfe to be of later stan­ding & so an heretike, and his doctrine to sauour of noueltie, & so an heresie. Vvher­fore to cōclude sithe that it is certain that Catholikes vvhom they call papists, are of noelate stāding, nor noe vpstarts, (for I demaund vvhen they beganne, and af­ter vvhom they arose?) they cā be noe he­retikes, & seing that it is noe lesse certain, that the reformers of this tyme bee all nouellaunts, and nouellers, vpstarts, and of later standing, arising many hundred yeares after the Romain Church vvhich vvas euer counted the only true Church (for Luther the first of all this nevv frye and his religion is not yet an hundred yeares old) it is as certaine, that they are [Page 172]heretikes and their religion heresie, as that Arius, Nestorius, Pelagius, vvere he­retikes, and the same fathers and scriptu­res before alleaged, vvhich haue condem­ned them for heretikes bicause of their late standing, can not vvithout plaine par­tialitie, free our reformers from the same sentence, vvho vveare the same badge, & are noted vvith the same marke of an he­retike vvhich is later standing.

THe hart of man is a secret closet, Psal 7. Sap. 1. Hier. 11. Th. [...] p q. 57. art. 4. of vvhich God only Keepeth the Key, it is a bottōlesse pit vvhich he only vvho searcheth the hart and reines can sound to the bottō, in so much that vnlesse God reueale, or this hart of man vouchsafe to open it selfe, nether deuill nor angell can discouer the hartes cogitations, much lesse can one man tell vvhat another thin­keth. Vvherfore that men might impart their thoughts one to another God hath guien them a toungue as an Interpretour of the mynde and a messenger of the thoughts, and a mouth also as a trompet vvherin the tounge soundeth forth by voice vvhat the hart thinketh. And bicau­se [Page 173]the things vvhich vve vvould speak of can not by them selues immediately be brought into discourse, the toungue fra­meth vvords and giueth names vvhich goe for the thīgs, that so vvhē vve hear the sound of the vvord & name, vve may vn­derstād the thing vv ^ch is spoke of. Vvher­fore the nevv Christians of this tyme must not meruaill, that by their name, as by an infallyble marke I seck to discouer them: for names are Symboles and signes of things by vvhich vve knovv the natures of things together vvith their proprieties. But vvhat vvill you saye is this name, by vvhich they are conuinced to bee hereti­kes? it is the Surname vvhich they take from their Sect master, by vvhich they vvere alvvayes more famouse then by their proper names. At the first vvhen all Christianes vvere of one hart and lippe, beleeuing and professing the same, Act. 4. they vvere called all by the same names, as Christianes of Christe, brethren for their mutuall charitie, faithfull, in respect of one fayth; but vvhen certain inconstaunte and deuising heads vvould vary from the rest of the faythfull in certain pointes of reli­gion, their names chaunged as they them selues vvere altered, & bicause they novv beganne to leaue the common receiued fayth vvhich Christe by him selfe and his [Page 174]Apostles, and their successours had deli­uered, they vvere noe more called by the common name of Christiane, but by the name by vvhich their autour vvas called vvho deuised their religion: and so as in fayth, they vvere separated from other Christians, so in names also vvhich expli­cate the natures of things, they vvere of necessitie seuered. Simonians vvere na­med of Simon Magus, the Ebionites of Ebion, Marcionites of Marcion, the Ma­nichies of Manicheus, the Arrians of Ar­rius, Nestorians of Nestorius, Eutichianes of Eutiches, Pelagians of Pelagius, Do­natists of Donatus, vvho not vvith stan­ding before they varyed in religion and follovved nevv Masters, vvere called on­ly by the common names of Christians, vvherfore the ancient fathers euer con­demned them as heretikes vvho vvere marked vvith these particuler names. Sainct Hierome pronounceth boldly this sentence: li. contra Lu­cifer. in fine. Sicubi audíeris eos qui dicuntur Chri­stiani, non à Domino Iesu Christo sed à quopiam alio nuncupari, v [...]pote Marcionitas, Valentinia­nos, Montenses, &c. scito non Ecclesiam Christi, sed Anti-christi esse Synagogam: If any-vvhere thou here of them vvho are called Christians, yet take their name not of Iesus Christ. but of some other, as for example, of they be called Marcio­nits, Valentinians, Montanists, &c. Knovv thou, [Page 175]that there is not the Churche of Christe but the Synagogue of Antichriste. Iustinus Martyr discrieth heretikes by the same badge and marke: Dial. cum Triphone. There are (sayeth he) and euer vvere many, vvhich come in the name of Iesus, yet are called by diuers Surnames as Mar­cionits, Valentinians, Basilidians, Satur­ninians euerie one Biorrovving a name of the first inuentour of their doctrine. Of such kind of men this is sainct Ciprianes opinion: They vvhich vvere once Christians, Ep. ad No­uatum. novv Nouatians, are novv no more Christians, bicause (sayeth hee) primam fidem vestram perfidia posteriori per nominis appellationem mu­tastis; you haue chaunged your former fayth by a later infidelitie by the appellation of your name. And the reason vvhy these fathers acco­unted allvvayes such nicknamed persons as heretikes is easilie seen, Mat. 18. bicause such as leaue the Churche and vvill not here her voice, vvere allvvayes esteemed as hereti­kes, as the Greeke vvord [...] impor­teth vvhich signifieth election and sepa­ration; Li. 2. contr [...] Faust c. 3. Cipr. l. 1. cp. 6. and therfore S. Austin and sainct Ciprian put this difference betvvixte an heretike and a schismatike, that although both doe separate them selues from the Church, yet a schismatike only is diuided in vvill, contumacie, and breach of cha­ritie, an heretike also in fayth and opiniō, and therfore seing that these diuerse na­mes [Page 176]taken from diuerse autours; argueth such a leparation (for if they had still re­mained in that Church vvhich common­ly vvas called Christian and had not fol­lovved nevvmasters, ther had needed noe distinction of names from other Chri­stians) it must needs follovv that all such as are distinguished thus in name from other Christians, are diuided also from them in fayth and religion, and so are noe true Christians but perfidiouse he­retikes. I demaund novv of our Luthe­ranes, Zuinglianes, Caluinistes, Osian­drians, Bezists, Brovvnists, Martinists, and such like nevv named Christians of this age, vvhether they dare stande to the sentence of Iustinus Martyr, S. Ciprian, and sainct Hierom in this point? Truly I thinke they dare not: and I thinke also that they haue good cause; for if that they be heretikes vvhich are surnamed of particuler autours (as they plainly affir­me) if our nevv Christianes be so surna­med as all the vvorld vvilbe vvitnesse that they are, then must needs follovv this conclusion, that they also are heretikes. But to conclude more plainly that vvhich vvas intended; This marke of an hereti­ke can in noe vvise aggree vnto Catho­likes, but rather to them aggreeth the si­gne of the true Christians. For as in the [Page 177]tyme of the Arians they vvere counted true Christians vvhich vvere called by generall names, Christians, and Catholi­kes, and they vvere esteemed of as here­tikes, vvhich had particuler names deri­ued from the autour of their secte, as A­rians, Aetians, Eudoxians, and such like; so novv vve that are called by the same names of Catholikes and Christians, but by no name taken from any autour, must needs be taken for true Christians, vvho as they neuer chaunged name, so neuer chaunged religion, and the reformers vvho are called Lutheranes, Caluinistes, Zuinglians and such like of some parti­culer sectmaster or other, must needs be condemned for heretikes. And as before that the ancient heretikes forsooke the common receiued faith they vvent by the common names of Christians and Catholikes and neuer tooke vnto them particuler names before they follovved particuler maisters and imbraced parti­culer doctrines; so before Luther and Caluin reuolted from the Church, they vvent by the cōmon name of Christians, and neuer chaunged their names, till they chaunged their religion, nether vvere any Christians called Lutheranes, Caluinistes, or such like, before they relyed vppon nevv and particuler masters. And as the [Page 178]Arians bicause they could impose no na­me of any autour to the Catholike Chri­stians, vvere fayne to calle them Homo­ [...]usians of their doctrine, as before them they vvere called [...] that is carnall for defending second mariadges against Tertulian and the Montanistes; so at this tyme our reformers are fayne to call Ca­tholikes Papists, for holding the suprema­cie of y ^e Pope, vvho is no nevv autour of any nevve religion, but an ancient succes­four of sainct Peter, and Vicare of Christ. As for the names of Thomists, and Sco­tists, they are no names of autours of nevv religion, bicause all held the same fayth, but of autours of some other nevv opi­nions or manners of teaching in Philoso­phie and schoole pointes; like vvise the names of Benedictins, Dominicanes, Ie­suites, are names deriued from autours of nevv states of life but not of nevv faithe or religion. So that in vs vvhom they call Papistes, is no name vvhich argueth vs to be heretikes, in the reformers are per­ticuler names of perticuler authours of nevv pointes of religiō, & so they vveare the caracter of the beast, and are infa­mous heretikes, if Montanus, Marcion, Arius, vvere vvorthily called heretikes.

MAny ther are in the vvorld, vvho finding many absurdities in the nevv religion, and yet some difficulties also in the old, vvill nether hold altoge­ther vvith the one nor the other; but com­fort them selues vvith a flattering opiniō, that a Christian may be saued in all reli­gions so that he retain the principalle arti­cles of Christian beleef. For (say they) if he be firmly grounded in a right fayth of the Incarnation, & Trinitie, persuading him self that God is one in essence and three in persones, and that Christ is one in persone yet subsisting in tvvoe natures, that he suffred for mankind, & is the Mes­sias and Sauiour of the vvorld; he is a Christian good enough, & may be saued vvell enough, vvhatsoeuer his opinion be in lesser matters, as iustification, merit, Sa­craments, and such like, vvhich to them be but petie matters & not of such impor­taunce, as that a mans saluation should depend theron. But this opinion of theirs vvould they neuer so fayne that it vvere true, is most vntrue, and as false as flatte­ring. [Page 180]And the reason is, bicause one only opinion in a matter of fayth obstinately defended against the Churches authori­tie, Th. [...]. [...]. q. s. a. & s p. q. [...]. [...]. is sufficient to dismember a Christian frō the mysticall body of Christ his holy Churche, in that it depriueth him of infu­sed fayth vvhich is the glevv, yea the s [...] nevv vvhich vniteth the members of this body together. And in deed as yet vvee neuer hard of an heretike but he profes­sed some principall parts of Christiane faith, as that Christ vvas God and man, or the Redeemer of mankind, or the autour of the lavv of grace, or some such like: for if he altogether denyed Christe, he vvas rather an Apostata then an heretike. For he is an heretike vvho professeth Christe in some sorte, and him selfe also a Chri­stian, yet obstinatelie denyeth some parte of Christian religion; and he is an Apo­stata, vvho quite renounceth Christe and his religion. Vvherfore vnless vve vvil graunt that all heretikes may be sa­ued, vve must needs confess that one heresie is sufficient to damne a man per­petually. But in this matter least my cen­sur seem to rigorous & my sentence to se­uere, I vvill alleage scriptures vvhich can not deceiue vs, if they be rightly vnder­stood. Our Sauiour Christ denounceth him to be like an ethnike an publicane, [Page 181]vvhich vvill not heare the Churche, Mat. 1 [...]. and he sayeth not, vvho vvill not giue credit vnto her in principall matters, but absolu­tely he sayeth, if he vvill not heare the Churche, let him bee vnto theee as an ethnike and publicane, that is shonne his company as the Ievves did all familiaritie vvith paganes and publicanes. And again Christe threatneth that he, Mar. 1 [...]. vvho beleeueth not sh [...]lbe damned. To vvhich aggreeth sainct Paule saying that vvithout fayth, Heb. 11. it is impossible to please God: meaning no doubt a vvholle and intier fayth, deuoid of all errours. For else all heretikes may be sa­ued vvho beleeue aright some parts of Christian beleef. Gal. [...]. Vvherfore sainct Paule amongest the vvorkes of the flesh, that is of a man vvhich follovveth not the spirit of God, but his ovvn sensualitie and li­king, reckeneth not only fornication, dronkennes, murder, and idolatrie, but also dissensions, sectes, and heresies, and a­gainst all these vvorkes he pronounceth the sentence of damnation: I fortel you as I haue for told you, that they vvhich do such thīgs shall not obtein the Kingdom of heauen: vvhich sentence as he vvould haue pronounced agaīst one fornicatiō, or murder, so would he against one heresie. To this aggreeth Athanasius in his creed saying that vnlesse a Christian Keep intierly and inuiolately [Page 182]the Catholike fayth, Symb. Ath [...]. he can not be saued. Vvhich to me seemeth a sufficient argu­ment, that one only heresie, is a sufficient matter of cōdemnation. And truly if vve vvill looke backe to ancient tymes, and take a vevve of ecclesiasticall histories & councells, vve shall sinde, that for some fevverrours, yea sometymes for one only, and that not in the principall points of our beleef, many haue been accursed and condemned for heretiques. Pelagius be­leeued that ther vvere three diuine per­sons, aequall, coaequall, and cōsubstantiall; he professed that Christe vvas God and man, and the Sauiour of the vvorld, and that by his grace vve might more easilie come to heauen: yet bicause that he auer­red that vvithout this grace vve might Keep the commaundements, and vvith all, that litle infants vvere nether concei­ued nor born in originalle sinne, hevvas by the common voice of the Church and Christian vvorld, Posiid. in vi­ [...] Aug. condemned fora dam­nable heretike. Vigilantius beleeud also rhe Trinitie and incarnation, and yet for that he condemned and contemned reli­ques, vigilles, lighting of candels in the Churche, prayer to saynts, and vvith all aequalized matrimony vvith virginity, saint Hierom condemnes him euen vnto hell. l. [...] Vigil. Iouinian also for making all sinnes [Page 183]and good vvorkes equall in demerit and merit, lib. cont. Ie­uin. and for putting noe difference bet­vvixte the state of Virgins and y ^e Maried, vvas by the same Doctour cōdemned for an heretike: to vvhich his sentence all the christian vvorld subscribed. And no mer­uaile. For if one heresie depriueth vs of fayth, as it doth, Th. 2.2. q. [...]. a. [...]. bicause he that beleeueth not God, and his Churche in one article beleeueth them in none, if fayth be the linke vvhich vniteth vs as mēbers to the mysticall body of Christs Churche, then one heresie is sufficiēt to separate vs from the Churche, as the very name in Greeke [...] importeth, and consequently one heresie is enough to damne vs, bicause out of the Churche is noe saluation. For as the arme cut of dyeth, & the bovve riuen from the tree vvithereth, so vvhether by one or many heresies vve be separated frō Christs mysticall body vvhich he viuisi­cateth by his spirit, vvee dye and vvither, and remain deuoid of life, sappe, and sal­uation, bicause the spirit if God vvhich is as is vvere the soule and spirit of this bo­dy, impartes it selfe to none but those vvho by true fayth are members of this body, and bovves of this tree, Psal. 79. vvhich ex­tendeth it selfe by reaching bovves, from sea to sea. l. de vni [...]. Ecel. Vvherfor sainct Cyprian sayeth that vvhosoeuer is separated from the Churche [Page 184]hath noe parte in Christes promises; he is an alien (sayeth he) an enemie, à prophane person, and one that can not haue God for his father, vvho hath not the Churche for his mother. Yea (sayeth he) such an one may dy for Christ, he may burne, he may be caste to the vvild beastes, but that death shall be no crovvne of faythe, but a pain of infidelitie: such a one may be Killed, but he can not be crovvned. If then it be so that one errour in fayth obstinately defended, is sufficient to cut a man from the Chur­che, and to make him an heretike; then certes the ghospellers of this tyme must needs be heretikes and that in the highest degree, vvho haue renevved allmost all the old heresies, and euen those vvhich by the Christian vvorld, vvere allvvayes con­demned for damnable errours. For if Si­mon Magus & his successours vvere euer heretikes for such and such opinions, if these men vvill defend the same opi­nions, they must needs be condemned for heretikes allso, vnless vve vvill accept persons and vse plaine and palpable par­tialitie. Vine. Lirin. Simon Magus sayed that God vvas the autour of sinne, Aug. her. 65. vvhom Cerdon and Marcion, Manicheus, Photinus, and Blastus follovved, Eus. l. [...].c [...]. and vvere for this do­ctrine by the common voice of the Chri­stian vvorld adiudged heretikes, & shall not the same sentence passe vppon our re­formers [Page 185]vvho say not only (as Simon Ma­g [...]s did) that God by a certaine conse­quence is the autour of sinne, in that he hathe giuen man a nature necessarilie in­clining to sinne, Bel. l. 2. [...]. [...]. c. [...]. but affirme also that he directly moueth to sinne, yea prouoketh vs and eggeth vs forvvard? Shall Mani­cheus and the others aboue named be he­retikes vvho sayed only that the euill God vvas autour of sinne (for they imagined tvvo Gods) and shall our reformers be counted good Christians vvho, say that the good and the only God is the cause & Promotour of all lies and vvickedness? [...]i de fide & operibus c. 14. Certain old heretikes euen in the Apost les tyme, [...] Pet 3. [...] li t.c.2 [...] Aug her 54. grounding them selues vppon sainct Paules Epistle to the Romaines, vvhich as saint Peter vvitnesseth they did vvrongly interpret, affirmed only fayth to be sufficient to saluation (vvhich phan­tasie Simon Magus, and Eunomius also imbraced & for this they vvere accursed for heretikes) & shall Luther & Caluine: Lut. in c. [...]. Ga [...] Calu. in. An­tid ses. 6. can. it. and their adherētes goe for sincere Chri­stians, vvho teach the selfe same doctrine. Leo the third Emperour, Cōstātine y ^e fif­the, and Leo the fourth vvith their adhe­rentes called Iconomachi, and Iconoclastae, Zonar. vitae Leo [...]. Paulus Diaco [...]bid. Vvere condemned as heretikes for deny­ing honour to Images, and for breaking and defacing them, & hovv can our ghos­pellers [Page 186]shevv their faces amongest Chri­stianes, vvho exceed those Image-brea­kers by many degrees. Vvith the Simo­nians, Iren. li. [...]. c. 24 Ignat. ep. ad Smyrn. Th. Vvald. l. 2. de Sacram. c. z. [...]3. Damasc. l. de heres. Ter. l. de bap. Menandrians, and others in sainct Ignatius tyme, yea vvith Berengariās and Vviclephistes, they deny that in the Eu­charist Christs body is really present: vvith the Messalians and Caians, they deny that the Sacraments giue grace, vvith. Ihon Vvicleph they deny that Baptisme, Con­firmation, and Order, imprint caracters in our soules, vvith the Pelagians they say that Baptisme is not necessary, Vvald. to. 2. [...]. 96. and that vvithout it children may be saued by pre­destination or the fayth of their parents: vvith the Nouatians they deny the Sacra­ment of Penaunce: Infrae. Soc l. 4. c. 24. Iren. l. 1. c. 30. vvith the Gnosticks, Manichies and Encratites, they say Ma­trimonie is no Sacramēt, no more (sayeth Caluin) then tillage of the ground yea spinning and carding. Hier Proce. mio l. cont. Lucif. Vvith the Mani­chies they deny freevvill, vvith Aerius the Sacrifice, vvith Heluidius & Iouinian, they make mariadge equall vvith virgi­nitie. Hier. l cont. illos. They marye preests, & despise Re­liques vvith y ^e same Vigilantius, & vvith Rhetorius they prayse all heresies, Sand l. 7. vi s [...]b. mon pag. [...]7 [...]. and re­nevv them all; and shall they for one he­resie be accursed heretikes, and these men vvho haue raked hell to rake them allto­gether, be esteemed of as pure, sincere, [Page 187]and reformed Christians? Shall seuerall heresies make them heretikes, and shall not all heresies allmost, assembled toge­ther, be sufficient to make these men he­retikes? Truly vnless Apostasie excuse them from beresie (vvho haue denyed all most all pointes of religion, only Christe remaining to vvhose deny all notvvithstā ­ding as the nexte booke shall proue, they haue made a great stepp) I can not see vvhy the ancient heretikes for seuerall heresies should be counted heretikes, & these for so many vvhich they haue raked together, go for good Christians, especi­ally seing that any one heresie is sufficient to make an heretike, bicause euery one se­uereth, and separateth from the Churche, and her fayth and doctrine. Certes if the­se men be no heretikes, the old heretikes vvere none, if these be noe heretikes, ne­uer as yet vvere any, If these haue not the marke of an heretike, Simon Magus, Mar­cion, Cerdon, Pelagius, Vvicleph, had none, if these be good Christianes all he­retikes vvere so, or if they vvere noted vvith the caracter of an heretike, these are so marked that they shall neuer be able to hide or vvipe avvay this marke, vntill they abiure, and renounce euery one of the old heresies vvhich they haue re­nevved, and imbrace vvholly and intier­ly [Page 188]the Catholike fay the vvhich they haue forsaken.

OVr aduersaries nether can, nor vvill deny, but that our Sauiour Christe and his Apostles, once planted true reli­gion and established a true Churche in the vvorld, Ephes. 4. in vvhich Pastours and Do­ctours vvere appointed to minister Sacra­ments, to preach the vvord of God, and to gouerne and rule in the Churche. The Actes of the Apostles vvitness no less, Act. Apost. vvhich set before our eyes the beginning and progress of the primatiue Churche, the beginning in Hierusalem, the progress amongest the Gentils. For vvhen Christ dyed the principall foundatiō and corner stone vvas layed, vvhē the Apostles vvere created, the building vvent on, and vvhen they by preaching & miracles augmēted the nomber of the first Christianes, then vvas the building of this Church perfi­ted, and brought to that splendour and perfection, that the Scribes and Pharisies emulated and enuied the glorie therof, and sought the meanes to ruine this vvor­ke of God, Act. [...]. but in vayne: for as Gamaliel told them, the vvork of God no povver [Page 189]can dissolue. Act 7. [...]. Against this Church the deuil raysed a tempest vvhich began vvith a storme of stones amongest the Ievves, but by the Emperours and heretikes ha­the continued vnto this day. In this Chur­che vvas called a Councell in Ierusalem vvhere sainct Peter as the head pronoun­ceth the sentence, Act. 15. and sainct sames sub­scribeth. The first pastours of this Church vvere the Apostles; sainct Iames vvas Bi­shop of Ierusalem, sainct Ihon of Ephe­sus, sainct Marke of Alexandria, Eus. l. 2. [...].1 [...] saint Pe­ter first of Antioche, then of Rome, vv ^ch vvere his particulers seates, for he vvas supreme Bishop also of all the Christian vvorld. Io. 21. And in Antioche Euodius suc­ceeded to sainct Peter, ep. ad Anti [...]. & after him Igna­tius. In Rome after that he had exercised the function of a supreme pastour for the space of tvventie and fiue yeares (depar­ting not vvithstanding some tymes as bu­sines or persecution enforced him) befo­re his deathe he appointed Clemens for his successour; but he refusing, Act. 1 [...]. Gal. 2. Linus and Cletus sainct Peters coadiutours, Epiph. har. 27. succee­ded him, and after them sainct Clemens accepted of the charge. Sand. pag. 256. The other Apo­stles in other places lefte their schollers to succeed them, yea and placed others in other places vvhere them selues could not reside: as sainct Ihon appointed Po­licarp [Page 190]at Smyrna. Tert. l. praes. [...].3 [...]. To be breefe Ecclesia­sticall histories, from the Apostles deriu [...] a Christian Church and succession of pa­stours vnto these dayes. So that a true Christian Church vvas once planted and established. Vvhich if it be true, then vn­doubtedly, that novv is the true Church, they the true Christians, those the true pastours, that the true fay the, vvhich from the first and primatiue Church by a con­tinuall succession can be deduced; for the Church is called apostolicall not only bi­cause is vvas once planted by the apostles but also bicause it is descended from them by succession: And they must be hereti­kes and bastard Christians degenerating from their first institution, vvho can not shevv this succession, and their Church shall bee, l. pras. c. 20. not apostolicall, but apostaticall. This argument hand leth Tertulian in his booke of prescriptiōs vvher he shevveth hovv all particuler Churches vvere first planted by the apostles, and hovv other Churches from them re ceiued fayth and religion; and (say eth he) if novv you vvill knovve vvhat religion is the true Christi­ane religion, you must conferre it vvith some former Churche from vvhich it is descended, bicause (say ethe hee) Omne ge­nus ad suam originem censeatur necesse est: It is necessary that euery kinde be valued and [Page 191]esteemed according vnto his source and origine. If you vvill Iudge of vvater, mar­ke the fountain, if you vvill knovv a mās gentrie, looke hovv he descendeth from the first of his familie, if you vvill informe your selfe of any mans title vnto a lord ship, you must consider hovve the first lord entered in to possession, and hovv he is descended from him. And so if vve vvill discerne the true Christian from the heretike, vvee must haue an eye vnto the roote and stock from vvhich he descen­deth, for so vvee shall knovv vvhether he be legitimate or bafe-borne. For if he fetch his pedegree from any other then the Apostles, or those vvhich by succes­sion descended from them, then is hee a bastard-Christian, and caryeth the marke of an heretike. The Romaine and Catho­like Churche vvhich novv is, can deriue her pastours, religion, and gouernement, euen from the Apostles and those vvhō they appointed Bishops and successours. For if you ronne ouer Ecclesiasticall hi­stories, you shall finde our Church and the practise of our religion to haue flori­shed from the begīning vnto these dayes, for they treat almost of nothing else but of the progresse of our Church, of the per­secution vvher vvith it vvas assayled, of the heretikes by vvhom it vvas mole­sted, [Page 192]of our Bishops, prelates, [...]artys, vir­gins, doctours, of our general and prouin­ciall Councelles & of the miracles vvhich vvere vvrought in confirmation of our fayth: in so much that if our matters vvere not, the historiographers should haue had no subiecte to vvorke or vvrite on. [...]. [...]. c. 1. l. 2. cont. Do­natistas. op 363. Ireneus reckeneth the Popes of Ro­me from sainct Peter vnto Eleutherius, Optatus vnto Damasus, sainct Austin vn­to Anastasius, Sand li de vi sib. mon. others goe farther, and do­ctour Sanders our countriman bringeth the succession of our Popes, Bishops, Ce­remonies, and religion vnto Pius Quin­tus tyme, Genebrard hath doone the like vnto Gregorie the thirtenth his tyme, Gen. in Chronol. Baron in Annal. and Cardinal Baronius in nine tomes all-ready set forthe, hathe most exactly set dovvne the practise of our religion vnto Ludouicus Pius of Fraunce. And if our Church aggree vvith the primatiue Chur­che, if our faythe vary not from the an­cient faythe, if our pastours be descended from the Apostles and their schollers, as all histories and monuments do beare vvitnesse, then must our Church needs be the true Church, bicause it aggreeth vvith the originall, and is conformable to the primatiue Church, vvhich as it vvas nee­rest vnto Christe & his disciples, and vvas persequuted and honoured for the true [Page 193]Churche, so vvas it likest to bee the true Churche, vnlesse vve vvill saye that Christ and his Apostles neuer planted a true Church. This succession vvas counted allvvayes a marke of the true Churche, vvhich in our Creed vve profess, Symb. [...] vvhen vve beleeue in the Apostolicall Churche to vvit that vvhich is by succession deri­ued from the Apostles & plāted by them, and the vvant of it vvas allvvayes estee­med a note to knovve an heretike by. Vvherfore Ireneus sayeth that by succes­sion vve confound all heretikes; Supra. Sainct Austine sayeth that it is the thing, Lib. cont. ep. fund. c. 4 l. d [...] vtilit. cred. c. 17. vvhich holdeth him in the Catholike Church, bicause (sayeth he) that Church in vvhich is this successiō, is the rock against vvhich the gates of hell can not preuail. If ther­fore our nevv Christianes vvill discharge them selues of this marke of an hereti­ke, vvhich is vvante of succession, let them shevv vs (as Tertulian demaunded of the heretikes of his tyme) the catalo­gue of their Bishops, and the origen of their Churche, that if in the same vve fin­de them to be descended from the Apo­stles vve may acknovvledg them as true Christians if vve finde that they are not descended from so noble a race, vve may hisse them out of the Church for he­retikes. But I ame sure they cā shevv no [...] [Page 194]succession, bicause they are the first them selues, and can as soone name their prede­cessours; as they can finde out Lutheranes before Luther, & caluinistes before caluin. I vvill not deny but that they can deriue some pointes of their doctrine frō Simon Magus, and other ancient heretikes: but this succession proueth them also to be heretikes as is before demonstrated, but a succession from that Church vvhichvvas commonly counted Christian, they can not shevv, yea they can not shevv vs a succession of their doctrine from any an­cient heretikes, but are them selues the first of their familie, succeeding to none, but sent and ordayned by them selues, See the first booke & first chap. borne prodigiously of thē selues, Childrē vvith out fathers and schollers vvith out masters. for although they borovv their heresies of other heretikes, yet they ium­pe vvith no heretikes in all points, but ether adde or detracte, & so succeed in all poincts to none. Vverfore though some­tymes they vaunte that they succeed the Apostles and the primatiue Church, yet some tymes the truthe breaketh from thē against their vvills, as it doth from the de­uil vvhen by coniuration he is compelled to tell the truth, and then they confess them selues to be the first of their familie; but this confession hangeth them. Oeco­lampadius [Page 195]they call the first bishop of Basil, and Caluin, the first of Geneua, Lati­mer the first Apostle of Ingland, and kno­kes of Scotland: And Martin Luther the most ancient of them all, is not afrayed to saye, that he vvas the first man that mani­fested the ghospell, and the truthe vnto the vvorld. In prafa [...]. disp. Lypsi [...]. Audemus dicere (sayeth hee) à nobis primo diuulgatum esse Christum: Vve dare saye that Christ vvas first by vs made knovvn vnto the vvorld. He hathe piggs in his belly & therfore he speakes in the plu­rall nūber, but he hath noe braynes in his head nor blood in his face to blush vvith all, and therfore he dares be bold to say that he is the first man that promulgated the christian lavve. Art thou the first, thou vaunting compagnion? modestie vvould yeeld at least to the Apostles. So he vvill peraduenture, but at least (sayeth he) I ame the first after them. O monstrouse and Luciferian pride, and novv not Lu­ther, but Lucifer. Art thou the first after the Apostles. Vvhere then vvas the Chur­che all this vvhile? Vvhere vver ethe Pa­stours and Doctours of the same? Vvhere vvere the Austines, Ambroses, Gregories, Hieromes? Vvas ther none all this vvhile to haue been imployed, but God must needs expecte till an Apostata fryar lea­ped out of a Cloister, and maryed vvith [Page 196]a Nonne notvvithstanding that bothe had promised chastitie before god and man by a solemne vovve; But they haue a shifte or tvvoe by vvhich they thinke to auoyd this argument of succession. The first is this: our doctrine (say they is) Apo­stolicall and vve are the Apostles succes­sours bicause vve preach conformable to that doctrine vvhich they haue left in the ghospells & epistles by them vvritten. But this shifte vvill not serue, See the second chap. bicause this is to make bare scripture Iudge of their do­ctrine (as all heretikes haue euer doon) vv ^ch not notvvithstanding (as is in the first booke demonstrated) is noe certain rule to square fayth & religion by. Vvherfore they haue yet another ansvveare in store, vv ^ch is this: They graunte that the Apost­les once plāted a true church, true religiō, and established true pastours; but soone after, this Churche fayled & degenerated frō that it vvas, into the Synagogue of the deuil vv ^ch they call the Papisticall Chur­che, and possessed the vvorld for many hundred yeares, till at length Luther the man of god, builded this Church agayne, renevved the religion, and appointed nevv pastours; & so (say they) vve succeed to that Church vvhich the Apostles foun­ded, not by a continuall succession, but by an interruption of many hundred [Page 197]yeares. But aske them vvhat yeare of our lord, vnder vvhat Emperour or Pope, vp­pon vvhat occasion this Church fayled, & then they can not giue you a resolute ans­vver! Luther in the Assembly at Worma­tia publikely auouched that the Church fell in the tyme of the Councel of Con­stāce in vvhich Vvicleph vvas condēned. Tom. 9. l cont Papa­tum. The same Martin not allvvayes mynd­full of euery vvord vvhich he hath spo­ken, in his book vvhich he vvrote against Papacie sayeth that this Church fayled a thousand yeares after Christe, and his rea­son is, biccause the Apocalips sayeth that Satan for a thousand yeares shalbe tyed, and so for six hundred years he hath been loose. l. de Capt. Babyl. In another place he sayeth that saint Gregorie vvas the last good pope and that since that tyme the Church and pastours are degenerated. Yet the same man per­ceiuing hovv litle aggreemēt is betvvixte his religion and that vvhich vvas practi­sed euen in the first age, and tyme of the Apostles, & hovv vnlike his ministers are to those ancient preestes and fathers, Act 15. he sayeth that the Apostles them selues erred in their Councel holdē at Hierusa­lem, or else (sayeth he) vve all sinne novv in eating blood-puddings vvhich they forbad; not knovving (absurde compa­nion as he vvas) or not acknovv-ledging [Page 198]that y ^e precept vvas but for a tyme to cō ­tent the Ievves. As for the Councell of Nice vvhich vvas vvith in 300, yeares af­ter Christe, he auoucheth that the canons and articles of the same are but Stravv and Stubble: [...]pr [...]. vvhich epithetons he giues also vnto saint Iames his epistle. Ep. [...]d Sadol. Caluin sayeth that Bonifacius the Pope, vvas the first that vvas made suprem head of the Chur­che, by Phocas the Emperour, and so he thinketh that then the Churche first de­generated, yet the same man in his prefa­ce to the king of Fraunce, Prafat. Inst. ad Regem Galli [...] in locis postre­ [...] [...]ditu. sayeth that the Church fell not till the tyme of the Coun­cel of Basil. Melancthon sayeth that Pope Zozimus vvas the first Anti-christ, and that since, ther vvas neuer any true Bis­hop of Rome. But first this disagreement of the tyme of this fall, is a sufficient argu­ment that the Churche neuer fell; for if it had fallē (it hauing been once so famous, so glorious, so cōspicuous) the fall therof, vvith the tyme, occasiō, and other circū ­staūces could not haue been cōcealed: & as sone may the sonnes fall from heauen be vnknovven vnto the vvorld, as the fall of the Churche, Mat. 3. vvhich is sometymes cal­led a citie on an hill, Psal. 1 [...]. some tymes a taber­nacle placed in the some. Secondly if the Church fell then certes it vvas not builded vppon a rocke but on the sands, Mat. 16. 2. Tim. 3. then is it not [...] [Page 199]piller of truth; Lu [...]. 22. then did Christ pray that Pe­ters fayth might not fayle, that his father vvould send his holy spirit to remain vvith the Apostles for euer (that is in their successoures for vvith them in person he could not re­main for euer) and yet vvas not hard. Mat. 28. Then did Christ promise that he vvould stay vvith them for euer, but performed not vvhat he promised; Thē vvas Christ an vnfaythfull spouse vvho betrothed him self to his Churche, but separated him self frō her many hundred yeares. c. 2. And then did Daniel foolishly cōpare Christes Church vnto a Kingdom vvhich should neuer be ruined. Ser. 2, in Psal. 107. But as S. Austin vvel noteth, it is the pro­pertie of thē vvho are out of the Church to say that the Churche is not. Sed illa Ec­clesia (sayth he in the person of the Dona­tists) quae fuit omnium gentium iam non est, pe­rijt. Ho [...] dicunt qui in illa non sunt. O impuden­tem vocem. illa non est, quia tu in illa non es? vide ne tu ideo non sis, nam illa erit, etiamsi tu non sis: But that Churche vvhich consisted of all nations novv is not, it is perished. So they say vvho are not in it. O impudent voice; Is not that extant bi­cause thou art not in it? Looke least thou therfore beest not, for the Churche vvill be, although thou be not. Ser. [...]. in Cant. Vvherfor sainct Bernard vvho vvas one of this Church doubted not but that she should perseuer to the end: Ita est, & tunc, & deinceps, nō deficiet genus Christianum, [Page 200]nec fides de terra, nec charitas de Ecclesia, vene­runt flumina, flauerunt venti & impegerunt in eam, & non cecidit, co quod fundata erat supra pe­tram, petra autem erat Christus: So it is, both then, & after vvard the Christiā race shall not fayle, nether fayth frō the vvorld nor charitie frō the Churche; fludds haue come, vvindes haue blovvn & haue beaten vppon her, but the Chur­che fell not bicause it vvas founded vppon a rock, vvhich rock vvas Christ. Hom. 1. de Pent. The vvords of Christ must be verified (sayth sainct Chry­sostome) bicause heauen and earth shall fayle before Christs vvords: and vvhat are those vvords sayeth he? euen those and no other: Mat. 16. Thou art Peter and vppon this rock vvill I build my Churche. ‘This Churche sayeth he vvas impugned but could not be ouercome, dartes vvere shotte against it, but could not pearse, engines of vvar­re vvere vsed to ouerthrovv it, but this tovver could not be beaten dovvn: Con­sider (sayeth he) the tyraunts, beasts, svvords, deaths, dartes, vvhich the deuil prepared against this Churche but all in vayne, for the deuil hathe emptied his quiuer and shott all his arrovves, but the Churche hath no hurte: The persecutours are novv dead, rotten, and forgotten, but the Churche florisheth. Vvhere is novv Claudius, vvhere is Augustus, vvhere are Nero and Tiberius: these are novv naked [Page 201]names, for them selues are not extaunt. Ser. post exi­lium. And thinkest thou, ô deuil (sayth he) that thou canst ouer throvv the Chur­che that art not able to encounter vvith a younge Agnes, and tender Christian mayd, vvho hath proued stronger then all thy force, and instruments of tormēts. And if (sayeth he) thou couldest not o­uercome the Church vvhen she vvas younge and had the Ievves and Gentils Kinges and Emperours against her, thin­kest thou novv to giue her the foyle or falle?’ And truly he that sayeth that the Churche hath fayled, must consequently say vvith the Atheists, that it vvas the vvorke of men not of God, deuised by men to Keepe fooles in avve; for if the Church vvas established by God, then by Gamaliel his rule, Act. [...]. it could not by any for­ce of man, be dissolued. This argument so presseth them that they dare not stand to this ansvver, yet they vvill play small play rather thē stād out? l. de notis Ec­clesiae. Luther therfore in his book of the notes of the Churche, graun­teth that the Church neuer quite decayed but only for the most parte, and so (sayeth he) it decayed euen in the apostles tyme, for as Christe (sayeth he) from the begin­ning had his Church, so the deuil had his chappel vvhich vvas bigger then the Church, & so there hath been euer a suc­cession [Page 202]of both, but the chappel as it vvas euer bigger so vvas it most famouse. And this chappell (saieth he) is the Church of the Papists, vvhich is so famouse in Eccle­siasticall histories. But this shifte is poore and ridiculouse. For if the Church of the Papists degenerated from the beginning as Simon Magus did, vvhy vver not vvee called by particuler names as all hereti­kes are? Vvhy vvas not our autour na­med? Vvhy is not the tyme and occasion registred? If our Church vvas euer the greater then vvas theirs the chappel, for it is against the nature of a chappel to be greater then the Church. If our Church vvas the greater and most famouse, then vvas ours that societie vvhich vvas com­monly called the Christian Church, then vvas our societie that vvhich condemned heresies and called Councels, vvhich vvas persecuted by the persecutours (and con­sequently vvas not the deuils chappel for he persecuteth not his ovvn) and fauou­red by Constantine and other Christian Emperours, Kings, & Princes; for vvhich monasteries vvere erected, Churches builded, in vvhich all the ancient doctours ministred sacramētes, preached, teached, ruled and gouerned. And vvhere vvas then Luthers litle flock? Vvhat Historio­grapher vvrote the progress of it? Vvhat [Page 203]Emperours persecuted it? Vvhat hereti­kes rayled against it? Vvhat Churches vvere builded for it? Vvhat ministers ru­led it? And vvhat vvas the manner of go­uermēt in it? If ther vver no such societ [...]e, & noe other counted Christian but ours, thē ether ours vvas y ^e true Church or else y ^e Church quite fayled, & so they must re­tourn to their first shifte, vv ^ch yet vvill not serue their turne, as is allready proued. Vvherfore if all other fayle they haue yet another shifte, and that is this. Vve graunt say they that the Church neuer decayed but still stood immoueable vppon the rock vppon vvhich Christ founded it, Mat. 16. but soone after the Apostles tyme, or perad­uenture before they vver all dead, this Church became inuisible, and appeared noe more openly, but vvas preserued se­cretly in obscure corners, till at the length Luther (vvhom God and his Church all that vvhile expected) brought it to light again: And all this vvhile (bicause Eccle­siasticall histories conuince them) they confess that ther vvas a Church common­ly called Christian in vvhich Popes ruled, and Kings and Princes vvere baptized, but that (say they) vvas not the Church of Christ, but the conuenticle of Papists and chappell of the deuill, Io. [...]. and thus these euil­doers fly the light. This shifte serues them [Page 204]for tvvo purposes: for first thus they vvill free them selues from all iudgemēt-seats: for if you conuent them before Ecclesia­sticall Iudges, or the vvholle Church, they vvill say that they are not lavvfull Iudges, and that it is not the true Church, vvhich summoneth them to appear; and therfore they are not bound to stand to their sen­tence, vvho haue all authoritie, on their ovvn side: And if you aske them from vvhome they had authoritie, they vvill say that they had their predecessours to vvhom they succeed, and their Church vvhose fayth they preach, and that from them they haue authoritie; if you then bid thē shevv some historie or anciēt monu­ment of their Church, they vvill ansvve­re that it vvas inuisible and soe vvill say vvhat they liste, and by noe Church paste or present shall you be able to controlle them, for they haue a Gygas ring to goe inuisible by. Secondly if the Church vvas inuisible you can not vrge them to shevv any continuall succession of it from the Apostles. For they vvill say that their Church succeeded the Apostles, and is the same vvhich they planted, but after the Apostles tyme, vvas neuer seen till Luther pulled avvay the bushell vvhich couered this light. And truly I vvill easilie graunt that their Church before Luther [Page 205]vvas inuisible. For that vvhich vvas not could not be seen; but that the true Chur­che vvas at any tyme inuisible, is altoge­gether improbable. For vvhen hapned this darkeness I pray you? Mat. 30 Psal. [...]. The Church vvas once a citie vppon an hill, and a taberna­cle placed in the sonne, hovv then could it on a sodain come to bee inuisible, and noe man in the vvorld to note it. Historiogra­phers vvrite of earth-quakes and dark­nesses; and all the vvorld noted the dark­ness vvhich hapned at Christes death; and vvas ther no man to note this darkeness vvhich couered the vvholle face of the earth, and hapned after so conspicuous a light? Aristotle sayeth that the same sense iudgeth of the obiect, and priuation: as for example, the eye vvhich beholdeth colours and light, perceiueth also or at least giues occasion to the invvard sence called sensus communis to perceiue darke­ness vvhen the light is gone: vvhy then could not they vvhich had seen the Chur­che florish and shine conspicuously, per­ceiue also vvhen first she lost her light? And if they perceiued it, hovve chaun­ceth it that none euer vvrote of so straung an accident? But vvhat should I aske so many questiōs vvhere I ame sure to finde noe reasonable ansvveres? I vvill novv vvith one argument make all this darke­ness [Page 206]of this erronious doctrine giue place to the light of the truth, to vvit that the true Church can not be inuisible. For Christ bidds vs vvhen our brother vvill not harken vnto our admonitions, Mat. 18. to cō ­playn on him to the Church. Suppose thē that some heretike should preach false doctrine and being admonished to cor­rect his errour, vvould yet remain obsti­nate; ther is no other remedie but to cō ­playn on him to the Church, and hovve shall this complaint be made if the Chur­che can not be found out, as it can not, if it bee inuisible? Suppose again some Chri­stian or infidell should beginne to doubt of his fayth, and vvould fayne be instru­cted; noe doubt his only remedie is to re­payr vnto the Church for a resolution, vvhere only truthe is taught and salua­tion is found; but if the Churche be in­uisible or decayed, hovv shall he haue access to this Churche vvhich ether is not (as they saye) or at least is inuisible? Truly if the Churche ether decayed or vvas inuisible, then vvas the vvorld vvithout meanes of saluation for many hundred yeares. But let me demaund of them hovv their Churche vvas inuisi­ble, vvhich consisteth of men and is go­uerned by men and mainteined by visi­ble gouerment, visible Sacraments and [Page 207]audible preaching? They liued not all­vvayes in holes, some tymes they came abroad, and comming abroad and ca­rying the name of Christians, they vve­re by Papists allvvayes enforced to fre­quent Masse and sacramentes, and to pro­fesse their religion, else had they been ex­communicated, and deliuered to seculare povver; vvhence it must needs follovv that ether Luthers and Caluines Churche vvas neuer before them selues beganne to preach, or that their Churche dissem­bled against conscience for fifteen hun­dred yeares. But vvhat do I fight against shadovves and that vvhich neuer vvas or neuer vvas seen? Let mee conclude novv that vv ^ch I intended. The ghospellers can not deny but that the true Churche vvas once plāted, and that therfore novve, that is the true Church, vvhich can by succes­sion, be deriued from it (for to say that the Church fayled or vvas inuisible is but a vayne imagination) and seing that Ca­tholikes can by all Histories and monu­ments shevv that their Church is descen­ded from that vvhich vvas in the tyme of the Apostles, theirs is the Church, and they are the true Christians, and seing that the reformers can not thus deriue their Church from the Apostles (bicause be­fore Luthers preaching it vvas neuer seen [Page 208]hard nor felt) it follovveth that their Church is not Apostolicall but rather apostaticall and hereticall, and they noe true Christianes, but heretikes.

CIcero that famous oratour and Mer­chaunt of vvords, Philippica 13. speaking of peace, giues it this vvorthy commendation: Pa­cis nomen dulce est, res vero ipsa cum iucunda tum salutaris: The name of peace is svveet, but the thing it selfe is bothe pleasaunt and soueraine. To vvhich opinion of his all men vvill easilie subscribe if they enter into consi­deratiō of the nature of peace. For vvhat is more pleasaunt then that vvhich all things desire? and vvhat more healthfull and souerayne then that vvhich pre­serueth all things? So pleasaunt is pea­ce that euen senseles creaturs seem vvhol­ly to desire it. The heauens moue all from y ^e east to the vvest, caryed vvith the svvay of the first heauen called primum mobile, and yet by their proper motions at the same tyme they moue also from the vvest to the East & some svviftly some slovvly, [Page 209]yet vvith such vniformitie & aggrement, as though they desired nothing more then peace and feared nothing more then iarring and disagreeing in their motions. The Elemētes vvhen they are out of their naturall places, do moue speedily, and ma­ke great hast to get to their home, bicause there only they finde peace & rest, to vv ^ch their nature inclineth. Brute beasts also of one kind cōmonly Keep together, and follovve one head as it vvere vvith com­mon consent, bicause one easilier makes peaceble aggreement, then many. Li. de va [...] Idolorum. ‘Bees follovv one king (sayeth sainct Cyprīan) and obey the hūming of one master-bee, In all flocks of sheep, ther is one Belvve­ther, and in euery heard one is the ring leader; yea sayeth sainct Hierome: Cranes follovv one in a longe order; vvhich they do for loue of peace, for in follovving di­uers heades, they vvould be more diui­ded, and lesse vnited. lib. ciu. c. 1 [...]. Yea sayeth S. Austin no tigre is so cruel vvhich doth not licke and like her young ones; noe Kite but lo­ues her brood and seekes to conserue her familie in peace:’ much more doth man vvho is indevved vvith reason, couer and desire peace, seem he othervvise barba­rouse and deuoid of humanitie. The Pas­sionate man vvho fights cōtinually against reason to satisfie his passions, seekes to gi­ue [Page 210]thē their desire vvithout contradiction of reason, and consequently coueteth pea­ce, but this is an inordinate peace. The reasonable & vertuouse man, vvho seeks to subdevv his passiōs, and to make them to yeeld to reason vvithout repugnance, seeketh an attonement betvvixt passion and reason; and this is an orderly peace. The rebelliouse and mutinouse subiectes vvho rise in armes against their lavvful Prince, are desirouse to enioy their ovvn vville & to possess vvhat they desire vvith­out resistaunce, and consequently intend a peace; but this is an iniust peace. And all though by rebellion they breake cōmon peace, yet that is not bicause they hate peace, but bicause they enioye not that peace vvhich they desire. The iust Prince vvho maketh vvarre against iniust vsur­pers, Aug. ibidem. euen then vvhen he biddeth vvarre, aymeth at peace, and intends not vvarre as vvarre, but as a meane to come to pea­ce; and this is a iust peace. Cacus that bar­barouse fellovv vvho liued in caues as beastes doe, & fedd him selfe of the spoy­les of others, vvas desirouse to enioy his ovvn desires vvithout molestation, and so desired peace, but a brutish peace. And a [...] peace is most pleasaunt and therfor desi­red of all, so is it most soueraine, and ther­for preserueth all. Peace betvvixt the hu­mours [Page 211]and elementarie qualities in mans body, is health, peace betvvxit the tvvo repugnant partes in mans soule, reason and sensualitie, is vertu, peace betvvixt God and man is Charitie, betvvixt man and man, is frendshipp, peace and con­sorte in voices or instruments is musick, peace and aggreement in colours is beau­tie, peace in proportiōs, is good making, peace in the heauens motions, and in the Elementes qualities, is the cōseruation of all. Peace is the maintenaunce of fami­lies, the preseruation of cities, the establis­ment of Colleges, the strength of com­mon vvelthes, the force of Kingdomes, and the felicitie of all societies. Peace vp­holdeth heauen, Mar. 12. Marc. [...]. & vvithout it hell could not stande, bicause euery Kingdom, vvhich is diuided in it selfe shal be made desolate. Peace and vnitie (sayth the Philosopher) makes naturall causes to passe them selues in for­ce and efficacie, bicause force vnited, is stronger then it selfe diuided. You may breake a thousaunde arrovves one being taken from another, but in a bundell or sheafe, not so. Diuide the greatest riuer vvhich is, and a childe vvill passe it, but vvhen the vvater is vnited, you must haue a shippe or boate to sayle ouer. Lay one cole in one corner of the hovvse, and a nother in a nother, and you may Stand in [Page 212]the middest, and blovve your fingers for colde, but vnite them together, and they vvill vvarme the vvholle hovvse. Oxē di­uided, can not dravv that vvaight vvhich they can vnited. The greatest armie vv ^ch is if it be diuided, is soone defeated, but vvhen the forces are vnited, it is in­uincible. To be breefe, peace preserueth all thinges, and giues streng the and force to all. And contrarivvise dissension is the bane of all. dissension or distemperature of humours in mans body is sicknes, dis­agreement of reason and sensualitie in the soule, is vice, iarring of voices or instru­ments, is vngratefull discord, in colours it is deformitie, in proportions, mishape. Diffension is the vndoing of families, the dissolution of Colleges, the vveakning of cities, the ouerthrovv of armies, the rui­ne of kingdomes, & the bane of all socie­ties. Vvhat Kingdomvvas more likely to haue stood then that of the Angells? Dis­sensiō vvhich Lucifer sovved, had allmost quite ruined it. Vvhat place better fen­ced, more fertile, and frutfull then para­dise? yet dissension betvvixt God and man, yea betvvixte man and him selfe (for vvhen man disagreed from god his fleshe beganne to resist his spirit, and all creaturs before obedient to him, began to rise in armes against, him, banished thē ­ce [Page 213]the happy inhabitaunts, and vvith thē all foelicitie. Vvho more neare then Cain and Abell? dissension vvas the death of the one, and the reprobation of the other. Vvho more likely to haue liued louingly together them Abraham and Lot, Ioseph and his brethern? dissension seuered and separated them. Vvhat kingdomes more strong and potēt then those of the Medes, Persians, Chaldies, and Romaines? read histories and you shall see that dissension vvas the cheefest cause of their ruines. If then the Maxime of the philosopher be true, that one contrarie setteth forth ano­ther; by the destroying nature of dissen­sion, you may easily perceiue hovv soue­rain a preseruatiue peace is, and hovv iust cause all creaturs haue, so vehemently to desire it. This Ievvel Christ bequeathed vnto his deare spouse the Church, vvhen sone after his resurrection, standing in the midst of the apostles, he sayed vnto them: Io. 20. Pax vobis: peace be vvith you. Io. 14. Of this peace in another place he maketh mētiō vvher he sayeth: Pacem relinquo vobis pacem meam do vobis: I leaue peace vnto you, I giue my peace vn­to you. Vvhere, for a legacie he bestovveth on his Church, not gold and siluer, nor kingdomes nor possessious (thoughe he permitteth kings to bestovve these things also vppon her) but that vvhich is more [Page 214]vvorth then all the diadems and scepters in the vvorld, to vvit peace, vvith out the vvhich, noe societie can endure. This pea­ce the prophet Esaie longe since forsavv and forthold, Is [...]. 81. 65. vvhen he sayed: That the vvolfe and lamb shall dvvell to gether, and the Lion, Bear, and Calfe, liue peacebly one vvith ano­ther, and that a litle boy shall driue them a feeld. For his meaning is that in the Church shall be such agreemēt, at least in matters of religion, that they vvho before their conuersion vvere persequuting vvolues and Beares, shall liue peacebly vvith the harmless lambs and Christians, and that a litle boy Christe Iesus, the autour of all this peace, shall driue them a feeld, that is shall rule and gouern them. The same prophet by another metaphore descri­bing the same peace, [...]bidem. sayeth: In those dayes the infant from his mothers pappes, shall deli­ght & disport him self ouer the Aspes hole vvith­out receiuing harme: That is, such peace shall be in the Church, that the children of Christes Church shall liue quietly vvith those, vvho before they receiued Chri­stian fayeth, by heresies, infidelitie, or poy­soning manners, [...]. 2. like serpents infected others. For as in the Arke of Noe those beasts vvhich vvere by nature sauage, so long as they vvere in the Arke, forgot all crueltie and liued vvith the rest most [Page 215]quietly, so hovv soeuer men before their incorporation and admission into the Church of Christe, vvere barbarouse in manners, and mutinouse in opinions, yet vvhen they are once made members of the peaceble kingdō of Christs Church, they lay a side all sectes and factions, and liue quietly together, at least in matters of fayth and religion. Vvherby it plainly appeareth that in the Church of Christe is peace and vnitie in religion. Vvhich the Apostle also insinuateth in those vvords: [...]. Being carrefall to keep vnitie of fayth in the band of peace, as you are called in one hope of your vocation, one body and one spirit, one fayth, one baptisme, one god & father of all. By vvhich wordes vve are taught, that as there is one God, one heauē, one baptisme, so is there, but one faithe, & that they are y ^e true chri stianes vv ch conspire in the same. And the reason herof is bicause the truthe is one neuer disagreeing frō it selfe, lyes are ma­ny, mutable and contrarie: and therfore seing that the Churche is the piller of truth, 1. Tim. 3. it must needs follovv that vvhere the Church is, ther is vnitie, bicause the truth in vvhich the members of the Churche aggree is but one. I vvill not deny but that the Church consisteth of diuers nations, but yet they are so līked in one fayth that in Christ Iesu there is no distinction be­tvvixte [Page 216]the Barbarous and Grecian, Rom 10. nor betvvene Ievv and Gentile; and although these diuers nations speake diuers lan­guages, yet as Ireneus noteth, these diuers tongues profess one fayth. l. 1. c [...]nt. her. c. 3. I graunt also that in the Church there are diuers fun­ctions and dignities; for there are Popes, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bis­hops, Eph. 4. and so forthe, and from them the state of the laitie is distincte, and subiect to them; but these diuers orders make one Hierarchie. I confess like vvise that in the Church there are diuers states and orders of religiouse, as of Benedictins, Dominicanes, Austins, Bernardins, Fran­ciscanes, Iesuits, yet these diuers mem­bers make one body, all linked vnder one head Christ Iesus by one fayth and reli­gion. This vnitie, peace, and aggreement in one fayth and religion, vvhich is to be seen in the Church militaunt in earth, see­meth to me more admirable then that of the Church triumphaunt in heauen. And the reason is, bicause the inhabitaunts of that happy kingdome behold God face to face, and see most euidētly that vvhich vvee beleeue only, and see not at all, and so their aggreement in vnderstanding is not so straunge, bicause the euidence of the verities vvhich they see enclines them to one assent. For as the philosopher [Page 217]sayeth the vnderstanding of it selfe is prone to giue assēt vnto veritie and truth vvhen it is euidently proposed (vvhich is the cause vvhy in things vvhich are euident all men are of the same opinion) and therfore to this propositiō: The vvhol­le is greater then the halfe, all men aggree, but about the creation of the vvorld, the im­mortalitie of the soule, the felicitie of man, the substaunce of the heauens, and such like things vvhich are not so euidēt, there haue beene great disputes and con­tentions, vvhence hath risen that diuersi­tie also of the sectes of Platonists, Peripa­teticks, Stoicks, Epicureans, and such li­ke. Vvherfore seing that the happy inha­bitaunts of heauen doe see euidently the diuine nature, & all the mysteries vvhich vvee only beleeue, I meruayle not that they all aggree in one opinion, bicause the euidence of these things moues them to to one assent. But that so many Chri­stians, of so diuerse countries, and tymes, so diuersly affected, and disposed, should aggree in one fayth and opiniō, and thin­ke, and beleeue the same of all the my­steries of Christian religion, vvhich they see not, this seemeth to me most admira­ble, and so straung that I must needs saye: Exod [...]. digitus Des hic, The finger of God is in this mat­ter, and he it is that is the cause of this pea­ce, [Page 218]vnitie, Scotus q. 2. prologi. and aggreement. For seing that the euidence of our mysteries causeth not this aggreement, and that it can not be the deuill vvho thus linketh their vnder­standings (bicause this religion in all points is repugnant to him and his desi­gnements) it must needs be God vvho inspiring into these diuerse nations and natures one light of faythe, makes them all to conspire in one beleef and opinion. And therfore sayeth Tertulian: Nullus in­ter multos euentus vnus est exitus, l. praesc. 28. errare non pos­sunt qui ita in vnum conspirant: Ther is not one end emongest many chaunces, they can not erre vvho thus aggree in one. Thus vve proue the translatiō of the septuagint to be of God, Iustinus oraet. paraen ad gēt. bicause those diuers vvriters, being pla­ced in diuers Celles, and forbidden to conferr, could neuer haue so aggreed in the translation of the Bible out of He­brevv into Greeke as if all their transla­tions had been copied out of one, had nor God directed their vnderstandings, and inspired them a like. Sithe then a­mongest the Catholikes only, this vnitie is to be found, they only are the true Churche, to vvhich Christe hath bequea­thed this peace and vnitie, and they only are conformable to the primatiue Chur­che planted by Christe and his Apostles, Act. 4. for then the Christian vvorld vvas of one [Page 219]hart and mynde. And for as much as amō ­gest the nevv Christians of this age, there is nothing but vvrangling and dissension and that in principal matters of religion, their Church is the Synagogue of Satan, and they no members of Christs Church, but heretikes, apostataes, and members cut of: for by this marke of dissension the ancient heretikes vvere euer knovven and discried to be heretikes. Simon Ma­gus the first famous Arch-heretike be­ganne a secte, but it remained not one for any tyme, but by and by degenerated into many, and from the Simonians pro­ceeded the Menandrians, Saturninians, Basilidians, Carpocratiās, and from them vvere descended the Gnosticks. From Cerinthus spronge the vnappy branches of the Ebionits, Marcionits, Cerdonists and such like. The Arians vvere no so­ner hatched but they vvere by and by di­uided into Aetians, Eudoxians, Eunomiā [...] and diuers others. So variable they vvere, l. 2. c 12. that Socrates reporteth that they chan­ged their Creed and forme of beleef noe less then nine tymes. The Donatistes like­vvise, vvere by and by parted into Roga­tists, Maximinianists, and Circumcelliōs. The Nestorians vvere seuered into Tri­theites, Theopaschites, Agnoetians, Se­uerites, and such like; The Eutychians in­to [Page 220]Monophysites, Iacobites, Acephalites, and Theodosians. Vvherfore the ancient fathers haue obserued that dissension is a marke inseparably fastened vnto hereti­kes. l. praescr. c. 42. ‘I lie (sayeth Tertulian) if they vary not from their ovvn rules, vvhilest euery one at his pleasur altereth and modifieth (he sayeth tuneth) those things vvhich he hath receiued, euen as the first autour framed them at his ovvn arbitrement, the increase declareth the nature of the beginning and origin: The same is lavv­full for Valentinus, and for the Marcio­nits, vvhich vvas lavvfull for Marcion: to vvitte, to deuise nevv sects and opinions as their sect masters did before them.’ As Donate (sayeth sainct Austin) endeuou­red to deuide Christe that is the Church of Christe, l. de agone Christ. c. 29. soe him, his ovvn Schollers by dayly hacking and māgling deuided into many peeces. Novv that the nevv Chri­stians of this our last age are in like man­ner diuided, and consequētly of the same paste and kinde, it is toe toe manifest. Lu­ther vvas the first man vvho in this last age beat his vvitte to deuise nevve faythes & religiōs, and for a tyme he vvas follovved by many, but in tyme also, his follovvers fell from him, vvho perceiuing that they had as good authoritie to preach nevv doctrine as Luther had (for they could [Page 221]say also that Christ sent them, and they could alleage scripture for their opinions if they might interpret it by their priuat spirit (as vvhy may they not as vvell as he?) they thought it more honourable to be follovved, then to follovve, and to be Masters then schollers, and so leauing Luther in the lurche, they deuised also nevv do­ctrines different from his, and so became sect masters as vvell as he. Zuinglius ther­fore being vveary of Luthers seruice vvhome he had courted to longe, and per­ceiuing hovv vvillingly Luther vvould haue denyed the reall presence (therby to haue preiudiced the Pope) but that the vvords of Christ (as he confessed) seemed to plaine, deuised a glosse for those vvords: This is my body, Mat. 26. and sayed that Christ called the bread his body, not bi­cause it conteineth his body really (as Lu­ther affirmed) but bicause it is a figure of his body. And as Zuinglius delt vvith Lu­ther, so did others. For novv the Luthe­ranes are deuided into seuere and mode­rate Lutheranes, and some glorie in Illy­ricus Flaccus, some adore Melancthon, so that novv Luther is lefte of all his Schol­lers, and not any one remaineth vvho ag­greeth vvith him in all poincts. And as Zuinglius delt vvith Luther so did o­thers vvith him, for from him are descen­ded [Page 222]the Osiandrians, Semiosiandrianes, and Antiosiandriās. Yea out of Zuinglius sprong that vnhappy branch Caluin vvho addeth to Zuinglius opiniō, that although the Sacrament be but a figure of Christe, yet vvith it vve receiue Christe verily & really, but by fayth: vvhich doctrine hovv it can stand vvith it self, In the least booke. vve shall herafter in this vvorke, discourse. And novve the­se mens Schollers, are diuided into Luthe­ranes & double Lutheranes, Zuinglianes, Oecolāpadianes, Caluinists, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, Suenkfeldians, Protestaunts, Puritanes, Brovvnists, Martinists, brethrē of the familie of loue, and of the damned crevv, and I knovv not hovv many. And it is a vvorld to see, vvith vvhat animositie these brethren vvrite one against another. Luther vvrites seuerly agaīst y ^e Zuingliās, l. in Zuingl. and Sacramentaries; and a litle before his death in steed of a benedictiō vvhich this father should haue bestovved vpon these his children, he curseth them to hell; refu­sing all vvriting and communicatiō vvith them, saying that in vayne they beleeue the Trinitie, and Incarnation, vnless they beleeue also the reall presence. To vvhom the Tugurine Zuinglians, Sur. an. [...]. ansvvered that Luther sought his ovvn honour, not the honour of Christ, that he vvas obstinate and insolent, and one vvho vseth to deli­uer [Page 223]men vp to Satan, that vvill not aggree to his opinion. Apol. Eccl [...] Anglia. And yet our Sacramenta­ries in Ingland, say that Luther vvas a man of God, and Caluin, sayeth that he taketh Luther for an Apostle, by vvhose labour especially the truth vvas restored. It vvere a tedious thing to recount their dissen­tions, and it is a pitifull thing to behold in steed of one fayth (in vvhich all the vvorld before Luthers preaching conspired) so many faythes and religiōs. Of this dissen­sion Hilarius complained in these vvords: l. cont. Const. It is dangerous and miserable that novv there are as many faythes as vvilles, and as many do­ctrines as manners, and as many causes of blas­phemies as vices, and that vvheras according as ther is one God, one Lord, and one Baptisme, so one fayth also should bee, vve fall from one faith, and vvhilest many faithes are fayned, noe fayth remaineth. And as he thus complay­neth of the Arians dissensions, so may vve of the dissensions of this age, of vvhich al­so the very autours of these garboils them selues complain most lamentably. l. cont. Zuing. Luther him selfe sayeth that ther is such dissensiō in the interpretation of scriptures, that if the vvorld continevv, vve must haue re­course again vnto the triall of Councells, else vve shall neuer aggree. Deprauat. conf. Aug. Cithreus cō ­plaineth that the Euangelicall Doctours (hee meaneth ministers) are at greater [Page 222] [...] [Page 223] [...] [Page 224]daggers dravving then any quarelling souldiours. Ep. de Exor­aismo. Heshusius confesseth that vvhether soeuer he turneth his eyes no­thing allmost occurreth but dissensions, nevv increase of errours, and falling of great Doctours from the veritie. So that euen by their ovvn cōfessions there is no­thing but vvrangling and dissension in re­ligion amongest them, and consequently their Church is not the Church of Christ, in vvhich peace and vnitie florisheth: vvhich hathe vpholden and shall still vp­hold Christes kingdom against the Tyra­nies of persequutours, & might and slight of the deuill, and all his members: vvheras the kingdom of heretikes must needs fall of it selfe by ciuill discord and dissension. Vvherfore Epiphanius compares them to the vipers of diuers Kindes, In Panarie. vvhich the Aegyptians vsed to conclude in one place together, vvithout ether meate vvith in, or meanes to get out: for as they vvhen they vvere allmost famished began vvith teeth to teare and deeuour one a nother, till that all the rest being consumed, the last hauing nothing lefte to exercise his teeth on, dyeth for honger; so heretikes ruine one a nother, and one secte deuou­reth a nother, till at lenght, the last dyeth of it self by her ovvn impietie. Others compare them to the Cadmean brethren [Page 225]vvhich vvere novv sooner borne but they killed one a nother, others say that they are like sampsons foxes vvhich are diui­ded in the heads that is in faythes, but yet are linked in the tayles, conspiring all in this intention to ruine the true Churche, but in the mean tyme they ruine their ovvne, & beating them selues against the rocke of Christes Churche they do but breake them selues as vvaues doe. Li. 4. contra Marcionem. Var l. 3 d [...] regist c 16. Epiph. har. 44. Tertulian compares them vnto vvaspes, vvhich as Varro vvitnesseth, are like vnto bees, and singe like bees, but gather nether ho­ny nor vvaxe, and can only stinge, and therfore are cast our of the hiue; but being cast out they make their combes by them selues. For so heretikes are baptised like true Christiās, cary the name also of Chri­stians, and sing also like them, euer hauing Christe in their mouthes, the Lord, and the vverd, but they haue nether the hony of svveet doctrine, nor the vvaxe of good vvorkes, only they can stinge vvith their heresies & blasphemies, the right bees and Christians, and therfore by the cheef Pa­stour, and as it vvere the Master bee, they are cast out of the good bees companye, by the censure of excommunication, and being cast out they make their combes, that is sects a part, vvhich they also fill not vvith vvaxe or hony, but vvith the poison [Page 226]of heresie. If therfore some one in Inglād (as there are many such) should doubt of his religiō, I vvoulde fayne knovv to vv ^ch of all the Churches, Sinagogues, and se­ctes, he should repair for a resolutiō? If he demaund vvhere Christ is, vvhere true expositiō of scripture is, vvhere true fayth is to be founde? the Protestaunts vvill say that it is to bee found amongest them, the Puritanes vvill assure him that Christ is vvith them; noe, vvill the Brovvnists say, he is vvith vs. And so the poore man shal­be perplex and doubtfull to vvhich partie he shall adioine him selfe; for vvhilest none af all these sectes and sect-Masters can proue their mission, and euery one of them vvill alleage scripture and their pri­uate spirit, and none can say more for his sect then another, he shalbe in doubte vvhich to follovve, bicause one hathe noe more reason to induce him then another, and yet hee can not follovve them all, bi­cause their doctrines and faythes are con­trarye. Vvherfore he shall do vvell to gi­ue eare to none of them, but rather his best vvilbe to follovve the Counsail of Hilarius: l. cont. Const. that is to imitate the mariners, vvho after they haue lefte the hauen and are lanced into the maine Ocean, if they finde stormes and tempestes, return again to the hauen as the only place of securitie. [Page 227]For so he hauing lefte the Catholique Churche, and out of it finding nothinge but stormes, tēpestes, and contrarie vvin­des of opinions, should returne again to the same Churche as the only peaceble and quiet hauen, vvhere is no dissension in fayth, but all peace and aggreement. But they vvill say that amongest vs also are great dissensions, and diuers sects also of Thomists, Scotists, Nominalls, Realls, and such like: To vvhich I ansvvere that this diuersitie of opinions is not in mat­ters of fayth but only in certain subtilities of Philosophie, or Quircks of Schoole diuinitie, or other indifferēt points of doctrine not defined by the Churche, but left to the free censure of euery man. But yet these men as herin they shevv them selues men, vvho commōly neuer aggree vvher any difficultie is, so they shevv them selues Christiās, vvho if the Pope or Chur­che define any opinion, are then all ready to yeld and aggree, and then you shall see hovv in Christe Iesus and his faith ther is nether Scotist, nor Thomist, but all good Christians. Vvhich is the cause of the great vnitie in the Churche, vvhich must needs be vvanting in the heretikes Synagogues, vvho hauing lefte the Churche, and refu­sing to stand to her censure, haue nothing to make them aggree. For nether is bare [Page 228]scripture, nor the priuat spirit sufficiēt, ne­ther haue they any visible Iudge as is pro­ued, and so vvhilest amongest them euery man may beleeue as he liste, they must needs haue almost as many opinions as heads. Vvherfore to conclude, seing that in the Catholike and Romain Churche, is such peace and aggreement, that all nations vvhich are members of the same, professe the same fayth and aggree all in one religiō; that must needs be the Chur­che to vvhich christe bequeathed his pea­ce, and for as much as emongest the ghos­pellers ther is nothing but daggers-drav­ving and vvrangling in religion, that can not bee the Churche of Christ vvho is the autour of peace and concord, but rather it is an hereticall Synagogue, and they if euer ther vvere any, must needs be hereti­kes, vvhoe vvere euer noted for vvran­glers in religion.

THe nature of good is, not to contein it selfe vvith in it selfe, but rather to imparte it self, and to make it selfe com­mon vnto others. That goodly Planet & celestiall body the Sonne, vvhich is the light, and eye of the vvorld, and modera­tour of tymes and seasons, is not content [Page 229]to abound in him self vvith light, but he bestovves the same bountifully on all partes of the vvorld: and vvhere he can not be liberall in light, he is bountifull in his influences vvhich reach euen to the bovvells of the earth, and bottom of the Sea. Fire vvill neuer be vvarme alone but heateth also the standers by; the fountain vvill not only it self bee full, but ronneth ouer, to vvater the feeldes, medovves and gardens; The svveete balme or odo­riferous ointmēt, cōteines not it self vvith in itselfe, no not vvith in the boxe, but perfumeth all about. To be breefe, there is no good, vvhich is not good to others. And herin the riuers imitate their foun­taine, the effectes their cause, & the crea­tures rather resemble their creatour, then attain vnto his perfection. For he as he is the fountain of all goodness, and good­ness it self; so dothe he most bountifully imparte this his goodness to others. In y ^e creatiō of y ^e vvorld, vvhat did he but im­part him self by participation vnto all his creatures, more or less, according to their capacitie? But aboue all, in the Incarnatiō he hathe shevved him self most boūtifull, by vv ^ch he hath communicated him selfe to our nature not by participation as he did in creation, but by hypostaticall vniōo, in substaunce and person. And bicause in [Page 230]man as in a litle vvorld all things are con­teined (for mā hath being vvith inanima­te creatures, life vv ^th plants, feeling vvith beasts, and reason vvith angels) he hath in man, in some sorte imparted him felfe to all creaturs. But especially to the hu­main nature of Christ he hath declared his bounty, to vvhich hee hathe in such an admirall sorre vnited his diuine persō, that the same man Christ Iesus is God and man, omnipotent, immense, infinite, and enriched vvith all the diuine attri­buts, per communicationem idiomatum. Wher­fore since the tyme or Christes Incarna­tion in vvhich he so boūtifully bestovved him self, God vvould no more be so spa­ring of his graces, as to conclude faith and Saluation vvith in the Confines of Iudea, Psal. 75. but he vvould haue all saued, vvould be knovvn to all by faith, and ho­noured of all, by religion. And therfore novv he hath called Ievv and gentile, the Grecian and the barbarous, and all na­tiōs vnder the sonne vnto his faith, Chur­che, and religion. Vvherfore this Church almost from the beginning euen vvhen it vvas confined vvith in Hierusalem, Act. 2. cō ­teined Parthians, Medes, Persians, Meso­potamians, and as the scripture sayeth, all­most all nations vnder the sonne. And vvhen the holy Spirit descended vppon [Page 231]the Apostles and Disciples in firie ton­gues, Ibidem. and gaue them the guifte also to speake all languages, that vvas to signifie that the Church of Christ vvas not to speake Englishe only, or Scotishe and Flemishe only, but all languages. Vvher­fore God promised our Sauiour Christ that he vvould giue him, not England on­ly, not Scotland Flanders and Germany only, Psal. 2. but all nations for his inheritaun­ce. Psal 71. Psal 81. And he auoucheth that his Church shall rule from Sea to Sea: and that all nations hall haue access vnto it. Mat. 28. And so accordingly Christ gaue authoritie to his Apostles to preach vnto all nations. Vvherby I gather that the Church of Christ is not to bee a particuler sect confined vvith in any strai­tes and corners of the vvorld, but rather an ample Kingdome, reaching ouer all the vvorld. Symb. Apost. & Niceph. And this vvee professe in our Creed vvhen vve say that vve beleeue the holy Catholike Church. For Catholike is as much to say as [...] vniuersall: l cont ep fundamenti c. [...]. Vvhich name (sayeth S. Austin) holdeth me in the Churche. And vvhy? bicause he knevv it to bee a signe of the true Christian Chur­che vvhich neuer yet aggreed to any he­reticall sect, Ibidem. & li de verae, rel c [...] l de vtil credendi c. 7. ether of the Manichies (of vvhich once he vvas one) or of the Dona­tistes, or Pelagians, or any other. And this sayeth saint Austine is so manifest a marke [Page 232]of the true Churche, that heretikes them selues ambitiously affecte the same: but yet if you aske for the Catholike Chur­che, they point to ours, knovving in their conscience that ours only is in deed Ca­tholike. [...]. [...] 2. l. 2. And so saint Austin and Optatus refuted the Churche of the Donatists by this argument especially, bicause it vvas confined vvith in the limites of Africa. And Pacianus saieth that so soone as cer­tain singuler Sect-masters deuised nevve religions, Ep. [...]. ad So. phr. and vvere called by particuler names, the true Christians, to distinguishe them selues from particuler sectes, tooke the name Catholique euen from the be­ginninge (as appeareth by the Creed vv ^ch the Apostles made) vvhich name soun­deth nether of Marcion, nor Cerdon, nor Apelles, nor Valētinus, nor Ne [...]torius, nor Arrius, l. cont. Iudeos c. 1 [...]. nor Luther, nor Caluin. And Ter­tulian so longe as he remained Catholike him self, confessed that the true Churche vvas that vvhich vvas diffused throughe out all the vvorld. Yea he sayeth that in his tyme the true Christians not vvith­standing the violence of persecution filled the Paganes Cities, Apol. c. 37. Ilands, Castles, Courts, Se­nats, and only lefte their temples to them selues; but noe soner vvas this man become an heretike, but he affirmed most absurdly that the Churche might consiste of three [Page 233]persons though they vvere of the laitie. li de exhor. cast c. 7 l. de pudic c. 21. Vvhich he did partely bicause he vvould make vp a Churche of Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla, to vvhom he had vnited him selfe, partlie to deliuer in him selfe frō the name of an heretike to vvhich hee savve him selfe subiect, bicause he vvas novve of a particuler sect. So that it is sufficiently proued that the Churche of Christe is Catholike, that is, a Societie pro­fessing one fayth in all countries yea and ages also, cap. [...]. according to that of Vincentius Lirinensis: In Ecclesia Catholica tenendū quod vbique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum: In the Catholike Churche that is to be holden vvhich euery vvhere, alvvayes, and of all, hath been beleeued. For that (sayeth hee) the name Catholique importeth. Novve let vs see vvhether the Romain Church & faythe, or rather the Church of the reformers, be the Catholike, & consequently the Chri­stian Churche, for these tvvoe Catholike & Christiā euer vvēt together. And here I re­quire noe diuines, nor Philosophers to be Iudges in this matter, only let me haue mē that haue eares or eyes & I desire noe more For the eye vvill easilie Iudge vvhe­ther of these tvvo Churches bee most like to bee Catholike. The Romaine Chur­che vvhich the aduersary calleth Papisti­call hath florished in all ages and in the [Page 234]most parte of the vvorld, as all histories vvill testifie. And novve at this daye our faythe and Churche, one, and the same; is diffused throughe out Spaine, Fraunce, Italie, Portugall and a great parte of Flanders and Germanie, yea it rea­cheth euen to the Indianes and other nevv found countries conuerted by the Benedictines, See the first booke & first chap. Iesuites and other religious men. And so it is Catholique, bicause being one and the same it hathe euer pos­sessed all ages, & countries, and still dothe euen to this daye. As for the reformers Church and faythe, I see noe signe of a Catholike Church in it. For first it began not an hundred yeares since, In the fifte chapter. as before is demonstrated. Secondly it neuer yet pos­sessed the vvholle vvorld nor any great part of it, as the eye vvill beare vvitnesse; only it hathe gotten entertaynmēt in cer­tayne partes of the vvorld, as England, Scotland, Holland, and some Cantons of Germanie. Thirdly it is not one Church nor faythe that possesseth all these pla­ces, but many, yea scarce one religion filleth one shire or citie. Vvherfore all­thoughe England vvere all the vvorld, and this age all ages, yet vvere not their religion Catholike, bicause it is not one faythe and religion in all the shyres of England, nor all the yeares of this age: for [Page 235]in, Englande are many sectes and reli­gions, and they also different from the nevve faythes of other countries: for the­re is great difference betvvixte them and the Lutheranes in Germanie, Hugonots in Fraunce, and Gues in Flanders. Nether is it sufficient for any of them to say that their faythe is Catholike, bicause all are inuited to it and cōmaunded to accept of it, for so euerie sectmaster may saye of his religion, and I haue proued that the true Christian faythe, Church, and religion, is Catholike, in that it being one, possesseth all ages and countries. Vvherfore to con­clude, seing that the Church or rather Churches of the reformers neuer posses­sed all ages and countries, yea neuer, one and the same filled any one countrie: it follovveth that their Church is not Ca­tholike and consequently not the true Christian Church, and so they are no true Christians but heretiques and singuler sectmasters, if euer there vvere any, bicau­se in that they are of particuler sectes they vveare the same Badge vvhich Do­natistes, Arians, Nestorians and such like haue vvorne before them, and for vvhich they vvere euer counted and called here­tikes.

AS vvhen the subiectes beginne to make rebellion, the prince suppres­seth them or cutteth them of, and vvhen any sheep of the flocke are infe­cted the good shepheard separateth them from the rest, least they infect the vvholl flocke: as the surgeon cutteth of the rot­ten member least it corrupt the vvholle body; and the carefull Husbandman pluc­kes vp the vveedes least that they ouer­grovv the good corne: so the supreme pa­stour of the Church, vvhen any rebellious heretikes rose vp in armes against the Church, to vvhom they ought of right to be subiect, assembled allvvayes his forces together, that is called Generall Councels of his Bishops, and by the censure of ex­communication suppressed these rebel­les, least that by their ciuil vvarres they should molest the peace of Christe his Church, and endeuoured to separate the­se infected sheepe, least that they should infect the vvholle folde of Christ, and to cut of these rotten and rotting members, least they should corrupt the vvholl bo­dy, [Page 237]& to pluck vp these noysome vveeds, least they might peraduenture ouergrovv the good corne of the Catholike Chri­stians. And although in the beginning, by reason of persequution and vvant of habilitie, the Church could not haue her Generall Councels, yet euen then the pa­stours of the Church assembled them sel­ues together in vvriting, by vvhich they refuted their heresies, and made the au­tours Knovvn, that others might the bet­ter auoid them. But after that the Church had gotten a Constantine for her cham­pion, and temporall princes for her Pro­tectours, then against Arius she gathered a Councell at Nice consisting of three hundred and eighteen Bishops: A [...]han. ep ad Iou & disp. con. Arian. Socr l. 1. c. [...]. Gen. 14. by vv ^ch number as Abraham once subdevved fiue Kings, so our Sauiour Christ by Pope Sil­uester his Vicare, at Nice the citie of Vi­ctorie (for so much the Greek vvord im­potteth) by Victor also and Vincentius, vvhose names are victorious, gotte the victorie of Arius, and the Quartadecima­nes, and defined against the Arrians, that the sonne vvas consubstantiall to the fa­ther, and against the Quartadecimanes vvhat day Easter should be kept and ob­serued. Vvhich being done the excom­munication, condemnation, curses, and anathems vvere thundred our against [Page 238]them: and a Synodicall Epistle vvas vvrit­ten to Pope Siluester, vvho confirmed the Councels sentence in another Coun­cel at Rome. The Emperour Constanti­ne reuerencing this sentence as the sen­tence of Christes church, banished Arius, commaunded his bookes to be bur­ned and him and his to be taken for ac­cursed heretikes, and after a banquet to vvhich he inuited the holy Bishops he conueighed them home as honoura­bly, as he called them together. So against Macedonius vvas gathered the second Synode at Constantinople by the autho­ritie of Pope Damasus, for the defence of the holy ghosts diuinitie. Against Ne­storius a generall Councell vvas called at Ephesus by Pope Celestinꝰ, vvherin vvas defined that in Christ is but one person. At Chalcedon by the authoritie of Pope Leo the first in a generall Councell, Euty­ches vvas condemned for affirming but one nature in Christe. And the like gene­rall consent of the Church in condemna­tion of the Pelagians, Berengarians, Vvi­clephistes and such others I could easily alleage out of Ecclesiasticall histories, and the Councells them selues. But this may suffice to shevve that vvhensoeuer any preached nevv doctrine, the Chri­stian vvorld vvondered at thē, the Chur­che [Page 239]admonished them, and if they refu­sed to obey her, shee in Generall Coun­celles condemned them, and the Empe­rours and Catholike Princes executed their lavves vppon them vvhich vvere enacted against heretikes, and then all good Christians shunned them as infe­cted and infecting persons. l. con. proph. haeresum no­uitates. c. 1 [...]. For as Vin­centius Lyrinensis sayeth: Annunciare ali­quid Christianis Catholicis praeterid quod acce­perunt, nusquam licet, nunquam licebit, & ana­thematizare eos qui annunciant aliquid, praeter­quam quod semel acceptum est, nunquam non o­portuit, nusquam non oportet, nunquam non o­portebit: To preach vnto Christians other doctri­ne then that vvhich they haue allready recei­ued, noe vvhere is lavvfull, and neuer shall be lavvfull: and to accurse as heretikes those vvhich preach other doctrine then vvhich before hathe been accepted, it vvas euer behoueable, it is euery vvhere behoueable, and euer shalbe behoueable. And vvhosoeuer readeth the Ecclesiasti­call histories shall see hovv allvvayes, they vvere taken for heretikes, vvho vvere cō ­demned by Generall Councells, and hol­den so by that Church vvhich commonly vvas called Christian. And good reason, for he that vvill not obey the Churche muste be by Christes commaundement eschevved as an Ethnike and Publicane. Mat. 18. Let novv the indifferent reader be Iudge [Page 240]vvhether this note and marke aggreeth not as properly to Luther, Caluin, & their follovvers, as euer it did to, Arrius, Ma­cedonius, Nestorius, Eutiches, and suche like, vvho by their ovvn confession vvere infamous heretikes. They taught straūge doctrines neuer allovved by that Church vvhich vvas cōmonly counted Christian; so did Luther and Caluin. At them vvhen they began to preach, the Christiā vvorld vvondered, so did it vvhen these men be­gan. Vvhen they by the Churches admo­nition could not be reclaimed, the Chur­che by a generall Councell in vvhich the Pope ruled by his Legates, condemned them as heretikes; so vvhen Luther be­gane to preach Leo the tenth Pope of that name vvarned him of it, and sent Car­dinall Caietane a larned and famouse di­uine to conferre vvith him, but he being protected by y ^e Duke of Saxonie, though some tymes he fayned that he vvould sub­mit him self, remained obstinate; vvher­fore a generall Councell vvas called at Trent, vvherby the sentence of the lear­nedst, grauest, and vvisest Prelates of the vvorld, (for ther vvere present six Cardi­nalls, fovve Legates, three Patriarches, thirty and tvvo Arch-bishops, tvvo hun­dred and eight Bishops, and fiue Abbors, seuen Generalls of religions, and Pro [...]u­tatours [Page 241]of religions, and other learned men very many) Luther and all the here­tikes and heresies of this age vvere con­demned, euen as Arrius and other hereti­kes in other Councels before had been. But they say that it vvas not the true Churche vvhich condemned them. And might not Arrius haue sayed the same? And vvhen I pray you did the true Churche that once vvas and vvhich condemned Arrius, degenerate? Vnder vvhat Pope and Emperour? In vvhat age? in vvhat year of our Lord? vppon vvhat occasion? But this miserable refuge of theirs is al­ready reiected. At least that Churche vvhich vvhen Luther began to preach vvas commonly counted the only & true Christian Church, condemned them, and so if euer ther vvere any heretikes, these men also must be counted so, else Arrius sentence, vvhich that societie vvhich vvas cōmonly counted Christian, pronounced against him, must be reuersed, or at least again examined.

To these markes may be added others, as vvante of mission, allegation of bare scripture, bragging of the priuate spirit, contempte of fathers, vvant of a visible Iudge, of vvhich vvee haue spoken in the first booke, for these vvere the properties of all heretikes and are as proper to our [Page 242]nevve reformers as euer they vvere to any ancient heretike, as by the same chapters doth appear most euidently.

EVERY man liketh and lo­ueth that vvhich he professeth and vvill speake honourably of him vvhom he follovveth in that profession. The Stoickes cōmend Zeno, the Platonistes prayse Plato, the Peripatetickes Aristotle, the Epicureans Epicure, the Atheists Diagoras, and eue­ry one reuerenceth and respecteth him vvhose doctrine and professiō he embra­ceth. If then the reformers be sincere and reall Christians (as they vvill seem to bee) they must thinke, and speake of Chri­ste very honourably, and giue that homa­ge [Page 243]to his parson, vvhich his doctrine hath deserued. And so in deed or rather in vvordes they seem to doe. Luther vvhen he first began to preach against Indulgen­ces, merits, satisfactiō, good vvorkes, Lut. in c 17. Gal. fol. 2 [...]. and inherent iustice, affirming, that only to be­leeue that Christs Iustice is ours, is suffi­cient to saluation, vsed this for a Cloke; that forsooth hee gaue all to Christs iusti­ce, and nothing to our vvorkes. Caluin also in his preface of his Institutions vv ^ch he vvrote to the King of Fraunce, In pr [...]f. Inst. ad Reg. Gal [...]. com­mendes his ovvn doctrine for this pointe especially, that it giues all honour to Christe, & leaueth nothing to our ovvn force & habilitie. And vvhat doth better ag­gree vvith faith (sayeth he) then to acknovvled­ge our selues despoiled of all vertue that of God vve may be clothed, deuoid of all good, that of him vve may be filled, bond-seruaunts of sinne, that of him vve may be made free, blinde, that of him vve may be enlightened, lame, that of him vve may be made straight, feeble, that of him vve may be vpholden, to take from our selues all matter of glorying, that he alone may be gloriouse on hyghe, and in him vve may glorie. So that vvhilest they deny good vvorkes to bee necessarie & affirme faythe only sufficient, vvhilest they say that vve haue no inherent iustice, but are the best of vs though apostles, sin­ners before god, that our best vvorkes are [Page 244]sinnes, and that vvee haue noe other Iusti­ce then the iustice of Christe apprehended by fayth and imputed only to vs, vvhilest they deny that vvee cā obserue the cōmā ­demētes, or haue the povver & free vvill to do any good, or resist any tentation, they attribute, forsooth, all to Christe, and leaue nothing to vs, that hee only may be glorified. But by this booke I hope to make knovvn vnto the vvorld their deep dissimulation, vvho in vvordes seeme to giue all to Christ, but by their doctrine, doe robbe him and despoile him of all his honourable titles. And first you shall see hovv sacrilegiously they plucke and pull at Christes diuinitie. I vvill not here relate the blasphemies of Michael Ser­uet vvhoe yet vvas a brother of this reli­gion, bicause they vvill say that for such doctrine, Caluine caused him to bee bur­ned, for he sayed plainly that God the sonne vvas not true God, l. Trin. fo. 7 34 35. l 2. fol, 8 & in dial. not coaquall vvith his father, yea he sayed that God the father only vvas God: vvhich doctri­ne notvvithstāding he gathered, or might haue gathered out of Luthers and Cal­uins vvorkes. Nether vvill I say any thing of the heretikes and nevv Arians of Trā ­siluania, vvho in this also aggree vvith Seruetus. Luther the graund Patriarch and nevv Euangelist must not bee omit­ted: [Page 245]vvho in his booke against Latomus sayeth that he can not abide that vvord Homousion. These are his vvords: anima mea odit vocabulum Homousion: [...]. My soule hateth the vvord consubstantiall. So did the Arians hate the same vvord and called it exoticū, straunge and vnusuall. But Athanasius gathereth this vvord out of scriptures & ancient fathers, Ep. Decr. Conc. N [...]i [...]. vvho in that they affirm that the sonne is begotten of his father & coequall vnto him & one vv ^th him, affirm also that he is cōsubstātiall, & of the same substaunce vvith his father, bicause no­thing is equall and coequall to god the fa­ther but God, and nothing is God vv ^ch is not the same substaūce vvith him, bicause there are not many Gods. And vvhy should Luther hate this vvord but for the signification, for the sound is no more vn­gratefull then the sound of other vvords? If he hate the signification, then is he an Arian, vvho beleeueth not that the sonne is cōsubstātiall and of the same substaunce vvith his father, and consequently he thinks him not to be God, or else he thin­kes that ther are many Gods different in substaunce. The same Luther as diuerse affirm, in an edition of his commentaries vppon Genesis (vvhich I haue not seen) calles the sonne of God the instrument of his father, by vv ^ch he created the vvorld, in [...]. ca. Gen. [Page 246]vvhich manner of speech Arius also vsed; And seing that the instrument is neuer of so noble a nature as the principall agent, vvhat is this but to make the sonne of God inferiour to his father and conse­quently a creature? And this testimonie (as I haue read) Seruetus alleaged against Luthers Scholers in the Albane disputa­tion. Luther also blotted out of the Ger­main prayer books, those ancient vvords Sancta Trinitas vnus Deus, miserere nobis: Holy Trinitie one God, haue mercy vppon vs. And vvhy? for some spite belike vvhich he conceiued against Christ Iesus the second person in Trinitie. For vvhy else did he in his Germain Bibles vvhen he came to the translation of those vvords of the ninth chapter of Esaie, Deus fortis stronge God: Leaue out, God? as though Christ vvere strong but not God. Vvhy did he leaue out quite those vvords of saint Ihons epi­stle, [...]. [...]o. [...]. Tres funt qui testimonium dant in caelo, Pa­ter, Verbum, & Spiritus sanctus & hi tres vnum sunt. Ther are three vvhich giue testimo­nie in heauen, the father, the vvord, and the holy ghost, and these three are one? The same Lu­ther in his booke of Councels excuseth Eutyches, l. de concil. [...]. [...]. and Nestorius and accuseth S. Leo and sainct Cyrill as men vvhich vve­re to eagre against them, for (sayeth he) as Eutyches sayed so may it vvell be sayed [Page 247]that Christs diuinitie suffred. O blasphe­mie? did the diuinitie of Christ suffer? then vvas it not true diuinitie, and conse­quētly Christ vvas not God, bicause God as God can not suffer. I may vse here Ala­mundarus vvitty ansvvere against Luther, Niceph l. 16 hist. c. [...]. Baron in Annal, anno Christi 509. vv ^ch he vsed against certain hereticall Bi­shops that sayed that Christs diuinitie suf­fred on the crosse: for he, vvhen he hard that they vver come to speake vvith him, cōmaunded his man presently after their entraūce to vvhisper him in the eare; vv ^ch being doon accordingly, Alamundarus started at the vvhispering and seemed astonished. The Bishops thinking that his man had told him some euil nevves, de­maunded vvhat it vvas at vvhich he vvas amazed? My man (sayeth he) telles me that Michael the Archāgell is dead. Tush, Tush (sayed they) that nevves can not be true; bicause angels can not dye. Can not Angells dye (sayed Alamundarus) and thinke you that God his diuinitie could suffer? Anno 1554. Melancthon in his book of common places, and in diuers other pla­ces hath these propositions. l. cont. Stan [...]. ep ad Elect. The sonne of God according vnto his diuinitie prayed vnto his father for his Kingdom, glorie, and inheritaunce: The diuine nature of the sonne, Ep. 2 [...]. tract▪ pag. 994. vvas obedient to his father in his Passion. The like saying hath Beza, yea and Caluin also. Is not this [Page 248]to deny Christes diuinitie and coaequa­litie vvith his father? For vvho but an in­feriour prayeth? [...]is. Kemn. epud Bel to. 1. l 3. de Christo in initior Lut ser de [...] Domini [...]0. [...]. Vvho but an inferiour obeyeth? The Lutherane Vbiquetaries also, vvho affirme that the diuine attribu­tes are really cōmunicated vnto Christes humain nature, and that in such sorte, that the humain nature vvas immense and om­nipotent as the diuinitie vvas, destroye Christes diuinitie, vvilest they extoll his humanitie: for by this doctrine it follov­veth that Christes diuinitie vvas nothing else but his humaine nature deified & re­ally turned into diuinitie, & seing that hu­main nature can not in this manner parti­cipate of the diuinitie, it follovveth that Christ is not true god, bicause he hath not true diuinitie. For allthoughe by incar­nation man vvas God, and so consequen­tely immense and omnipotent, by a cer­taine communication vvhich diuines cal­le cōmunicatio idiomatum, Yet the humanitie could neuer really be y ^e diuinitie, nor om­nipotēcie, nor any other diuine attribute. And to come to Caluin, Li cont Ʋa­lentinct Gen­ [...]lem. he sayeth plainly that the name of god aggreeth to the Fa­ther [...] per excellentiam by excellencie. Vv ^ch if it be so, then god the sonne is not so Excellent a god as the Father, and con­sequently no god at all. He also in diuer­se places auoucheth that Christ is not god [Page 249]of god, as the Nicen Councell calleth him, li 1. Inst c 1 [...].9.19.23.31. he denyeth that by eternall generation God the sonne hath his essence from his father, yea (sayeth he in the last place quo­ted in the margent) the essence of the son­ne is no more generated then the essence of the father. To vvhom in this point sub­scribeth our countriman vvhitaker in his booke against ffather Campian. pag. 1 [...]3. O blas­phemie & of them that vvill needs be co­unted reformed Christians. better vvere it to deny Christ flatly, then to professe his name, and yet vnder hand to disgrace him: for dissembled religion is double ini­quitie. Is not Christ God of God the fa­ther? then is he some other God, hath he not his essence from his father? Then is he not the sonne of God, bicause the sonne takes his substaunce from his father. Is not the sonnes essence generated? then is not the sonne begotten of his fathers sub­staūce, then is he not consubstātiall to his father, but rather of another nature, & cō ­sequētly ether a creature or another God. The diuines graūt that the essēce & diui­nitie absolutelie vvithout addition, is not to be sayed to be generated, for then it should be generated in God the father al­so, but yet they affirme that God the sonne is God of God and begotten of his father, and that by eternall generation he recei­ueth [Page 250]vvith out all imperfectiō his essence from his father, and consequently that the essence is generated, not absolutedly, but in the sonne, else vvere hee not a sonne, nether should he be cōsubstantiall to his father. Ep duabus ad Polon. Pet. Mar. duab. ep. Kem. l. de duahus nat. Mel. loc. c. de filio. The same Caluin accompanyed vvith diuers others bothe Caluinists and Lutheranes, affirmeth that Christ accordīg to his diuinitie vvas Preest and media­tour. To vvhom Ievvel in his booke against Harding subscribeth, Ievvellus ae 17. vvhere he sayeth that in Christ ther vvere tvvo na­tures, the diuinitie and the humanitie, and that the humanitie vvas offered in sacrifi­ce, but the diuinitie played the preest, and offered vp this sacrifice. Se here another blasphemie. Is Christ preest according to his diuinitie? Did his diuine nature offer vnto the father the sacrifice of the humain nature? then certes Christ vvas not only as man but also in respect of his diuinitie inferiour to his father (for the Preest is in­feriour to the God to vvhome hee offe­reth sacrifice, bicause in oblation of a sa­crifice he acknovvledgeth God the supre­me excellencie) and so vvas ether a crea­ture or a lesser God, and so noe God at all. The ancient fathers & diuines do graunt that the same Iesus Christ vvas Mediatour betvvixt God and man, and God also, to vvhom Mediation vvas made, by reason [Page 251]of his tvvoe natures subsisting in one per­son for a Mediatour like a meane, must participate of bothe extremes, and ther­fore sithe man had offended, and God vvas offēded, the Mediatour must be God & man participāt of bothe, for God only could not satisfie bicause he could not suf­fer, mā only could not satisfie, bicause his satisfactiō vvould haue been less thē vvas y ^e iniurie, vvherfore it vvas necessarie that one vvho vvas bothe God & man should make this mediatiō and satisfaction. And so the same Iesus Christ God and man sa­tisfied, but not as God but as man, and he as the person offended, receiued also the satisfaction, but not as man, but as God. In like māner the same Christe Iesus vvas the Preest, the sacrifice, and the God to vvhome this sacrifice vvas offered. And so Christ vvas the preest but not as God but as man, for in this only respect Christ had a superiour to vvhō hee might offer a sacrifice: Christ also vvas the sacrifice, but as man, for his humaine nature only suffered; And Christ also vvas he to vvho­me the sacrfice vvas offered, but as God, for so hee vvas noe lesse offended and in­iuried by mans sinne then god the father. I referre the Reader to a booke vvhich one Aegidius Hunnius a Lutherane hath vvritten against Caluin in vvhich he de­clareth [Page 252]hovv Caluin still expoundeth the old and nevv Testament in fauour of the Ievves, Caluinus lu­daizans. as thoughe the places spake not of Christe, and therfore this man calleth his booke Caluinus Iudaizans, Caluin playing the Ievve. Tell mee novv gentle Reader, vvhether these men as they say do attri­bute all vnto Christ, vvhoe as thou hast harde, doe despoyle him of his greatest titles of honour, that is God, & the sonne of God? But thou vvillt say that in many places Caluin & others graunt that Chri­ste is true God & the sonne of God. I vvill graunt it also, l. 1. Inst. c. 13. for Caluin in the first booke of his Institutions and thirteenth chapter, indeuoureth to proue Christes diuinitie, but yet thou seest also hovve they eate their vvords, & deny in one place vvhich in another they affirmed. And so to con­clude, ether they speake thus vvittingly of Christe, and so they are noe Christians but renouncers of Christ, or of ignoraun­ce, & so thy are not men to be fellovved in so great mattets as faythe is, vvho haue need thē selues to learne their Catechisme vvhich teacheth hovv to speake, and to beleeue of Christ and God.

MAN once vvas free of condition as being created lord ouer all, and [Page 253]subiect to none but God, vvhose seruice is no seruilitie; he vvas noble of birthe as being framed by God his ovvn hands of virgin earth, Mannes feli­citie in para­dise. vvhich yet vvas not stained by sinne; he vvas happie in state as being indevved vvith a body immortall, freed from diseases, deaths, and distemperaturs, nether benummed vvith cold, nor par­ched vvith heat, nor pined vvith honger, nor molested vvith thirst; enriched vvith a soule filled vvith grace and spiritual tre­asures, vvhich vvas prone to vertue, not inclined to vice, nether molested vvith concupiscence, nor overruled by passion, but ruled reason, vvhich vvas ruled by grace. His superiour parte vvas obedient to God, his inferiour parte to the superi­our, sensualitie to reason, the flesh to the spirit, and all creaturs to him vvere buxo­me and obedient. Besides this invvard foelicitie of soule and body, he vvas pla­ced in Paradise, vvhere he vvas enuironed and compassed about vvith all delightes, and pleasures, and farre from all displea­surs. Mannes ser­uitude after sinne. But vvhen by sinne man vvould not be subiecte to God, hee became a slaue to his ovvne flesh, passions, and sensualitie, a bond man to sinne, captiue to the deuill, subiect to death and mortalitie, hell, and damnation. And of all this seruile subie­ction, sinne vvas the cause. for vvhen Adā [Page 254]sinned and vvee in Adame transgressed, vve vvere by & by guiltie of death vvhich is the revvard of sinne, Rom. [...]. and by sinne vve be­came slaues to sinne, and concupiscence. For as Christe sayeth vvhosoeuer sinneth is a slaue to sinne: Io 8. l Io 5. 2 Pet 2. Rom. 6. and being slaues to sinne vve vvere slaues to the deuill, vvhoe hathe noe authoritie nor povver ouer vs but by sinne: and being slaues to the deuill vvee vvere captiues of hell, vvhich is the pri­son vvhere the deuill holds sinners perpe­tually. And behold here breefly in vvhat bondage by sinne the deuill had gotten vs. After that by sinne vve vvere despoi­led of grace, if he had tempted vs vve could not haue resisted, and if vve had fal­len by sinne, Th. [...]. 2. q. 109. a. 7. vve could not haue risen a­gain by force of nature, and force of gra­ce vve had none, bicause sinne had depri­ued vs of it; and so vve vvere slaues to sin­ne, and the deuill also, and captiues also and prisoners of hell, vvhich is devv to sinne; vvherfore sainct Paule sayeth that Vve vvere deteyned captiues at the deuils vvill and pleasure. 1. Tim. [...]. To ransome this prisoner, and to redeme this bondslaue by vvay of ae­quitie and iustice, it vvas necessarie that a diuine person should become man: Mannes Re­deemer. for God only could not satisfie, bicause he vvas the partie offended, and in that he vvas God could be indebted to none; [Page 255]Man only vvas not able to paye so great a ransome as sinne required, only God and man, vvas a fitte pay-master. For as S. Leo sayeth if he had not been true god he could not haue giuen vs a remedie, Ser. 1. Nat. Domini. and if he had not been true man he could not haue giuen example, yea he could not haue suffered, and so could not haue satis­fied. And amongest the three diuine per­sons, the second vvas the fittest. For vvho fitter to be a mediatour then the midle person? Vvho fitter to be the sonne of mā by incarnatiō, then he vvho from all aeter­nitie vvas y ^e sōne of god? Vvho fitter to re­paire the image of god in mā, thē hevvhoe vvas y ^e image of his father? Vvho fitter to make an amendes for Adames inordinate desire of knovvledg, Gen. [...]. then he vvhoe vvas the vvisdome of his father? Vvho fitter to abate Adams pride vvho vvould haue be­en like to God, then he vvho vvas in deed the likeness of god his father, and yet by incarnation, of purpose became in out­vvard shovve as vnlike him as man is to God? Breefly vvho fitter to appease the storme, then Ionas for vvhom the stor­me vvas ray sed, for it vvas no other then the sonne of God for vvhō the storme in heauen vvas raised vvhen Lucifer vvould be like the highest. It vvas no other then the same sonne of God for vvhō in para­dise [Page 256]that storme arose, vvhen Adam puf­fed vp vvith pride, vvould be like to god in Knovvledg of good and euil; for to him is proper the likenesse and image of God, vvhich they inordinately affected. The anciēt then of yeares became a child, the vvord vvas mute, God became man, the second and middle person played the mediatour, the sonne of God became the sonne of man, and in mans nature vvhich hee had takē vppon him, repayred vvhat man had ruined, and destroying sinne by fleshe, vvhich by flesh vvas committed, ouercame the deuill by fleshe, by vvhich he had ouercome: and vvher as vvith one teare, yea one vvorde he might haue re­deemed vs, he vvould shed his blood for vs, and vvheras one dropp had been suffi­cient, he povvred out all, to shevv the greatnesse of his charitie, and the great­nesse of our ingratitude vvhich still com­mit sinnes vvhich cost Christ so dearly, to shevv the mallice of sinne vvhose staine could not be takē out vvithout the blood of this lamb, and to shevve the greatnesse of the ransom, and the price of our re­demptiō. So great vvas this price vvhich vvas payed for vs, 1. Pet. 1. that sainct Peter sayeth Vvee vvere redeemed not by gold and siluer, but by the pretiouse blood of Christe. 1. Cor. 6. And sainct Paule sayeth that vvee vvere bought by a great [Page 257]price; so great, Psal. 13 [...]. that Dauid calles it copiosa re­demptio, a copiouse redemption. Prorsus copiosa (sayeth sainct Bernard) quia non gutta sed vnda sanguinis per quinque partes corporis ma­nauit: Copiouse in deed bicause not a dropp, Ser 22. in Cant. but a streame of bloud issued out at fiue partes of his body, so ritch a price vvas this blood sayeth he, Ep. 190. That it vvas sufficient to haue satisfied for the sinne vvhich shed it. So that Christ is our redemer Vvho hathe deliuerd vs out of the povver of darkenesse, Col. 1. freed vs from the sla­uerie of sinne, and the bondage of the deuill. Ser. 197. Do­min. l. post Trinitatem. For as (saint Austine sayeth) Christ novv hath tyed the deuill in a chaine, so that he can no farther tempte vs then vve can resist: barke he may, tempte he may, sollicite vs he may, but byte he can none but those, vvhich vvill vvillfully cast them selues vvith in his reach. Vvho novv is so vngratefull as not to acknovvledge this benefit? Vvho vvill arrogate vnto him selfe the name of a Christian, vvho vvill not also acknovvledge Christ for his re­deemer? Dare novve the reformers de­ny Christe the title of a redeemer? they dare not. Yet by their doctrine they make him a most absurd redeemer, and so more dishonoure him then if they had denyed him this title alltogether. For they saye, that, there is noe iustice but Christes iustice, noe good vvorkes [Page 258]but his vvorkes, noe merit but his merit, noe satisfaction but his, & consequently, that Christes passion vvas our iustice, our merite, & our satisfaction. Out of vv ^ch do­ctrine they inferre, first, that nether there is any inherēt iustice or sanctitie in mā, ne­ther is there any necessarie, bicause Chri­stes iustice is ours by imputation, l. [...]. Inst c. 11. §. 2. Luth. in 2. Gal fol. 29 [...]. and that is sufficient. So (sayeth Caluin) and to him subscribeth Luther, as shall appeare by their vvordes, vvhich shalbe related and refuted in this selfe same booke, as also in diuers chapters of the seuenth booke. Secondly they gather out of the same do­ctrine that good vvorkes are not necessa­ry, bicause Christes vvorkes are ours, and they are sufficient: vvhich doctrine I shall laye open in the same booke and first cha­pter. Thirdly hence they inferre also that noe lavves, ether humaine or diuine, can bynd vs in conscience, bicause Christes passion vvas the ransome, vvhich freed vs from all lavves. Fourthly that vvee are bound to noe satisfaction bicause Chri­stes satisfaction vvas sufficient. Fiftly that noe sinnes nor euill vvorkes can hurte, vs, bicause Christes iustice being ours, noe sinne can make vs sinners, vvhich doctrine shalbe set dovvne in the same booke. Sixtly that noe hell nor iudge­mēt remayneth for vs: bicause Christes iu­stice [Page 259]being ours, sinnes can nether bee im­puted to vs in this life, nor punished in y ^e next. And in these pointes they saye that Christian libertie consisteth. So that Chri­ste according to these doctours opinions, hath redeemed vs from the slauery of sinne, bicause his iustice being ours noe sinne can hurte vs, hee hathe deliuered vs from the yoke of the lavve, bicause noe lavve can bynd vs, hee hathe deliuered vs from hell and the deuill, bicause hovv­soeuer vve liue, if vvee beleeue that Chri­stes iustice is ours and our satisfaction and payment, the deuil hathe noe povver to punish vs in his Hellish prison, bicause Christe hathe suffred the payne devve to our sinnes before hand. Vvherin the dis­creet reader may easily perceue vvhat an absurd Redeemer they make Christe to bee. For if Christe hathe redeemed vs from the slauery of sinne bicause noe sin­ne can hurte vs, then dothe hee open vs the gappe to all manner of sinnes and ou­trages. For vvhoe vvill care for sinne that is persuaded that Christes passion is so imputed to him, that noe sinne can hurte him? If Christe hath redeemed vs from the yoke of the lavve, bicause noe lavve novve can bynde vs in conscience; then dothe he giue vs the occasion to trans­gresse freely, and contemne bodely all [Page 260]māner of lavves and ordinācies. If Chri­ste hathe deliuered vs from hell bicause hee hathe payed the punishemēt de [...]e to sinne, and requireth noe other satisfactiō at our handes, then doth hee in a manner egge vs forvvard to all vice, from vvhich noe man vvill absteyne, if fear of hell do not bridle his vnruly appetites, and keepe him in avve. And so Christes passion vvhich vvas a sacrifice to abolishe sinne, is a cause of all sinne, and Christe vvhoe came to redeeme the vvorld from sinne, filleth the vvorld vvith sinne, and so is an absurd redeemer, so to redeeme vs from sinne, that hee inuiteth vs and eggeth vs forvvardes vnto sinne. So they make Christ not vnlike to that father vvhoe seing the excessiue expences of his pro­digall sonne, dothe not commaunde him to vse more thriftines, but payes before hand to all disers, cookes, Inkeepers, and merchauntes, all that possibly hee can loose at dise, or lauish out in apparell, or consume in banquetting: vvherin hee doth nothing else but inuite his sonne to all vnthriftines, vvhoe needes neuer to care hovve, hee spendeth, vvhen all his debtes are payed before hand. For so the ghospellers saye that Christ perceiuing, that vve could not keepe the lavve, freed vs frō all lavves, and seing that vve could [Page 261]not auoyd sinne, imputed his ovvne iusti­ce so vnto vs, that noe sinne can hurte vs, and knovving that vvee vvere not able to satisfie for sinne, hee abode the pain him selfe, and vvould haue none required at our hands. And in so doing, vvhat else ha­the hee doone, but opened the vvide gate to all licentious libertie, vice & iniquitie? Hovve farre more reasonable is the opi­nion of the Catholike Churche, vvhich affirmeth that Christes passion vvas not our formall iustification nor satisfaction, but only the meritorious cause of our redemption and saluation: vvhich deser­ued for vs at Gods handes grace by vv ^ch together vvith our cooperation vve may be saued and redeemed. For as vve fell by our ovvne vvilles into captiuitie, so Christ thought it good that by our ovvne vvilles together vvith his grace (for vvith­out grace vvee may fall but vve can not rise again) vve should rise vp again and vvinde our selues out of the seruitude of sinne and the tyranie of the deuill. So that Christ hath redemed vs from the ser­uitude of the lavve, not that the lavve by ndeth vs not, but bicause Christ hathe ta­ken avvay the heavinesse of the lavve, and by his grace vvhich he giueth vs, hathe giuen vs force easilie to fulfill it, vvhich othervvise vvould haue tyrānised ouer vs, [Page 262]in cōmaunding more thē vve should ha­ue beene able to haue performed. Christ also hathe redeemed vs from captiuitie & bondage of sinne, not bicause noe sin­ne can be imputed vnto vs, but bicause his passion hathe deserued grace for vs, by vvhich vvee maye dispose our selues to iustification vvhich is a resurrectiō from sinne to nevvnesse of life, and by vvhich vvee may auoid sinne vvhensoeuer vve are moued there vnto. Christ also hathe freed vs from the tyrannie of the deuill and captiuitie of Hell, bicause he hathe procured vs grace, by vvhich vvhen the deuill by him selfe, or the vvorld or the fleshe prouoketh vs, vve may resist, mau­gre all the force of hell. Christ also hathe satisfyed for our sinnes, not bicause his passion vvithout any cooperation on our part doth suffice, for so, as is proued, the gate vvere opened vnto all iniquitie, but bicause his passion had obteyned grace for vs, vvith out vvhich vve could not sa­tisfie for the least veniall sinne, and by vvhich, if vve cooperate vvith it in pae­naunce, fasting, almesdeeds, prayer, and vvorkes of paenaunce, vve may satisfye for all our sinnes, and all the paynes devv vnto our sinnes. So that Christ hathe re­deemed vs from the seruitude and heauy yoke of the lavve, and yet vve must kee­pe [Page 263]the lavve, and novv especially, bicause the heauinesse therof is taken avvay by Christ his grace: Christ hathe freed vs from the seruitude of sinne, and yet vve must auoide sinne, and novv especially, bicause Christes grace hath giuen force to arise by paenaunce from our former sinfull life, Psal. [...]. and to vvalke in the vvaye of his commaundementes, and nevvnes of life: Christ also hathe deliuered vs from the tyrannie of the deuill, bicause he ha­the giuen vs grace to resist him; vvherfo­re vvee must not yeeld vnto him, but novv especially vve must stand against him: Christ also hathe satisfied for vs, and yet vve must satisfie, and novv especially bicause he hathe giuen vs grace by vvhich vve may do paenaunce for sinne, and sa­tisfie for the payne. For although that Christe hathe payed the price of our re­demption, yet vvould he haue vs to ap­plye it by our cooperation not only in faithe (for so hee should open the gapp to all vice) but in poenaunce, in obseruatiō of the commaundementes, and receiuing of the Sacramentes. Vvherfore our re­deemer him selfe vvho freed vs from the yoke of the lavve, yet commaunds vs [...] Keep the lavve if vve mean to enter into life; Mat. 19. and although he hath satisfied for or sin­nes, Lue. vle. yet he commaunds his Apostles to [Page 264]preach penaunce vnto vs as necessarie for remission and satisfaction of our sinnes. And if hee had redeemed vs in that man­ner vv ^ch the Ghospellers imagin, and had set vs at that libertie, that noe lavve can bynde vs, nor noe sinne hurte vs, and that noe good vvorkes nor satisfaction, nor any other cooperation besides faith, can be required on our parte, then had hee beene a most absurd redeemer (as I haue all ready proued) and had rather tum­bled vs dovvne into the depthe of sinne and damnation, then redeemed vs.

VVell did our blessed sauiour compa­re heretiks vnto Vvolues vvrapped and invested in sheepe-skinnes, Mat. 7. vvhose manner hath all vvayes been vnder prae­tence of religion, to vtter blasphemie, and then to mean & intend the vvorst, vvhen they speake fairest. Vvhat I pray you is so common in our ghospellers mouthes, as that Christ only is our Redeemer, and so­le mediatour? vnder vvhich pretence they [...]ondēne all honour giuen vnto sain­ [...]es, and abandon all prayer and interces­si in valhich is made vnto them, as iniuri­ouse to Christ and his title of a Redeemer. In vvhich truly they seeme not vnlik to Iudas, vvho vvould needs Kisse Christe [Page 265]vvhen he meant to betray him, and me thinkes (and vvhat I thinke I shall proue anone) in this point they resemble the Ievves vvhich invested Christe like a King, called him King, and adored him as King, yet in deed derided him as a foole. For so these men calle Christ the Redee­mer, and rather then they vvill not seem to mean so, they take from the Saincts, the mother, and freends of Christ, all se­condarie mediation and intercession, and vvill seem to be so zealous of Christes honour that they vvill haue none ho­noured but him; and yet in deed vnder this faire shovve, they cary false hartes, and euen then vvhem they calle him and adore him as a Redeemer, they robbe him and despoile him of that honourable title. Lut. in com. Gal. fol. 298. Luther in his commentaries vppon the second Chapter to the Galathians sayeth plainly that, Christe apprehended by faith is Christian iustice for vvhom God reputeth vs iuste. l. 3 Inst. c. 3. §. 2. Caluin also subscribeth that our iustice consisteth in the imputation of Christes iustice vnto vs. And bicause this iustice is extrinsecall and is not inhaerent in vs, they saye that thoughe for Christes sake vve be reputed iuste, yet the holyest that is, is a greevouse sinner, and all his vvorkes are vvorthy nothing else but damnation, vvhich doctrine herafter diuerse tymes, [Page 266]& especially in the seuenth booke shalbe related. hence it is also that they saye that our sinnes are only couered vvith christes iustice vv ^ch is imputed vnto vs, but are not taken avvaye nor extinquished. This they explicate by a similitude: for (say they) as if a man looke thorovghe redd glasse, all seemeth redd, bee it blacke or vvhite, so God beholding vs throughe Christes iustice reputeth vs iuste thoughe in deed vvee bee sinners. Abou [...] in the first chap. And this Caluin in his preface of his Institutions to the King of Fraunce avoucheth not to derogate from christe but to make much for his honour, for vvhat (sayeth he) is to Christe more honorable thē to acknovvledge our selues despoiled of all vertue that of [...] vvee maye bee clothed, that is, reputed [...] for his iustice vvhich is imputed vnto vs. But let vs see hovve honourable this is to Christe. I vvill not deny but that it is ho­nourable to Christ and expedient for [...], to acknovvledge that of our selues vvith out Christes grace vvee are sinners and cá do litle else but sinne, Th. 1.2.q.109. but to saye that no­tvvithstanding Christes grace vvh [...] he hath bestovved on his iuste, & is ready to bestovve on all repētaunt sinners, [...] still sinners, and only reputed [...] for Christes iustice vvhich is by fayth appre­hended and by God imputed vnto vs, is [Page 267]most dishonorable to Christe. For if vve haue no other iustice then Christs iustice vvhich is imputed vnto vs, then haue vve no internall sanctitie in vs, then are vve not truly sanctified, then are vve still sin­ners be vve neuer so iuste. Caluin and Lu­ther, and all the Lutheranes, & Caluinists haue no other ansvver to this then concedo totum: I graunte all. Are vvee then still truly sinners and not truly iuste? then vvas the first Adame more potent in mallice, then the second in grace and sanctitie: for he made vs truly sinners, Christ could not make vs truly iuste. Then vvas Sainct Paule deceiued vvho sayeth that Christs grace exceeded Adams sime. Rom. 5. Are vve still sinners and not truly sanctified? then hathe not Christ verily redeemed vs from the seruitude of sinne, Io. 8. for vvhosoeuer is in sinne, is a slaue to sinne. If vvee be not redee­med from sinne, then are vve not freed frō the tyrannie of Satan, vvhose only title is sinne, by vvhich he domineereth ouer vs. And seing that hell follovveth sinne as a iust punishment for such a fault, then are vve still captiues & prisoners of Hell, and Christ is noe Redemer, vvho hathe nether redeemed vs from sinne, nor hell, nor dā ­nation. The same ghospellers affirm that by sinne our nature is so vveakened, that not vvithstanding Christes grace, vve can [Page 268]not resist any temptation of the flesh or deuill, that vve can not possibly fullfill the lavve and cōmaundementes, that vve can not do any good vvorke, but must needs sinne in all our actions, as shall appeare by their doctrine and their vvords in the seuenthe booke. vvhich if it be true, then are vve not by Christe freed frō y ^e deuills tyrannie, vvho still so tyranniseth ouer vs, that vvee can resist none of his tentations; then are vvee still slaues to our ovvne concupiscence and sensualitie, vvhose as­saults vve can not vvithstande; then are vve bondemen of sinne vvhich so ouer­ruleth vs that vve can do no other thing but sinne, then are vve not deliuered from Hell and damnation vvhich God hathe prouided against sinne and sinners. And soe these fayre-spoken Christians vvhich call Christ the sole Mediatour and only Redeemer, make him noe Redeemer at all.

GOD created man in good plight, sound, vvholle and immortall, be­stovving on him atree of life, vvhose frute shoulde haue preserued him from disea­ses, distemperaturs, and death of body, and indevving him vvith originall iustice vvhich if he had Kept, had kept him and [Page 269]preserued him in perpetuall health of sou­le. But he not knovving hovv to vse such felicitie, by a surfet vvhich he tooke of the forbidden frute, distempered his body vvith mortalitie, vvhence proceed diseases, infirmites, and death it selfe; and caste him selfe at one tyme into noe fevver then fovvre diseases of the soule, vvhich diuines commōly call vulnera ani­mae the vvounds of the soule, vvhich reside al­so in fovvre partes and faculties of the soule. Th. [...]. 2. q. 85. art. 3. The vnderstanding vvhose obiect is truthe, and vvhose perfection is knov­vledg, vvas obscured vvith ignoraunce; the vvill vvhose marke at vvhich she ay­meth, is Good, and vvhose, perfection is loue, vvas infected vvith mallice. The irascible part vvhose obiecte is difficultie, and vvhose glorie is victorie ouer diffi­culties, vvas vveakned vvith infirmitie; and the cōcupiscible parte vvhose obiect vvas moderate delight, & vvhose felicitie vvas contentment in the same, vvas gal­led vvith the itching, and ill pleasing sore of concupiscence. And Adame vvas the man of vvhō vve tooke this infectiō, vn­happy to him selfe, & vnlucky to vs, vvho poisoning him selfe infected vs, and ron­ning him selfe thorough, vvoūded vs. For vvhen this vnhappy vvight descended frō Hierusalem to Hierico, Luc. 10. that is from Para­dise [Page 270]the place of peace and pleasure, vnto this vale of misery and changeable vvorld as mutable as the Moone (vvhich the vvord Hierico importeth) he fell into the handes of theeues, Th. supra [...]eda. I meane the deuills, vvho despoiled him of his garment and coate of innocencie and all supernaturall habites and graces, and vvounded him euen in naturall perfection and facultie, vvhich before by originall iustice vvas much confirmed and perfited, and gaue him the fovvre vvounds afore mentio­ned, Luc. 10. yet so, that they lefte him halfe a liue; not liuing the supernaturall life of grace bicause sinne had bereued him of it, but yet liuing a naturall life bicause he had lost noe naturall perfection, though he vvas vveakened and vvounded also in that, bicause he lost originall iustice vv ^ch gaue noe small force and vigour euen vn­to nature, Ibidem. and greater then nature of her selfe could haue had by nature. And vvhi­lest he laye thus spoiled and vvounded; the Preest and Leuite passed by him, but gaue him noe helping hande, that is the lavve and Prophets could tell him the na­ture of the disease, Io. [...]. but could giue him noe grace to heale it. Vvherfore the Sa­maritane Christ Iesus (vvho vvhē he vvas so called refused not the name) played the part of a mercifull Phisitian, Io. [...]. and by [Page 271]the oyle of his mercie and vvine of his blood, vv ^ch he povvred into his vvounds, recured him. So that if novv Hieremie demaund of vs: Hier. v. Nunquid resina non est in Ga­laad aut medicus non est ibi? Is ther not rosen in Galaad or is not there a Phisitian? Vve can an­svvere him quickly; yes, yes Hieremie, in Galaad the Church of Christ vve vvant noe rosen, salues, nor medicins, for vve haue seuen sacramentes vvhich all giue grace to heale all spirituall vvounds; and vve haue a Phisitian vvhose name is Iesus vv ^ch importeth saluation, Luc. [...]. Th. [...]. p. q. [...]. [...]. vvho came not for the vvholle but the sicke, not for the iust but for y ^e sinfull, & vvho in all respects hath played all the partes of a good Phisi­tian. Phisitiās are more in company vvith y ^e sicke thē vvith the vvholle, Mat. [...]. so vvas this spirituall Phisitian, vvho one vvhile con­versed vvith Pharisies, another vvhile vvith Harlotes, Mat. 9. another vvhile vvith Pu­blicanes, and allvvayes allmost vvith in­firme patientes. Phisitians haue their me­dicins, Christ hath his saluing sacraments. Phisitians to allure their patients to take the prescribed potions, vvill tast of them first them selues; and Christe to make vs patiently to drink dovvn the bitter po­tion of persecution and aduersitie vvhich is soueraine for the soule, first began him selfe vnto vs, that vvee might pledge [Page 272]him the more vvillingly. Phisitians to re­cure vs do some tymes launce and cut vs, some tymes they prescribe vs fasting, and some tymes they let vs blood: but this Phisitian in this pointe farre exceedeth them. for they to diminish the disease vvill bid vs faste, but vvill not faste them selues, Christ fasted for vs fourtie dayes and nightes to recure our surfet. Mat. 4. They to ridd vs of superfluouse humours or cor­rupted blood vvill launce our flesh or let vs blood in a vayne, but vvill not lose one dropp of their ovvn blood for vs, but Christ permitted his ovvn flesh to be cut in his circuncision, to be torne vvhen he vvas vvhipped, and to be perced vvhen he vvas crucified, and vvould be let blood euen at the hart, to make a potion for our recouery. other Phisitians seek to take avvay our disease, but vvill not take it vp­pon them to ridd vs of it: but Christ hathe taken our sinnes vppon him to ease and ridd vs of them. 1. Fet. 2. He hath takē our ague to him selfe, to take it from vs, not that he hathe taken the mallice of our sinnes but the payne of sinne vppon him, and hathe suffred it in his body vppon the vvood of the cros­se. Ibidem. For as in a corporall ague there is the disease and the paine, and the disease or agevve is a disemperatour of heate and humours, the payne is not the agevve but [Page 273]the effecte of it, so in the spirituall ague of the soule vvhich is sinne, there is the mal­lice of sinne vvhich is the disease, and this Christ could not take vnto him bicause hee vvas incapable of sinne, & ther is the payne also devve vnto sinne, vvhich is not the agevve but a burning in Purgatorie or hell, if vvee doe not preuent it by other corporall and voluntarie paynes and satis­faction. And this Christ tooke vppon him in suffering honger, thirste, colde, and other paynes vvhich vve had deser­ued, yea suffring deathe that vve might li­ue, and so by taking vppon him the pay­ne devv to sinne, hathe recured the di­sease of sinne, and hathe ridde vs of our agevve, by abiding the burning of the same. And hetherto vve and the Ghospel­lers aggree, for they also vvill say that Christ is the Phisitian of our soules, but yet their doctrine is cleane contrarie, and so vvhilest in vvords & shovve, they seem to acknovvledge him our Phisitian, in do­ctrine & deed they make him none at all. see the third. chap. of this booke. For if you remēber, Luther & Caluin are of opinion that vve haue no inherent and internall iustice or sanctitie, but are iuste only by Christs ovvne iustice, vvhich (say they) makes vs reputed iust, but not in de­ed iuste, hideth our sinnes but healeth them not, and couereth our spirituall vvounds [Page 274]but recureth them not. Vvhich if it bee true, then certes is Christe noe true Phisitiā, vvho healeth not but hideth on­ly our sores and diseases. O bsasphemie, o ingratitude, o iniurie, o sacriledge coue­red vvith a a pretence of religion. They vvill seeme forsooth to attribute much to Christe, vvho as they saye hathe made vs iuste by his ovvn iustice vv ^ch he imputeth vnto vs, but vvhilest they acknovvledge no other but christs iustice imputed to vs, they are enforced to saye that christ hathe not verilie sāctified vs, nor verilie healed y ^e spirituall sores & maladies of our soule, but hath only couered thē & hidden thē from the sight of God by an imputatiō of his ovvne iustice, and so hee maye be a hider and couerer of our vvounds but noe healer, and no healer, no Phisitian.

IF Moyses for prescribing lavves vnto y ^e Ievves, Licurgus vnto the Lacedemo­nians, Solon to the Athenians, Romulus to the Romains, Plato to the Magnefians, Trismegistus vnto the Egiptians, and o­thers for giuīg lavves vnto their subiects, vvere so famouse and renovvmed, Vvhat honour must it be vnto our sauiour Christ to haue been the authour of the Christian [Page 175]lavv, and the lavvgiuer vnto the Christi­ans? They praescribed lavves only vnto some certaine people or nation, Christ vnto all nations. Theyr lavves had for their scope and proiecte an externall and ciuil peace, Christs lavve aymeth at an invvard peace of the soule in earth, and an aeternall peace in heauen; Their lavves forbad only external sinnes as thefte; mur­der, adultery, and such like, litle respe­cting the invvard desire and intention, Christes lavve restraineth euen the in­vvard consent, desire, and dilight. Chris. [...] i [...] Act. Their lavves forbad not all vice, nether comma­unded or counsayled all vertue, for Pla­toes lavves permitted vviues to be com­mon and other vices also, Licurgus his lavves vvere corrected as being toe toe ri­gorous, vvhich thing he took so heauily and so greeuously that he pined him selfe vvith abstinēce: Tertia l. [...] Apilag. But Christes lavve ether commaundeth or counsayleth all vertue not only morall but also Theologicall & forbiddeth all vice vvhat soeuer. Vvher­for Dauid sayeth that God his lavv is imma­culate conuerting soules; immaculate, bicause it permitteth no filthe of sinne, conuerting soules, bicause it induceth vs to all maner of vertue. Their lavves vvere full of many superstitions and absurd errours, for they commaūded many Gods to be vvorship­ped, [Page 276]and those beasts and serpents, Auoust li de Ciuit. and so­me of their vvisest, denyed gods proui­uidence as Aristotle, [...] mundo. some his foresight and prescience as Cicero, some made god the soule of the vvorld, some confined him vvith in the heauens, some held the soule to be mortall. But the lavve of Christ is Praeceptum lucidum illuminans oculos: Psal. 18. a light­some Praecept, illuminating the eyes; that is illu­minating our vnderstanding the eye of the soule vvith true faythe and knovvled­ge, & dispersing all clouds of ignoraunce errours and superstition. And no meruai­le, bicause Christ the lavvgiuer vvas the vvisdom of his father, and vvhen he gaue his lavve he gaue his spirit vvho teacheth his Churche all veritie. I [...]. 14. The lavve of Christe may be reduced to tvvoe heades, to vvit thinges that are to be beleeued, & things vv ^ch are to be obserued. Vve beleeue that ther is a God & him vve acknovvledg the only God & creatour & ruler of all, vvho takes accounte of all our actiōs, and vvill accordingly herafter revvard vs. And al­thoughe vve beleeue also that this one God is three in persons, and that the se­cond parson vvas incarnate for vs, dyed that vve might liue euer, and rose again for our Resurrection, vvhich things are out of reasons reache, yet are not these or any other of the mysteries of our beleefe [Page 277]against reason, or vnbe [...]eeming the diui­ne Maiestie, or repugnaunt to Philoso­phie, as diuines doe proue, vvho can so explicate these mysteries, as nothing shall appeare repugnaunt to reason, and so can ansvvere infidels obiections, as that they shall conclude nothing euidently against vs. A [...] 2. ad Anton l. 10 ciu. c. [...]9 Yea Iustinus Martyr and saint Austine do shevve hovve the Platonists & other Philosophers, taught the like vnto many of those articles vvhich Christiās beleeue. And as concerning those thinges vvhich are to be obserued, to vvit the precepts of good life, they are reduced vnto tvvoe, vvhich are the loue of God aboue all thin­ges, and the loue of our neighbour as our selfe: vvhich are most reasonable, bicause God is the cheefest good, and so most of all to be beloued, and our neighbour is like vs in nature and ordained to the same ende to vvhich vve are, and so to be belo­ued as our selues. To our neighbour ther­fore vve must do as vve vvould be doone vnto, and therfore vve must nether kill him, nor robbe him, nor iniurie him in goods, life, or vvife, for vve our selues vvould not vvillingly be thus iniuried. And so vve are forbiddē all sinne against God, and all iniurie against man: yea vve giue by our lavve, to God, that vvhich is Devv to God, to vvit suprem honour bi­cause [Page 278]he hath supreme excellencie, su­preme loue bicause he is the fountain of all goodness, vve yeeld him gratitude, bi­cause he is our best benefactour and re­deemer, feare bicause he is our lord yea our Iudge. To men if they be superiours vve giue reuerence and obedience and that of conscience, to our aequalls vve ovve charitie, to our inferiours vve condescend by a complying natu­re. Vve are forbidden not only to kill but also to be angry, [...] not only to ab­steine from adultery and fornication, but also from lasciuiouse lookes, yea de­sires, vve are bidden not only not to of­fend our freinds, but also to loue our ene­myes. And to induce vs to this, the tvvoe things vvhich conteine all common vvel­thes in avve, to vvit paine and revvard, are proposed vnto vs payne in hell, re­vvard in heauen, payne to feare, revvard to hope for. Noe lavve more reasonable then this, none soe perfect, vvhich tea­cheth noe errour, permitteth noe vice, omitteth noe good, but ether commaun­des, or counsayls it. And seing that Chri­ste is the authour of this lavve vvhich sur­passeth all lavves, greater is his honour & renovme then euer vvas the honour of Plato, Licurgus, Romulus, yea Moyses or any other. Vvherfore the prophet Esaie [Page 279]recounting other titles of honour devve vnto Christ, Isay. 13. amongest others calleth him a lavv-maker: Dominus iudex noster, dominus legifer noster, dominus Rex noster: The lord is our Iudge, The lord is our lavv-maker, the lord is our King If he be our Lavve-maker he may make lavves to bynde vs, if he be our iudge he may pronounce sentence against the transgressours, and if he be our King he may punish vs, yea if he had called him only our King, it had been a sufficient ar­gument to proue him a lavv-maker, bi­cause the principall meanes for a king to rule his subiects are his lavves and ordi­naunces Micheas speaking of the pro­mulgation of Christs lavv at Hierusalem in Penthecoste sayeth, c 4. That a lavve shall proceed from Sion & the vvord of God from Hie­rusalem. c. 2. c. 4 [...]. The same Prophecie hath Esaie in the same vvords, and addeth that Ilādes shall expecte his lavve. By vvhich it is playne that Christ is a lavv-maker vvhoe hathe perscribed lavves, and therfore vvhen he gaue his Apostles authoritie to baptise and preach, Mat. vf [...]. hee bad them also to teache the Gentiles to keepe all those thinges vvhich hee had commaunded. See the first chap of this booke. And yet our ghospellers vvho bragge that they giue all to Christe, despoyle him of this honourable title, and auouch that hee vvas a redeemer only but noe lavve-ma­ke. [Page 280]Luther sayeth plainly that it is the offi­ce of the lavve to commaund, [...] [...]. Gael. Fol. [...]18. threaten and terri­fie, but the office of Christ is only to imbrace sin­ners vvho haue trāsgressed y ^e lavve. Ibidem. Yea sayeth he: If vve make Christ an exactour of the lavve vve confound Christ and the lavve, and make him the minister of sinne. [...]ol. [...]. Vvherfore thus he concludes vvith this exhortation: Quare Chrestum recte definias, non vt Sophistae & lu­stitiary, qui faciunt eum nouum legislatorem qui abrogata veteri lege nouam tulerit; illis Christus est exactor & tyrannus: Vvherfore define thou Christe ae right, not as the Sophists doe and the Iu­stitiaries (so he calleth Catholikes bicause they affirme inherent iustice and auouche that good vvorkes are necessary) vvho make him a nevv lavve-maker that hath abro­gated the old lavv and enacted a nevv: to them Christ is an exactour and a tyraunt. Hovv thē I pray thee vvouldst thou haue vs to define Christ? Ibidem. hee sayeth that as it is the arte of Chri­stians not to care for lavves nor to imagin, that they bynd in cōsciēce, so is it an hard arte, vvhich I (sayeth hee) my selfe can hardly learne; to define Christ after this manner. [...]idem. But yet this great Logician, at lenght giueth vs this definition of Christ: Christus autem defini­tiue non est legislator sed propitiator & saluator: But Christe definitiuely is not a lavv-maker but ae propitiatour and Sauiour. By vvhich doctri­ne it is playne, that Luther is of opinion, [Page 281]that Christ came not to terrifie vs or to exacte any lavve at our hādes, but only to embrace the transgressours, so that they beleeue only that hee is their Redeemer from the lavve; vvhich doctrine hovve it openeth the gapp to vice I shal hereafter declare, See the seuēt [...] booke. here I only note that Luther des­poyleth Christe of the title of a Lavvma­ker, and auoucheth that hee nether made lavve nor exacteth any lavve at our hāds, vvhich hovve iniuriouse it is to Christ may appeare by the comendation vvhich I have giuen to Christ and his lavve. Caluin putteth this difference betvvixte the old and the nevv lavve, l [...] Inst. c. 11. §. 17.19. that the old promised grace and glorie vvith this con­dition if vve keepe the cōmaundements, but the nevv lavve promiseth these things absolutely vvithout that condition. So that Caluin thinkes that glory and salua­tion is promised by Christ vvhether vvee obserue the lavve or noe, and cōsequent­ly he thinkes that no lavv byndeth vs vn­der payne of damnation. Vvhence it fol­lovveth that Christe nether exacteth ne­ther prescribeth any lavve vnder payne of damnation, and so is no lavve maker. And the same Caluin after that he had discour­sed of Christian libertie vvhich hee sayeth consisteth in a freedom from all lavves, l. 3. Inst. c. 1 [...] 3.10. concludeth thus: vve conclude that they are [Page 282]exēpted (he speaketh of the faythfull) from all lavves. Vvhence it must needs follovv that Christe is noe Lavvmaker; for vvhere there is no obligation, there is noe lavve (as shalbe proued herafter) vvhere noe lavve, there is noe Lavv-maker, and ther­fore if Christe exacteth noe lavve at our handes and byndes vs to none, he can by noe right haue the name of a Lavv-giuer or Lavv-maker. Let the Prophet Esaie therfore looke hovv he calleth Christ our Lavv-maker, c. 33. legifer. yea let Christ him self corre­cte and amend that saying of his: Manda­tum nouum do vobis vt diligatis inuitem. [...]. I giue you a nevv lavv and commaundement that you loue one another: A nevv lavv (sayeth sainct Austine) Christe giueth vs, l [...]. cont. ep. par. c. 2. bicause al­though it be old, as being cōmaunded in the old lavve, yet it is nevv, ether bicause Christ hathe annexed nevv grace vnto it, vvhich in the old lavv it had not, or bi­cause by this grace annexed, it makes vs nevv creatures vvho before vvere olde by sinne: l. c. const. Apost c. 12. or else (sayeth S. Clemēt) it is a nevve lavv bicause Christ hathe renevved it. Let him also remember his office bet­ter, vvhich (as Luther and Caluin say) is not to prescribe or exacte lavves but to imbrace the transgressours. He forgot therfore his office vvhen hee bad vs Keept the commaundementes if vve vvill enter into [Page 283]life; Mat. 5. & vvhy hee corrected the olde lavve commaunding vs not only not to kill, but not to be angry, not only to loue our fre­ends, but our enemies also. See, See, vvhat open iniurie against the playne texte of Scripture, yea and against all reason also, these men are not a frayed to offer vnto Christ in taking from him the title and office of a Lavvmaker. for if he could ma­ke no lavv, he vvas inferiour to the mea­nest Prince in the vvorld, vvho establis­hed, a common vvelth, his Churche, but hathe no authoritie to cōmaund his sub­iects, vvho instituted Sacramentes, yet could make noe lavv to bynd vs vnto thē, and therfore vvhen he threatneth damna­tion to them that vvill not receiue his ba­ptisme, 10 [...]. and protesteth that vve shall haue noe life vnlesse vve eate his fleshe & drinke his blood, to. [...]. vve may boldly contemne such peremptorie commaundementes, bicause if Christ bee noe Lavv-maker he could make noe lavv, and vvhere noe lavve is, there is noe obligation, and vvhere is noe obligatiō all mē are as free, as they vvhoe are Lordlesse and subiecte to none.

ALmighty God being highly offen­ded, & iustly displeased, that so me­ane a creature as mā should cōtemne his commaundement, and not care for his displeasure; it vvas necessary that a preest should be found out, vvho by some plea­sing sacrifie should appease this his indi­gnation so iustly conceiued. And many preestes in deed haue assaied by diuerse sacrifices to pacifie this angry God, but haue all fayled of their intended purpose. For nether vvere they of that authoritie as to bee Mediatours betvvixt God and man for such a reconciliation, nether vvere their Sacrifices of that vvorthe as to make amends for so great a faulte. Vvherfore God by his Prophetes com­playneth of their insufficiencie, saying that hee is full & cloyed vvith the multitud of theyr sacrifices, Isa. 1. and telleth them plainly that if they offer vnto him Holocaustes and vovves of Fatlinges he vvill not looke at them. Auio [...] 5. Psal. 10. Bicause, (sayeth Dauid) God is not delighted in such sacrifices. Yea so insufficient vvere all the preestes of the old lavve that God by his prophet Ezechiel threatneth that hee vvill put then out of office, c. 34. and in steed of so many he vvill giue vs one Preest, and Pastour, Christe Iesus, vvhom hee calleth his seruaunt Dauid, bicause as man hee descended lineally from Dauid and in res­pect [Page 285]of his humaine nature, Phiilp. [...]. he vvas gods seruaūt and inferiour. This preest Christe Iesus is the high preest and the only highe preest of the nevv lavve. For althoughe in the lavv of Moyses it vvas necessary to ha­ue many highe preestes, bicause, Hs [...]. [...]. (as sainct Paule sayeth) their mortalitie vvould not permitte them to liue and remayne all­vvayes, and bicause death put them out of office, [...] it vvas necessarie that others should succeed them in the same authoritie. And so the first of this ranke and line of pre­estes vvas Aaron (for Moyses vvas extra­ordinary) to vvhom Eleazarus and others succeeded to the number of fovvrscore and odde: Ioseph h. l. 22. Aut. c. 2. yet in the nevv lavve one christ Iesus is sufficient, vvho thoughe hee ha­the many vicegerentes, vvhich are bis­hops and preestes of the nevv lavve, yet hathe he noe successours. For noe man succeedeth to another, vnless the other ether dye, or giue ouer his office; vvherfor seing that our Sauiour Christe though he dyed, yet rose again, neuer to dy agayne, and neuer surrendred or gaue ouer his office, but still offereth sacrifice, still bap­tiseth, still ministreth Sacramentes, and ruleth & gouerneth his Church by his vi­cars and ministres, he hathe noe highe preest that succeedeth him, but is the sole and only high preest of the nevv lavve, [Page 286]farie exceeding all the Popes, bishops, and preests that euer vvere. For his pre­estly authoritie (as diuines saye) vvas not grounded vppon a caracter vvhich other Preestes receue in the Sacramēt of order, but vppon hypostaticall vnion, by vvhich he vvas the sonne of God; his authoritie extēded not it selfe to Christianes only or them that are baptised, [...]. Cor. 5. as the Popes and Churches authoritie dothe vvho haue no iurisdiction ouer them that are out of the Churche and vvho neuer vvere bap­tized, but also euē vnto infidels vvhome hee commandeth to receue fay the and the Sacramēt of Baptisme; by his preestly povver he instituted Sacraments, esta­blished a Church & pastours, and prescri­bed a monarchicall gouernment, vvhich ordonāces y ^e Church obeyeth but cā not alterd: by his authoritie he could giue gra­ce vvith out Sacraments as he did to sainct Mathevve, Mat. 9. Lu [...]. 7. Marie Magdalen and others, vvheras the Pope & bishops and preests of the Church giue noe grace infaillibly but by Sacraments. And this is the preest vvho for the dignitie of his person, and the valevve of his sacrifice, vvas the only preest vvho could appease gods vvrath and indignation. [...] This preest must needs be harde bicause the dignitie of his per­son suffereth noe repulse, and the vvorthe [Page 287]of his sacrifice vvas vnspeakable, and hee the same that offered the sacrifice, vvas the God vvho vvas angry & to vvhō vvas of­fred the sacrifice. The preest vvas holyer, then the sinner for vvhome the sacrifice vvas offered vvas malicious, & y ^e sacrifice vvas more pleasing to god, Rom. [...]. then the sinne displeasing. So pretiouse vvas the sacrifice that if Christ had put the sacrifice in one ballaūce & the sinne in y ^e other it vvould haue ouer vvayed sinne as a thing of noe vveight vvhich notvvithstanding is so heauy that it vveyeth dovvn to Hell. I [...]b. 6. For if euery operation of Christ bee it neuer so litle bicause it vvas [...] that is the operation of God and man, vvas of infi­nite valevve, by reason of the dignitie of the person; vvhat shall vvee say of that heroicall operation of Christs passion vvhich vvas an acte of singuler charitie, Io. 1 [...]. Phil. 2. couragiouse fortitude, inuincible patien­ce, perfecte obediēce, and sacred religiō, for it vvas a sacrifice? This preest offered tvvo sacrifices the one at his last supper vnbloudy, the other vppon the crosse bloody, or rather one and the same sacri­fice (in respect of the thing vvhich vvas offered) after diuers manners and vnder diuers formes. For in his last supper he of­fered his sacred body and blood after an vnbloudy manner, on the crosse he offe­rēd [Page 288]the same after a bloudy manner, at his last supper he offered his body, and blood, vnder another forme, that is vnder the formes of bread, and vvine, on the crosse he offered the same in their ovvn forme and likenes. The bloody sacrifice vvas but once to be offered, Heb. 7.9. bicause it vvas so precious that one oblation vvas sufficient. But bicause it vvas offered only as a generall cause of all grace & price of our redēption, it vvas cōuenient that this generall cause should be determined by more particuler causes, and that this price should be more determinately applyed, as by sacramētes, fayth, and good vvorks, so by the vnbloody sacrifice of the Masse. Yea bicause the sacrifice of the crosse being bloudy, could not bee repeated af­ter Christs resurrection, he then being im­passible and immortall, it vvas cōuenient that an vnbloudy sacrifice should also be offered continually in the Church for the vvorship of God and exercise of religiō, vvhich (as I shall proue in the fourth boo­ke) can not stand vvithout a sacrifice. See the fourth booke. By the bloody sacrifice Christ vvas a preest and highe preest, but nether according vnto the order of Aaron, (bicause that preest hood by Christs passion vvas ab­rogated and vvas confined vvhithin the Tribe of Leuie, of vvhich Christ vvas not) [Page 289]nether according to Melchisedech, bicau­se there vvas noe similitude nor aggree­ment in their sacrifices. Vvherfore seing that our Sauiour vvas a preest according to the order of Melchisedech (for God affirmeth it vvith an othe, Psal. 8 [...]. Heb. 7. and the Pro­phet Dauid and the Apostle sainct Paule avouch it) vvee must needs haue a sacri­fice by vvhich he resembled his sacrifice, and vvas a preest according to his order. Heb. [...].7. And this sainct Paule proueth at large by diuers cōueniences vvhich vvere betvvixt these tvvo preests and their sacrifices. For as Melchisedech vvas a King and preest, & a King of Salem that is of peace, so vvas Christ; As Melchisedech hath nether fa­ther nor mother recorded in Scripture, so Christ as man had no father, and as God no Mother; As Melchisedechs preesthood descended not by carnall generation, so nether did Christes Preesthood. As Mel­chisedechs preesthood vvas aeternall, bi­cause nether the begining nor ending is set doovvn in scripture, so Christs Preest­hood hathe noe ende as Dauid affirmeth; Psal. 10 [...]. As Melchisedechs Preesthood vvas of higher perfection then the Preesthood of Aaron (for Melchisedech blessed Abraham and in him the vvhole Tribe of Leuie, Gen. 100 Heb. [...]. vvhich argueth Superioritie) so vvas Christ and his Preesthood farre abo­ue [Page 290]Aaron and his Preesthood; lastly as Melchisedech, offered a sacrifice of bre­ad and vvine, so Christ offered his body and blood in his hast supper vnder the formes and accidents of bread and vvine. And this last conuenience, is that for vvhich Christ especially is sayed to bee according vnto the order of Melchise­dech; not that he is of the same order, or that his sacrifice and Melchisedechs are all one, for Christ his Preesthood & sacri­fice, farre excelled his Presthood and his sacrifice, but bicause there is most resem­blaunce betvvixt them and their sacrifi­ces. And this last conuenience sainct Pau­le expressed not, bicause the Ievves to vvhom he vvrote vvere not capable of so highe a Mysterie, yet, as the fathers no­te he insinuated it, vvhen speaking of Christe vvhom he had before called Preest and Bishop according to the order of Melchise­dech he added: Heb. [...]. Of vvhō vve haue great speech and inexplicable to vtter bicause you are become vveake to heare. This dignitie of an aeter­nall Preest according vnto the order of Melchisedeche, Psal 109. Heb. 5.7. vvhich the Prophet Da­uid and the Apostle sainct Paule giue vn­to our Sauiour Christe, our Ghospellers (vvho vaunte that they giue all vnto Christ) sacrilegiously take from him. For althoughe they graunt that Christ offered [Page 291]a sacrifice on the crosse, yet that is not suf­ficient to make him an aeternall preest nor according to the order of Melchisedech. And this shall appear most plainly by this discourse. Betvvixt a Preest and sacri­fice is a necessary relation by vvhich one inferreth the other: for as a father can not bee vvithout a sonne, nor a master vvith­out a seruaunt, Heb. [...]. so nether can a preest bee vvithout a sacrifice, bicause a Preests prin­cipall office is to offer sacrifices to God. And as noe sonne noe father, noe seruaūt, noe Master, soe noe sacrifice, noe Preest. And as a Preest can not bee vvithout a sacrifice; so nether can an eternall Preest bee vvithout an aeternall sacrifice. Vvher­fore if Christ neuer offered other sacrifi­ce then that of the crosse, as our aduersa­ries affirme, then is he not a perpetuall Preest, bicause he hathe noe sacrifice vvhich ether by him selfe or by his mini­sters is perpetually offerred. To say that the sacrifice of the crosse still remayneth in effect, bicause by that vve receue grace and redemption, and from that our sacra­mentes haue their efficacie, is not suffi­cient. For the effects of this sacrifice are noe sacrifice, and the sacrifice it selfe is not perpetuall, bicause it vvas but once offered, and so that sacrifice is not suffi­cient to make Christ an aeternall Preest [Page 292]Much less can it make Christe a Preest according to the order of Melchisedech, bicause there is noe resemblaūce betvvixt their sacrifices. If our aduersaries vvould graunt, as Catholikes do, that Christ in his last supper offered him self as a sacrifi­ce vnder the forme of bread and vvine, I could easily see hovv Christ is an aeter­nall Preest according to Melchisedechs order, bicause that sacrifice is still offered in the masse by the handes of Christs mi­nisters, and altogether resembleth Mel­chisedechs sacrifice; bicause though it bee not bread and vvine, as his vvas, yet hathe it the formes of bread and vvine, and is vnbloudy as his vvas. But rather then they vvill graunt this (such is their hatred against the Masse) they vvill deny, agaīst flatte scripture, that Melchisedechs bread and vvine vvas a sacrifice. I saye against flat scripture, Gen. 14. bicause in the boo­ke of Genesis Moyses recounteth vnto vs hovv Melchisedech brought forth bread and vvine, bicause he vvas a Preest of God the highest, vvhich reason arguethe that that bringing for the of bread and vvine, vvas an offering of bread and vvine in man­ner of a sacrifice; for if that bringing forth vvas but a prophane distribution of bread and vvine amongest Abraha­mes souldiours, vvhat consequence had [Page 293]beene in that saing: he brought forth bread and vvine bicause he vvas a Preest? as vvell might he haue sayed bicause he vvas a painter: & better & more to the purpose should he haue sayed, bicause he vvas a Baker, or an Inkeeper, or a good hovvse­keeper: vvherfore vnless vve vvill say that Moyses spake impertinently, vve must affirme that his bread and vvine vvas a sa­crifice. And if vvee vvill hold Christ to bee an aeternall Preest and that according to Melchisedechs order, vve must ac­knovvledge that Christ still offerreth a sacrifice in the Church, and that, vnder the formes of bread & vvine. Vvherfore seing that our aduersaries vvill acknovv­ledge noe other sacrifice then that of the crosse, they deny Christ to bee an aeternall Preest, & in that they auouch that Christ neuer offered any sacrifice vnder the for­mes of bread and vvine, least they should be enforced to admitte the masse for a sa­crifice, they deny him to bee a Preest ac­cording to the order of Melchisedech. For allthoughe hee aggree vvith Mel­chisedech in that as God, hee had noe mo­ther, and as man, he had noe father, as also in that hee vvas a King and Preest as hee vvas, yet can hee not bee an aeternall Preest vvithout an aeternall sacrifice, ne­ther according to Melchisedeches order [Page 294]vnlesse hee haue a sacrifice like vnto his sacrifice; but bothe these pointes our ad­uersaries deny bicause they vvill not ad­mitt the masse, ergo notvvithstāding their bragging that they giue all to Christ, they robbe him and despoyle him of that glo­riouse title of an aeternall Preest accor­ding vnto Melchisedeches order, Psal. 109. Heb. 7. vvhich sainct Paule and King Dauid giue vnto him, and God him selfe auoucheth and confirmeth vvith an othe.

NOthing more frequent in scripture nor more common in the mou­thes and hartes of true Christians, then the vvo aduentes & cōminges of Christe. The first Aduent he hath allready per­fourmed in all humilitie, The second he vvill perfourme in all maiestie and glory; the cause of the first, vvas mercie, of the second, [...] [...]. iustice; In the first he vvas as meek as a lambe, in the second as terrible as a Lion; The first vvas to saue sinners, the second to condemne them; In the first he exhorted vs to good, & dehorted vs from euill, in the second he vvill re­vvard the good, [...] [...]. and punishe the euill. of the first aduent prophecied the Prophet Zacharie vvhen he sayed Behold thy King [Page 295]shall come, vnto thee, iuste, and a Sauiour, Poore, and mounted on an asse. Of the second spea­keth Daniel vvhen he sayeth he savv, c. 7. that is forsavv one coming in clovvds liKe the sonne of man, to vvhom the ancient of dayes gaue honour, povver and a Kingdome. Of the first speaketh Christ him self vvhen he sayeth God did not send his sonne to iudge the vvorld but that the vvorld might be saued by him; Io. 3. Of the second speaketh the Prophet and Euan­gelist sainct Ihon vvhen he bidds vs be­hold Christ comming in clovvdes, Apoc c. [...]. and telleth vs that euery eye shall see him, euen they vvho pric­ked him, and that all the tribes of the earth shall bevvayle them selues vppon him. Luc 21. And of this aduent speaketh Christ him selfe vvho describeth his ovvn comming to Iudge­ment in a terrible forme and sayeth that then they shall see the sonne of manne comming in a clovvd vvith great povver ad maiestie. For vvant of vvitte to distinguish these tvvoe aduentes, and to apply them to the same person at diuers tymes, some imagined that tvvoe diuerse persons vvere to come, the one called the sonne of Ioseph vvho they say shalbe slayne in the battayle of Gog and magog; the other called the son­ne of Dauid, vvho shall reuiue again (as they saye) the sonne of Ioseph and shall redeeme Israel, Ex Pet. Gal. l. 4. c. 1. de ar­canu fid. Ca­thol. & restore the Israelits vn­to their Kingdome againe. Others hauing [Page 296]their eyes dasled vvith the splēdour of the second aduent, can not see the first vv ^ch is base and humble, and therfore saye (vv ^ch is the common voice of the Ievves) that the Messias shall come like a temporall King in glorie and maiestie, and by force of armes shall restore the Ievves to their former glorie; and bicause they haue not as yet seene such a Messias, they say that he is not yet come, but still is to be expe­cted. But by the scripturs alleaged it is manifest that one and the selfe same Christ Iesus shall come, first to saue the vvorld and after to iudge the same. Vvherfore sainct Peter sayeth that Christ commaun­ded him and his fellovv Apostles to Preach to the People and to bear vvitness that he it is (to vvit vvho before came to redeem vs) vvho is constituted by God the Iudge of the liuing and the dead. Act. 10. Io. 5. And Christ him self sayeth that God the father Iudgeth none (that is in a vísible māner) but hath giuen all Iudgement to his Sōne. And least that any should imagin that Christ only as God is iudge but not as manne, he addeth, that God the father hathe giuen him povver to Iudge vs bicause he is the sonne of man. And sainct Paule sayeth that God hath appointed a day in vvhich he vvill Iudge the vvorld by a man vvhom he hathe raysed from death to life. Act. 1 [...]. So that the same Christe Iesus; vvho came first in [Page 297]humble manner to call vs by his grace and to receue vs to his mercie, shall co­me againe in glorie, to giue vs our finall sentence. And God the father, and God the holy ghost shall Iudge vs as vvell as God the sonne, yet he only as man and as an vnder Iudge shall iudge vs in a visible manner, and in this sense God the father shall not iudge. This Iudge shall giue sentence vppon all men, 2. Cor. [...]. bicause as sainct Paule sayeth vve must all appear before the tribunall and Iudgement-seate of Christ. This Iudge in this Iudgement shall exercise the three principall actes of a Iudge, to vvit discussion, remunera­tion, and condemnation. He shall discusse and examin the cause of euery one, and euery circumstaunce of the same, and therfore by the Prophet Ioel he sayeth that he vvill dispute vvith vs. Ioel. [...]. A sore disputa­tion, vvhere the Creatour disputeth & the creature ansvvereth, vvher God that is of­fended vvilbe the iudge & vvitnes, vvher the iudge is of such insight that he seeth farther into the guilties cause, then he him selfe, & is so vvatchfull that noe excusing cloking, or hiding, can deceiue him, so iuste, that noe bribes can corrupt him, so seuere, that noe teares at that day can mo­ue him, so resolute in his sentence, that noe repreeue nor appellatiō cā be admit­ted. [Page 298]This discussion and examination shalbe doone in a trise, bicause it is no­thing but a reuelation and manifestation vnto our consciences, vvhat euery one hathe doone, vvhich shall bee so euident, that our consciences shall accuse and crye guiltie, before the iudge condemne vs. This examination and discussion the Iudge shall vse only vvith Christianes, bi­cause their cause of their condemnation (they being Christians) is not so manifest, but not vvith infidels, bicause in that they vvant fayth, the cause of their condemna­tion is euidēt, and so no discussion shalbe necessary, vvherfore sainct Austine sayeth: Ad iudicium non veniunt, Serm. 38. de Sanct. Io. [...]. nee pagani, nec here­tici, nec ludei, quia de illis scriptum est, quinon credit, iam iudicatus est. To Iudgement doe come nether paganes nor heretiks nor levves bicause of them it is vvritten: he that beleeues not is all ready iudged; that is in respect of discussiō of his cause he is all ready iudged & needeth not in the generall iudgement any other discussion for the cause of his exclusion from glorie, bicause his infidelitie is a cau­se most euident: yet (as some diuines af­firme) for their other sinnes and for the diuersitie of their paynes, their cause also shalbe discussed, not that god Knovveth it not vvithout discussion, but bicause he vvill make it Knovven vnto the vvorld. [Page 299]The second office of a iudge vvhich chri­ste shall exercise, is called the sentence of remuneration, vvhich after the discus­sion of their causes and approbation of their merites, Mat. 25. hee shall pronounce for the electe in those most confortable vvords: Venite benedicti patris mei percipite regnum &c. come you blessed of my father take possession of the Kingdome vvhich vvas prepared for you from the beginning of the vvorld. The third office and action of a iudge vvhich Christ shall exercise, is the sentence of condemnation vvhich after examination of their crimes, God shall pronounce against vvicked Christians and faythless infidels also, bi­cause he that beleeueth not shalbe condemned. Mar. 16. And this sentence shalbe pronounced by the mouth of Christ, and vvith an audible voice, in those terrible vvords also vvhich the Euangelist hath set dovvne Ite maledi­cti in ignem aeternum, &c. Mat. 25. Goe you accursed into euer lasting fire vvhich is praepared for the deuill and his angells. This is the honourable title and office of Christ, vvhich the ghospel­lers allso confesse in vvords and professe in their Creed, but in their doctrine they deny, as I shall euidently demonstrate by their opinions and vvords vvhich take from Christ the three offices of a iudge allready alleaged. And first of all to be­ginne vvith the last acte and office vvhich [Page 300]a Iudge exerciseth, [...]. 2. Inst. c. 16. §. 18. to vvit condemnation, Caluin sayeth plainly that Christ is our Re­deemer and is not to mounte vp into his tribunal seate for the condemnation of a faithfull man. Adde to this that place of scripture vvho­soeuer beleeues not is allready iudged, Io. 3. And thou shallt see that Caluī leaues none for Christ to condemne at the latter day. And tru­ly herin Caluin speaketh very conforma­bly to his ovvne doctrine: See the four­ [...]he booke and fifte chap. for he is of opi­niō that Christ hathe so redeemed vs that no lavve can bynde vs, & no sinne can be imputed vnto vs, vv ^ch if it bee soe, y ^e title of a redeemer & a Iudge are repugnaunt, & so if Christ bee our redeemer after this māner, he can not be our Iudge. For if our redemption importeth a release from all lavves, and such a freedom from sinne, that noe sinne can bee imputed vnto vs, then certes Christe can not for any sinne con­demne vs at the latter day. Secondly they deny all merit, and affirme that all our a­ctions are of them selues mortall sinnes seem they neuer so good: Li [...] 2. Inst c. 2. §. 9 [...] 3. Inst. c. [...]. §. 7. Luth. [...]de ca­ptiu. Bab [...]e de bap. & in [...]. [...]. ad Gal vvhich is the o­pinion bothe of Luther and Caluin, and is commonly receiued of all their schol­lers; by vvhich doctrine they take avvay the sentence of remuneration. For if our actiōs deserue nothing at God his hands, then althoughe hee may frankely be­stovv vppon his elect vvhat glorie it plea­seth [Page 301]him, yet can he not be sayed to remu­nerate & revvard their vvorks; for vvher is noe desert, there is noe revvard, and so thoughe Christ may like a liberall King bestovv glorie on them, yet he can not like a Iudge by sentence of remunera­tion revvard them: and so Christ looseth another parte of his office. They affirme also that all our sinnes are aequall and they scoffe at that distinction of mortall and venial sinnes, Luth. Calv. sup Mel. in locu tit. de diserim pe [...]. mor & ve [...]. and in this also Caluin spea­keth according to his grounds: for he sayeth that all our actions are vitiouse, bi­cause they proceed from a vitiouse na­ture corrupted by originall sinne, vvhen­ce it follovveth, that all our actions are a­like defiled, bicause they proceed from the same fountaine of corruptiō. Vvhich doctrine if it goe for true, then dothe Christ loose the third parte of his office vvhich is is discussion of sinnes and cau­ses. For vvhere there is noe distinction betvvixte the crimes and offences, there can be noe difference in punishement, and vvhere noe difference is in punish­mēt, the Iudge must pronounce the same sentence and giue the same iudgement, vvithout all discussion ether of the of­fences or the punishmentes. See the seuēth booke and sixt [...] chap. They a­uouch also that vve haue noe libertie nor free vvill in our actions, vvhence it fol­lovveth [Page 302](as I shall demonstrate in the seuenth booke follovving) that in our ac­tions is nether vertue nor vice, nether me­rite nor demerit, and soe Christ in his iud­gement can exercise none of all the three offices vvhich are before mentioned. For vvhere is no vertue, nor merit, there can be no sentence of remuneration and rev­vard, as is all ready proued, vvhere is noe vice there can be noe sentence of cōdem­nation, and vvhere is noe vertue nor vi­ce at all, there can bee noe difference of vvorkes, ether in vertue, or vice, merit, or demerit, and vvhere it is noe differen­ce of causes, there can bee noe discussion, as is also all ready proued. And so Christ is noe Iudge at all. Epist. 46. For as sainct Austine sayeth, If free vvill be not, hovv can God iudge the vvorld? And if vvee haue not free vvill, vvhy are not brute beastes called to iud­gement as vvell as vve, seing that nothing cā excuse their cruelties but vvant of free vvill? See the fifthe booke & first chap. Lastly they are not afrayed to auer­re that God, and consequenly Christe, is the authour of all our sinnes, that Iudas his treachery and Dauids adulterie vvere as much God his vvorke, as sainct Paules conuersion, yea Caluin sayeth that God vrgeth vs, eggeth vs, and enforceth vs to sinne: vvhich doctrine if it go for curran­te, Christe can not iustly condemne any, [Page 303]bicause as Fulgentius sayeth: l. ad Mon [...] ­mum. Deus non est autor eius cuius est vltor: God is not the autour of that of vvhich he is the reuenger, and punisher; and consequently can not iustely punishe sinners, if he be authour of their sinnes. For vvith good reason might the cōdem­ned parsons make exception against his sentence, and stande to it that by noe rea­son nor iustice God can condemne them for that, in vvhich hee had as much parte as they, & to vvhich he vrged them yea in­forced them. And so thou seest (gentle reader) hovv these great bosters vvho bragge that they giue all vnto Christ, des­poile him and robbe him of his honoura­ble title of of Iudge of the quicke and the deade, vvhich they profess in their creed, but de­ny in their doctrine.

LVther, Caluin, and all the packe of their adhaerents, as in the seuenth booke shalbe related, and in parte, in the second and third Chapter of this third booke is all ready declared, are of opi­nion that vvee are iustified and sanctified by the selfe-same iustice vvhere vvith [Page 304]Christ him selfe is iuste, vvhich is inhe­rent in him, and imputed to vs, and ap­prehended by vs vvith the reaching hand of faith, and so made our ovvne. They are afrayed forsooth to graunt inhaerent iu­stice, least they should giue vs occasion to glorie in our ovvne sanctitie, and so to fall into Pelagianisme, vvhich affir­meth that Christes grace is not necessary. But vvhilest they feare vvhere they nee­ded not, they feare not vvhere they should, but ronne boldly, and desperate­ly into an absurd blasphemie. Ex Aug har. [...]. ep. 9 [...]. 20 [...] [...] l de nat. & grat. c. 10. & 11. For Pela­gius is not condemned for auouching in­herent grace, but for denying that Chri­stes grace vvas necessarie, ether to the ob­seruing of the lavve, or to the meriting of eternall glorie, or to the ouercoming of tentations, or auoiding of sinne: and for affirming that man by his ovvne free vvill vvithout grace might do all these thin­ges. Vvherfore to graunt inherent grace by vvhich vve are iustified and sanctified, hathe no resemblaunce vvith Pelagianis­me; nether dothe it giue vs occasion of pride; for thoughe this grace bee in our soules, yet is it the guifte of God, and an effecte of Christes passion, and so is his, by guifte and merit, bicause hee giues it, and deserued it for vs, & it is ours only by do nation, and possession. But vvhilest they [Page 305]seeke to anoid Charibdis they fall into Sylla: for if vve haue noe create and in­haerent iustice, but are iuste only by Chri­stes iustice imputed vnto vs, then dothe it follovv, firste, that so soone as vve ap­prehend Christs iustice as our ovvne, vve are at the very first dashe come to a full pointe in perfectiō, and so perfect that vve can proceed noe farther. bicause Christes grace is so perfect that it neuer increased, but rather as the first Adame vvas created in perfect grovv the and stature, so he the second Adame, vvas indevved from the first moment of his conception, vvith perfect sanctitie, and vvas euen then at his full pitch & spirituall grovv the neuer increasing ether in grace or knovvledg, but only in body, yeares, and experience. And so if vvee bee iuste by his grace im­puted vnto vs, Conc. Vien. Clem ad n [...] ­strum de be­reticis. then are vve so perfect that as the Beguines and Beguards sayed, vve can be noe perfecter, and so are all iust a like and consequently shall all re­ceue the same glorie as Iouiniane the he­retike sayed; Hier. l. cont, illum. and shall not differ in glorie as starres doe, in brightnesse, 1. Cor. 1 [...]. as saint Pau­le auouched. Secōdly hence it follovveth that vvee are all as iust as Christe. For if vve be iust by his iustice, then is his iustice and ours all one, and so vvee as iuste as hee. They vvill saye, that his iustice in him [Page 306]is inhaerent, to vs only it is imputed, and is only soe much ours as vve apprehend it by faithe, and thersore vvee and hee may bee iuste by one and the same iusti­ce, and yet not iuste alike. But this vvill not serue their turne: for althoughe this may make some difference in the man­ner of iustification, yet in iustice and san­ctitie it selfe, vvee are as iuste as Christe: bicause vvee are iuste by his iustice vv ^ch faithe apprehendeth; and seing that faithe apprehendeth all Christes iustice, all is imputed vnto vs, and so vve are as iuste as Christe, or at least reputed as iuste as hee. Ser in Nat. Virg. Let no man then meruaile at Martin Luther, for auouching once in the heat of his sermon, that euery Christian is as holy as our blessed lady, nether let him think that Bucers mouthe ran ouer, in cap 3. in Mat. vvhē he sayed that the vilest of the ministerie or faithfull is better then S. Ihon Baptist; noe, he must not be scandalized at those bolde speeches of some, In explic. ar. de iustif. vvhoe, as Tap­per relateth, vvere not afrayed nor asha­med to boste that they vvere as gratefull to God as Christe him selfe is. For if vvee bee iust by Christs iustice (vvhich by faith on our parte is vvholy of vs appre­hended, and vvholly by God imputed vnto vs) vvee ether are, or at least are re­puted as iuste as hee, and consequently [Page 307]are as gratefull and acceptable vnto God as hee. O Luciferian pride, ô sacriledge vvorthy reuenge from heauen. For vvhat is this but to make them selues fellovv­mates vvith Christe, and consequently to make them selues godds, or him a creature? By Luthers and Caluins leaue, the creature novv may compare vvith the creatour, and the redeemed vvith the Redeemer, and may boldly saye not on­ly as Lucifer did, that he vvilbe like the highest, but maye adde to his pride and aspire higher then hee, affirming boldly that hee is allready as iust, as holy, and as good, as Christ, vvho is the highest. And thus the reader may see hovv true it is that these men giue all to Christ, vvho giue so much to them selues, that they vvilbe as good as hee.

AS the first man Adame, in the first moment of his life, vvas created no [...] a babe, infante, or vveakling, but a stron­ge and lustie man, as if he had been at for­tie or fiftie yeares of age, (for then men [Page 308]at that age vvere most youthfull and lu­stie) so vvas he indevved vvith all scien­ce and knovvledg belonging to his state. For if God gaue him from the beginning, a perfect stature and pitch, and an able body fitte for generation, bicause he vvas to be the commō father, by vvhom man­kind should hee propagated, noe doubt he gaue him also a soule furnished vvith all naturall sciences bicause he vvas the first Doctour to vvhom mankind vvas to goe to schoole to learne of him as of a Master the secrets of nature, the inuen­tions of artes, the knovvledge of God, and the mysteries of fayth; nether is this my collection only, it is the common o­pinion of diuines, vvhich Ecclesiasticus confirmeth, c. 17. vvhoe noe litle extolleth the first Adames knovvledge. If the first Ada­me vvas so vvise and so ritche in knovv­ledge, vvhat shall vve say of the seconde Adames knovvledge, vvho vvas the high preest, and Doctour of the nevv lavv, and vvas to reueale greater secretes and my­steries to his Churche, then the first Ada­me should haue manifested vnto his po­steritie? [...]. Reg. 3.14. Ecclesiast. 1. Salomon also is famous for his profound vvisedome, in so much that holy Scripture giues him this preeminen­ce, to vvitte, that he vvas vviser then all that vvent before him or came after him, and excelled [Page 309]all that euer vvere an Hierusalem, and vvas more learned then all the Easterne Sages. In so much that not only the Queen of Saba but o­thers also frō all parts of y ^e vvorld flocked vnto him, to heare him discourse vppon the naturs of beasts, trees, & plantes, euen from the Cedar, to the Isope. If Salomon, King only of the Ievves, vvho built only a materiall Tēple for God, vvas indevved vvith so rare knovvledge, vvhat shall vvee thinke of the second Salomons vvis­dome, Christ Iesus, vvho vvas as a spiri­tuall Kinge to rule the vvholle vvorld, & vvas to builde a Temple and Churche for God to dvvell in, noe lesse then the Chri­stian vvorlde, vvhich vvas and is farre mo­re gloriouse then that of Salomons buil­ding, bicause the glorie of the last Temple, Agg. 2. vvas greater then that of the first? And behold sayeth Christe pointing to him selfe, more then Salomon here. Mat. 12. Vvherfore diuines vvith one common consent affirme, that our Sauiour Christe vvas enriched vvith the euident and cleare vision of God, by vv ^ch euen as man he savve God face to face, & all his diuine attributes, and perfections. Secondly they saye he vvas endevved vvith all naturall sciences, vvhich are per­fections and ornamentes of mans soule. Thirdly they say that he had a supernatu­rall and infused sciēce, by vvhich se savve [Page 310]clearly the mysteries of Christian faythe, vvhich vvee beelevve, by vvhich hee for­savv all future thinges euen the day of iudgement, and penetrated so the harts of men, that hee knevv euery mans cogi­tatiō. [...]. 11. And this the Prophet Esaie insinua­teth, vvhen he sayeth that the spirit of vvis­dome and vnderstanding shall rest vppon him, to vv ^ch S. Paule subscribeth vvhen he cal­leth Christ the treasure hovvse of God his vvis­dome. G [...]l. [...]. And this knovvledg Christ obtey­ned not by studie & labour, but by infu­sion euen from the first momēt of his con­ception; and therfor vvhen hee vvas but tvvelue yeares olde, and had neuer beene trayned vp in Schoole or Vniuersitie, he disputed so learnedly vvith the Doctours, that they vvere all astonished at his vvis­dome. Lue. 8 [...] Io 7. And noe meruayle for hee vvas the vvisdome of his father, and the vvord of God, and his humaine nature vvas the booke in vvhich god his vvorde vvas as it vvere vvritten by Incarnation vvith an abbreuiation, and so must needs bee the treasure hovvse of God his vvisdome, and as it vvere the Academie of all sciences. This is the opinion vvhich Catholikes haue of their highe Preest, chefe Doctour, and master, Christ Iesus. But the ghospel­lers and nevv Christians of this age haue nor so honourable an opinion of him, but [Page 311]rather like proud Disciples they vvill correcte this their Master, Conc. de nat. Domini Hom Dom. 1. post Epiph. and accuse him of grosse ignoraunce. Luther vvill stand to it that Christ knevve not vvhen the day of Iudgement vvas to happen, yea that some tymes he vvas ignoraunte of other matters. Zuinglius, Bucer and Beza are of opinion that Christ profited in knovvledge by litle and litle and Knevv not yester day, Iren. l. c. 17. Amb l. 5. de fide c 7. libers in Breu c. 19. vvhat he knovves to daye. Vvherin they imitate the Gnostickes, and Agnoits & the authour of the booke of Christs infancie, vvhich recor­deth that Christe vvent to Schole and learned his A. B. C. Caluin in his iarring Harmonie vppon the Euangelists, Isid l 8 etym. c. 5. Calu in Har. Luc. 2. expli­cating those vvords of sainct Luke: And the child encreased and vvas comforted in Spirit. sayeth plainly, and repeates it tvvise or thrise, that Christ profited not only in ap­paraunce, but verily and invvardly, in gra­ce and knovvledge, and vvas ignoraunte also of many things euē as other men are, sauing that ignoraunce in men is a paine of sinne and a parte of originall sinne, in Christe it vvas not so. Calu. in Har. Mat. 24. And in the same booke hee sayeth, that Christ as man knevv not the day of Iudgement, not on­ly bicause he knevve it not to tell it to others, but also bicause he could not in­forme him selfe of the same. The like son­ge [Page 312]Caluin singeth in the same Harmonie handling that place vvhere Christ is sayed to haue prayed to his father to free him from the Chalice of his Passion, [...]arne. in c. 26. Mat. if it vvere possible; for there Caluin often re­peats that those vvordes issued out of Christes mouthe ere he vvas avvare, and that feare and greefe did so perturbate his mynd that hee knevve not vvhat he sayed, and therfore corrected him selfe by and by. O arrogācie more then Luci­ferian. Ps [...]. 19. [...] 9. Dareth the potte accuse the potter of vvant of skill? or dareth the creature accuse the Creatour of ignoraunce, and the Christian condemne Christe of fol­lye, errour, and inconsideration. If hee bee vvorthy hell that shall saye (foole) to his brother, Mat. [...]. hovve manye helles deserueth Caluin that in effecte vvith the same con­tumeliouse vvordes, myscalleth Christe him selfe. But saye they, Christ him selfe sayeth that hee knevv not the daye of iudgement, Mar. [...] ergo hee vvas ignoraunte of it. I graunt he sayed so, but his meaning is to bee taken. And the ancient fathers ra­ther, then they vvould saye that Christ vvas ignoraunt, they vvould seeke to in­terpret those vvordes so as they might not seem to derogate vnto him. Greg. l. 4. ep. [...]. Some therfore sayed that Christ sayeth that hee knovveth not that daye, bicause he vvas [Page 313]ignoraunt of it in his members, Amb. in 19. Luc. Naz orat. 4. Theol. others say that he ment only, that he knevv it not by hu­main knovvledge but yet denied not but that he knevv it by reuelation, Hier. Chrys­theoph in c. 24. Mat. others saye that he sayed he Knevv it not, bicause it vvas committed to him in such secret, that he might not reueale it, and so knevv it not, to reueale it vnto others: Hier in c. 24. Mat. yea some rather then they vvould ma­ke Christ to be ignoraunt, auouched that those vvords vvere foisted in by the Arrianes, to proue Christ to bee but a creature, and pure man. Luc. 2. They obiect also that sainct Luke sayeth that Iesus encreased in age, grace, and vvisdome, before God, and men. But this argument is as easilie ansvvered, for some expound those vvordes thus: Christe encreased in age verilye, and be­fore God and men, but in grace and vvis­dome only in outvvard apparaunce & before men; others saye that hee encrea­sed in grace and vvisdom, that is in actiōs of grace and vvisdome, bicause as he ca­me to riper yeares, so he made more re­monstraunce of his grace, and vvisdome, by meritoriouse operations, and actes of vvisdome, vvhich vvere in deed merito­riouse, gratious, & vvise, and vvere estee­med such before God & mē. But yet they haue not doone. Ether (sayeth Caluin) Christ knevv that it vvas possible to esca­the [Page 314]deathe, Cal. Harm. Mar. 14. or he knevve not. If he Knevve, vvhy doubteth hee? If hee knevve not, then vvas he ignoraunte. Thus the deuill laboureth in his mem­bers and ministers, to make the vvisdome of God ignoraunte. To this therfore vvee must also giue an ansvvere: and that vve shall as easily. For Christ knevv that it vvas absolutely possible to auoid death and therfore sayed to his father: all thinges are possible to thee: he knevv also that suppo­sing his fathers vvill and commaunde­ment, Mar. 14. he vvas to dye: yet thus he spake and thus he prayed, to shevv him selfe true man, and to declare that according vnto the fleshe he feared deathe, yet ab­solutely according to the vvill of his su­periour parte, he vvas resolued to die, as appeareth, by those vvords follovving: But not as I vvill but as thou vvilt. As if he had sayed, as I ame flesh and blood, and according to naturall affection I feare deathe as it is repugnaunt to nature, and in this respecte I vvould fayne escape it, but yet bicause it is thy vvill (ô father) & is expedient, yea necessary for mankinde, I ame most vvilling to dye, and therfore not my vvill (that is the desire vvhich as I ame fleshe and blood is cōmon to mee vvith other men) but thy vvill bee doone to vvhich the vvill of my superiour and [Page 315]reasonable parte is allvvayes conforma­ble. Vvhich tvvoe vvilles in Christ are not contrarie, bicause the one feares death as it is contrarie to nature and the sensuall parte; the other imbraceth deathe as it is the price of mānes redemption and the obiect of gods vvill; nether dothe the latter vvill correct the former, but bothe are right in their kinde. For as deathe is against nature, it is to bee feared, and as it is the obiecte of fortitude, and the mea­nes of mannes redemption, it is to bee im­braced, & the one shevveth Christ to bee a man, the other declares the force of gra­ce vvherevvith the vveakenesse of hu­maine nature is corroborated. And so Christ knevv that his fathers vvill vvas that he should suffer, and his vvill also in the reasonable parte vvas resolued, but yet to shevve him selfe a man, according to his sensuall parte he sayed: if it bee possi­ble free me from his chalice. Novve if you de­sire a reason vvhy Christ that vnder tooke our mortalitie, vvould none of our igno­raunce; diuines vvill giue you one moste euident. Bicause Christ (saye they) vnder-tooke only those imperfectiōs of our na­ture, vv ^ch ether vvere necessarie to decla­re him selfe a man, or to make satisfactiō for our sinnes, or to giue vs example; & bicause obedience, fasting, prayer, humi­litie, [Page 316]pouertie, & such like serued for pa­ternes for vs to imitate, hee vvas obediēt, he fasted, prayed, humiliated him selfe, & liued poorly: and bicause also honger, thirst, colde, heate, mortalitie, vvere ne­cessarie to suffer and to satisfie for vs, hee vvas houngrye, thirstie, hoat, colde, and mortall; and lastly, bicause nothing more declared that hee vvas a man then feare of deathe, vvhich manes nature abhor­reth, he feared, and svvet for feare, not vvater only, but also blood. But bicause sinne vvas against the end of redemption vvhich hee proposed to him selfe, hee vvould none of that, yea hee could not bicause hee vvas the some of God: and for as muche as inordinate motions of the fleshe serued nether for example, nor satisfaction, yea vvere rather contrarie, hee also refused them; and bicause igno­raunce also is manye tymes ioyned vvith sinne, ether as the cause, or effecte of sin­ne (for vvhoesoeuer sinneth, sayeth the Philosopher is ignoraunte & inconside­rate) yea bicause this vvas repugnaunt to the office of a Messias vvhoe vvas to instructe the vvholle vvorlde in heauenly doctrine, and vvas not necessarye to de­clare him selfe to bee man, bicause feare and other imperfections serued for that purpose sufficiently, yea could not demō ­strate [Page 317]him to bee man bicause angelles and deuills may bee ignoraunt; he vvould take noe ignoraunce vppon him. But let the heretike blaspheme a vvhile, and let him exceed the deuill his father in blas­phemy; if Christ vvere ignoraunte, he vvas subiect also to sinne; bicause he might haue follovved his ignoraunce. For if the vnderstanding may erre or bee inconsiderate, the vvill vvhich is directed by the vnderstanding may vvander and banger and svverue from reasons rule and Lore, and consequently also may sinne; And so our reformed Christians vvill ma­ke a deformed Christe of our Messias, vvho being him selfe subiecte to sinne (as hee is if he can bee ignoraunt or in cō ­siderate) and consequently hauing need him selfe of a redeemer, vvill yet take vp­pon him to redeeme others, and to saue others, vvho him selfe needeth a Sauiour. See hovv basely these men conceiue of Christ, vvho though they saye that they giue all vnto him, yet do make him an ignoraunte and inconsiderate man; and yet they thē selues vvill bee so eagle-eyed that they cā finde out all the true meanīgs of Scripture vvith a priuate spirit, and knovve as vvell as the begger his dishe, theyr ovvne iustificatiō & predestinatiō. But to come nearer to our purpose, and [Page 318]conclusion, if Christ vvere ignoraunt and inconsiderate, then can the truthe erre, vvisdom can bee deciued, & the vvay can goe out of the vvaye for hee vvas the vvaye, the truth, and the life, and the vvisdome of his father. Io. 14. If Christ can bee ignoraunte, he may bee deceiued, if he maie be de­ceiued he may deceiue, bicause he may teach according to his errour, if he maie deceiue, paraduenture he hath deceiued, and then peraduenture his preaching, his ghospell, and vvhatsoeuer he hathe taught of Christian religion, is errour, and deceipte; and so by litle, and litle, heresie leadeth to Atheisme, and this their blasphemouse doctrine, ruinethe Christianitie. But fye rather vppon these blasphemers, Christe is the vvisdome of his father and so can not bee deceiued, he is prima veritas the prime veritíe, and so can not deceiue, and he is summum bonum chee­fest good, yea goodnes it selfe, and so vvill not deceiue, and our ghospellers are here­tikes, that is deceiued, and deceiuers.

THese Reformers haue not yet in their opinion, deformed Christe suf­ficiently, for not content to haue made him an ignoraunte man, they auouch also that he feared his fathers tribunall, and dispaired of his ovvn saluation, and so they vvill make him also a desperate man. Caluin in his Harmonie of the ghospells sayeth that vvhen Christ vvas in his ago­nie in the garden, In c. 26 Mat. § 37. in fine. it vvas not the feare of deathe only vv ^ch made him svveat blood and vvater, but sayeth hee: It vvas the ter­rible iudgement-seat of God, and the Iudge armed vvith incomprehensible vengeaunce vvhich he proposed before his eyes, and on the other parte our sinnes, vvhich he had taken vppon him pressed him vvith their vveight: so that it vvas no mer­uail if this bottomlesse pitte and horrible cōfusion of damnation, did so feircely torment him vvith feare, and anguish. And a litle after: § 3 [...]. death of it selfe could not so have tormented the soule of the sonne of God, had it not been that he perceiued that he had to do vvith the iudgement of God. And again he repeates this his blasphemie, least you should thinke that it escaped him vnaduisedly: Ibidem. Vvhēce it follovveth that he fea­red a greater euill then deathe, vvhich prouoked him to desire to bee exempted from death: vvhich vvas, that proposing before his eyes the vvrath of God, in so much that he presented him selfe before his iudgement-seate being charged vvith the sin­nes [Page 320]of the vvholle vvorld, it vvas necessary that he should be affrighted and afrayed of the pro­found bottomless-pitte of death. And vvith in some fevv lynes after he sayeth, that this deadly svveat could not proceed but from an vn­accustomed and horrible fear. Yea sayeth he, to thinke that this agonie proceeded only from feare of deathe, vvere to attribute vnto Christ a pusillanimitie vvhich vve vvould con­demne in an ordinarie man. Here Christian Reader, do not they eares burne to heare blasphemie so often repeated? and vvill thy Christian zeale permit such disgrace to be offered thy redeemer? vvhat Ihon Caluin, did Christ feare the tribunall seat of his father? then feared he the Iudges sentence, least it should be pronounced against him, then feared he damnatiō and doubted vvhether he should be compre­hended in the sentence of venite benedicti, come yee blessed of my father, Mat. 25. or Ite maledicti, goe you cursed into fier euerlasting; then vvas he in a perplexitie and doubte, vvhether he should be placed on the right hand vvith the electe, or on the lefte hande vvith the reprobate; And so the sonne of God vvho came to saue others vvas not sure of his ovvn saluation. Novv therfore if I vvill shevv my selfe a Christian, zealouse of Christes honour, or carefull of myne own saluation, I must seeke to free him from [Page 321]this feare of his fathers sentence: for if he perishe (as Caluin sayeth he feared least he should perish eternally) thē must vvee all perish, bicause by him only vve looke for saluation. The vviseman sayeth that at the later day the iust shall stand in great constancie, Sap. 5. euen then vvhen the sentence shalbe pronounced, much greater noe doubt shalbe the constancie of Christ Ie­sus the sonne of God, of vvhome all the Saincts that euer vvere, haue borrovved their fortitude and courage. For he being the naturall sonne of God, knevv full vvell that his father nether vvould nor could deny his sone, and vvas assured that he vvho vvas to sitte in iudgement and to pronounce the sentence, could not be him selfe arraigned. And is it likely that God vvho indevved Christes humaine nature vvith all knovvledge, and reuealed to him all secrets euen harts cogitations, and the day of dome, vvhich the Angells knovv not; vvould keepe this only secret from him, & vvould not let him knovve vvhat should become of him selfe at the day of his death? The diumes vvith one common consent are of opinion that Christs soule from his conception, recei­ued the blisse and glorye vvhich at the day of our particuler iudgement, or at our deliuery out of Purgatorie our soules [Page 322]shall receue, and they say that to a glori­fied soule is devv a glorified body, bicau­se the glory of the soule naturally imparts it selfe vnto the body; and that in Christ, it vvas noe miracle that his body vvas so gloriouse in his transfiguration, but ra­ther it vvas a miracle that his glorious soule did not make his body also perta­ker of that glory from the beginning; but yet this miracle Christ vsed that he might suffer honger, thirst, cold, and other mi­series, vvhich he could not haue doone in a glorified bódy. Hovv then vvas it possible that Christe should feare his fa­thers tribunall, and terrible sentēce, vvho vvas all ready in possession of the glory of his soule, and vvas assured that his glo­riouse soule shold haue at the length, that is after his passion, a glorified body. But sayeth Caluine: Christ had taken vppon him our sinnes, and therfore might very vvell feare to appear before his fathers iudgement-seate. This is his diuinitie or rather blasphemie. For if he mean that Christ hath so vndertaken our sinnes that he verily made then his ovvn, vvhat more blasphemie could be vtter? for although Illiricus auouched that God the father so potently imputed our sinnes to Christe that he made him a sinner, yet Christiane tongues abhorre to vtter, and Christiane [Page 323] [...]ares do burne to heare such blasphe­mous speeches. For sainct Peter, vvho sayeth that Christ boare our sinnes, 1. Pet. [...]. addeth vvith all, that he bare them in his body vppon the vvood, to signifie that he tooke not the mallice of our sinnes vppon him (for then he should haue sayed that he bare our sin­nes in his soule bicause the soule only is the subiect of sinne) but that he suffered the paines devv vnto our sinnes, vvhen he suffered the deathe of body; vppon the crosse. Yea as vvhen one satisfieth for a­nothers offence, he takes not the offence vppon him, but is cōtent to abide the pu­nishment to set his freind at libertie, so Christ our Mediatour and Redeemer is sayed to haue taken our sinnes vppon him and to haue satisfied for them, bicause he hathe endured the paynes vvhich vvere devv vnto them: but as for our sinnes, he vvas not capable of thē, and therfore the same sainct Peter in the same place sayeth that Christ neuer sinned and that guile or frau­de vvas neuer found in his mouthe. Vvherfore though Christ might feare death and the torments of the crosse, bicause those he vvas to suffer for vs, yet had he no caule to fear hell and damnatiō, bicause although that punishment vvas devv vnto our sin­nes, yet vvas not Christ to suffer it, bicause his passion vvas sufficient as in the next [Page 324]chapter shalbe proued. And this I hope vvill suffice a reasonable man. But Ihon Caluin still cauillethe and vvill not be sa­tisfied vvith reason. For sayeth hee (as is before related) Christ had beene very ef­feminate, & in cap. 22. Lucae. if for fear of death only he had svvette blood and vvater, therfore it vvas noe lesse then hell and damnation, vvho­se feare cast him into such an extraordina­rie svveate. See vvhat care Caluin hathe least Christ should be counted a covvar­de; and yet, vvhilest to finde out a suffi­cient cause of such a feare, he sayeth that hee vvas a frayed of iudgement; he makes him to feare that vvhich hee vvas sure should neuer happen, vvhich is the grea­test folly in the vvorld, and argevveth the most effeminate, and covvardly harte that can bee. I ansvvere therfore that the feare of deathe only, vvas sufficient to make him svveate vvater and blood; for if as Aristotle sayeth abundaunce of blood and distemperature of body be sufficient to make mē sometymes to svveate bloud, l. 2. hist ani­malium c. 19. vvell may vve conceiue hovv feare of deathe in Christe (vvhich must needs bee very great partely bicause he vvould ha­ue it so and for our sakes also, and partely bicause he vvould not imparte any com­forte or strengthe vnto his humaine na­ture) might cause such a distem perature [Page 325]in his body, that it being already extenua­te and emptied of other humours, might svveat blood and vvater: nether procee­ded this frō any impotēcie of mynde, for he that giueth such courage to his Sain­ctes, could haue taken the same him selfe, but he vvould permit deathe and such a deathe, to do al that such an obiecte could do, and he vvould not giue any ayde vn­to the inferiour parte of his soule, vvhere this passion of feare afflicted him, that he might beginne in the garden the dolefull tragedie of his passion, vvhich he acted after vvards vppon the stage of his crosse. But Caluin hath not yet cast all his poi­son; he sayeth that Christ not only feared iudgement and damnation, but dispaired also of his Saluation. These are his vvords vvhich vvith the other before, I translate out of his frenche Harmonie: in c 27. Mat. 11.46. But this see meth absurd that a voice of desperation should escape Christe. The ansvvere is easie: that al­thoughe the fleshe apprehended damnation yet fayth remained firme in his harte. Vvhere you must note that Caluin hauing discoursed vppon those vvords my God my god vvhy hast thou for sakē me: he sayeth, that this vvas the greatest agonie that Christ euer suffe­red and the reason saythe he vvas bicause he vvas conuented before his fathers tribunall as culpable and as one that had God his enemie and [Page 326]as a man all ready condemned, vvher vvith he vvas so scarred and affrighted that it had beene enoughe to haue svvallovved vp all other men an hundred tymes. So that complaining that he vvas abandoned of his father he speaketh not of faintness nor in ieste, for (sayeth he) the ve­hemencie of the greefe vvrested out of him this complaint, for as he vvas presented as a pledge for vs, so vvould he susteine verily the Iudgement of God in our name. And bicause in these spee­ches he seemed to auouch that Christ dis­paired as one forlorne & forsaken of his father, he sayeth that yet his fayth remai­ned firme. Is it so Caluin and did Christ as he vvas man so feare the iudgment-sea­te, that he dispaired? Then, ether that dis­paire vvas deliberate, or sodaine and in­deliberate. If deliberate then certes did Christe sinne most danmably; for vvhat greater sinne is ther, then to dispaire of Gods mercie? For he that dispaireth ether he thinks not God able to saue him, or not vvilling, in the one he dothe iniurie to gods omnipotencie, in the other he mispriceth his mercie. If indeliberate, then vvas Christe inconsiderate and ca­ryed a vvay vvith Passion like a beast or vureasonable man, vvhich althoughe Caluin sticketh not to graunte (for he sayeth that the vehemencie of his agonie vvrested out of him feare and dispaire [Page 327]ere he vvas avvare) yet do all the fathers and diuines in this pointe stand against him, affirming that neuer any passion in Christ preuented reason and considera­tion. Yea they conceiue of Christ as of one that vvas so vigilante ouer his passiōs, that neuer any arose vvithout contidera­tion, and commaundement. For vvhen he vvould shevv zeale he commaunded a passion of anger to arise, yet in that mo­deration, as it might shevv him to be zea­louse and yet nether testie nor furiouse. Likevvise vvhen it pleased him to afflicte his harte vvith feare and sorovve, he com­maunded those passions to arise in that ve­hemencie, vvhich vvas expedient to iuf­fer for vs, or to shevv him selfe a man, and yet vvith that moderation that they ne­uer exceeded the golden meane of ver­tue; and he that could commaunde the vvindes and tempests to cease, could cō ­maunde his passions dovvne againe. And so vvhen in the garden he feared death, that feare vvas praeuented and com­maunded by reason, and so vvas delibe­rate, and yet noe sinne bicause it is natu­rall to feare death, and if vvith all the Su­periour parte of the mynde bee resolute, and vvill not for that feare trāsgresse gods lavve or offende conscience, it increaseth the merit, of martyrdome or suffraunce [Page 328]of death, bicause it augmenteth the diffi­cultye. Vvherfore diuines calle Christes passions, propassions, bicause he allvvayes praeuented them, and commaunded them to arise, and therfore the Euangelist sayeth not, that Christ vvas perturbed or trou­bled vvithe his passions (as vve are) but that he troubled him selfe. Augu. tract. [...]9. in 10. In like manner vvhen Christ cryed on the crossemy God my God vvhy hast thou forsaken mee? that com­plainte proceeded from the sensual parte of his soule vvhich feared death and the panges therof, and vvas not a complaint indeliberately vvrested out by vehemen­cie of greef, as Caluin auoucheth, but vvas deliberate, and yet noe sinne, bicause if the Superiour patte be resolute, it is noe sinne thoughe the inferiour parte fear deathe as contrarie to nature. Nether vvas that complainte a desperation of Salua­tion, for Christ (as before is declared) vvas sure of that, but it vvas a complainte of the sensuall parte vvhich complained that it receiued noe succour from the diuini­tie, but vvas left as it vvere to it selfe, to suffer feare, greef, and paine for our Re­demption; and yet in that complaint (as I sayed) vvas no sinne, bicause death is a thinge to be feared, and the flesh and sen­suall parte naturally feareah it; only then this feare is a sinne, vvhen it makes vs of­fend [Page 329]our conscience, or to transgress the lavv of God, vvhich effect it could not haue in Christe bicause the Superiour parte of his soule vvas alvvayes resolued to dye for mans redemption. Novv vvhe­ras Caluin sayeth that Christe dispaired yet retained faithe, I can not see hovve those tvvoe things can stande together in his opinion. For if faithe bee an assuraun­ce of present and future iustice, yea of Election and Saluatiō, See the seuēth booke, and third chap. (as Caluine sayeth it is) then if Christ dispayred of Saluation, he lost his faith, bicause he lost that assu­raunce, & so by Caluins doctrine, vvas an infidelle. Nether vvill Caluins shifte be sufficient to holde these tvvoe (to vvit as­suraunce and desperation together) for to say, as he sayethe, that this desperation in Christe vvas indeliberate and so might stande vvith faithe, is to vphold one ab­surditie by another, for it is most absurde to ascribe vnto Christe any inconsiderate, or indeliberate actions: better vvere it for Caluin to saye as diuines commonly saye that there vvas noe faythe in Christe, bi­cause faythe vvhich is an obscure knovv­ledge, can not stand vvith the cleare vi­sion of God vvhich Christe had, and vv ^ch gaue him a greater assuraunce of Salua­tion, then faithe can do. Thus thou seest gentle reader hovve vnlikely it is vvhich [Page 330]Caluin sayethe, that Christe doubted and dispaired of saluation vvho vvas the son­ne of God, blessed in soule from the first moment of his conception, and so assured of the blisse and glorie both of soule and bodye. But bicause Caluin vvill haue it soe, let him still stande to it that Christ vvas arraigned as guiltie at his fathers tri­bunall, and that hee so feared the Iudges sentence that he doubted yea dispaired of saluation. But vvhat shall he gaine by this doctrine? he shall declare him selfe to be as he is, a sacrilegiouse companion, vvho robbeth Christ of his glorie, in vt­tering such iniuriouse and opprobriouse speeches, and shall deserue to bee hissed out of the Church and schoole of Chri­ste, for preaching that doctrine from vvhich Christiane eares abhorre, and shall demonstrate him selfe not to bee a sincere Christian, vvho speakes so con­temptibly of Christ vvhome he profes­seth to honour and to vvhome he sayeth (but hovve truly vvho sees not?) that he giueth all homage, and glorie.

THe sinner vvhen he his once habi­tuated in sinne, makes noe scruple or sinne, and vvhen he is plunged in the depthe of sinne, he contemneth, and is so farre from seeking meanes to gett out of this filthy sinke, th [...]t hauing once soy­led him selfe he cares not to vvallovve him selfe in filthe, and to adde filthines to filthines, and abomination to abomina­tion, vvithout stoppe, or stay, ende, or measure. So it happeneth to Ihon Caluin vvho hauing begonne to blaspheme, neuer leaueth blaspheming, but addeth blasphemie to blasphemie, and still redou­bleth his blasphemies. For not content to haue despoiled Christ of many noble titles, not thinking it a sufficient disgrace to make him an ignoraunte and desperate man, he novv openeth his mouthe to vt­ter his greatest blasphemie, and to spitte his greatest spite against him, associating him in punishement vvith the deuilles, making him a member of the damned crevve, and an inhabitaunte of hell it sel­fe, and from desperation bringeth him to hell and damnation. l. 2. c. 16. §. 10. In his Institutions vvhich T. N. translated into English and Richard Harison imprinted, in the yeare of our Lord 1562. hauing occasion to trea­te of the descension of Christe into Hell, he sayeth that Christe is sayed to haue [Page 332]descended into hell, not that his soule lo­cally descended (for Caluin acknovvled­geth noe locall hell) but bicause in soule he felte the paines of hell: for (sayeth he) ‘ not only the body of Christe vvas giuen to be the price of our redemption, but ther vvas another greater and more excellente price payed in this, that in his soule he suffered the terrible tormen­tes of a damned and forsaken man.’ And a litle after, he ansvvereth a question vvhich he supposeth may be moued in this manner: Novve if a man should aske of me vvhether that Christe vvent dovvne to hell vvhen he prayed to escape that death; [...]ect. 12. I ansvvere that then vvas the beginning of it. And seing that Cal­uin acknovvledgeth no other hell then the paines of hell, that is torments of mynde vvhere vvith the damned are ve­xed, it follovveth that Christe in the gar­den vvhen he feared not only deathe as Caluin sayeth, but his fathers tribunall al­so, began his hell, & vvhen he dispaired (as he sayeth) on the crosse, he entered in­to the depthe of hell, and so those vvords: my God, Mat. 2 [...]. my God vvhy hast thou forsaken me? Vvere the vvords of a damned man. O blasphemie, and that of one vvho vvill needs be counted a zealous, and a refor­med, and reforming Christian. Thou a Christiane Caluin? thou a Ievve and more blasphemouse then a devill. Thinkest [Page 333]thou that Christe redeemed vs vvho could not saue him selfe? If he suffred hell he vvas damned, bicause none suffer hell but by sentence of damnation, and seing that out of hell ther is noe redemption, he his still damned and so noe redeemer. But to redouble y ^e iniurie vvith a flovvte, Caluin vvill needs seeme Christes greatest freind in prefering him to hell, for (sayeth he) it had beene but a small matter to haue suffered deathe of body, Sect. 12. yea that death (sayeth he) vvould only haue re­deemed our bodyes, but not our soules; and so to make Christe a complete redee­mer of body and soule, he bringeth him to hell. Secōdly he sayeth that this highly commendeth Christes mercie and chari­tie. And thirdly he sayeth, that this also shevved y ^e povver of Christe, vvhoe not only by death overcame death, but by suffring hell paines overcame hell also, and by taking the paine vvhich vve de­serued, acquitted vs of the same. Thus he shroudeth his impietie and blasphemie vnder the shevv of pietie and zeale of Christes honnour, and vvhen he blasphe­methe most of all, hee vvill seeme to ho­nour Christe vvith the title of a complete redeemer, and to commend his charitie, and povver. But to the first I ansvvere that Christ by his death and passion payed [Page 334]a sufficient price and ransome bothe for soule and body, Eph 5. and therfore sainct Paule sayeth that in Christe vve haue redemption in his blood. Col 1. And again he sayeth that Christe hathe pacified all by the blood of the crosse bothe in heauen and earthe. [...]. Pet. 1. To vvhome sainct Pe­ter subscribing, avoucheth that vve are re­deemed not vvith gold nor Siluer but vvith the preciouse blood of the immaculate lābe. And ne­uer shall Ihon Caluin finde ether scriptu­re, or father, that sayeth that Christe suf­ferd the paynes of hell for our redemptiō, but rather he shall finde that they attribu­te our redemption to the passion and pā ­ges of death of Christes body. And ther­fore if Caluin vvill stāde to it that Christes passion vvas only able to ransome our bodyes but not our soules, he detracteth from the dignitie of Christs deathe, and seing that the scriptures and fathers ac­knovvledge noe other price to haue bee­ne offred for vs then Christes deathe and passion, if that vvere deficient, then ac­cording to Caluin, Christe is noe com­plete Redeemer. But he presseth vs vvith an argument vvhich he counteth insolu­ble, Supra. for (sayeth he) he that satisfieth for another must pay the debte vvhich he ovveth, and susteine the payne, vvhich he deserued, and therfore bicause vvee de­serued the paines of hell, and vvere to suf­fer [Page 335]them both in soule & body, it vvas ne­cessarie that Christ in soule should suffer the paynes of hell, else had he beē but hal­fe a redeemer. But by this argument Chri­ste should haue endured in hell perpetuall tormentes, and so should neuer haue re­deemed vs, bicause he should him selfe haue been a perpetuall prisoner; for if Christe must needs suffer the selfe same paine vvhich vvee deserued, then must he according to Caluins rule haue endured a perpetuall hell, bicause that vvas the punishement prepared for vs, and seing that eternall punishement neuer comes to an ende, Christe should neuer haue payed the ransome devv for sinne, and so vve should neuer haue been redeemed. Vvherfore I saye that Christes passion, to the sufferaunce of vvhich bothe Christes body and soule concurred (for the body by it selfe alone can not suffer paine) vvas a sufficient ransome to redeeme bothe our soules and our bodyes from hell and damnation, and therfore to that only and not to the paynes of hell the scriptures & fathers do attribute our redemption. See the third booke & third chap. And this (as I haue proued allready) vvas a moste sufficient price, and so sufficient, that in that it vvas the passion and deathe of him that vvas God and man, it vvas sufficient to haue redeemed a thousand [Page 336]vvorldes, yea the deuilles & damned also, nether must Caluin bee so rigorous as to thinke that noe satisfaction can bee suffi­cient, vnless it bee of the same kinde vvith the debte vvhich is to bee payed, or the harme vvhich is to bee repaired; for if one of Caluins brotherhood had cut of the arme of another brother, vvould not a peece of mony haue made satisfaction for the mayme? or vvould Caluin haue exacted arme for arme? And if one had ovvght Caluin an hundred crovvnes vvould not he haue beene content to ha­ue taken the vvorthe or more then the vvorthe in corne, sheepe, or suche like, but needs must haue crovvne for crowne, as thoughe there vvere noe other lavve but lex talionis? or if satisfaction for these debtes and losses may be made by other paymentes vvhich are of aequall valevve, then might Christe by sufferinge deathe vvhich vvas of infinite price and vale­vve, make a full satisfaction for the pai­nes of hell; and yet neuer feele the pai­nes therof. And in deed it vvas not conuenient that Christe should suffer the paines of hell. For first those pai­nes are of their nature perpetuaell and so if Christe had once permitted those torments to afflicte his soule, he should neuer haue beene eased of the same. Se­condly [Page 337]it had beene dishonorable vnto Christe to be fellovve mate vvith the damned: Act. [...] and althoughe saint Peter sayeth that God raised him from deathe to life the sorrovves of hell being dissolued, yet he meanes not therby that Christe once suffred y ^e sorovves of hell, but ether that hee loosed vs from the sorovves of hell, or that hee acquitte him selfe from them, bicause hee neuer vvas tormented vvith them. Thirdly to haue suffered these paines had been to noe purpose, bicause that the paynes of hell are not satisfacto­rie, and therfore after that the damned haue endured them many milliōs of yea­res, they are neuer the nearer an end of their misery. Novv as cōcerning Christes charitie, that vvas sufficiently declared in that hee suffred deathe for vs. [...]o. 15. For noe man hathe greater charitie then to dy for this freende, & especially for his enemies. and this also extolleth Christes povver moste highly, vvho by deathe ouercame deathe, yea sinne also, and damnation. But my hande is vveary and my pen seemes vnvvilling to yeld any more inke to a longer dis­course vppon these vnchristiane, yea dia­bolicall blasphemies, and I doubte not but the Readers eares doe burne all ready to haue hard so much of thē. Out of this doctrine peraduenture proceeded, that [Page 338]blasphemouse speeche of one vvhoe (as Surius reported) vvas not afrayed to say that Christe vvas dāned in hell: Anno 1 [...]27. And for this, as it is very probable, God permitted Ihon Caluin to dye so desperately. Bolsee in vi­ta Caluini. Geneb. li. 4. Cron. For he that auouched Christ to haue dispayred and to haue suffred hel-lpaynes, at the hovver of his deathe him selfe dispayted, and seemed euen then to begine his hell, bicause thē hee cursed the daye that euer hee sette pen to paper (vvhich vvee also maye curse) and leauing to call vppon Christe at his deathe vvhome in his life hee had so dishonoured, he called vppon the deuill vvhose instrument & seruaunte he had been, and vnto him rendred his miserable soule, vvhich had deserued as many helles; as vvere and are the soules vvhich vvere, and still are, by his doctrine deceiued.

IT is a common saying vsuall in euery mans mouthe, and yet not so common as true: Loue mee loue my dogge: vvhich not only the cōmon voice allovveth, but also experience & reason approueth. for such is the nature of loue and frendship, that [Page 339]as it trāsformeth one freind into another, & makes vs to accounte of our freind as another our selfe, so dothe it engender in vs an affection vnto our freinde his frein­des, kinsmen, alliaunce, seruauntes, and vvhatsoeuer belongeth vnto him, or is beloued of him. And the reason is mani­fest: for if frendship be of that nature, that is maketh one soule as it vvere in tvvoe bodyes, and causethe vs to esteem of our freind as another our selfe, then as vve first loue our selues, and then others that are linked vnto vs, so vve must loue our freind as our selfe, and then his alliaunce for his sake, and vve must tender his life, his goodes, and cōmodities as our ovvn. Vvherfore vvee read that Damon and Pi­thias, did striue earnestly & cōtende most louingly vvho should dy for the other. For as the soule by affectiō is more vvhere it loueth then vvhere it liueth, so Damon thought him selfe to liue better in Pithias then in him selfe, and therfore to saue him selfe in Pithias, he desired to dy in him selfe. And he that loued Pithias life as his ovvne, vvould haue affected Pithias frein­des and vvould for his sake haue tende­red his goods as his ovvne. vvee read that Dauid and Ionathas vvere such louing freindes, that their soules vvero glevved toge­ther; [...], Reg. [...]. vvhich loue of Dauid tovvardes Io­nathas [Page 340]could not be stayed in Ionathas his person, but for his sake extended it sel­fe to his hovvse and familie. Kinge Pha­rao vvho extolled and loued higly Ioseph the Patriarch, Exod. 45. & 47. loued not him alone, but for his sake entertained Iacob his father, and all his brethren. For this is the nature and lavve of frendshipp: loue me loue myne. Vvherfore vvee see by experience hovv vvhē vve loue a freind sincerly, vvee loue for his sake his freindes also, & alliaunce, yea his seruauntes, yea his dogge, yea his ringe, and image, and vvhatsoeuer hathe beene deare to him or appertaining vnto him. And least that any should thinke that frendship vvorkes this effecte bet­vvixte mē only, I vvill shevve hovve cha­ritie vvhich is the frendship vvhich man hathe vvith God, hath the same proper­ties. For charitie makes vs not only the seruauntes of God but his freinds also, and in a golden chayne so linketh vs vnto him, Io. 1 [...]. that vvee are as sainct Paule sayeth one spirit vvith him. In so much that sainct Paule sayed that novv he liueth not in him selfe but in Christe, 1. Cor. 6. into vvhom by loue he vvas transformed, Gal. 2. esteeming of Christe as of another him selfe, in vvhome he thought he liued better then in him selfe. And therfore he tendered Christe his honour aboue his ovvn com­moditie, [Page 341]and vvould rather dy as in deed he did, then Christe should susteine any dishonour, and rather then hee vvould deny him or forsake him, hee denied him selfe and neglected his ovvn life. The li­ke effecte this loue hathe euer vvrought in the hartes of the Martyrs of the Chur­che, vvho not only desired to dy for Chri­ste, as Damon did for Pithias, but dyed in deed, and suffered most exquisite tor­mentes, least he should susteine the least losse and domage in his honour. And cer­tes they that for loue of Christ tendered his honour more then their ovvne liues, did noe doubte affect and reuerence for his sake his mother, his freinds, his image, his crosse, and vvhat soeuer hathe beene belonging vnto him; for loue is of this na­ture that it extendeth it selfe not only to our freind, but for his sake it tēdereth his honour, affecteth his alliaunce and frein­des, yea his seruaunts; and for his sake esteemeth of his image, ringe, and vvhat­soeuer hath beene apperteining vnto him. Vvherfore the greatest louers and freindes that euer Christ had, to vvitte the Martyrs vvhoe dyed fot him, and the first Christians vvhoe first receiued his lavve, and professed his name, did so loue him that for his sake they respected vvith re­uerence his crosse, his image, his vvor­de, [Page 342]his sacramentes, his mother, his Apo­stles, his seruauntes, yea their images and reliques also. L [...]. [...]. The Angell Gabriel for the honour he ovved vnto his master Christ Iesus, speakes vnto our blessed la­dy vvith great reuerence and respect, bi­cause she vvas to be his mother, knovving that he vvho honoureth the sonne, must respect the mother. Saint Ihon the Euan­gelist vvhome loue made so bold as to re­pose him selfe in Christs bosome, had noe doubt a great respect vnto his mother vvho vvas cōmended vnto him, and ther­fore some historiographers vvrite that he caryed her vvith him vnto his bishopri [...] ­ke of Ephesus. Sainct Ignatius vvriting to sainct Ihon the Euangelist, sayeth that he vvas desirouse to see our lady of vvhō Christe vvas borne. S. Dionisius Areo­pagita desired to see the body of her, vvhich gaue the beginning of life to him vvho vvas the vvay the veritie and life it selfe. Let vs novv compare these ancient Chri­stians vvith our nevve reformers, and if to loue our freinds alliance, bee an euident signe of loue tovvards him, and hatred of them, must needs argevv no good mea­ning to him, let vs gather by the affection vvhich these mē shevv tovvards Christes freindes, vvhat zeale and affection they beate to his person. And to beginne vvith [Page 343]the mother of God, bicause shee is nexte in dignitie vnto God, and as neare as the mother can be to the sonne, let vs see hovve reuerently they speake of this vvorthy creature. Luther sayeth that the monkes for vvomens sakes, Postilla nat. Mari [...]. haue extolled the virgin to much, and placed her aboue the Angells: Post Dom [...]. Quadr. and he is angry vvith the vvoman in the ghospell for calling the vvombe of this virgin blessed: Ser nat Ma. ria. Yea sayeth hee euery ministers yoke-fellovve may be as good as shee, sauing that she cannot be the mother of God as she vvas. in Harm. Io. 2. Caluin sayeth that vvhen she put Christe in mynd of vvante of vvine at the mariadge, she kept not herselfe vvith in her boundes, and ano­ther tyme vvhen Christe sayed vvhich is my mother and vvho are my brethern? Herm. Mat. 12. He car­ped (sayeth Caluin) at Maries importunitie, vvho preposterousely vvent about to interrupte his preaching. Yea he also findeth faulte vvith Papistes for vsing those vvords of the deuout vvoman in the Ghospell bles­sed bee the vvombe vvhich bare thee bicause (sayethe hee) the vvomā vvas checked for so saying. Harm [...] Lu [...]. [...]. Oecolampadius condemnes her of ambition vvhen she told her sonne at the mariadge, that vvine vvas vvāting. in Io 2. Antid c. [...]. Luc. Brentius sayeth that vvhen she vvith Christs Kinsfolkes, came to speake vvith Christe, she shevved her selfe vnciuil, and [Page 344]exceeded the boundes of publike hone­stie, and therfore by Christe vvas put to publike shame. H [...]. 19. Lu [...]. L [...]. etiam post Dom. post Epiph. The same Brentius sayeth that vvhen she had lost Christe she fell into these cogitations: If this vvere the Mes­sias hovv happeneth it that he is disobedient to his parentes, and so closely stealeth a vvay from them? hovv is hee the Messias and autour of foelicitie, Hom. 17. in Lu [...]. by vvhom as yet vve neuer had good fortune? And vvhen (sayeth he) this virgin and the disciples savv that Christe vvas condemned to so shamefull a deathe, then vvere they scandalized, and then appeared their vaine cogitations and impiouse harts. [...]pud Ganis. l. 3. c. 12. Ioannes Agricola suspects her maydenly honestie and makes the Angell to speake like a lasciuious vvoer vnto her and as one that vvent about to entise her: thus hee makes him to speake: all Hayle most gratiouse lady vvhose company all men do desire. And thinke you (sayeth he) vvhat it is to see a trimne young man all alone vvith amayd in a chāber close shut vp, and vsing svveet vvordes and not obscurely insinuating by vvordes & gesturs hovv much hee desired. O lasciuious companiō that could conceue so beastly of the company of an Angell, vvhoe is chast by nature, and of a virgine vvho vvas as free from luste by grace, as an Angell by nature. If novv the prouerb be true as reason and experience teacheth it to bee moste true: loue me loue [Page 345]myne: then Iudge gentle reader by the res­pecte vv ^ch these men beare to Christs mo­ther, Calu li. [...] Inst c. 12. §. 1 2. l. 2. c. 20. vvhat their reuerence and affection is vvhich they beare to her sonne. Besids this it is a common opinion of theirs that noe honour or religious respect is to be, giuen vnto the mother of God, in Post nat. Mariae & post Annun­ciat. or the saints of heauen. And Luther seemeth much to enuie at the honour vvhich is giuen to our lady, saing, (but vvith a lye) that papistes make her a goddess, and ron­ne more vnto her then vnto Christe, ex­pecting more grace and fauour of her then of him. Melancthon sayeth that it is plaine that amongest papistes the blessed virgin is succeeded in Christes place, Ap [...]l. conf. and that all call vppon her and repose confi­dence in her, as thoughe Christe vvere noe propitiatour, but only a Iudge and a reuenger. In vvhich as he lyeth lovvdly, soe he plainly bevvrayeth the enuie vvhich he conceiueth against this virgins honour. Harm. c. 2. [...]. Caluin complayneth that vve adorne this virgin vvith the spoiles taken from her sonne, and that vve thinke her not honoured enough vnlesse she be made a goddesse. As for other saintes they so reui­le them and that vvith such bitter scoffes and flovvtes, that herin I admire the pa­tience of the diuine Maiestie vvhich hol­deth his reuēging hande. Caluin rayles at [Page 346]all the sainctes bothe of the old and nevv lavve: l. 1. Inst c. 14. §. 11. he calleth Abraham a vvorshipper of Idolls and exaggerateth diuers sinnes of Sara and Rebecca, in cap. 32. Exo. he accuse the Moy­ses the mildest and meekest man that vvas in his tyme, l. 3. Inst c 20. §. 27. dere­for. Ecclesia. of arrogancie and pride. The Saints of the nevv lavve he calleth long­eared creaturs vvho can hear so farre of: he nick nameth them by contempt, dead­men, shadovves, visards, monsters, beasts▪ vvherein he follovveth the stepps of his father Vviclephe vvho called the Saints Scurras principis: [...] Th. Vval. [...]o. [...] tit. 12. c. 108. the Princes Iesters. And one Quintine a libertine is so fovvle mou­thed that vvhen he nameth sainct Paule he calleth him the broken vessell, on Cal. cont. libert. c. 9. sainct Ihon hee termeth the foolish younker, sainct Mathevv, the vsurer, sainct Peter, the denyer. They take also from all Saints the honour vvhich is giuen them by in­tercession and sutes made vnto them. Erasmus to make the vvay for them, Dial. pere­grinationi [...]e ma­kes the blessed Virgin to say that she li­kes vvell of Luthers doctrine vvhich tea­cheth that Saints are not to be prayed vn­to, for novv (thus he makes her speake) I may be quiet vvhere as before all came to me as though my sonne vvere still a babe. Ser uat. virg Luther sayeth that he esteemeth noe more of the virgins prayers then of another Christiā; l. cont. Vval. yea he denyeth all inuocation of Saincts: [Page 347]so dothe Caluin also in many places of his institutions. l. 1. [...]. 14. §. 12. l. 3. c. 20. §. 20. Roding l cot. Schol▪ Iesuit. And one Vvilliam Ro­ding in a booke or libel vvhich he made against the schooles of Iesuits, (for their teaching and bringing vp of youthe es­pecially is disliked of heretikes) bringes in the blessed virgin speaking in this man­ner: ‘Leaue of this saluting me, and in salu­ting me to honour me, leaue of vvorship­ping of Saints and those that are dead, vvee detest thy salutations and prayers: vvhere thou arte, vvhat thou doest, or vvhether thou beest a liue or dead, vve knovv not, and vve care not; so farre are vve frō hearing thy prayers.’ Cal. l de ref. mag. cént 4. c. 6. col [...] 36. As for ima­ges and reliques of Christe, his mother, and his saintes, they detest them: and ther­fore Luther vvisheth that all relikes vvere buried in the earth: Ser. de Cruce. yea their brea­king and defacing of images, and their burning of reliques, argevveth their myn­de and opinion in these matters sufficient­ly. Ex Cocl l. 3. hist. Hussit. Vvherin they imitate Hierome of Pra­gue vvho pulled dovvn the Crucifix and defiled and abused it, and yet reteined Vviclephs picture crovvned vvith a dia­deme; for so these men thinke the best place of their hovvse not good enoughe for Luthers and Caluins pictures, and yet deface and defile the images of Christe, his mother, and his Saincts. But they say [Page 348]that this they doe for pure loue and ho­nour tovvards Christe, vvho should bee highly iniuried, if any but hee should bee honoured, Deut 6. Mat. 4. 1. Tim. 1. and they haue a vvarrant for the same out of gods ovvn vvord: Thou shalt adore thy lord god and him only thou shallt serue. And againe: To God only honourand glo­rie. But yet bicause scripture can not be contrary to reason, and much less to it sel­fe, they should haue soughte meanes to haue expounded those vvords, rather then to haue fallē into these grosse absurdities: for the same God vvho commaundeth to adore and serue him only, commaundeth vs to honour our parents and to serue our masters. And reason teachethe vs that if vve honour and loue God vve must res­pecte his frends and those that he respe­cteth, for the prouerb must needs be true, Loue me loue myne, bicause it is grounded in reason and the very nature of frendship. Vvherfore I ansvver that God is aiealouse God, and therfore vvill haue suprem ho­nour and affection giuen vnto him selfe only, bicause he only hath supreme soue­ranitie, (vvhich only the alleaged places do proue) but if it be lavvfull to make this argument; God only must haue supreme honour ergo saincts must haue none at all; It may also be as vvel inferred that nether our parentes, nor our Princes must [Page 349]be honoured, or affected. Let therfore the reformers calle to mynde, that to ex­cellencie and dignitie honour is devve, & therfore seing that ther are three kinds of excellencies, vvell haue the diuines distinguished three kinde of honours or vvorships. The first excellencie is increa­te and supreme, vvhich is proper to God, and therfore to him is devv supreme ho­nour vvhich is called Latria, and to giue this honour to any creature is idolatrie. The second is called morall or ciuill ex­cellencie, vvhich consisteth in authoritie, morall vertue, and learning, or such like, and to this is devv a ciuill honour vvhich vve giue to Princes, and superiours and morall-honest men, and learned men: for authoritie, vertue, and learning, are to be respected. The third excellencie is super­naturall vvhich consistethe in grace san­ctitie, and glorie, & to this is devv a religi­ouse honour: yet bicause this excellēcie is infinitely inferiour to gods excellencie, vve must giue vnto it a religious, but yet a farre inferiour honour. And vvith this honour our blessed lady, sainct Ihon Ba­ptiste, sainct Peter, sainct Paule, and other Saincts vvhilest they liued deserued to bee respected, and sithence that their san­ctitie is noe less in heauen then it vvas in earthe, they are noe less after death to [Page 350]be honoured then they vvere liuing. And therfore as Ciuile honour giuen to Princes, learned, and morall men, dero­gateth not to Gods honour bicause it is inferiour, so nether dothe this religiouse honour, bicause it is inferiour. But Caluin sayeth that religious honour is only de­vve to God. This he affirmeth but he can not proue it, and therfore I deny it, and vvill proue the contrarie. For religion is a vertue vvhich giueth to god supreme vvorshippe, and to Saincts, and holy thinges, inferiour honour, and so respe­cteth euery one in his kinde. To God this vertue giues a supreme honour called Latria, to the Saincts an inferiour honour called Dulia to the blessed virgin bicause she farre excellethe the other Saincts, it giueth an honour inferiour to Latria but superiour to Dulia, vvhich diuines calle Hyperdulia. And I vvould demaund of Caluin, if Saincte Ihon Baptiste vvere in earthe, vvhether hee vvould honour him or noe for his sanctitie? If hee saye hee vvould, then I aske of him, vvhat honour hee vvould giue him? not Supreme ho­nour: bicause that is devv to God, not Ci­uill honour; bicause that is giuen to mo­rall vertue only, authoritie, and learning. Vvhat honour then shall sainct Ihon Bap­tiste haue for his Sanctitie? certainly ether [Page 351]an inferiour religious honour called Dulia or none at all. And if Caluin vvould ho­nour him in earthe, and religiously also for his sanctitie; vvhy feareth he to giue him that honour in heauen, sithence that his soule (vvhich is the proper subiecte of sanctitie) is noe less liuing there, then it vvas here, and is indevved vvith noe lesse sanctitie in heauen then is vvas in earth, and besides that, is also there enriched vvith glorie, vvhich it had not here? Novv if Caluin vvill saye that at least images and reliques are not to be honoured, bicause in them is none of these three excellenties afore mentioned: I vvill tell him that althoughe none of these excellencies be formally in images or reliques, yet bicause these are appertainning vnto them vvho are honoured, they may and muste also bee something respected and reuerenced (but vvith a farre inferiour respecte) and that for their sakes to vvhome they ap­perteined. For as the Prince & Superiour hathe only the ciuill excellencie, and yet not he only, but for his sake, his image, his chaire of estate, his ringe, and after his death, his dead body also is to bee respe­cted, but yet not vvith that honour vvhere vvith his ovvn person is honoured, so if God and his sainctes maye be honoured vvith religious honour, then for God his [Page 352]sake, his image may be respected, and for Christes sake his name, his, vvorde, his Sacramentes, his crosse, nayles and other thinges belonging vnto him, and for the Sainctes sake, their images, bodyes, bo­nes, clothes, and such like, may and must bee religiously honoured, yet vvith an in­feriour honour. And the reason is first bi­cause in these things also by a certaine par­ticipation and representation, vve behold in some sorte their excellencie to vvhome they pertaine, and therfore vve respect them for their sakes. Secondly the nature of frendship vvill haue it soe, that if vve honour and loue any, vve must respect for his sake all belonging vnto him, euen vnto his dogge. But Caluin vvill saye that greater vvould be the honour of Christe, if vve gaue all honour to him, and none at all to his saincts; vvhich hee affirmeth and I vvith more reason do denye. For as then I honour and loue my Prince best vvhen I soe respecte him, that I honour and loue not him only, but for his sake his alliaun­ce, his frends, his officers, his seruauntes his image, yea his ringe: so do I honour and loue Christe moste, vvhen for his sake I respecte and honour his mother, his officers, the Apostles, his freindes, the sainctes, yea his crosse and image. And as Princes take it for a dis honour to haue [Page 353]their officers, seruaunts, and images abu­sed, & count it an honour to be honoured not only in them selues, but also in their adherentes; so no doubte Christ accoun­tes the honour doone to Sainctes (bicause it is giuen them for his sake and bicause they are his freinds and seruaunts) as giuē to him selfe, and can not but conceiue him selfe to be highly dishonoured, vvhē his Saints, yea his mother, are reuiled, and his Crosse and Images are defaced and defiled. Vvherfore let not the reformers calle vs idolatours, Vvl at [...] tris [...]. least they bevvray their ignoraunce. For idolatrie is to giue su­preme honour devv to God, vnto his crea­turs, as it is treason to giue suprem ciuil honour devv to the Prince, vnto any of his subiects; but as it is noe treason nor in­iurie, but rather honour to the Prince, to honour his officers and seruaunts vvith an inferiour honour for his sake, so is it noe idolatrie but religion, to honour the Saints of God vvith an inferiour honour, for their Masters sake. And if Saints may be honoured, vvee maye make interces­sion vnto them, bicause it is an honour to Princes retainers to haue sutes made vnto them. And this may be doone also vvithout dishonour to Christe, bicause to him vve giue vvhat is devv, to vvitte the title of a Redeemer, and cheefe aduocate, [Page 354]mediatour, and intercessour, and vve ac­knovvledge Saints as secondarie media­tours and intercessours, vvhome vve de­sire for the credit vvhich they haue vvith Christe greater then vve haue, to make intercession to him for our necessities. And so vve pray othervvise to Christe, othervvise to Saincts, to him vve pray as to our supreme aduocate, to them as to secōdarie mediatours, vvho haue noe ac­cess to God but by him; to him vve pray as vnto him that bestovveth grace, healthe & such ther benefits on vs, to them vve praye not to bestovve those benefites, but to pray to him to bestovve them on vs. And if some tymes vve desire our Lady, and other Saincts to send vs healthe or to giue vs grace, our meaninge is noe other, then to desire them to procure of Christe these benefits for vs, by their prayer and intercession. But Sainctes sayeth Caluin cā not heare vs so farre of; I graūt they can not naturally nor by corporall eares, for as yet they haue none at all, but yet I saye that by reuelatiō, God vvho reuealed ma­ny future thinges to his Prophetes, reuea­leth also vnto Saincts all thinges vvhich are belonginge vnto them, emongest vvhich are the prayers vvhich are made vnto them; and I auouch vvith the diui­nes and holy fathers, that as they see God [Page 355]face to face, so in him they see & knovve euen our cogitations, prayers, and vvhat­soeuer is belōging vnto them. Vvherfore I may iustly suspect our Reformers sin­ceritie to Christe, vvho can abide nether his mother, nor his Saincts, nor his crosse, nor image, nor any thing belonging vnto him: bicause y ^e nature of frēdship is such, that if they loue and honour him they must loue and honour his frends and ser­uaunts. Gen. 9.29. Num. 220 Ios 3. [...]. Reg. 1 [...]. [...]. Reg. 30 Here I could demonstrate out of scripture the honour devv to saintes, bi­cause scripture auoucheth that Abraham, Loth, Balaam, and Iosue vvorshipped Angels, that Abdias honoured Elias, and that the sonnes of the prophetes reuerēt­ly respected Elizeus; vvho novv are much more vvorthy honour then they vvere in this mortall life and may accept of it as it vvell novv vvithout preiudice to Chri­stes honour, as then. Prayer to Sainctes I could proue out of Gods ovvne mouth, for vvhen he sayed, Hi [...]. [...] that if Moyses and Sa­muel should stande before him (to vvit to ma­ke intercession for the people) yet his soule vvould not be vvith that people, he giues vs leaue to suppose that they may praye for the people that vision also of Iudas Macha­beus in vvhich he savve Onias and Hieremie, 2. Ma [...]. [...]. then not liuing, yet praying for him and his armie; dothe argue that Sainctes pray [Page 356]for vs, and consequently that vvee may pray vnto them. Apoe. 5. and this sainct Ihon con­firmeth by another vision in vvhich he savve the tvventie fovvre Seniours pro­strated before the throne of God hauing euery one harpes and golden vialls full of odours, vvhich are (sayeth sainct Ihon) the prayers of Sainctes. Tob. 12. Yea the Angel Raphael sayeth that he offered vp Tobias his prayers vn­to God: and another Angel prayeth for the people as Zacharie vvitnesseth in the beginning of his Prophecie, Zach. 1. the like ex­ample of prayer to an Angel vve read in Osee. Osce 12. And vvhy haue vvee angels vvhich are called our Gardians (as Christe him selfe sayeth vvee haue) but to protect and pray for vs? Mat. 1. See Gen. 48. Iob 5 19. Exod 32. Apoc. 8. And seing that the soules of the blessed, are immortall as Angels are, see God face to face as they do, and are indevved vvith glorie as they are, they also can heare our prayers, 1. Reg. 7. Iob vlt. Rom [...]5. Ephes. 6. 1. Thes. 3. 2. Thes. 3. Col. 4. Heb. 13. Iac. 5. as vvell as An­gels, and so are to be prayed vnto as vvel as they. Vvee haue many examples also of the prayers of Sainctes in this life, and seing that the soules of dead Saintes are liuing and haue eyes and eares of sou­le to see our necessities and to heare our petitions, vvhy may vvee not pray to them and that also vvithout iniurie to Christe, Exod. 2 [...]. Num. 22. as vvel as to the liuing Saintes? Novv that their Images & Reliques may [Page 357]be vvorshipped, Cen. [...]. Act 3.2. Reg 6. Heb. 9. it is as manifest in the tvvoe Cherubins placed by the Arke, in the brasen serpent, in the translation of Iacobs and Iosephs bones, & the reuerēt and deuout burial of sainct Stephen. Yea the respect vvhhich vvas borne tovvards the Arke, Manna, the Tables of the lavve, & Aarons rodde, vvhich vvere religious­ly Kept in the Arke argueth no lesse. But the a fore sayed reason grounded in the nature of frendship vvhich saveth loue me and loue myne, honour mee & honour myne euen to my seruaunte and image, and the absurditie vvhich follovveth contempte of Saintes, Images, and Reliques, though vve laye aside Scriptures, fathers, tradition, histo­rie, and all monumentes, is an argumente sufficient for the proofe of the vvorship, and respecte vvhich is devv vnto them. And to make it more manifest, I vvill propose an example, vvhich shall lay open vnto the vevv of any reasonable man, the absurditie vvhich follovveth contempte of these thinges and the traiterouse mea­ning vnto Christe, vvhich it implyeth. Put the case that some one in Ingland of his Maiesties subiects should pro­fess great loyaltie, loue, and honour vnto him, yet could not abide to hear a good vvord of his gloriouse mother, yea vvould reuile her, and miscall her, but vnder this [Page 358]pretence that his Maiestie is novv to haue all the honour, and that noe honour can be giuen to the mother, but so much is taken from the sonne. Suppose he should passe by his lorde chauncelour, and Trea­surer, vvithout mouinge capp, and appear before his honourable counsaill vvithout bovving of body, or bending of knee, and being demaunded vvhether his capp vvet not nayled to his head, or vvhether his knee vvanted not a iointe, he should ans­vver them, that his cappe is nayled to all but his Maiestie, & his knee is stiffe to all but his ovvn good selfe: Suppose also he should despise his fauourites, and hate them as much as hee affecteth them, pro­testing that he only loueth his Maiestie, to vvhō he giueth so much of his affection, that he hath none lefte for his freinds or vvelvvillers. Suppose that vvhen he ente­teth into the chamber of presence he should make no more reuerence to his Chaire, thē to an alehovvse benche; Sup­pose that vvhensoeuer he meeteth vvith his Graces picture, he should deface and defile it, and should caste into the fier vvhat soeuer he findeth that hathe been vsed by him, and all vnder this pretence that he giueth all respecte vnto his ovvn person, and vvill not giue any at all to any thinge else, bee it neuer so neare, or so [Page 359]deare vnto him, least he should seem to parte stakes, and not to giue all honour and affection to his Highnes: Suppose also that he should stopp all sutes vvhich are made vnto his Chauncelour, Treasu­rer, Counsailours, and other offices, avou­ching that such suters are traytours to his Maiestie, vvho in that they goe not to him immediately, doe seem not to put that confidence in him, vvhich his good­ness requireth, but rather do imagine that ether he is not able of him selfe, or else not so vvilling, as able: vvould you take this man to bee a loyall subiect? or vvold you not, (not vvith standing all these his goodly pretences and solemne protesta­tious) suspecte his sinceritie? and might you not iustly feare, least after contempte of all that are belōging vnto his Maiestie, he vvould laye violent hands vppon his ovvn person? Truly I doubt not but that such a one vvould quickly be arested, and apprehended for a traytour. The like case is betvvixte Christe Iesus, and these nevv reformers, and zelatours. They pro­fesse all honour, dutie, and affection to Christe, but they reuile his mother, and vvill haue no honour giuen vnto her, le­ast that in honouring the mother they should dishonour the sonne. They beare noe respect vnto Christes cheefest [Page 360]officers the Apostles, to vvhom he com­mitted his Church at his departure. They fauour not at all the freinds and fauorits of Christe, the saincts, and angells; and this they saye they doe for feare least they should incurre Christs disfauour, in fa­uouring them vvhom he him selfe did fa­uoure. Vvhen they meete vvith the ima­ge of Christe or of his mother, or frendes, they deface and defile it; Vvhen they see the crosse of Christe they svvell at y ^e very sight of it, as if they vvere possessed, and can noe more abide it, then can the deuill, vvho bicause he hateth Christe can not brooke his crosse. If they should hit vp­pon any bone of Christes frendes, they vvould spurne at it, and if any relique of Christe, or his mother, or his Apostles, and other saints, should be in their vvaye, if a dunghil vver not nere hand, they vvould caste it into the fier; All sutes and requestes, vvhich are made to the Mother of God, or any sainte, officer, or freind of Christe, they forbid and condemne as iniuriouse to Christe, as though (say they) Christ vvere not able or vvilling enough of him selfe, but that the vvay must be made by mediatours and inter­cessours. These are their goodly preten­ces, but vvhat litle signe of true meaning tovvards Christe therby is shevved, the [Page 361]lavv of frendship shall determine, vvhich telleth vs, that it vve loue our freinde vve must loue his alliaunce, frends, and all ap­pertaining vnto him euen vnto his dog­ge. And if in the other case of that brag­ging subiecte vvho pretēds great honour to his Maiestie, sentence vvould be pro­nounced against him as against a tray­tour, bicause although he professe great loue and honour tovvards him, yet he declares the contrarie in the contempte of his mother, frends, and officers, I see not bovv any indifferent Iudge can con­demne him for a traytour to his Maiestie, vnless he pronounce these men also tray­tours vnto Christe his person, bicause vvhere the case is like, and the cause the same, and only the persons different, if the sentence be not the same, the iudge is partiall, and an accepter of persons.

THE olde lavv being abroga­ted as able only to shevv the vvay, but not to giue force to vvalke in the same, to cōmaun­de, but not to giue grace to obeye; the ol­de Sacraments being antiquated and abo­lishep, as signes only vvhich represented grace, but could not effectuate it; the old Preestes also by good consequence vvere turned out of office, as able only to iudge betvvixte corporall lepresies, and to ab­solue from legall irregularities; bicause the lavve, sacraments, and sacrifices, being abolished, ther vvas noe vse of the Preests vvho vvere ordayned only for one of these three offices, that is to preach and [Page 363]interprete the lavv, to minister sacramēts, or to offer sacrifice. And in lieu of the old lavv, a nevv lavv by Christe being esta­blished, vvhich vvas vvritten not vvith the fingers of an Angell as the old vvas, Exod. [...]. but of the holy ghoste, & not in stones as that vvas but in the hartes of men; nevv sacraments also being instituted not only to signifie grace but also to sanctifie, nevve Preests of necessitie vvere to bee appointed, to interprete this lavve, and to minister these sacraments; bicause lavv religion, and Preestes, euer vvent toge­ther, Heb. 9. and therfore as sainct Paule sayeth the one beeing altered the other vvas to be chaunged. Three lavves there are by vvhich God hathe ruled his people, to vvit the lavve of nature, the lavv vvritten and the lavve of grace; in all vvhich, See the first booke & sint chapter. as I haue declared in the laste chapter of the first booke, vvere Preestes, and they also diuerse, according to the diuersitie of la­vves. Vvherfore if Christe hathe planted a Church, and in it established a lavv and religion, certainly he hath also appointed a succession of Preestes, bicause they euer goe together, and haue such a connexion, that the one can not stande vvithout the other. For if there be noe Preests to offer sacrifice, and to minister sacramentes, and to interpret the lavve, no shevv or face of [Page 364]religion can remaine, and as vvell may a Kingdome florishe vvithout a Prince, or magistrate, In the first booke, and sixt chap. as religion vvithout Preests, and bishops. Vvherfore, as I haue pro­ued before, in the lavve of nature the first begotten of euerie familie vvas a Preeste, & in the lavve vvritten, the tribe of Leuie vvas deputed, and dedicated vnto Preest­hod. Ios l. 2. cont. App. In vvhich tribe ther vvere inferiour Preests so many that Dauid vvas fayne to deuide them into tvventy fovvre rankes, vvhich also conteyned a great number. There vvere also Leuits vvho had infe­riour offices. And ther vvere highe Pre­estes vvhich succeeded, one after anothers deathe, to the number of fovvre score & odde, [...]os. li. 22. Aut. c. 2. and the laste highe Preestvvas Fi­nasius, vvho liued vntill the Citie of Hie­rusalem vvith the Temple, vvas beseeged and ruined by Titus & Vespasian. These Preestes and Leuites loosing their office vvith the abrogation of the old lavve; Christe Iesus vvho gaue vs a nevve lavve, appointed a nevv Preesthood, of vvhich hee him selfe vvas the first Preest, and the principall, and the only high Preest, to vvhom no man succeedeth in the same authoritie: and therfore sainct Paule put­teth a difference herin betvvixte the olde and the nevve lavve, that in the olde lavve many highe Preestes vvho succeeded one [Page 365]another vvere necessarie bicause one dy­ing, another vvas of necessitie to succeed, least the Church should, vvante an highe Preest, but in the nevv lavve there is but one highe Preeste Christe Iesus, and he is sufficient, bicause thoughe hee dyed, yet he rose again, and neuer gaue ouer the office, but still offereth sacrifice, and still ministreth sacraments, See the third booke, & six [...] chap. by the hands of his vnder-Preestes. So that he only is the highe Preest of the nevv lavv, and none but he, bicause no man succeedeth him in the same authoritie.

But here the aduersarie vvil insulte, and say vnto me that I haue affirmed that vv ^ch hee desired; for if Christe bee the only highe preest of the nevv lavve, vvhat nee­de vvee any Popes, Bishops, and Preests? Thus he argueth, but vv ^th hovv litle reasō a blinde man may see? For as it is no good argument, to say that novv in Ingland, and Scotland, and Ireland, can be but one King at once, therfore ther muste bee noe viceroyes, nor Deputies, nor Chaunce­lours, nor Treasures, nor Dukes, nor No­ble men, vvhoe are the Princes Officers, and Princes in their kinde, & vicegeren­tes also, some in more ample some in lesse ample māner; so it is noe good argument to saye that Christe is the only highe Pre­est of the nevve lavve, Ergo ther are noe [Page 366]other Preelts but he, for he may haue ma­ny vicegerentes, vvho also are true Predsts in their Kind. And so the Pope maye be his supreme Vicare in earthe, and other Bishops and Preests may be inferiour Vi­cars and Preests also, subordinate in iuris­diction vnto the Pope. Yea seing that the high Preest Christe Iesus hathe vvith­dravvne his visible presence frō the Chur­che, and executeth not visibly and imme­diatly by him selfe his preestly function, it vvas necessary that to his visible Chur­che, he should leaue a visible succession of Preests vvho should rule and minister vn­der him and for him in his absence, not as his successours, but as his vicegerents and ministers; for as noe Preest noe Churche, so noe visible Preest noe visible Church, Vvherfore vvhen Christe vvas to bid his Church fare vvell, he instituted his Apo­stles Precsts, Mat 26. giuing them authoritie to consecrate, 10 20. 10.21. and to offer sacrifie, and after his resurrection giuing them povver also to absolue from sinnes, and appointing Peter as the highe Preest and Vicare vn­der him selfe; Ies [...]. 22. Can. 2. vvhich to denye vvere not only to cōtradicte the Councell of Trent (vvhich defineth that in the place allea­ged Christe made the Apostles Preefts) but also to contemne and condemne the vvholle Schoole of ancient interpretours▪ [Page 367]yea the vvholle Christian vvorld, vvho haue so interpreted the places alleaged. This Preestly function the Apostles in their tyme did exercisein preaching, tea­ching, baptising, confirming, and offer­ring Sacrifice also, vv ^ch is the proper fun­ction of a Preest. Yea their Disciples did the same? Act. 1 [...]. for S. Luke sayeth that they mi­nistred vnto our Lord, that is sacrificed as the Greeke vvord [...] signifieth, and as Erasmus him selfe trassateth, yea as y ^e mā ­ner of speach also importeth. For if they had only preached or ministred Sacra­mēts, vvell might they haue been sayed to haue ministred to the People, but not so properly, vnto our lord, vnless they had offered sacrifice vvhich is proper to him. Sainct Paule sayeth that Timothie vvas ordained bishop by imposition of hands of the Presbiterie, 1. Tim. 4. [...]. 2. Tim. [...]. in c. 5 [...]. Isa. that is, a company of bis­hops, and he affirmeth that he him selfe imposed his hāds vppon him; vvhich im­position of hands is in greeke called [...], and as S. Hierome vvitnessethe si­gnifiethe giuing of holy orders. Tit. [...]. The same sainct Paule vvriting vnto Titus, sayeth that he lefte him at Creta that he should constitute and ordaine Preests in euery citie. [...]. The same sainct Paule vvith Barnabas, Act. 10. ordai­ned to the people Preests in euery Church, by imposition of hands, as the greeke vvord [Page 368] [...] importeth. Act. 20. The same sainct Paule, as sainct Luke reporteth sent to Ephesus & called the elders of the Chur­che, that is Preests for to them he sayed Looke to your selues and vnto your flocke. 1. Tim [...]. And of Preests he speaketh vvhē he sayeth: Preests vvhich do rule vvell, are vvorthy double ho­nou; Iae [...]. 5. And againe: Against a Preest receiue no accusation. Of Preests also speaketh Sainct Iames vvhen he sayeth: If any bee diseased among you let them call for the Preests of the Churche. And bicause our ghospellers see that by these places it is manifest that in the Apostles tymes Preests vvere ordei­ned, they are enforced (for other vvise they could not cōceale this from the Peo­ple) to translate elders for Preestes, [...]. Presbiter. Prestre. Prete. Preest. notvvith­standing that the greeke vvorde, yea the Latin, frenche and Italian, soundeth as much as Preest in Inglish. Of Bishops, Preestes, and deacons vve haue mention in the canons of the Apostles, Canon. Apo. Cone. N [...]ic. and the co­uncel of Nice; And Ignatius bishop of Antioch and scholler of sainct Paule, in in diuerse of his Epistles speaketh of the same. Ignat. cp. ad Eph. In his Epistles to the Ephesians this is his admonition: Endeuour my dearest to be subiecte to the bishop, cp. ad Tral. Preests and deacons, bicause he that obeyeth them, obeyeth Christe vvho ap­pointed them. And again in another Epistle he giues the reason vvhy vve should obey [Page 369]them: For vvhat (sayeth he) is a bishop but one vvho is aboue all principalitie, and is as much (as a man can be) an imitatour of Christe? Vvhat is Preesthood but an holy company, counsaylours, and assistents to the bishop? Vvhat are Deacons but imitatours of Angells vvho exhibit a pure and harmeless ministery, as sainct Stephen did to sainct Iames, Timothie and Line vnto Paule, Anacletus and Clemens vnto Peter? Ep. ad An­tioch. And in another place he reckeneth allmost all y ^e inferiour orders of the Clergie: I salute Subdeacons, Lectors, Singers, Ianitours, Exorcistes: And so forthe. By vvhich it is plaine, that in the Churche of Christe euen from the beginning, there vvas a Clergie of Bis­hops, Preests, and inferiour ministers and that the Churche and they euen from the beginning, vvent together, and by later vvriters and histories it is most ma­nifest, that preesthood vvas an order vvhich euer florished in the Church of Christe, ruled also in it and vpholded it. And truly religion, and preesthood, are so inseparately vnited, that the very pa­ganes as they practised superstition and idolatrie insteed of religion, so did they deuise a kinde of Clergie and order of Preests, to rule their Church in spirituall maters, to offer their sacrifices, and to mi­nister their Sacraments, as in the pagane writers is mostmanifest to be seene. Novv [Page 370]that there is noe true Preesthood amōgest the ghospellers, they them selues doe con­fesse and I shall also proue it; but first let vs take their ovvne confession. L. de abrog. Missa. l. ad Pragenses de Instit. mini­stris. Luther sayeth plainly that all are preests a like, and that Christians are not ordained but borne Preests in baptisme: Only (sayeth he) this is the difference, that to auoid confusion, the execution of preestly au­thoritie is committed to some only. And this is the opinion of all the reformers euen in England, vvho as they acknovv­ledge noe proper and true sacrifices) but only improper, such as prayer is, and a contrite harte; so they acknovvledge no [...] other Preests, thē those vvho offer prayer and thankes-giuing, and such like impro­per sacrifices vnto God. And bicause all may offer such sacrifices, all vvith them are preests a like. And so the minister is no more Preest then the minstrell, only the minister by election or by the Princes lettre, hathe the execution of this preestly function committed vnto him. vvhence it follovveth that ther is noe Hierarchie by their opiniō amōgest them, nor distin­ction of the state of Clergie and laitie in order, dignitie, and povver, but only in executiō. Vvherfore seing that all are not true and proper Preests, ther is no true Preesthod amongest them. This they [Page 371]graunte, and by their proofe & argument, by vvhich they proue all to bee Preests a­like, they declare their meaning. for their principall profe is taken out of sainct Pe­ter and sainct Ihon, [...]. Pat. 2. Ap [...]s. [...]; vvho say that Christ hathe made vs all a holy nation a Royall Pre­esthood and preests to God his father; vvhich vvordes argue only that vvee are meta­phoricall and improper Preests, vvho in that vvee are to offer vnto God vppon the Altare of our soule, prayse, thankes­giuing, prayer, contrition, and such li­ke vertues, doe in some forte resemble true Preests vvho offer true sacrifices vp­pon true altars: but as our soules are not true Altars, nor our vertues true sacrifi­ces, so are not all true preestes. And ther­fore S. Peter as he calles vs Preests so he calles vs Kings, liuing stones, and spiri­tuall hovvses: and therfore as vvee are not all proper and true Kinges, as vve are not all true stones and hovvses, so are vvee not all true Preests. And seing that by this their opinion vve are all Preests a like, ther is noe true pre [...]s [...]hood amongest them by their opinion, and so noe Chur­the nor religion. For all though ther is in Christs Church true presthood distincte from the state of the laitie, in caracter, order, consecration, and povver, as I haue allready proued, yet in their opinion ther [Page 372]is none, and so amongest them by their ovvne confession, is noe religion. Bicause to vphold religion, not only improper Preests (such as euer vvere all the fayth­full) are required, but also proper Preests, such as differed in state from the rest of the multitude, and offered true sacrifices, vvere euer in euery lavve necessarie, and true Preestes and true religion as yet euer vvent together. And truly as they teach so it is amōgest thē; for in their Church ther cā bee noe true preests nor preesthood, as I vvill in a vvorde or tvvoe demonstrate. And first of all if they haue any true pree­stes amongest them, let them shevve vs a succession of them from the Apostles, else can they not proue them to bee true preests, Ephes. 4. for if Christe ordained his Apost­les preestes and in them began the good­ly order and ranke of preests, vvhich by succession he vvould alvvayes haue to cō ­tinevv in his Churche for the vpholding of religion in the same, then certes they are no true preests vvho can not deriue their pedegree fron the Apostles as Ca­tholike preests can doe, but bastard and apish ministers, vvho cary the name and coate of Preests, and arrogate vnto them selues that office, but are no more Preests in deed, then are their minstrells and coblers. Secondly vvho in gods na­me [Page 373]layed hands vppon them? Vvhat Bis­hops ordained them? not Catholike bis­hops I ame sure, and they them selues vvill think it noe credit to retch their pe­degree frō them: not their ovvn bishops; bicause before Luther and Caluin vvho vvere no bishops them selues, neuer any Superintendente of their secte, vvas see­ne, felte or hard of: and before Luther and caluin, ther could bee noe lutheranes nor Caluinists, much less Lutherane, and Caluinisticall Superintendents. Vvher­fore in the beginning of their nevv reli­giō they vvere enforced to make Super­intendentes and ministers of our Apo­stating Preests such as Parker, Grindal, Sands, Horne, and many others vvere, vvho vvere thought paste fitte to ma­ke such superintendents and ministers on, vvithout any other moulding or knedding. And vvhere they vvanted Apostataes vvho vver consecrated after the Catholike manner, they tooke lay men of their ovvne, of vvhich some vve­re base artificers, and vvithout any other consecration or ordination then the Prin­ces or the superintendents letters, (vvho them selues vvere no bishops) they made them ministers and Bit-sheeps vvith as fevv ceremonies, and less solennitie, then they make their Aldermen yea consta­bles [Page 374]and cryers of the market. And from this stocke procedeth all the rable of their ministers vvho are no more Preests then they vvere that made them. l. [...]raes [...]. Vltra med. The like or­dination and institution of ministers Ter­tulian recordeth to haue beene practised by the heretikes of his tyme: Their ordina­tions (sayeth he) are light, rashe, inconstaunte; one vvhile they make ministers of Neophits, ano­ther vvhile of lay men and those vvho are tyed to the vvorld, another vvhile of our Apostataes, that they may bynde them vnto them by glorie, vvhom they can not by veritie: Vvherfore one Bishop they haue to daye, another to mor [...]vv, to day he is made a Deacon vvho to morovve is Rea­der, to day he is a preest, vvho to morovv is a lay­man, for to lay men they inioyne preestly functiōs. If then they haue noe Preests, they haue none vvho hathe authoritie to minister sa­craments, to offer sacrifice, and to preach vnto the people, and so can haue noe reli­gion, bicause Preests and religion must euer go together. Thus sainct Hierom re­iecteth & refuteth the sect of Luciferians: [...]. Lucif. Hilarius (sayeth he) vvho vvas the head of the Luciferians, vvhen being a Deacon he departed from the Churche, and he alone vvich his compa­nions (as he thinketh) became the only company and Churche of the vvorld, can nether consecrate the Euchariste, hauing nether Bishops, nor preests, nether can he giue baptisme vvithout the Eucha­riste [Page 375](For then Baptisme, y ^e Euchariste, & Confirmation, vvere giuen together) and novv he being dead, his secte and Church is dead vvith him, bicause he being but a Deacon could ordanie noe Clerke to succeed him, and that is noe Churche vvhich hath noe preest. Thus he argued against the Luciferians, and the sa­me argument do I make against all the nevv sects of this age: you haue noe true preests by your ovvne doctrine, nether in deed can you haue any, bicause all your ministers vvere ordayned vvithout order, that is vvithout consecration and impo­sition of Bishops hands, and they haue their authoritie from them, vvho being lay men could nether haue it them selues nor giue it to others, and seing that reli­gion and preests of necessitie did euer go together, as is all ready proued, you ha­uing noe true Preests can haue noe true religion, and so your preachings, bishop­ping, and supping, or cōmunicating, and your administrations of other sacraments (Baptisme only excepted vvhich in ne­cessitie lay men yea vvoemen may mini­ster) are noe more actes of religion then if the same vvere doone by players vppō the stage, bicause you haue noe more preestly authoritie then they haue, & so haue noe true religiōamōgest you, but only an apish imitation, and a Stage-play of religion.

MAN being composed of soule and body, is to serue his Creatour vv ^th bothe, & therfore must not only beleeue vvith harte, but must professe also his be­leefe vvith toūgue, & must not only pray­se god in spirit, but must vse his mouth also as a trōpet to soūd out this prayse; nether must he pray vvith soule ōlie butvvith lip. pes also, & he ought not only to hūble his mynd in prayer, but to bovve and bende his knee and body also, and he is not only to mynde and meane vvell, but he must also doe vvell, Mas. [...]. to glorifie his father vvhich is in heauen, & to edifie his brother in earth. Vvhich thing is soe deeply imprinted in the mynds of men, that ther vvere neuer any ether religious or superstitious, vvhose invvard deuotion did not breake forthe into some outvvarde signes or ce­remonies, by vvhich vvas manifested out­vvardly and by some action or gesture of the body, vvhat vvas in vvardly cōceiued and concealed in the mynde. And amon­gest all the externall vvorshipps and out­vvard signes of invvard deuotiō and reli­gion, sacrifice vvas euer counted the prin­cipal, [Page 377]vvhich therfore as Sainct Austine noteth, l. 10. cin. [...]. 4. vvas neuer offered but ether vnto God or to some creature, vv ^ch vvas estee­med of as God. And therfore all nations of vvhat religion soeuer they vvere haue euer vsed to offer sacrifice, as thoughe they thought that they gaue not vnto their God his right honour and vvorship, vnless they should offer vnto him one sa­crifice or other. l. [...] Plinie reporteth that the people of Sabea offered as sacrifices vnto their Gods all maner of spices but myr­he, vvher vvith that countrie aboundeth; others haue offered fruites and hearbes of the earth, others brute beasts, others haue sacrificed childrē & men vnto their Gods, vvherin thoughe many superstitions and abominable idolatries vvere committed, yet thereby appeareth that noesooner the harte of man is possessed vvith religion, true, or false, but it thinketh of one sacri­fice or other. aduers [...] Co­lotem. In so much that Plutarke sayeth that a man shall sooner hitte vppon cities vvithout vvalles, hovvses, Kings, lavves, coynes, Schooles, and Theaters, then vvithout Tēples and Sacrifices? l. quod non patest suaui­ter viui se­cundū Epis. and therfore (sayeth he) Epicu­re, vvho in deed serued noe other god thē his belly, and consequently had no other Church then his Kitching, noe other Pre­ests then his cookes, and no other sacri­fices then his dishes, offered notvvith­standing [Page 378]sacrifice vnto the Gods, for feat of the multitude. And as these bicause they had the light of nature offered sacri­fices, but bicause they vvāted light of fai­the offered them to false Gods, and vvith much superstition: so the true vvorship­pers of God vvho vvere indevved vvith the true light of faith offered sacrifice vn­to the true God. In the first booke, and last chap. Adam as I haue allready proued vvas a preest & therfore did noe doubt offer sacrifice to appease Gods vvrath conceiued against his faulte, al­though the Scripture maketh no mētion of it. Gen. 4. Abel [...]s the Scripture vvitnesseth, being a P [...]st, vvas not content to bear a harte full of reuerence vnto God, but to make manifest the invvard religion of his mynde, he killed the first borne and fat­test of his flocke, & offered them to God as a sacrifice, and God respected Abel and his oblatiōs. Noê also so soone as y ^e Flud­de vvas fallen, builded an Altar vnto God and vppon it he sacrificed and offered ho­locausts and burnt-offerings of the clea­ne beasts, Gen. 8.17. and fovvles vvhich he had pre­serued from the furiouse vvaues of that vniuersall deluge. See the first booke, last chap. The like did Abraha­me, Melchisedech, Iob and many other Patriarches, and true seruaunts of God vvho liued vnder the lavve of nature, as is also in the place alleaged, proued and de­declared. [Page 379]In the lavve vvritten the vse of offering sacrifice vvas more frequent, and the sacrifices, and the ceremonies, vvher­vvith they vvere to bee offered, vvere de­termined by Gods ovvn mouth, as ap­peareth by the booke of Leuiticus and other parts of scripture. And for this pur­pose especially God commaunded Salo­mon to build that stately Temple and vvould haue noe sacrifice offered but the­re, vvhich is the cause vvhy the levves since the destruction of their Tem­ple, thoughe thy exercise other actes of their religion, yet in no place dare they offer sacrifie. Vvherfore in the nevv lavv also, if Christe hath planted a Churche, and in this Churche, religion, then hathe hee also amongest the offices of religion, instituted a sacrifice. And this in parte the Ghospellers vvill not let to confesse, Isa. 53.10.10. Ephes. 5. for they graunte that Christe offered his ovvne selfe vppon the Altar of the crosse as a sacrifice vnto his father, vvhich vvas the complement of all the old sacrifices, the veritie of all those shadovves, and the price of our redemption. But yet bicause this sacrifice is not sufficient to vpholde religion and the vvorship of God, ether they must shevv vs some other sacrifice, or else they can not mainteine any true religion. For first I haue proued that reli­gion [Page 380]can not stande vvithout a sacrifice; vvherfore seing that the sacrifice of the crosse is paste, & neuer to bee reiterated, another sacrifice is necessarie for the con­tinuaunce of religion. Nether vvill it suf­fice for an ansvver, to say that the effectes and vertue of the sacrifice of the Crosse remaine, for these effects are noe sacrifi­ces, but only graces vvhich by vertue of the sacrifice of the crosse are bestovved vppō vs. Much less can it serue for a good ansvvere to say that Christe still in heauen presenteth vnto his father the sacrifice of the crosse; for that presentation is not a true, nor a nevv oblation of a sacrifice, & if it vvere yet bicause it is in heauen, it is not sufficient to vphold religion in ear­the, bicause a visible Churche and visible vvorship of God in earth, requireth a vi­sible sacrifice in earth. L. 10. cont. Faust. c. 11. Secōndly as S. Austi­ne sayeth neuer as yet did any societie cō ­sorte together in one religion but by pra­ctise and vse of the same visible signes, & Sacramēts, and therfore seing that sacrifi­ce is the proper, & principall signe of the homage, vv ^ch vve giue to God (bicause it vvas neuer offered but to God or at leaste to that creature vvhich vvas esteemed as God) it is impossible that this visible reli­gion & vvorship should cōtinevve vvit­hout a sacrifice & visible sacrifice also, that [Page 381]to the oblatiō of it the people may meete together. And seing that y ^e sacrifice of the crosse is noe more visible, and is not to be reiterated, nether is a visible signe at the vv ^ch the people maye meet together to vvorship therby allmightie God vnifor­mely & externally; that is not sufficient to vphold religion in the Church of Christe. for as religion begāne vvith visible sacri­fices and chaunged vvith chaunge of sa­crifices (vvhich is the cause vvhy the Pro­phets vvhen they complaine of the falle of religion they complaine allso of the fal­le of Sacrifices) so dothe it cōtinevv vvith sacrifices, 2. Par. 13. Dan [...]. & 12 and can not stande vvithout a Sacrifice. For as in Ingland vvhere kneeling is a proper vvorship devv vnto the Prince, it is not sufficient by cappe or cursye to shevv your dutie, bicause these ceremonyes are giuen to euery noble man or gentleman, yea to all those also vvho beare any svvay in the common vvelthe, and therfore to deny his maie­stie that homage, vvere to despoile him of his honour: so to take a vvay sacrifi­ce vvhich hetherto hathe been offered vnto God, and neuer vnto any but such as vvere esteemed gods, vvere to robbe God of his principall and proper vvorship, and consequently to ruine feligion; vvhich as it principally respecteth God as his pro­per [Page 382]vvorship, so can it not stande vvith out the same. And vvhy, I pray, you should vvee feare to graunt a sacrifice in the nevv Lavv? bicause (say they) Christ abrogated all sacrifices. True, I graunt he abrogated all the old sacrifices, bicause they vvere but shadovves, and figures of future thinges, and therfore the sonne Christe Iesus rising in the horizonte of the nevv havv, and the light of the veri­ties appearinge, the darke figures, and obscure shadovves, vvere to giue place, but yet this is no argumente to proue that he hathe not instituted a nevv sacrifice in the nevv lavve: for so he abrogated all the old Sacraments, as circūcision vvhich vvas a sacrament only and noe sacrifice, and yet as sainct Austine sayethe, l. 19. contra Faust. c. 15. he hath prescribed nevv Sacraments for the ne­vv lavv, Greater in vertue, better for profit, ea­sier in vse, and fevver in number. They vvill say peraduenture that the old sacrifices being abrogated, it is sufficient novv to vvorshippe God in Spirite or at least by prayse, thankesgiuing, and such other vertuous offices. But then I must tell them that bicause still vve are composed of sou­le and body, it is not sufficient that vve honour God in spirite only, and bicause the Church is a visible congregation it must haue a visible sacrifice nether are the [Page 383]externall actes of vertue sufficiēt, bicause they (as is proued) are noe true sacrifices but only metaphoricall and improper, and therfore as hetherto and in all lavves, besids those improper sacrifices it vvas necessarie for the maintenaunce of reli­gion to haue some proper sacrifices, such as Abel, Noe and others did offer, soe in the nevv lavve besides the metaphoricall Sacrifices of prayer, thankesgiuing, con­trite hartes and such like, vve must haue some proper sacrifice, bicause that and religion euer goeth together. And if vve haue no sacrifice it follovveth that the Ievves honoured God more then vve do, bicause they offered vnto him sacrifice vvhich is the greatest honour that can bee giuen, and therfore vvas all vvayes re­serued for God. A sacrifice then is neces­sarie in the nevv lavv; and vvhat more likely to be this sacrifice then the Sacri­fice of the masse? Melchisedech and his sacrifice vvere figures of Christe and his sacrifice, as before is proued; vvherfore seing that there is no likenes betvvixte Melchisedeches sacrifice and the sacrifice of the crosse, vve must finde some other in the nevv lavve vvhich doth more re­semble it; and vvhat more can resemble it then the Sacrifice of the Masse, vvhich though it be not bread and vvine, yet ha­the [Page 384]it the accidentes and outvvard shevv of bread and vvine. [...]. 12. Daniel prophecying of the hauock of religion vvhich Anti-Christe shall make, affirmeth that he shall take a vvay the dayly sacrifice: And vvhat Sacrifice I pray you? not the sacrifice of the crosse bicause that is past and vvhich is doone can not bee vndoone, not im­proper sacrifices of prayer contrite har­tes and such like, bicause he speaketh of one sacrifice, they are many, and of a proper and publike sacrifice, they are improper and metaphoricall. He spea­keth therfore of some publike sacrifice vvhich for feare of persequution shall not bee offered any more in publike manner but very secretly and not so commonly as it vvas vvonte to bee. This sacrifice is proued vvith Chri­stes preesthood in the third booke. And vvhat other sacrifice is there in the Church for Anti-Christe to take a vvay, then that of the masse? Let the ghospellers name vs it, if there bee, or euer vvere any other. Mala­chie the prophete or rather God by the mouthe of his prophete, [...] sayethe that he is vveary of the Ievves sacrtfices, that his vvill is not amongest them, and that henceforth hee vvill receiue no guiftes that is noe sacrifice vvhich is offered by their handes, but (sayeth hee) From the rising of the sonne to the setting of the same, my name shalbe great amō ­gest the gentils, and in euery place shalbe offered [Page 385]vnto mee a cleane oblation. And vvhat obla­tion or sacrifice is that? Not the Ievvish facrifice; bicause he sayeth this facrifice shalbe offered amōge the gentiles, yea he protesteth that he is vveary of all Ievvish sacrifices. Not the idolatricall sacrifices of the gētiles, bicause he vvould neuer haue called them cleane sacrifices, nether can they besaied truly to be offered vnto him, but rather vnto the deuill. Not improper sacrifices of prayer, thankes giuing, and good vvorkes; bicause he compareth sa­crifice vvith sacrifice; and so promising a nevv sacrifice insteed of the olde, as he­reiecteth proper sacrifices, so must he in licu of them, prouide another proper sacrifice, vvhich in the dignitie of a sacri­fice surpasseth them all. Yea by this cleane sacrifice according vnto the reformers opi­nion, it is impossible that he should mean prayer, thankes-giuing, or such like good vvorkes bicause the best of these sa­crifices, in their opinion, See the [...] books. are so vnclean that they are mortall sinnes, and abomi­nable in the sight of God. Nether can he mean the sacrifices vvhich Iob and others offered amongest the gentils, bicause he speakes of one sacrifice, those vvere ma­ny, and could bee noe cleaner then those of the levves, yea those vvere oftered but in fevv places, and so can not bee the facri­fice [Page 386]vvhich Malachie sayeth shalbe offe­red in euery place euen from the East to the vvest. He speaketh therfore of a Sa­crifice vvhich in the nevv lavve shalbe a moste cleane and pleasing sacrifice, and vvhich in all the partes of the Christian vvorld shalbe offered vnto God. And vvhat such sacrifice can the reformers name, but the sacrifice of the masse? Vvhat other oblation vvas euer counted a sacri­fice in the Church? vvhat other sacrifice is offered euery vvhere, but the sacrifice of the masse, vvhich is a moste cleane sa­crifice not only in respecte of the out vvard forme, vvhich is vnbloudy, but al­so in respecte of the moste chaste, pure, & virginall fleshe and bloud of Christe vv ^ch it conteineth? Mat 26. Luc. 22. Mar 14. [...]. Cor 11. [...]. And this is the Sacrifice vvhich Christe offered at his laste supper, vvhen taking bread and vvine in to his handes he blessed them, and by blessing, turning them into his sacred body and bloud, he told his disciples that it vvas his body and bloud vvhich hee gauefor them. In vvhich vvords he can meane noe other thing then the sacrifice of his body and bloud, vvhich he offered vnder the for­mes of bread and vvine. For to glosse those vvords as Caluin dothe (as thou­ghe Christe had sayed: this is my body: that is, this is a figure of my bodye vvhich [Page 387]shalbe giuen for you,) is very violent and repugnaunt to the texte, bicause the gree­ke texte vsethe the presentence vvhich is giuen for you, vvhich is povvred out for you: [...]. And therfore vnderstandethe some thin­ge vvhich euen then vvas giuen for them. And seing that Caluins bread and figure, could only be sayed to bee giuen to them, but not for them, that vvhich then he ga­ue for them, vvas his body and blood, vvhich vnder the forme of bread and vvi­ne he offered for them. And seing that he bad his Apostles to doe as he had doone, that is to offer the same sacrifice vvhich hee did, for so muche the Latin vvorde (facite) in that place and vvith such cir­cumstances importeth; It must needes fol­lovve, that hee commaunded the Apost­les, and in them their successours, to offer Sacrifice, and the same sacrifice vv ^ch hee offered for his Apostles at his laste supper, vvhich is the sacrifice of the masse. This veritie I could proue more largely by other circumstances of this place, especi­ally according to the greeke, and I could alleage that place of sainct Paule, vvhere hee compares table to table, ? 1. Cor. 10. that is altare to altare saying that vvee can not be pertakers of the table of our lord and of the deuill: that is vve can not participate of that vvhich is offered on the altars of the gentils, and [Page 388]of that also vvhich is offered on the Chri­stians altare, and out of this place I could proue that in sainct Paules tyme there vvas some thing offered on the Christians altars, vvhich hee opposeth to that vvhich vvas offered on the paganes altars. Hier. ep ad Marcellam. Aug. l 16 cit c. 22 lib. [...] cont [...]uer­sarium egis. c. 10 Damase l. 4. de fice c. 14. Theoph in c 5 Heb▪ Arnob in Psal. 109. I could also presse our aduersaries and op­presse then vvith the authoritie and mul­titude of fathers vvhoe all acknovvledge that Christe at his laste supper offered a sacrifice of his ovvne body and bloud vnder the forme of bread and vvine, and that therby he vvas a preest according to the order of Melchisedech: but this veri­tie I haue partely proued allready in pro­uing Christ to bee an aeternall Preest ac­cording to the order of Melchisedech, partely I shall herafter proue vvhē in the laste booke vppō occasiō I shall demon­strate the reall presēce of Christes body & bloud in the sacramēt of the Altare; & as for y ^e fathers authoritie, it vvere but loste labour to alleage it for any proofe of this veritie, l. de abrog. Missa. bicause Luther hathe allready de­barred vs frō suche proofes, and vvill telle vs plaīly that they are not to bee credited in this matter, bicause they vvere but mē. And Caluin also vvill tell mee, l [...] Instit c. [...]. §. 10. that seing that this supper is the supper of the lorde, there is noe reason vvhy vvee should bee moued vvith any auctoritie of men or [Page 389]prescription of yeares. Vvherfore let them cary avvay the bucklers, let them be credited before practise of the Chur­che vvhich as yet allvvayes offered sacri­fice, before reason vvhich telleth vs that religion can not stande vvithout a sacri­fice, Mat. [...]6. Luc 22. Mar. 4. 1. Cor. 11. before the plaine texte of scripture vvhich in plaine vvords affirmeth that Christe gaue his body and povvred out his bood at his laste supper for his disci­ples, vvhich vvords can importe noe lesse then a sacrifice, before all fathers also bi­cause they vvere but men and our refor­mers as it seemes are godds: let thē gaine the gole and gette the victorie in this cō ­trouersie; vvhat shall they game therby? truly only this: that amōgest them is noe religion. For if they haue noe sacrifice, as they confesse that they haue not, and in deed they haue not; & if sacrifice, as being the principall office of religion and pro­per vnto God, as is proued, is so necessa­rily required, that vvithout it regilgiō can in no vvise bee supported; the cōclusion to vv [...]hich my former discourse driueth, must needs follovve, to vvit that t [...]e re­formers haue noe religion, bicause noe sa­crifice, noe reilgiō: And seing that in the Catholike and Romain Churche only is founde a sacrifice like to Melchisedechs, and correspondent to that of vvhich Da­niel [Page 390]and Malachie haue fortold as the Sa­crifice of the nevv lavve, and the same vvhich Christe offered at his laste supper, and commaunded to bee offered by his Apostles and their successours, it follov­vethe that the Catholike Churche is the true Church of Christe, and that in it only is practised true faithe and true religion.

IT is a common opinion amongest the holy fathers and diuines that since the falle of Adam, Sacramētes vvere alvvayes necessary, partely to declare mans dutye tovvards God, and partely for mās ovvne instruction. For first man being compo­sed of soule and body, vvas to serue God not only vvith invvard affectiōs, but allso by outvvard and visible signes. Secondly bicause he vvas to receiue grace from Christe against the maladie of sinne into vvhich he vvas fallen, he vvas also to pro­fesse his faythe in Christe from vvhome this grace proceedeth, and to acknovv­ledge it as descēding from his passion, by visible signes and figures; such as Abels sacrifice, and Circumcision vvere in the lavv of nature, and such as the Paschal [Page 391]lambe, and other sacraments vvere in the lavve of Moyses, and such as baptisme, and the sacrament of the Altare are in the lavve of grace. Thirdly bicause he had offēded God by vse of corporall thinges, it vvas conuenient that by corporall and sensible Sacramentes, and by the reli­gious vse of the same, he should restore God his honour vvhich sinne had taken from him, and make him satisfaction by such thinges as he had done him iniurie. For mans behalfe also Sacraments since Adames sinne vvere alvvayes requisite. Gen. 3. For first, bicause mannes sinne proceeded of pride, and a desire to bee like to God in knovvledge of good and euill, it vvas conuenient for mans humiliation that hee should be set to Schole, Prou. 6. to learne not only of the Ante, diligence, and of other brute beastes, other vertues, but also of these senseles creatures, such as Sacramēts are, his faithe and religion. Vvherfore as the Paschall lambe brought the Ievves into a gratefull remēbraunce of their de­liuerie and passage from Egipte, and Cir­cumcision did put thē in mynde of a spi­rituall Circumcision: Rom. 6. So Baptisme setteth before our eyes the buriall and Resurre­ction of Christe. For vvhen the infante is dipped into the vvater vvee thinke of Christes buriall, and vvhen hee is lifted vp [Page 392]a nevv creature regenerated to a nevve life, vvee call to mynde the resurrection, by vvhich Christe is risen to a nevv and an immortall life. And in the Sacred Eu­chariste vvhich by the formes of bread representeth the body of Christe, and by the accidentes of vvine, the bloud of Christe aparte, Mat. 26. vve commemorate the deathe and Passion of Christe. Secondly as man by sinne had preferred the crea­ture before the Creatour, so vvas it meet and conuenient, that he should as it vvere begge grace and seeke his saluation by the meanes of these sensibles signes and Sacraments, vvhich are farre inferiour vnto him in nature. Lastly as by abuse of corporall creatures he had vvounded his soule by sinne, so vvas it expediente that by vse of the same, his diseases and spiri­tuall sores should be recured: And so it vvas moste requisite that Christe in the nevv lavve should institute sēsible signes and Sacraments. [...]i. 19. cont. [...]eust. c. 10. And therfore sainct Au­stine sayeth that as yet neuer any societie could ioyne in one religion and vvorship of God, but by the vse of the same Sacra­mentes. In vvhich pointe the reformers aggree vvhith vs, for they all avouch (Su­enkfeldius only excepted and some other Libertines) that Sacramentes are necessa­rie, but in the number they vary not only [Page 393]from the Catholikes but also from one another. The Catholike Churche hathe euer vsed seauen sacramentes, vvhich are, Baptisme, Confirmation, the Sacramen-of the Altare, Penaunce, Order, Mari­adge, and Extreme vnction. [...]. p q. 65. a. [...]. Vvhich num­ber sainct Thomas the diuine proueth by a very pregnaunte reason, or rather simili­tude, vvhich is betvvixte the corporall & spirituall life of man. For in our corporall life, seuen thinges are required to vvhich are correspōdent seuen sacraments in the spirituall life of man. In a corporall life first is necessary generatiō, vvhich giueth the first being and essence: and to this is ansvverable Baptisme, vvhich regenera­teth vs again vnto a nevv life and spiri­tuall being of a Christian, by vvhich vvee are nevv creatures, borne of vvater & the Spirit, vnto a nevv life. Io 1. l. de Bapt. Vvherfore Tertu­lian callethe Christians spirituall fishes, bicause though they haue their corpo­ral life from earthe by carnall generation, yet their spirituall life and being, like fishes they receiue from the vvater, by spirituall regeneration. Secondly in a corporall life is necessarie augmentation by vvhich the litle infante (for all begin­nings are litle) vvaxeth, grovveth, and gaineth devv proportion, quantitie and strengh, by vvhich he is able to exercise [Page 394]operations and actions belonging to cor­porall life, as to eate, drinke, talke, vvalke, laboure, to defend him selfe, and to as­saulte his enemie; And to this is corres­pondent the Sacrament of Confirmation vvhich perfiteth vs in the spirituall life re­ceiued in Baptisme (vv ^ch is the cause vvhy some fathers say that before this Sacra­ment vve are not perfecte Christians) and giues vs force to defende this our spi­rituall life by confessing our faythe befo­re the persequutor, vvhich faithe is the ground of spirituall life. Thirdly bicause this corporall life of ours fadeth & dimi­nishethe continuaily (for euery hovver vve lose some parte of our substaūce, par­tely by reason of the conflicte of the con­trarie elements vvhich consume vs vvhi­lest in vs they striue one against another, partely by reason of the continuall com­bate vvhich is betvvixte naturall heate and moysture, vvhich is as it vvere the tal­lovve of our light and life) vve stand in need of nurriture and nutrition, vvhich restores that substaunce vvhich is dayly loste, and so prolongeth our life: And to this in our spirituall life ansvvereth the Sacrament of the Altare, Ioh 6. vvhich contei­ning in it the body and bloud of Chri­ste (vvhoe calles him selfe liuing bread and sayeth that his flesh his truly meate & his blood [Page 395]truly drīke) nourishethe the soule spiritual­ly and conserueth our spirituall life here, Io. 6. and prepareth vs to an immortall life in heauen. Fourthly man hauing a mortall life subiecte to sickness and diseases vv ^ch partely come by disorder in dyet, partely by extrinsecall operation of the Starres, ayre, and vvether, to vvhich our bodyes are subiecte, partely do proceed from the complexion and cōstitution of mans bo­dy vvhich is composed of contraries; it vvas necessary for preseruation of corpo­rall life that God should prouide vs of Phisitians and corporall Phisick, vvhich restoreth vs to healthe after sicknes: In li­ke manner our spiritual life vvhich is gra­ce, in this life being not so stable but that it may be loste many tymes by mortall sinne; and our healthe being not as yet so confirmed, but that vvee may falle into as many diseases, as by our free vvill vve may cōmit sinnes, it vvas not only expe­dient but also necessary, that Christe our spirituall Phisitian should prouide vs of Phisicke, and of a generall salue, and me­dicin, against all the sores and maladies of our soule. And this is the Sacrament of Penaunce, vvhich is a remedie against sinne committed after baptisme, and vvhich by the Preeste our spirituall Phi­sitian, is to bee applyed vnto vs. For to [Page 396]him as being successour vnto the Apo­stles, Christe gaue this povver and autho­ritie vvhen hee sayed vnto his Apostles: Vvhose sinnes you forgiue are for giuen. Io. 20. Vvher­fore sainct Chrisostome sayeth that the Preests of y ^e nevv lavve haue povver not only to giue sentence vvhether vve be in­fected vvith the leprie of sinne or noe (vvhich authoritie only the old Pre [...]sts of the old lavve had cōcerning the corporall lepresie) but allso to cure, l. [...]. de sa [...]rd. clense, and pur­ge this leprie. Fiftly vvhen mā is recured, often tymes ther remaine the reliques of his disease, vvhich keep him lovv a great vvhile, and therfore he yet needeth Phi­sick nor so much healing as confirming, and perfiting healthe, vvhich consisteth in some confortatiues or restauratiues. The like happeneth vnto man after that by the Sacrament of penaunce he is re­cured; for after that, he still hathe a kinde of vveakenesse and infirmitie, & euill ha­bits and inclinations, yea litle diseases also such as veniall sinnes are: And therfore agaīst these Reliques of his disease, Christ hathe prouided him the Sacrament of Extreme vnction, vvhich is giuen at the hovver of deathe to purge vs cleane from all reliques of our diseases, to recure the corporall infirmitie if it bee expedient for our saluation, and to prepare vs to a [Page 397]better health of the next life, vvhih is im­mortalitie. And these fiue things are re­quisit in a corporall and spirituall life, for euery mā in particuler, but besides them, tvvoe things also are necessary for the cō ­munitie. The first is coniunction of man and vvoman, vvithout vvhich mankind can nether be propagated nor preserued, and to make this coniunction lavvfull, matrimony vvas euer necessarie. And to this in the nevv lavve vvhich is a lavv of grace, the Sacrament of matrimonie ans­vvereth very fittely, vvhich before Chri­ste, vvas a ciuill contracte but noe Sacra­ment, as novv it is. Ephes. 5. For novv as sainct Pau­le sayeth, it is a great sacrament in that it si­gnifieth the coniunction of Christe vvith his Church by Incarnation and grace, and giueth grace vnto the maryed by vvhich they maye loue one another as Christe did his Church, and beare the burdens of vvedlocke more easily. The second thing is constitution of Princes, gouer­nours, or magistrates to rule this humaine societie, vvhich matrimonye hath propa­gated. For if the confused multitude vve­re lefte to it selfe, and had not some head to gouerne it, it vvould bee like a shipp vvithout a Pilot, or a body vvithout a head, vvhich by mutuall dissenssion and disorder vvould soone ruinate it selfe. [Page 398]To this is ansvverable the sacrament of order by vvhich Bishops and Preests are ordained to minister sacraments, to offer sacrifice, to teach, preach, and instructe, and by lavves and censures to gouerne this multitude, and to directe it in those thinges, vvhich concerne good life, spiri­tuall peace, and religion here, and life cuerlasting herafter. These seuen Sacra­ments are those seuen pillers, vvhich as the vviseman sayeth, Prou. 9. vvisdome it selfe Christe Iesus hathe made to supporte the huge pallace of his Church. And the se­uen tymes sprinkling of the bloud of the calfe, Leuit. 4. prefigured these seuen sacra­ments, in vvhich the blood of Christe is as it vvere seuen tymes sprinkled, bicause it giueth them their force, vertue, and ef­ficacie. [...]. Reg. 5. Yea Naamans seuen vvashings vvere a figure of the same sacramentes, in vvhich the soule of man is seuen tymes vvashed, and so freed from the lepresie of sinne. But these are but congruences (sayeth our aduersarie) let vs see the plai­ne vvord of God for seuen Sacramentes else vvere are not to admitte them. I gra­unte that these are not plaine demonstra­tions, bicause as Diuines saye matters of fa­cte can not be demonstrated, but yet are they better argumentes, then they can bring for their lesser number of sacramentes. [Page 399]I could alleage also fathers for euery one of the Sacramentes before named: but they vvill say that fathers are men. And are not our aduersaries also men? yes saye they, but vvee praeferre the vvord of God before mens traditions. But then I aske of them vvhat expresse vvorde of God they haue against these men? The fa­thers auouche seuen Sacraments, vvhere read they in scripture that there are but tvvoe, or three? Vvee haue noe suche nū ­ber expressely named (say they) but vve gather by good cōsequēce out of scriptu­re that there are but tvvoe or three. Doe you soe? And did not the fathers out of scripture also deduce seuē Sacramēts? For althoughe they neuer say thar there are iuste seuen, yet sometymes they name one, sometimes tvvoe, sometymes moe, and many of them amongest them haue giuen testimonie for euery one of the se­uen sacraments in particuler, Scholastici in 4. dist. 2. & none de­ny seuen. Yea for these 500 yeares all the diuines haue defended seuen sacraments, vvho also neuer mentioned this number as any nevv article of beleefe, but accep­ting it from their forfathers, sought by ar­gument to defend it, & by scriptures also to confirme it. Con. Flor. in decreto. Trid. sess. 7. can. 1. Yea the Councels of Flo­rence and Trent haue auouched the same number, and thought them selues backed [Page 400]herin by authoritie of scripture. But they vvere all deceued sayeth our aduersarie. Vvere thy soe? And hovve can you vvar­raunte vs that you in denying seuen sacra­mēts are not deceiued? If you say that you deduce your tvvoe or three Sacraments out of Scripture, they vvill saye that they also out of Scripture deduce their seuen? And so the question is not vvhether that Scriptures or fathers are to bee beleeued, but vvhether the Churche, Councells and fathers, Vvhoe proue seuen Sacraments out of scripture, are to bee credited in the exposition of Scripture, or rather your nevv biblists vvhoe began to studie but yester daye, and neuer studied soe many dayes as they haue doone dayes and nigh­tes, vvho also nether for grauitie nor san­ctitie, nether for vvit nor learning, vvere vvorthy to cary their bookes after them. But least our aduersarie triūphe that vvee can not proue our sacraments out of scri­pture I vvill bringe Scriptures for euery one of thē. But first I muste aggree vvith them vppon certaine conditions. for first of all they muste not exacte of mee to pro ue that these seuen are expressely called by the name of Sacramēt: for soe they can not proue their tvvo or three sacraments, Ephes. 5. bicause matrimonie only (vvhich they de­ny to be a sacrament) is expressely called a [Page 401]sacrament. Secondly they muste not de­maund of me any place of Scripture vv ^ch sayeth that there are seuen Sacraments, bicause they can alleage noe such place vvhich sayeth that ther are not seuen, or that there are but tvvoe or three. And the reason is bicause scripture vseth to treate of many thinges, but not allvvayes to nū ­ber them; For Scripture relateth Christes miracles, and yet numbers them not, and it settes dovvne many articles of faithe, as the Trinitie, Incarnation, Passion, Resur­rection, Ascension, and many others, yet neuer setteth dovvne any certaine num­ber. They muste bee content then that I deduce by as good consequence out of Scripture that there are seuen Sacramen­tes, as they can gather their tvvoe or three Sacramentes. And this I can doe, and if this I doe, I shall refute all their opinions of vv ^ch some hold one, some tvvoe, some three, some fovvre only, and all conspire in the deniall of seuen. But before I doe this, I must suppose vvhich they vvill gra­unte, & cānot deny, vnless they vvill deny all sacraments, that to proue seuen sacra­mentes out of Scripture, shalbe sufficient if I can fynde in scripture ether in expresse termes, or by good deductiō, an externall rite, commaundemēt or Institution, and a promise of grace in euery one of the seuē [Page 402]Sacramēts afore-named: for thus our ad­uersaries proue their Sacramentes, and bi­cause they imagin that some of these con­ditions requisite to a sacrament, are defi­cient in some of the seuē, they deny them to be sacramentes. [...].18. Vvherfore in the Apo­logie of their cōfession these vvordes are to bee seene: If vve calle Sacramentes, rites, vvhich haue a commaundement from God, and to vvhich is annexed a promise of grace, it is easie to iudge vvhich are properly sacramentes. And a litle after by this rule they gather that Baptisme, the supper, and Penaunce are sacraments. To begin therfore vvith ba­ptisme; the externall rite vve gather out of the third of sainct Ihon, and the last of sainct Matthevve, vvhich is vvater and vvashing, the commaundement and In­stitution is proued out of these vvordes vnlesse a man be regenerated of vvater and the holy spirit: Io. 3. The promise of grace vvhich is annexed to this Sacrament, the last chap­ter of saint Matthevve proposeth in those vvords: he vvho beleeueth and shalbe bapti­zed, Mar. 16. shalbe saued. And to goe on vvith the Sacrament of the Altare, the externall rite of this sacrament is bread and vvine, or the formes of bread & vvine: The institu­tion and commaundement is conteined in those vvords: Mat. 26.1. Cor. 15. Dee this in commemorat [...]n of mee. The promise of grace vvee gather [Page 403]out of sainct Ihon he vvhoe eateth this bread shall liue for euer. Io. [...]. In Cōfirmation also vvee finde an externall rite, vvhich is imposi­tion of handes, by vvhich the Apostles, and Apostles and Bishops only, vsed after Baptisme, to giue the holy ghoste: Act [...] 19. Dionis. l. [...]. Hier [...]p. 3. c. 2▪ Tert l. de res. [...]arnis. & lib, de baptis Cip l [...]. ep. 12 [...] Aug. l 2. cōt. lit Pre. [...]. [...] The promise of grace appearethe by the per­formaunce, bicause all they vppon vvho­me the Apostles layed their handes, rece­ued the holy ghost, and consequently gra­ce. The institution and commaundemēt vve may vvel presume to haue proceeded from Christe; bicause Apostles can not institute Sacramētes, nor cause any exter­nall ceremonie to giue the holy ghoste in­fallibly, and they vvould neuer haue pre­sumed such a thinge, vvithout a cōmaun­dement frō Christe their master. Vvher­fore sainct Austine speaking of this sacra­ment sayeth in plaine termes, Supr [...] that the Sa­crament of Chrisme, is to be numbered amongest the sacred signes, euen as Baptisme is. The same conditions of a sacrament, are easily to be found also in the sacrament of Confes­sion: Io. [...]. for Christe sayeth vnto his Apostles and in them to all their successours: Vvho­se sinnes you shall forgiue, are forgiuen them, and vvhose sinnes you shall reteine, are reteined. In vvhich vvordes he giues authoritie to Preests as his vnder Iudges, to absolue from sinnes and to deteine sinnes, and bi­cause [Page 404]the Preest can not absolue vnlesse the penitente confesse his sinnes, Amb l. 1. de p [...]n ca 7. Aug l. 5 de Bapt c. 20. and the penitent can not knovv that hee is absol­ued, vnlesse the Preest pronounce some audible sentence, vvee gather that the ex­ternall rite of this sacrament is an audible absolution, and confession; the promise of grace is found also in this Sacrament most euidētly; bicause Christe promiseth that vvhose sinnes the Preest forgiueth shalbe forgiuen, and seing that sinnes can not be forgiuen vvithout grace, if the preest can forgiue sinnes, he can also giue grace by this sacrament. The institution and commaundemēt is conteined in the same vvords bicause Preestes haue com­missiō from Christe to absolue frō sinnes, & to holde and deteine our sinnes, & con­sequētly sinners vvho must recōcile them selues to God muste doe it by confessiō to the Preest, else can not he absolue, for noe iudge can giue sentence vvithout knovv­ledg of the cause, & othervvise he can not be sayed to deteine our sinnes, for if he de teine our sinnes vve cā not be loosed but by his absolution, and seing that all sin­ners must seeke to free thē selues frō the bandes and bondage of sinne, they must come to the Preest, vvhoe only vnder God, bindeth, and looseth. In the Sacra­ment of Order vve finde also an external [Page 405]rite, to vvit impositiō of handes, 1 Tim. 4, 2. Tim. 1. vvhich in Greeke is called [...], vvhich as sainct Hierome sayeth sig [...]neth ordination of Clerkes. in c [...]8. Isa. The commaundement and in­stitution vve gather thus: Supra. saint Paule bids Timothee not to neglecte the grace vvhich he had receiued by imposition of hands, vvherfore sainct Paule Knevve that infallibly that externall rite gaue gra­ce: but it could not giue grace if Christ had not instituted it to that ende, and S. Paule vvould not haue praesumed to ha­ue vsed it to that end if Christe had not commaunded and instituted it, Aug l. [...]. cōt. ep. Parn c 13. l [...]. de bap c. 1. ergo this externall rite vvas instituted and com­maunded. The promise of grace vve gat­ther by the performaunce, bicause sainct Paule sayeth that Timothie had receiued grace by imposition of hands. Ephes. 5. That ma­trimonie also is a Sacrament sainct Paule vvill vvitnesse, vvho bicause this seemed most vnlike a sacrament or holy signe, callethe it a great Sacrament, bicause it si­gnifieth the coniunction of Christe vvith his Church. As if he had sayed; Matrimo­nie to a vvordly eye may seeme to haue litle sanctitie or mysterie in it, but I say that in this respecte that it signifieth the Mariage of Christe vvith his Church, it is a sacrament and a great sacrament. The externall rite of this sacrament is the [Page 406]contracte vvhich by vvords or signes is made betvvixte man & vvife, and therfo­re S. Chrisostome and S. Hierome vppon this place affirme that sainct Paule called this contracte, a great Sacrament: The Institution vve haue in Christes ovvne vvords: Mat. 19. vvhat God hath conioined let not man separate: The promise of grace thus vve ga­ther: bicause Christe hathe made this sa­crament indissoluble, and consequently he must giue grace by it tobeare the bur­den of perpetuall vvedlocke easilie, else had y ^e lavve of matrimonie pressed more heauilie y ^e necks of Christiās thē y ^e lavve of the Ievves, bicause they in case of for­nication might leaue their olde vvife and take a nevv, and so shake of the burden. Secondly S. Paule sayeth that this Sacra­mēt signifieth y ^e Mariage of Christe vvith his Church, vvhich Mariage vvas made not only by Incarnation but also by gra­ce, and therfore the Church is called Chri­stes louing spouse, [...]. G [...]r. 10. and sainct Paule bid­deth men to loue their vviues as Christe loued his Church; vvherfore vnlesse vve vvil saye that matrimonie is an idle signe, vve muste saye that it hathe a promise of grace annexed, by vvhich man and vvife maye loue one another, and beare also more easily the heauy burden of Mariage. Vvherfore sainct Austine sayeth: in the ma­riages [Page 407]of Christians, l. de beno con­iug c 19 vide c [...]am cap. 24. the sanctitie of the Sacrament is of more valevv then the frutefullues of the vvombe. Laste of all, that Extreme vnction is also a Sacrament, it is plaine by the vvords of saincte Iames: cap 5. Is any sicke amon­gest you? let him bring in the Preests of the Church and let them pray vppon him, anointing him vvith oyle in the name of our Lorde, and the pra­yer of faith shall saue the sick-man, and our lorde shall alleuiate him, and if he be in sinnes they shalbe forgiuen him. In vvhich vvords vvho seeth not the externall rite, to vvit prayer, that is the forme of vvordes vsed in this Sacrament, and the anointing vvith oile. The promise is alleuiation and forgiue­ness of sinnes, vvhich are neuer remitted vvithout grace. The institution and com­maundement is easilie deduced: bicause an Apostle vvho may promulgate and mi­nister Sacramētes, but not institute them, vvould neuer haue so bodly promised forgiuenes of sinnes by an externall rite and ceremonie, had he not beene assured that Christe had instituted it to that effe­cte. Vvherfore sainct Bernard in the life of sainct Malachias affirmeth that he anoin­ted a vvoman knovving that in this Sacrament sinnes are forgiuen. Ber in vita Ma! Inno entius ep 1. ad De­centium. c. [...]. And thus much for proo­fe of seuen Sacraments. Novve let vs see vvhat sacramētes the reformers haue. Lu­ther very peremptorilie auoucheth that [Page 408] he must denye seuen Sacramentes and allovv of three only for the tyme, l. de cap. Bab. he sayeth for the ty­me, bicause he vvas not sure hovv longe he should remain in that mynde. And vvhat are those three Sacramentes vvhich for a tyme he is contente to allovv vs; Baptisme (sayeth he) penaunce, and bread. Zuinglius allovves allso of three, but not y ^e same vv ^ch his Master Luther admitteth, l. de vera & falsa rel c. de inatr. l. 4. Inst. c. 19. §. 31. vvhich are baptisme, the supper, and ma­trimonie. Caluin admitteth also three Sa­cramētes, but not the same vvhich Zuin­glius grauntethe, Baptisme, the Supper, and ordination. Mel. in locis. Melancton is more libe­rall for he affordethe vs fovvre, to vvit, Baptisme, the supper, penaunce, and or­der. The softer Lutheranes in their con­uenticle at lipsia, allovved of seuen Sacra­mētes, l. 20. hist. an. [...]8. for so Sledan the Historiographer, relateth. Out of this diuersitie of opini­ons I gather, first that they haue amongest them denyed allmoste all the sacramentes and so can haue noe religion or a uery gra­celess religion, bicause religion and sacra­mentes euer vvent together. Secondly I gather that if any man vvill forsake the Catholique Churche and her beleefe of seuen Sacramentes, that he hathe no mo­rall nor probable assuraunce of any Sacra­mentes, for seing that he hath noe more reason to credit Luther vvhen hee sayed [Page 409]once that ther vvas but one sacrament, l. de cap. Ba [...]. initio. another tyme that there vvere but tvvoe Sacramētes, in fine. then vvhē he admitted three for the tyme, he is not to credit him at all. And seing that he cā alleage noe more for him selfe thē others (that is scripture inter­preted as he pleasethe;) and they noe mo­re then he, noe man can haue iuste cause to beleeue any of them, and so if hee leaue the Catholike Church, he may doubte of all the Sacramentes. Lastly seing that the reformers can not bring expresse scriptu­re for any of the Sacramentes but Matri­monie, vvhich not vvith standing allmost all of them denye, and seing that by de­duction (as I haue declared) vve may ga­ther out of scripture as probably seuē Sa­cramentes, as one, if the reformers leaue the authoritie of the Church and fathers, and truste only to their ovvne vvittes in gathering by deduction, and consequen­ce, their Sacramētes out of scripture; then as one distrusteth anothers deduction, so may he distrust his ovvne, and so they haue noe certaintie of any sacramentes at all, & consequētly haue noe probable assu­raunce of their religiō, bicause sacrametes and religion goe together; vvhich Luther him selfe vvill confesse, l. de not. Eccl. vvho affirmeth that consent in doctrine of the Sacra­mentes, is a note of the true Church and religion.

THe reformers as by the sormer chap­ter appeareth, are very sparing in their Sacramentes, some and the most of them not affording vs aboue tvvoe or three; but these also they seem to graunte vs vvith an euill vvill, bicause they so de­tracte from their dignitie, and attribute so litle vnto them, that they might as vvell vvith Suēkfeldius haue denyed these also; bicause as good neuer a vvhit as neuer the better. For they deny vvith commō voice that Sacramentes giue grace or effectuate any iotte of sanctification in our soules. To vvhat purpose thē serue they, or vvhat necessitie vvas ther of them? Melancthon sayeth that they serue for badges to distin­guis he vs from Infidels; l. de loc c. de signi [...]. but for this effect vvee needed no sacraments at all, bicau­se the yellovv capp of the Ievv in Rome, or some noble mans cognisaunce vvould haue been more fitting for this purpose. For seing that Baptisme according to Me­lancthons opinion giueth no caracter, af­ter the childe is vvashed in baptisme, and the vvater dryed vp, vvhat signe remai­neth I pray you to distinguish a Christiā from an infidel? And vvill not profession [Page 411]of our faythe vvhich is noe sacramente, distinguishe vs better? l de vera. & falsa rel c de sacramentis. Zuinglius maketh Sacramentes no better then souldiours markes, by vvhich they are admitted and distinguished, but this is refuted by the same argument by vvhich vvee haue reiected Melancthons badges. l. capt. Bab. c. de bap. c. vl. Luther graunts a litle more vnto Sacramentes; for he sayeth that Sacramētes are external signes, ordained to no other purpose then to stirre vp fayth vvhich only iustifieth, and therfore vvhen he and his Luthera­nes sometymes saye that sacramentes do sanctifie vs, and that baptisme dothe re­generate vs, they meane not as Catho­likes doe that Sacramentes immediate­ly giue vs grace, but only that that they stirr vp faith vvhich sanctifieth: vvherfore sometymes they call sacramētes pictures vvhich put vs in mynde of Christe & his passion. But then it follovveth that they vvho haue pictures of Christe or his pas­sion, or bookes of the same subiecte, stāde in need of noe sacramentes, bicause these thinges are more apte to stirre vp faythe then sacramentes. Secondly Baptisme is to noe purpose in children, bicause it can not stirre vp their fayth at all, vvho haue noe vse of reason at all. This so presseth Luther that it had made him an Anaba­ptiste, had he not had a shifte in store [Page 412]vvhich also is a very poore one. l. cont. Cocle­ [...]. he sayeth therfore that infantes at the tyme of bap­tisme haue vse of reason, and that they vn­derstand vvhat baptisme signifieth, and so beleeue also in Christe? And this he pro­ueth by the example of sainct [...]hon Bap­tist vvho reioised and acknovvledged Christ in his mothers vvombe; Luc. 1. but by the same argumēt he might haue proued that all asses can speake, bicause Balaams Asse by miracle once spake to the Prophet. Num. 22. for as it vvas a priuiledg that sainct Ihon had vse of reason in his mothers vvombe, so vvas it that Balaams Asse did speake, and therfore if this be a good argument: Sainct Iohn had vse of reason vvhen he vvas an infante Ergo all children haue: this also is a good argument; Balaams Asse could speake ergo all asses can spea­ke. At least vvise by this argument of Luther vve Maye experience in him, Vvhat an asse can speake, and is not asha­med to vtter. And truly if children at that age vvere as vvise as Luther vvill make them, vve must condemne them of hai­nous sacriledg, Aug ep. 57. vvho by their crying and by the resistaunce vvhich such litle onescā make, shevv hovv vnvvillingly and vvith vvhat litle respect they receiue this sacra­ment. l 4. Inst c 14. §. 1.5.14. Caluin sayeth that Sacramentes are but Seales vvhich outvvardly signe the [Page 413]grace vvhich vvee receue by the pro­mises of God, and therfore he sayeth flatly that Sacramentes giue noe grace, .§. 23.22. and that the Sacramentes of the nevv lavve are noe better in this respecte then vvere the Sacramentes of the old lavv. 1 Cor [...]. Yea he ad­deth that as sainct Paule sayed that Cir­cumcision is nothing, so he might haue sayed, that baptisme in this respecte is no­thing vvorthe. And their reasons vvhy they vvil giue no vertue vnto Sacramētes are tvvoe especially. First saye they if vve graunte that Sacramētes giue grace, then follovveth it that vve must put our truste in Sacramentes, and seeke for saluatiō el­se vvhere, then at the handes of Christe, vvhich can not but derogate much from the passion and person of Christe. But this reason seemeth to haue litle reason. For as the sicke patiente principally after God, puttes his truste in his Phisitian, yet expe­cteth health allso by the medicins vvhich he prescribeth, & so puttes his truste in the Phisitian as in the principall cause of his healthe, and in the medicins as in the in­strumentall causes, and yet doth noe iniu­rie to the Phisitian, yea rather in allovving of his medicins dothe him great honour: so may vve put our hope and confidence principallie in Christe as our spirituall Phisitian, and yet hope also for healthe [Page 414]by the meanes of his Sacramentes as by his medicins and instrumentall causes of spiritual healthe. Secondly they are of opinion as shalbe herafter related and refuted, that only fayth iustifiethe: vvher­fore they must consequently saye that sa­cramentes giue noe grace, for if they did giue grace, they should also iustifie and sanctifie, and so only fayeth should not iustifie. And so follovving this doctrine some of them saye that Sacramentes are only badges to make vs knovvne Chri­stianes, others saye they only stirre vp faythe, others make them seales and si­gnes of former iustice, and all denye that they sanctifie vs. Against all these opi­nions might suffice that place of sainct Paule, Gal. 4. vvhere to put a differēce betvvixte our Sacramentes, and the old, he calleth the olde naked elementes that is bare fi­gures and of noe force nor vertue to giue grace. but vvee vvante not many other places of Scripture vvhich may also pro­ue this veritie. Io. [...]. Sainct Ihon sayethe that if a man be not regenerated of vvater and the holy ghoste, he can not enter into hea­uen, ergo not only the holy ghoste but vvater also regeneratethe, and consequē ­tly not only the holy ghoste as a princi­pall Agente, but also the vvater as an in­strumēte, vvorketh grace in vs by vvhich [Page 415]vve are regenerated. Io. 4. The Sacrament of the altare Christe him selfe calleth true meate vvhich giueth life and nourisheth. The Sacrament of Penaunce remitteth sinnes, Io. [...]. bicause Christe giueth povver to his Apostles and in them to their succes­sours to remitte sinnes by the sentence of absolution. 1. Tim. 4. 2. Tim [...]. c. 8.19. And sainct Paule vvill vvit­nesse that Order giueth grace to Preestes, & the Actes of the Apostles auouch, that the Apostles vvhen they confirmed the first Christians, Act. 8.19. gaue the holy ghoste by imposition of handes. The like proofes I could bring and haue before brought in the former chapter for the other Sacra­mentes. But bee it so that Sacramentes giue noe grace, then dothe it follovve that they are to noe purpose, bicause o­ther thinges vve haue more fitte to distin­guishe Christians from Infidells, and to stirre vp faythe, vvhich are by our aduer­saries opinion, the only effectes of Sacra­mentes, and so it follovveth that if Sacra­mētes giue no grace, that they are of noe vertue and altogether superfluouse, and so as good it vvere to haue no Sacramen­tes as Sacramētes, bicause as good neuer a vvhitt as neuer the better, and noe Sacra­mentes noe religion, bicause as before, Sacramentes and religion euer vvente to­gether.

OVR Reformers are so liber all as to afforde vs tvvoe Sacramētes, to vvit Baptisme and the Eucharist or the sacra­ment of the Altar vv ^ch they calle the Sup­per, for though some of them allovve vs also Order, and some, Penaunce, yet in these Sacramentes as is before declared, they do not aggree. But yet if vve consi­der the estimation vvhich they make of these tvvoe Sacramentes vvhich all of them allovve vs, vve shall see that herin vve are not much beholding vnto them. And as concerning baptisme, in Synop. Col. c. 17. Luther is of opinion that no forme of vvords is ne­cessary, yea he thinketh it sufficient, if you baptize the child in the name of the lorde. And being demaunded once vvhe­ther it vvas lavvfull to baptise in milke or beare, he ansvvered that any liquour that is apte to bathe or vvashe, is sufficient; And so you see hovv hee taketh a vvay the matter and forme of baptisme, or at least bringeth them bothe in doubte. And as touchīg the vsual forme of vvords Caluin iumpeth vvith him in the same o­pinion, l. 4. Inst. c. 17. and addeth that such formes of [Page 417]vvords are meare magicall charmes and enchauntementes: Brentius sayeth that if the minister after that the Creed is read, saye only, In this fayth I vvas he thee de­parte in peace, it vvill serue vvel enough. in c. 26. Mat. And Bucere denyeth that vvords are ne­cessarie in the Eucharistie, and vvould say no doubte the same in baptisme. The same Luther as is before related, is of opi­nion that actuall faythe euen in children is necessarie, and that Sacramentes haue no other effecte then to stirre vp this fai­the, vvherfore seing that Baptisme ca not stirre vp childrens faithe, bicause they haue no knovvledge of the signification of such mysteries, it must needs follovv that to Baptise children is but laterem la­uare to vvash a tile, and to loose labour. Caluin also is nether a frayed nor a sha­med to saye, l. 4. Inst. c. 17. § 17. that sainct Ihon Baptistes vvashing vvas as good as Christes baptis­me. Act. 19. And yet sainct Paule rebaptized them vvith Christes baptisme vvhom saincte Ihon before had baptized; vvhich argued his baptisme of insufficiencie, and pro­ueth Christes baptisme to be of more per­fection, vvhich suplyed that vvhich vvas vvanting in sainct Ihons baptisme. The same Caluin sayeth that in necessitie vvo­mē may not baptise, § 22. and that if the childe dy vvithout baptisme, he may be saued if [Page 418]ether he be predestinated, or be the childe of faithfull parentes, yea he sayeth that fevv do mark hovv much harme that do­ctrine hathe doone, vvhich teacheth that Baptisme is necessary vnto saluation. And if you vrge him vvith those vvordes of our Sauiour vnless a mā be borne agame of vvater and the holy ghoste &c. Io 3. he vvill father glosse the texte moste grossely, then yeeld vnto you that baptisme is necessary to sal­uation. l. [...] Inst. c. 16 § 17.18. The meaning is not (sayeth he) that materiall vvater is necessary, but this is the sense: vnless a man be borne againe of the holy ghoste, vvhich like vvater vvasheth, he can not enter into heauen. And so by this exposi­tion vvater is not necessary, only the re­generation and vvashing of the spirit is necessary, and this Baptisme according to Caluins opiniō, children may haue vvith­out vvater, euen in their mothers vvōbe, if they be predestinate, or childrē of faith­full parentes. This is Caluins doctrine, I saye Caluins, for it is his singuler opinion contrarie to the opinion of the Churche and all the ancient fathers and councells, yea contrarie to scripture it selfe. For scri­pture telles vs plainly that vvee are all bor­ne children of vvrathe, Ephes. 2. Rom. 5. and that vvee all sin­ned in Adam and consequently are con­ceued and borne in orignall sinne, Iob. 3. vvher­fore Iob vvho vvas predestinate curseth [Page 419]the day of his natiuitie and night of his conception, Psal. [...]. and Dauid not only prede stinate but borne also of saithfull parentes confessethe that hee is conceiued in sinnes that is in original sinne, for the he brevve vvor­de signifieth sinne in the singuler number, vvhich not vvith standing the Transla­tour translated sinnes, bicause originall sin­ne is the roote of all sinnes. Gen. 13. And vvher as Caluin alleageth the blessing of God to Abrahame and all his seed and posteritie, that serueth only to bevvraye his ignora­unce. For first after that God had made that promise, yet hee commaunded Cir­cumcision and threatened that those that had it not, should peris he. And so althou­ghe Caluin vvere of Abrahams seed and his parentes also, yet do the it not follovve that hee shalbe partaker of that benedi­ction vvithout baptisme. secōdly that pro­mise and benediction is novv to bee vn­derstoode, carnally, or spiritually; if car­nally, thē are none but levves capable of the benediction, bicause they enly are the carnall children of Abrahame, and so Cal­uin hathe noe parte in it at all. If spiritu­ally then they only are partakers of the benediction, vvho as sainct Paule sayet [...]e, Rem. [...]. do imitate the faithe & vvorkes of Abra­hame, Gal [...] vvherfore seing that children euen of faithfull parentes doe in no vvise imi­tate [Page 420]ether Abrahames faithe or vvorkes, they can not bee pertakers of his benedi­ction vntill they bee baptised, and so by receuing the Sacrament of fay the, do in some sorte imitate Abrahames faithe. And if Caluin say that at least by prede­stination children may bee saued vvith­out baptisme, hee shall but discouer he­rin hovv blockishe a diuine he is. For none are predestinare but by the passion and merites of Christe, Io. [...]. vvhich first are ap­plyed by baptisme and not vvithout bap­tisme at leaste in desire, & therfore Chri­ste threateneth damnation to all that are not baptised. Vvherfore althoughe all children that are predestinate shalbe sa­ued, yet not vvithout baptisme, and they vvhich dye vvithout baptisme as by Chri­stes ovvne sentence they are excluded from heauen, so are they not predestinate. But let vs see more of Caluins doctrine, not tofollow it, but to bevvare of it, not to imbrace, Suprae. 16. it but to detest it. The same man affirmethe that the reprobate, or the chil­dren of infidels not predestinate, are not to bee baptized least baptisme bee con­taminated and bee made a false seale, bi­cause (sayeth he (baptisme is a seale of for­mer iustice, and therfore if defiled infi­dels bee baptised, the vvater is contami­nated, Ibid. and the seale is falsified. He addeth [Page 421]that the children of the faithfull or the predestinate, need not baptisme as a ne­cessarie meanes vnto saluation, and ther­fore if they dye vvithout it they may bee saued. Yet (sayeth hee) baptisme is not to be contemned, bicause it is commaun­ded as a ceremonie to incorporate vs mē ­bers of the Church. Novve put all this to­gether, to vvit that Baptisme is noe better then sainct Ihons vvashing, that it is not necessarie for the predestinate, o [...] children of faithfull parentes, bicause they may be saued vvithout it, and that it can not bee ministred vnto the children of infidelles, least it bee contaminated; & it follovveth euidently that Baptisme is not necessarie, yea that it is superfluouse, bicause to the children of the faithfull and the predesti­nate is not necessarie, and to the children of the faith-lesse (not vvith standing that Christes bad his Apostles to baptise all nations vvhich then vvere infidels) it is not bee giuen; Mat. vl [...]. then is there noe necessarie vse of baptisme, bicause it seruethe to noe other purpose, but to scale former iustice, vvhich sealing is not necessarie, bicause saluation is sure enoughe vvithout it, or to bring vs into the Church by an external ceremonie, vv ^ch is altogether need lesse, bicause if it bee omitted, children if they bee of faithfull parentes, or predestinate [Page 422]are sanctified in their mothers vvomb, and so before God are members of the Church and capable of saluation, before, and vvithout baptisme. And thus baptis­me is gone. Novvv as concerning the blessed Sacrament of the Altare, l. [...]onf. Lu­sheri. Luther seemeth very liberall in this pointe, affir­ming that Christes body is really and sub­stantially in this Sacrament not by con­secration but by vbiquitie. For hee is of opinion that as Christes body is vnited to the diuinitie, so it is in euery place vvhere the diuinitie is, and consequently in the bread and vvine. But vvhilest Luther thinketh to fill our mouthes in giuing vs bread vvith Christes fleshe, he taketh av­vay all true eating of Christes body, and drinking of his blood. For eating is a con­veighaunce of meate from the mouthe into the stomake, and therfore if Christes body bee euery vvhere vvith the diuini­tie, it can not bee eaten, bicause is vvas before in the stomake and euery vvhere, and so can not bee conveyghed by ea­ting into the stomake, bicause convei­ghaunce importeth a motion of a thinge to some place vvhere before it vvas not, Caluine giueth vs a bare figure and an emptie signe, auouching that Christe ha­the giuen vs a figure of his body, vvhich in substaunce is but common bread, yet [Page 423]bicause Christe hathe made it a signe and figure of his body, it is called Christes body, as Caesars image is called Caesar. Vvhich opiniō of Caluine maketh Chri­ste a niggard, and his sacrament of litle or noe importaunce. For Christe althoughe hee made a great shevve of a magnificall supper, yet according to Caluin, his sup­per vvas not only inferiour to Assuerus his banquet, but also to the meanest that euer vvas. This supper Christe vvould ha­ue to bee praefigured by the heauenly manna, Exod 16. vvher vvith hee fed the Ievves in the deserte, Io 6 Sap 6. Psal. 77. by the paschal lambe vvhich the Ievves vvere commaunded to eate in remembraunce of their deliueraunce out of Aegipte, Exod. 12. Gen. 14. by Melchisedeches sacrifice and diuerse others: hee vvould also haue it fortold by Malachie the Prophet, Mal. 2. say­inge that a cleane oblation shalbe offered vnto him euery vvhere; by the patriarch Iacob vvho fortold that the Messias should vvashe his stole, Gen. 49. that is his humane nature vvith vvhich the diuinitie vvas clothed in the blood of grapes, that is in his ovvne bloud vvhich hee called the bloud of grapes, bicause it vvas to bee vealed vnder the formes of vvine; 6 Mac. vvhich is called in scripture the bloud of the gra­pe. Hee vvould inuite also all the vvorld to this banquer, exhorting them to eate the [Page 424]bread and to drinke the vvine vvhich hee hathe mingled for them, Prou. 9. hee made this banquet also a litle before his deathe for a fare­vvell to his louinge and beloued spouse the Church, and yet after all this ostenta­tion, after this solemne inuitation, not­vvithstanding also that the tyme of fare­vvell, the dignitie of Christes person, and the preeminēce of the nevve lavve aboue the olde, required a moste sumptuouse banquet, vvhen the supper vvas prepa­red, it proued but bread and vvine, and after all this boste, the guestes vvho vvere bidden, had noe roste at all, but only an odour and smell of good cheare, that is a bare signe and figure of Christes body and bloud. Io. 6. And vvheras Christe promi­sed a tvvelue-monethe before that hee vvould giue them another manner of meate and more excellente then manna vvas; for (sayeth he) notvvithstanding that your forfathers vvere fedd vvith mā ­na yet they dyed, but vvhoe soeuer eateth of the bread vvhich I shall giue, shall liue for euer; yet if vvee beleeue Caluin, he performed nothing lesse. For if Christes bread bee but commō bread in substaun­ce, and only a signe of Christes fleshe vvhich is the true foode, Ibidem. then vvas not only manna, but the Paschal lambe also farre more pretiouse then the bread of Chri­ste. [Page 425]For the Paschall lambe vvas fleshe, Christes banquet is but bread and vvine in substaunce, and as this is a figure of Christe, so vvas that and a more apte fi­gure. Manna also vvas made by Angells handes, and in the aire, Christes bread or rather Caluins cake, vvas moulded and baked by mennes handes, and in no bet­ter place, then the backhovvse; māna had all tastes and delightes, Sap. [...]. Christes bread if it bee noe better then Caluin maketh it, hathe but one taste and that not very delicate. And as Caluin sayeth that Chri­stes breade is a signe and figure of Chri­ste, so vvas manna also, as Christes breade stirres vp faithe bicause it is a signe, so vvas manna as fitte for that purpose, bicause it vvas a signe, and as good a signe, bicau­se it signified the same thinge, vvhich gi­ueth perfectiō vnto bothe signes. Vvher­fore vnlesse this Sacrament conteyne Christes bodye & bloud in another man­ner then the signe conteineth the thinge vvhich it signifieth, Christes banquet is no better, yea it is not so good as manna vvas, and so the veritie shalbe inferiour to the figure. But Caluin sayeth that this Sa­crament is not a bare figure but such as bringeth vvith it the body and bloud of Christe: and if hee did mean as he spea­keth, I vvould not dispute vvith him but [Page 426]vvould shake hands vvith him as vvith a Catholike. l. 4. Inst. c 1 [...]. §. 11. These are his vvordes: I say therfore that in the mystery of the Supper by the signes of bread and vvine, Christe is truly de­liuered, yea and his body and his bloud. And a litle before those vvordes he giueth the reason; §. 10. bicause (sayeth he) Christes vvordes: This is my body, are so plaine, that vnless a man vvill calle God a deceuer, he can neuer be so bold as to saye that he setteth before vs an emptie signe. And yet againe hee repeateth this his as­sertion: §. 32. In his holy Supper Christe commaunds me vnder the signes of bread and vvine to eate his body and drinke his bloud, and I nothing doubt but that bothe he doth truly deliuer them, and I do receue them. And least you should thinke that hee talketh only of eating & receuing Christe spiritually by faithe, Eodem cap. .§. 6. he hathe preuented you by saying, that hee meaneth really, Hom. 60.61. ad pop. and he alleageth Sainct Chrysostome vvho sayeth that Christe mingles his substaunce vvith ours in this Sacrament not only by faithe, but also in very deed. Vvhat thinke you novv of this man? is he not a Catholike? do the hee not really auouch the reall presence? But if you vnmaske this vvilye fellovve, you shall see a vvolfe vnder a sheepes skinne. for the same Caluin in the same chapter in plaine vvordes telles you, Sect. 20.21.22 that Christe is not really in this Sacrament nor any [Page 427]vvhere else out of heauen, but yet (sayeth he) the bread & vvine is called the body and bloud of Christe by a figure, vvhich calleth the signe by the name of the thin­ge it selfe, as the Arke or rocke, may be called Christe bicause it vvas a figure of Christe. Vvhat meaneth he then vvhen he sayeth that vvith the signe vvee receue the body and bloud of Christe verily? His meaning is, Sect. 16. that althoughe Christes sub­staunce be as farre from this Sacrament, as heauen is from earthe, yet bicause this signe stirreth vp faithe, and faithe appre­hendeth Christ, by this signe, and vvith it vve receue the body & bloud of Christe. But here Caluin seemeth to go from him selfe, Supra. for as you haue hard he sayed before that vvee eate not Christ only by faithe, but also in very deed; yet to saue him selfe from cōtradiction, he hathe deuised a sub­tile distinction: Sect. 5. I graunt (sayeth he) that ther be that in one vvorde define, that to eate the body of Christe, and to drinke his bloud, is nothing else but to beleeue in Christe, but I say that the flesh of Christe is eaten by beleeuing, bicause by faith it is made ours. So that Caluin is of opinion that this Sacrament is but a signe and conteineth not really the body and blood of Christe, but yet bicause this signe stirreth vp faithe vvhich apprehen­deth [Page 428]Christes body, vve receue verilie the body & blood of Christe vvith this signe, and by it, bicause faithe apprehending Christe, vniteth him vnto vs and maketh him verily our ovvne. This is Caluins opi­nion. Out of vvhich let vs take as graun­ted that Christes body and blood is not really conteined in the Sacrament, and consequently that this sacramēt is no bet­ter yea nor so good as manna vvas, vvhich vvas as good a signe of Christe, as this Sa­cramēt is, if this cōteine not Christe really, & vvas as apte to stirre vp faithe. Secōdly let vs proue that if Christe bee not real­ly in this Sacramente, that faithe can not really vnite him vnto vs, and consequent­ly that in, and by this Sacrament, vve can in noe vvise really bee pertakers of Chri­stes body, and blood. For proofe vvher­of I demaund of Calnin hovve faithe can really conioine vs vvith Christe? ether this faythe really plucketh Christe out of hea­uen, vvhich Caluin nether can saye, bicau­se faithe is but an apprehension, nether vvill saye, bicause he sayeth that Christes body since his ascēsion vvas neuer out of heauē: or else it really lifteth vs vp to hea­uen, vvhich is against experience, and so can not really vnite Christe vnto vs, bi­cause it nether bringethe him really vnto vs, nor vs vnto him. And so in beleuing in [Page 429]Christe by faithe vvhich is but an appre­hension of the vnderstanding, vve do noe more really eate the body of Christe, then dothe the hongrye man his dinner, vvhen he apprehendeth, and desireth it, but can not haue it. And so Caluins boste is greater then his roste, and his promise is more ample then his performaūce, and Christes supper is but a bare signe, and noe roste at all, but only a sauour and si­gne of good cheare, and our eating is noe reall eating, but only a naked apprehen­sion. And seing that preaching, and pi­ctures, can better stirre vp faithe then bread and vvine can doe, this Sacrament of Christe is altogether needlesse, bicau­se as good neuer a vvhit as neuer the bet­ter. And so my intended conclusion fol­lovveth to vvitte, that amongest our re­formers there is noe religion bicause, fiue or six, of seuen Sacramentes they haue quite taken avvay, and the other in vvhich all of them aggree, to vvit baptisme and the Eucharist, they haue so disgraced and defaced, that they are to litle purpose, and so they haue no religion, bicause noe Sa­cramentes noe religion.

ONe of the greatest benefits vvhich God hathe bestovved on man is prayer, by vvhich man hathe accesse vn­to God, and the creature is admitted vnto the speeche of his Creatour, in Psal. 75. and flesh & blood conuerseth familiarly vvith the di­uinitie; for as saint Austine sayethe, vvhen vve read scriptures vvhich are the vvord of God, then god speaketh to vs, but vvhen vvee occupie our selues in prayer, thē doe vve speake familiarly vnto God; vvhich is so great a thing that Angels dare not do it, vvithout couering their faces vvith their immortall vvinges, blushing to appeare before such Maiestie, and trēbling to speake to a Prince so mightie. Prayer is honourable to God, honoura­ble also and profitable to our selues, it is honourable to God bicause it is an acte of religion, by vvhich vvee prostrate euen our soules and spirits vnto God, acknovv­ledging him the supreme essence, foun­taine, and autour of all goodnesse, and our selues his needy and naked creatures, vvho haue nothing of our selues, yea no­thing not from him, not so much as our our selues, bicause he gaue vs our selues, & being for nothing, and of nothing. It is honourable to our selues, first bicause it aequalizeth vs vvith Angels making vs Queresters of their chappell, vvhere by [Page 431]prayer vvee ioine voices vvith them, in praysing God as they do, and praying vnto him. Secondly bicause it procureth familiare conuersation vvith God, vvhich is so honourable a thing, and so rayseth vs in state and dignitie, as allmost nothing more. Orat. 1. de orando D [...]. For as sainct Chrisostome sayethe if it bee suche an honour to conuerse fa­miliarly vvith Caesar, that suche mē thou­ghe other vvise neuer so base and poore, can not vvhilest they are in this credit vvith him, be any more ether base or poore: hovve can they vvho in prayer cō ­uerse dayly and familiarly vvith the diui­ne maiestie, be of base or lovv condition? It is profitable also vnto vs bicause by it vvee obteine at gods handes vvhat is ex­pedient for vs. For god is the Source and foūtaine of all goodnesse, and perfection, sufficient of him selfe, and vvith in him sel­fe, needing not in any thing the helpe of any. Psal. 15. To vvhom vvhen vve haue giuen all the prayses, and offered all the Hecatom­bes and sacrifices in the vvorld, vve haue not abettered his state or his person, and vvhen vve haue reuiled him and blasphe­med him to the vttermoste of our mallice, vve haue not made him a iotte the vvorse; but mā in that he is a creature is depēdent of his Creatour, noe lesse, yea more, then the riuers of the fountaine, the branches [Page 432]of the tree, or the sōne beames of the Son­ne: vvho of him selfe hathe nothing, yea is nothing, but is to liue by begging & pray­ing. And vvell he maye so obteine those thinges vvhich he vvanteth. For if any Prince vvould promise his subiect, that vvhat soeuer he asketh he should obtein, might not that subiect thinke that Prince very bountifull, and him selfe a moste happie subiecte? Thus God dealeth vvith vs; Mat. 7. he biddes vs aske and vve shall haue; and seing that God is soe faithfull that he can as soone deny him selfe as goe from his vvorde, bicause his vvorde is him selfe, he can not, not perfourme, vvhat soeuer he promiseth: and seing that prayer is the thinge by vvhich man obteineth at God his hande vvhat soeuer he iustly desirethe, vvhat an inestimable gemme and preci­ouse pearle is prayer, vvhich procureth our hartes desires in all thinges, bicause it is the price of all? And if vve some tymes praye, and obteine not, ether it is bicause our prayer is not such as it ought to be, or that the thing vvhich vve praye for is not conuenient for vs. For if he that prayeth, beleeueth that God can helpe him, and hopethe also that he vvill helpe him, if hee him selfe vvho prayethe, or he for vvho­me he prayeth, be not odiouse to god by reason of sinne, If he praye vvith humili­tie, [Page 433]and vvithout a doubting mynde, if he adioine to his prayer attention, to his at­tention, deuotion, and to bothe, perse­ueraunce, and if the thing for vvhich hee prayeth be necessarie or expediente, (for other vvise God is a greater benefactour in denying then graunting our petition) thē certainly, such is the vertue of prayer, that vvhat vve aske vve haue, and vvhat vve praye for, vve obteine. Prayer certs is better then the Philosophers stone, al­thoughe that vvere of that vertue vvhich it is fayned to bee of: for that as fooles haue fained vvas able to turne all into gold, but prayer turneth all to our good be it gold orsiluer, ritches or pouertie, he­althe or sicknes, grace or glorie. Yea it is better then Fortunatus hatte is fained to haue beene, bicause that procured all vvis­hes good or badde indifferently, but prayer then only obteineth vvhat vve vvishe for, vvhen our vvishes are expe­dient or conuenient for vs. Besides this vnspeakable vertue vvhich prayer hath, to obteine vvhat vve aske for, it satisfieth for sinne also, especially vvhen it is ioined vvith almes deedes and fasting, To [...]. 1 [...]. vvhich are the vvinges of prayer, by vvhich it soreth speedily euen to the throne of God: it meriteth glorie as other good vvorkes doe, and that more especially also, in that [Page 434]it is a prayer; it giueth vs great confidence also if it be frequent and vsuall, bicause as before I haue sayed, prayer causethe fami­liaritie, and familiaritie imboldenethe, & boldnesse breedeth cōfidence. It is a gre­at motiue also vnto humilitie, and perad­uenture you shall not fynde a greater, bi­cause it puts vs allvvayes in mynde that vvee are but beggars. And lastly (if I may saye so of prayers cōmodities vvhich are vvithout ende) it makes vs to fall out of loue vvith this deceitefull vvorld, bicause it makes vs to conuerse in heauen, and ad­mitteth vs to familiaritie vvith God and his Angells. In the Church triumphaunt prayer is vsed, bicause the Sainctes and Angells pray to God for vs, In the Church militaunte prayer also is practised, as shal­be proued, only in hell and hellish Syna­gogues prayer is abandoned. Vvherfore in the lavv of nature, as they vsed sacrifice, so did they also practise prayer, and al­though Enos be called the first of them vvho by prayer, moste especially and fre­quently called vppon God, yet no doub­te Adame and Eue amongest other actes of penaunce, omitted not prayer as one of the best dispositions vnto reconciliation vvith allmighnie God. Abel their sonne also as he vvas religious in his Sacrifices so vvas he not sloth-full in prayer. Noê also [Page 435]taught his posteritie prayer, Gen. 2 [...]. Abrahame vvas much giuen to prayer, Isaac his son­ne in his diligence in prayer and medita­tion also declared him selfe vvhorthilie to haue been the sonne of such a father. Psal. 11 [...]. Da­uid prayed seuen tymes a day, and rose at mid night oftē tymes, shortning his sleepe to lengthen his prayer: Dan. [...]. and Daniel three tymes a day, called vppon his God. By prayer Moyses made the Sea to deuide it selfe and procured victorie to the Israe­lits so long as in prayer he held vp his han­des, Exod. 1 [...]. yea by prayer he obteined pardon often tymes for the people and bound as it vvere the hands of the omnipotent. 1. Reg. 1. By prayer Anne the vvife of Helcane ob­teined Samuel, 4. Reg. 2 [...]. T [...]b. 12. 1. Reg. 1 [...]. Ezechias by prayer pro­longed his life fifteen yeares, Tobias by the same exercise vvas restored to his sight, Elias after a great drought by prayer obteined raine. Mat. 1 [...]. Luc. [...]. In the nevv lavve Christe our highe Preest prayed oftentymes all the night longe, Mat. 2 [...]. and a litle before his de­parture out of this vvorld, he prayed three tymes in the garden; yea he him sel­fe taught vs the prayer vvhich in Inglish vve call our lords prayer. Mat. 6. And no soener vvas Christe departed, but his Apostles and disciples assembled them selues toge­ther, & in prayer attēded the holy ghostes descension. Act. [...]. Sainct Peter and sainct Ihon [Page 436]ascended into the temple to praye. Act 1. Clem. Rom. Sainct Peter furrovved his face vvith the [...]re­ames of teares, vvhich trickled yea stre­amed from his eyes in prayer. Sainct Bar­tholomevv is sayed to haue prayed on his knees an hundred tymes in the day and as often in the night. Sainct Iames his knees by prayer became as hard as camels knees. Vvhose examples the first Chri­stians after the Apostles, Bar to. 2. an 100. l. 10 ep 97 [...] Tert Apol. c. 2. follovving, met together dayly at prayer, euen before they had Churches, in so much that Tra­iane the Emperour vvas faine to forbid such flocking together. And Plinie Pre­fect of this Emperour, informed him of the assemblies of Christianes to prayer before daye. To be breefe, the Ecclesiasti­call histories are full of the Churches, and monasteries vvhich haue been builded for prayer, and speake almost of nothing else but of Christianes prayer, Hiero. ep. ad Eustoch. Athan. l. de virg. Basi 37 Cl [...]m. l. [...]. Const. c. 4. Masses, li­turgies, canonicall hovvers, as noctur­nes, lauds, the prime hovver of prayer, third, sixte, ninthe hovver, Euensong, and complete; yea so is prayer diuided in di­uers Churches and monasteries, Tho. Ʋvald. to. [...] desacra­ [...]ntal. c. 24. that in euery vigill of the night in one place or other, pravers and prayses aresonge vn­to God; yea seing that our Church is dis­persed through out the vvorld, & that the hovver vvhich is to one coūtrie, one, to a­nother [Page 437]is tvvoe, to another, is three a cloc­ke, and so forthe, ther is noe hovver in the daye or night in vvhich prayer is not exercised publickely in the Church. So that vvell may the Catholike Church be called the hovvse of God, Isa 16. Luc 1 [...]. bicause it is the hovvse prayer. Novv let vs see hovv like vnto this hovvse of God, vvhich is the hovvse of prayer, our Reformers Sinagogue is. In moste places they haue no prayer at all on vvorking dayes, and on holy dayes (vvhich novv they haue brought to a lesse number bicause they celebrate fevve Saintes dayes) they spēd all the tyme that they are in the Church, in yelling out a Geneua Psalme, to vvhich they adde a Sermon; and generally in Ingland novv adayes, you shall finde fevve that vse any priuate prayer in their Chambers, but as dogges go to their Kennell, so theye goe to bedd, and so they rise in the morning, shaking or stretching them selues, but ne­uer bovving knee, noe nor opening mou­the nor harte in prayer. In so much that vvhē one of our Catholike Preests in his Inne in London vvas found by the cham­berlaine Kneeling by his bed side to say his deuotions, proclamation vvas by and by made, that hee vvas a Preeste and a trai­tour (for then in Ingland they vvere all one) as if theyr ovvne consciences had [Page 438]accused them, that prayer is noe signe of a man of their religion. And truly this contēpte of prayer amongest them is not to be blamed by their preachers, bicause it is moste conformable to their doctrine. For first they saye that prayer meriteth no revvard at Gods hands. Cal. l. [...]. Inst. c. [...]0. Melanct. tit. de procat. Secondly they auouch that it can not make the least sa­tisfactiō, for the least sinne in the vvorld. Vvhy then should vve vveare our hose out in the knees vvith praying, if prayer nether satisfieth, nor meriteth any thing at Gods hands? Truly if vvee vveare our hose out in the Knees, vve lose more then vve gette, See the seuēth booke. if this doctrine be true. Third­ly Caluine auoucheth that the iustifying faithe is a firme & full assuraunce that vve are electe and iuste by Christes iustice; & seing that faith is a necessarie disposition to prayer (for as sainct Paule sayeth) hovv shall they pray and call vppon him, R [...]m. 1 [...]. in vvhom they beleeue not?) it follovveth that before vve settle our selues to prayer, vve must firmely beleeue that vve are iu­ste & that our sinnes are forgiuen. Vvhen­ce I gather these conclusions. The first is that in vaine the faithfull man prayethe for iustification or remission of sinnes, bi­cause before he prayeth, his sinnes are for­giuen, and he is iustified, or else his full as­sured faithe is a lying, and deceiptfull fai­the. [Page 439]The second is that noe faithfull man can pray for iustification or remission of sinnes, vnlesse he vvill be an infidel and forsake his faithe by praying. For he is boūd by Caluin to beleeue assuredly that his sinnes are forgiuen, bicause this is his iustifying faith, and if he stagger or doubt he is an infidell, bicause he hathe not the right faithe; vvhence it follovvethe that in praying for remission of sinnes, he lo­seth faithe, bicause in that hee prayeth, hee shevvethe that hee hathe not that assura­unce; for vvho vvill pray for that vvhich he is assured of allready? Or if hee praye it is an argument that ether hee thinkes that hee hathe not the thing for vvhich he prayethe, or that he doubteth thereof, or that hee fearethe, of vv ^ch euery one is suf­ficiēt to make a man an infidel in Caluins opinion, bicause they despoile him of that assured faithe. The third cōclusion is, that he cānot pray at all for remissiō of sinnes, vvould he neuer so faine euen vvith losse of his faithe. For as if I be in good health, & assure my selfe of the same, I cā not pray for healthe, thoughe I may pray for cōti­nuaūce of it, so if before I pray, I be assured that my sinnes be forgiuen, though I may vvith lippes, yet vvith harte I cā not praye that God vvould forgiue me; & if I could, in vaine should I pray for that, vv ^ch I haue [Page 440]allready. The fourth is that no faithfull mā can praye for eternall blisse in heauen: for if before I pray I must haue faithe (as saint Paule sayeth that I must) and if faithe be a full assuraunce that I ame not only iuste, Rom. 1 [...]. but also elected, and chosen to be one of the Citizens of heauen, I can not vvith harte pray that I may be receiued into heauen. Vvell I may praye that spee­dilie God vvill take me to him, and his glorie, bicause I ame not sure vvhen shall be the tyme at vvhich he vvill calle me, but to praye absolutelie to bee admitted vnto God his glorie and Kingdome, I can not possibly, bicause by Caluins faithe, I ame allready assured of this kingdome & glorie. I [...]. [...]. But Caluin vvill obiecte against vs that sainct Iames biddes vs to praye in faithe and confidence, nothing doubting or staggering. I graunt him therfore that vvee must beleeue that God can helpe, & hope also that hee vvill helpe, and so vvee muste not praye doubting, but yet vve may and muste praye betvvixte feare and hope. For if I hope not, but dispayre of obteyning, I haue no cause to pray, and if I doubte of Gods mercie, I doe him iniu­rie, yet if I be cock sure, I can not praye, and therfore I must feare the vvorste and yer pray for the best: [...]ee the souēth booke. Moreouer Caluin telleth vs that the iustifying faithe assur­ethe [Page 441]vs not only of presente, but also of future iustice, that is, acertainethe vs not only that vvee are novve at this present iuste, but also that vve shall perseuer vnto the ende: vvhence it follovveth that vve can not pray to God for perseueraunce in grace, or that hee vvill so assiste vs, that noe tentation of the deuill, insurrection of the flesh, or allurement of the vvorld, giue vs the foyle or falle; See the same booke. bicause by faithe vvee are assured of our stāding. He auou­cheth also that sinne hath so vveakened mans nature that he can not vvith all the grace that Christe hathe giuen, resiste any tentation. Vvhence ensevveth also, that he can not pray, not to be ledde into ten­tatiō, that is not to be permitted to yeeld to any tentation, bicause he is assured by Caluins doctrine, that he cānot but yeeld if he once be tēpted. And although these tvvo laste pointes seeme contradictorie, bicause the one sayethe that a faithfull mā can not fall from iustice, the other sayeth that he can not but yeeld to sinne and ten­tation, vvhich is the falle of the soule: yet Caluin hathe avvay to auoide this con­tradiction, bicause (saieth he) thoughe a faithfull man yeeld to tentation, yet God imputes not it as sinne, bicause hee is faith­full. and so sayeth hee a faithfull man is assured that he can not fall; and then saye [Page 442]I that I ame assured that hee can not praye that hee may stand, and not fall by tentation. He is also of opinion that the beste vvorkes of a iust mā are so vncleane that they are mortall sinnes: vv ^ch if it bee true; then can vve not pray that Gods na­me be hallovved and sanctified in vs, that is in our vvorkes, bicause nether in vs, nor in our actions, All these opi­nions of Cal­uin see in the seuēth booke. is any one iotte of true san­ctitie. He denyeth also free vvill & all vo­luntarie cooperatiō vvith Gods vvill and grace, And so vve can not pray that gods vvill bee doone in vs, for such a prayer argueth some dependence of gods vvill on ours, vvhich so vvould haue vs to do vvell, as it vvill leaue it in our povver to resiste the vvill and grace of God. And if Caluin obiecte those vvords of Scriptu­re: Rom. 9. vvho resisteth his vvill? I vvill ansvvere that noe man can resiste gods vvill vvhen hee vvill absolutelie haue it fulfilled and independently of vs, but yet vve may re­siste gods vvill vvhen he vvilleth depen­dently of our vvilles, Mat. 2 [...]. else vvould hee not haue sayed hovv often vvould I haue gathered thee as a henne gatherethe her chickins together, and thou vvouldest not. Novve put all this together and you shall see that the Pater noster or our lords prayer, must be cut out of the Catechisme, and blotted out of the ghospell: for althoughe that Christe [Page 443]taught his Apostles that prayer, yet accor­ding to Caluins doctrine noe faithfull man, that is, noe Caluiniste, can in con­science recite that prayer. And so ether Christe is deceiued or Caluin teacheth false doctrine; but Caluin vvill svveare that he teacheth the truthe and that hee is sure that a faithfull man is sure of his iu­stice, remission of sinnes, and election; and therfore you knovve vvhat follovveth. But least you thinke that I doe iniurie to Caluin in affirming that hee taketh a vvay the lords prayer, as vnlavvfull and quite repugnaunte to Christian faithe, I vvill proue it manifestly and by no other argument, then by calling to mynd that vvhich is allready sayed. In the first peti­tion of our lordes prayer vve desire that his name be hallovved in vs, vvhich is a prayer cleane opposit to Caluins opi­nion, vvhich teacheth that ther is noe san­ctitie in vs or our vvorkes, and so holding his opinion, vve must omit the first peti­tion. In the secōd, vve pray that his King­dome may come and that vve may be re­ceued into it, vvhich petition vve can not make frō our harte, if before vvee praye, vvee are assured by faithe, that vvee are electe and predestinate to that kingdo­me. The third is that Gods vvill bee doo­ne in earthe as in heauen: vvhich petition [Page 444]also according to Caluin is friuolous, for if vvee cooperate not vvith God by our free vvill, in vayne do vvee pray that his vvill bee doone in earthe, bicause that ar­gueth some dependence of Gods vvill one ours, as is before demonstrated. The fourthe is that God vvould giue vs our daylye bread that is all those benefites ether of Nature or Grace vv ^ch are belon­ging ether to soule or bodye: vvhich peti­tion also can not stād vvith Caluinsfaithe; bicause if faithe assurethe me of present and future iustice, yea and of glorie also, then I can not praye ether for iustifica­tion, or remission of sinnes, or perseue­raunce in grace, or final glorie, bicause noe man can praye for that vvhich hee is assured of as is before declared. And so vvee can only praye for healthe, ritches, fayre vvether, or suche like corporall be­nefites; yea if it bee true that all these thinges come by fatall necessitie (as Cal­uin must saye that they do) bicause hee affirmeth that Gods foresight and decree imposeth a necessitie vppon all thinges, l. 1. Inst. c 2 [...]. §. [...]. and consequently on these thinges also bicause hee foreseethe and decreethe the­se thinges no lesse then he dothe mens actions; then in vayne also do vvee pray for healthe, or vvelthe, or fayre vveather, bicause these thinges of necessitie shalbe [...] [Page 445]or not bee vvhether vve vvill or noe, and as vaine it is to praye for healthe or vvel­the, as for the sonne rising vvhich of ne­cessitie riseth vvhether vvee pray or noe. The fifte petition demaundeth that God vvould forgiue vs our trespasses & offen­ces, vv ^ch as is before proued vve can not praye for, vvithout losse of our faythe, vvhich, if it bee right, assureth vs vvithout all doubte that thy are allready forgiuen. The sixte & seuenth are that God vvould not permit vs to fall into temptation, and by tentation, but rather vvill deliuer vs from all euil especially of sinne: vvhich petitiō also is vaine yea impossible if Cal­uins faithe bee true. For if by faith I bee assured of future iustice, I can not pray vvith harte that God vvill assiste mee that I fall not from iustice, bicause I ame (as Caluin sayeth) full vvell assured that I shall not falle, and so I can no more pray, that I may not fall by tentation, then that the heauens may not fall vppō mee, being as sure of the one, as the other. And so the Lordes prayer can not stande if Caluins doctrine do goe for currāt; and seing that this prayer vvas made by Christe, if vvee vvill follovve Caluin vvee must forsake Christe, & for as much as this prayer con­teineth in a breefe somme, and methode, all thinges vvhich vvee are to prayer for, [Page 446]if sinne and other euils befall vs of neces­sitie (as Caluin sayeth they doe) in vayne do vvee pray to bee deliuered frō all euil. And if by Caluins doctrine vvee can not say this prayer, vvhich is a Compendium of all prayers and petitions, vvee can not praye at all, and so noe prayer can be vsed in Caluins Church according to Caluins doctrine. Vvherfore I meruaile not that so litle prayer is practised amongest them, I vvonder not that thy build noe nevve churches, but pull dovvne the old vvhich vvere builded for prayer; rather I mer­uaile that they sometymes exhorte mē to prayer seing that their doctrine & prayer can not stande together. And I like better of Luther and of his plaine dealing in this matter, for he hauing once pronounced sentēce that faith only iustifieth, affirmeth cōsequently that prayer is not necessarie, Ser de Dom. 4. Aduent. edit. an. 1525. these a [...] his vvordes: Euery hart hovv much the more perfect knovvledge (he meanethe the knovvledge of faithe) it hathe of it selfe, so much more ready is the vvay for God vnto it, al­though in the meane tyme a man should drinke nothing but malmesey and vvalke vppon roses, and neuer praye one vvorde. And so if Caluine vvould deale as plainly as Luther dothe, as he aggreeth vvith him in the premises to vvit that only faithe sufficeth, so should hee also aggree vvith him in the conclu­sion, [Page 447]vvhich is, that prayer is not necessa­ry. But it is tyme novv that I also come to my conclusion, to vvit that amongest our reformers is noe religion, bicause by their doctrine they can haue no prayer: vvhich conclusion if the premises be cal­led to mynde dothe follovve easily, and euidently. Bicause prayer in all lavves vvas euer necessarie to the vpholding of reli­giō, as I haue proued by inductiō, and the reason also is, bicause it is one of the moste principall actes of religion, by vvhich vve acknovvledge Gods soueraintie, and our ovvne basenes and beggerie; but amōgest the reformers noe prayer, not so much as the lords prayer, can be vsed, as is also pro­ued, ergo amongest them ther is noe reli­gion: bicause prayer and religion must of necessitie go together: And so our refor­mers haue no seruice to vse in their Chur­ches but only a sermon; vvhich also I see not to vvhat purpose it is amongest them if men haue noe free vvill; for then as vvell may their ministers preache to a flocke of sheep as to a Church full of faithfull peo­ple, bicause these haue noe more free vvill (if vve beleeue Caluin) then they haue, and so are as absurdely exhorted by a Ser­mon as they. And if Caluin vvould laugh at a Minister that should perswade sheepe and asses to abstinēce, labour, & such like, [Page 448]vve may laughe at him and his ministers, vvhen by a laboured sermon, they goe about to persuade vs to vertue, or to dis­suade vs from vice, vvho haue noe mote free vvill to follovv such persuasions, then sheepe or Asses haue.

SImon Magus the first Arche­retike of fame, vvas the first man that euer durste open his mouthe to the vtteraunce of this blasphemie, but he had noe sooner broken the yse, but by and by Florinus, Blastus, Tert. l praesc. [...]. 31. Cerdō, Marcion, and Manicheus, vvith open mouthe, and common voice, applauded to his blasphemie, aggreing vvith him that God is the autour of all [Page 449]sinne and euill. Yet bicause this doctrine seemed to offensiue to Christian eares, they deuised a kinde of moderatiō, to ma­ke their doctrine more sailable. Vvherfo­re Simon Magus sayed that God vvas the autour of sinne, not that hee immediatelie moueth vs to sinne, but bicause he hathe giuen vs such a nature vvhich of necessitie sinneth, and so by a certaine cōsequence, he sayed God vvas the autour of sinne. Cerdon and Manicheus also vvere asha­med to father sinne vppon the good God, & therfore they affirmed, that there vvere tvvoe Gods, the one good, the other bad, and that the euil God vvas the autour of sinne, and euil. But Caluin and his fol­lovvers (as it is easier to adde then to in­uente) haue farre exceeded and excelled them in mallice, auouching that God im­mediatelie and directely, is the autour of all vvickednes, vvhich Simō Magus durst not saye, yea that y ^e good & the only God vvorketh & effectuateth this mallice, vv ^ch those ancient heretikes vvere ashamed to saye. These are Caluins vvordes or ra­ther blasphemies: l. 4. Inst. c. 28. §. 6. God not only forseeth mans sinnes, but also hathe created him of determinate purpose to that ende. And a litle after; God not only permitteth sinne but vvilleth it. §. [...]. yea sayeth he: It is not likely that man by him selfe by the only permission of God, vvithout any ordinaunce, [Page 450]brought destruction to him selfe. l. [...]. c 1 [...]. §. 4. And therfore, vvhen Absalon abused his fathers vviues, it vvas Gods vvill (sayeth he) so to punishe Da­uids adulterie, l. 2. s. 4. §. 2. [...] 4. Ibidem. and God commaunded him to do it to that ende. Again he saieth that God blin­dethe and hardnethe the reprobate not only by not illuminating them nor mollifying them by grace, but bicause he stirreth vp their vvilles: And not only suffers sinners, but bovveth and turneth their hartes. So that according to Caluins opinion God not only forseeth that vvee vvill sinne, but ordeynethe vs to sinne, not only permitteth vs to sinne, but vvil­leth and commaundeth, yea bovveth our hartes to sinne. And least you should thinke, that at least God hathe no parte in those sinnes, to vvhich the Deuil and vvicked men prouoke vs, or that the in­iuries, vvhich they do vs, proceed not at all from him, he auoucheth that Satan & euil men in these euil offices, are but the instrumentes of God, and that God settes them on, and is the principall agent and autour. l. 1. [...]. 17. §. [...]. I graunt (sayeth he) that theeues and murderers and other euil doers are the instrumen­tes of Gods prouidence, c. 17. §. 2.3. [...]. 2.6.4. sect;. 2 vvhome the Lorde dothe vse to execute those iudgementes vvhich he hath him selfe determined. Yea he sayeth that vvhat our enemy mischeuously do the against vs, hee dothe as suffred and sent by God; And he is not afrayed to saye that God armeth as vvell [Page 451]the deuil as all vvicked mē against vs: And that Sennacherib vvas an axe and instrument of God directed and driuen by his hande to cutte. Sect. 6. Finally sayethe he: Sect. 6. the vncleane spirit is called the spi­rit of the Lord, bicause he ansvvereth his comma­undemēt and povver, being rather his instrument in doing, then an autour of him selfe. By vvhich speeches vvho seeth not that Caluin ma­keth God a greater Patrone of sinne, then the deuil, bicause the deuil is but his in­strument and minister in all the euil hee dothe, God is the principall Agent and commaunder. The like saying hathe Me­lancthon, vvho auoucheth that Dauids adulte­rie and Iudas treachery, vvere as much the vvor­ke of God, as sainct Paules vocation. In c. 1. ep. Rom. The like hathe Beza & diuers others vvhose blas­phemies I liste noe more to relate, then Christian eares desire to heare. Much more honourably dothe the Catholique Churche speake of the diuine maiestie, vvhich auerreth that God is the authour of the paine of sinne, bicause in that is noe sinne, but iustice, but not of the mallice of sinne: vvhich confesseth that God per­mitteth all sinnes that are, bicause he vvill not force mens libertie, yea suffereth also the deuil and his ministers to prouoke vs to sinne, but nether vvilleth, nor com­maundeth them so to doe; vvhich tea­cheth also that God is so the authour of [Page 452]an essence and goodnes, that hee con­curreth vvith our vvill to the substaun­ce of the acte of sinne, but hathe no parte in the mallice of the sinne: And vvhere scripture seemeth to say that God is the autour of euill or cōmandeth euill men, or sayeth that the vvicked are his instrumētes; the Catholike Church sayeth that this is to bee vnderstood by permis­sion only. Yea this Church teacheth vs that God neuer vsethe euill persons as in­strumentes moued by him to sinne, but only permitte the them to sinne, and after vvards vsethe this their sinne, ether to the iuste punishement of others, or to the glorie of his seruauntes, vvhose patience by euill persons is tryed, or to a greater repentaunce of the sinner, vvho being fallen into such abominination, thinketh of a greater repentaunce, as Mary Mag­dalen did. And certainly it is as euident that God can not be the autour of sinne, as that he can not but be God. For first of all God is of a good nature and goodnes it selfe, and therfore as euill frutes can not proceed from a good tree, bicause they are contrarie to the good nature and disposition of the tree, Mat. 7. so from so good a nature as God is, vvho is summum bonum and goodnes it selfe, vve must not looke for so euill frutes as sinnes are, in [Page 453]vvhich is no goodnes at all; and therfore to saye that hee is the autour of sinne, is to make him an euill God, and of a mali­tious nature, as Cerdon and Manicheus did, and so no God at all: for God and good must of necessitie go together. Se­condly sinne is as opposite to Gods goodnes as falsehood is to his veritie, but God can not lye nor authorize a lye bicause he is the first verttie, ergo he cā not be the autour of sinne, bicause hee is the cheefest good­nes: or if such goodnes can do euill, such veritie and truthe maye lye, and so the scriptures loose their credit: For if God can lye peraduenture in scriptures he ha­the lyed; and so to say that God can be the autour of sinne, is to saye consequently that hee maye be the autour of lyes, vv ^ch is to open the gap to Atheistes and mispri­sets of scriptures. For as vvel may be moue the vvriters of Scriptures to vvri­te lyes, as he may moue them to sinne and vvickednes. Thirdly if God be autour of sinne, Psal. 11 [...]. then by his vvill vvhich is the cau­se of all thinges he vvorketh sinne, vvhich if it be so, then sinne is according to gods vvill, & so noe sinne: bicause that vvhich is according to the Princes vvill, can ne­ther displease his vvill, nor impeach his commaundement, and consequently is nether offence nor preuarication, fourth­ly [Page 454]euerie errour is a svveruing frō the rule vvhich is prescribed, and therfore the ar­tificer banguereth vvhen hee vvorketh not according to his platforme, or idea, and the singer erreth vvhen he singeth not according to his Gammot, and the vvriter scribleth, vvhen he follovves not his example, and the subiecte transgres­seth, vvhen hee liues not according to the Princes lavve, and the morall man of­fendeth, vvhē hee follovveth not reason, vvhich is the lore, rule, and square of all his actions. And bicause all these vvor­kers are distincte frō their rule, they may svverue from the same and so commit a faulte in their arte, but God (sayeth sainct Thomas) is to him selfe a rule, Th. 1. p. q. 63. [...]. 1. in Cor. and fol­lovveth noe other lavve or rule then his aeternall reason and lavve, vvhich is him selfe, and so can noe more sinne (vvhich is to svverue from his reason) thē hee can denye him selfe, or goe from him selfe. Lastly sinne is an auersion from God, and an offence vvhich highly displeaseth him, and so by consequence, if god could sin­ne; hee should as it vvere turne him selfe from him selfe, and be auerted from him selfe, and displeased vvith him selfe, and so he should be so farre frō endevving o­thers vvith felicitie, that he should vvan­te it him selfe, and liue in a continuall mi­serie, [Page 455]as hee must needs doe, vvho hath an auersion from him selfe, and is displea­sed vvith him selfe. But Caluin sayeth that althoughe God be the autour of sinne, yet hee is noe sinner, bicause hee vvorketh it for a good ende. l. 2. s. 4. sect. 2 As for example (sayeth he) of the same sinne vvhich the Chaldees committed in vniustly afflicting Iob, God vvas the autour, Sathan vvas the autour, and the vvill of man vvas the authour; but bicause God vvas the autour of it for 2 good end, to vvit, for the exercising of Iobs patience, he sinned not in that actiō, but did vvell and iustly in the same action in vvhich they sinned, and transgressed. But this vvill not serue for an ansvvere, for first if god may bee the autour of sinne to exercise the patience of the iuste, or to chastice the vvicked, he may also be the autour of a lye, for the punishment of sin­ners, and so Scriptures must lose their cre­dit, bicause peraduenture they are lyes vvhich God hathe put in the toungue and penne of Mōyses, the Prophets, and the Euāgelists for a good end; that is to shevv his iustice in the Ievves & gētils, vvhome, for a iuste punishement he hathe seduced, and deceiued vvith a false vvritten lavv, bicause they vvould not follovve the lavv of nature, vvhich he had grauen in their hartes. Secōdly to make a sinner, it is suf­ficient [Page 456]if he be the autour of sinne, and▪ good ende or intention vvill not excuse vvhen the meanes and electiō are naught. Vvherfore if God be the autour of sinne hee sinneth vvhatsoeuer his intentiō bee, and if a good intētion may excuse, it may also excuse vs, and so a man may steale to helpe his parētes, or to offer Sacrifice and oblations of his theftes vnto God, and yet god condemneth such offrings and sainct Paule sayeth plainly that euill things are not to be doone that good therby may happen. Rom. [...]. But novv it is more then tyme to dravve nec­ro our conclusion, and therfore out of Caluins blasphemies I vvill deduce these illations. The first is that such men if they had liued in Platoes tyme (vvho by lavv banished those that vvould father their sinnes vppon God) they should not haue beene permitted to haue liued in any ci­tie or common vvelthe; l. 2. de Repub. and if that lear­ned Ievv Philo had been appointed their iudge, l. de. Agricult. he vvould haue adiudged them to be stoned to death. Secōdly I gather her­by that these men are not led by the Spi­rit of God, and that their doctrine can not be of God, bicause it is vnlikely, yea im­possible, that the spirit of god should di­ctate such doctrine, vvhich is so iniurious to God and so opposite to his goodnesse; rather this doctrine is like to proceed frō [Page 457]him vvho sayed that he vvould be a lyīg spirit in the mouthes of all false Prophets. 1 Reg 22. 2. Para. 1 [...]. Thirdly I gather vvhat litle credit is to be giuen vn­to them in other matters, vvho banger so grossely in this opinion vvhich the light of reason argueth of falsitie, and is as eui­dently false, as is is euident that there is a God.

IT is the opinion of Ihon Caluin and of the Caluinists also, l 3. Inst. c. 21. §. 4. that God is not only the authour of sinne, but that his vvill and povver also dothe so domineere ouer the vvill of a sinner, that he can not resiste Gods motion, vvhich eggeth and vrgeth him to sinne, but must of necessi­tie sinne. Yea, Sect. [...]. I (saieth Caluin) vvill not doubt to confesse, simply vvith Austine (he vvould haue sayed vvithout Austine bi­cause he hathe no such thing in the place, l de Gen. ad lit. c. 15. vvhich he alleageth) that the vvill of God is a necessitie of things, and that vvhat he vvil­leth, must of necessitie come to passe. Sithence then God vvilleth all our sinnes, as Cal­uin hathe in the former chapter cōfessed, it follovvethe that vve of necessitie sinne, bicause Gods vvill is a necessity of things. [Page 458]He affirme the also (as is already declared in the laste chapter) that the deuil in solli­citing and tempting vs, is the instrument of God, and the executour of his vvill & determination, and consequently it is Gods vvill that he should tempte vs, and seing that as Caluin sayeth his vvill is a necessitie of things, it follovveth also that the deuil of necessitie, tempteth vs. Out of vvhich premises follovveth euidently my intended conclusion, to vvit that God on­ly is the sinner. For if God so forcebly mo­ueth the deuil by his ovvne vvil and ordi­naunce that the deuil can not chose but tempte vs, and if the vvill of God do the so ouerrule and presse the vvill of man, that vvhen God vvill haue him sinne (as Caluin sayeth he vvill) he can not resiste, it muste needs follovve that God is the only sinner, and that man & the deuil are to be excused. For as Caluin affirmethe God is the authour of all sinnes, and con­sequently is a sinner, bicause his good in­tention can not excuse him, as is all ready proued in the laste chapter, nether can he alleage necessitie for an excuse, bicause ther is none vvhich bovveth his vvill by force, but hee him selfe most frankely and freely vvilleth and vvorketh our sinnes: and seing that the deuil as Gods instru­ment is violently, or at least necessarily [Page 459]moued to tempte vs, he can not sinne, bicause he can not iustly be blamed, for that vvhich he could not auoide; and for as much as mans vvill is compelled to sin­ne by the ouerruling vvill of God, he also for the same reason can not sinne, and so God is the only sinner, and man and the deuil are innocentes, vvorthily to be ex­cused, and in no vvise to be counted sin­ners.

IT is a common Maxime amongest the ghospellers that the commaundemen­tes of God are impossible, and that a man can as soone touch the heauens vvith his finger, as fulfill the least commaundemēt. Luther sayeth that vvhen the Scripture vseth these vvords or the like: l. de serue ar­bitrio. If thou vvilte keepe the commaundementes; or keep the comma­undemētes, God dealeth vvith vs as the mo­ther dalyeth vvith her infante. For as shee calleth her childe to her, not in earnest, bi­cause she knovveth vvell that he can not vvalke, but to make him to see his ovvne imbecilitie, and to shevve his desire to [...]ome vnto her, so vvhen God biddes vs [Page 460]keepe the commaundementes, according to Luther, he iesteth vvith vs, and biddes vs obserue the lavve, not bicause that hee thinkes vvee are able, but bicause he vvill make vs knovve our ovvne impotencie, and yet to shevve our good vvill and de­sire to keepe his lavves, if vve vvere able. But this is a straunge iesting and dalying, vvnen god vvill commaund vs things im­possible to make vs knovve our insuffi­ciencie, and yet vvill damne vs eternally if vve obserue not these his commaunde­mētes. l. 2. Inst. c. 7. fact. 2. Caluin sayeth plainly that the lavve is impossible, and therfore vvas neuer full­filled by any; and hee giues a reason, bi­cause (saieth he) it is hindred by the ordinaunce and decree of God that it shall not bee fulfilled. And if you obiecte that christe sayed vnto the younge man: Mat. 19. Calu in har. ibidem. If thou vvilte enter into life keepe the commaundementes: Caluin vvill ans­vvere that Christe sayed so, not that he thought hee could keepe them, but bi­cause hee vvould represse his pride in pro­posing a thinge vvhich he could not doe. As if Caluin should vaunte that hee is a nevve Apostle, and one should saye vn­to him to represse his vanitie, if thou beest an Apostle, vvorke I praye thee some mi­racles, for proofe of thy Apostleship, vvhich hee can not do. And if you againe replye that the younge man sayed that her [Page 461] had obserued the cōmaundemēts from his you the. Caluin vvill be so bold as to tell him that he lyed, Ibidem. vvhich Christe him selfe vvould not saye, thoughe hee knevve better or at least as vvel as Caluin, hovve truly he auouched that he had kepte the com­maundementes: c. 1 [...], and sainct Marke sayeth that our Sauiour loued him vvhich is at le­ast some argument that Caluin rather lyeth in saying that he lyed, bicause Chri­ste loueth nether lyes nor lyers: Sap. 18. Bicause to God is odious the impious and his impietie. I could here vse many argumentes to proue that the commaundementes are not impossible. And might beginne vvith the old testa­mēt and proue that the Ievves vvere able to keepe the commaundementes, and consequently that much more Christians are able, bicause that on them God best­ [...]ovveth his grace more liberally. For after that God had giuen vnto that people the lavve and Decalogue he in diuerse places telleth them that he commaundeth them not to do more then they are able. Exod. 20. Deut. 30. The cō ­maundement (sayeth God) vvhich this day I commaunde thee is not aboue thee not placed farre from thee, not in heauen not beyonde sea, that thou mayest pretende an excuse: but my speech is very neer thee, in thy mouthe, in thy harte that thou mayest doe it. To this subscribeth our Sauiour Christe [Page 462]the lavvegiuer of the nevv lavve, Mat. 19. telling vs that if vve vvill enter into life, vve must keepe the commaundementes. And least vvee should excuse our selues by a pretence that his commaundementes are impossi­ble, Mat. 11. he preuenteth vs saying, that his yoke is svveet and his burden lighte. And sainct Ihon his louīg and beloued disciple auou­cheth that his commaundemētes are not heauy. l. Io. 5. Novv if the commaundementes be im­possible then are they as farre out of our reache and povver, as if they vvere in hea­uen or beyond sea, then are they not neere vs, then are they not so at hād, that God may saye, that they are in our mouthe, and hart to doe and full fill them: For vvhat is farther of then that vvhich is cleane out of our rea­che and povver? If the lavve bee impos­sible, then it is not a light burden: For vvhat can bee more heauy, then that vvhich vve can not beare at all. But to mee this only argumēt seemeth sufficient to stoppe Cal­uins mouthe; that if the commaunde­ment vvere impossible, God should bee the moste vnreasonable Prince in the vvorld. Nether cā that suffice vv ^ch Caluin alleageth, to vvit that althoughe the com­maundements be impossible, yet God had reason to commaund them to shevve vs our infirmitie, & to prouoke vs to shevve our vvilling mynde to doe vvhat vvee [Page 463]can: this I saye vvill not suffice to excuse God from being vnreasonble, bicause at least in that ouer plus vvhich exceedeth our force and povver, hee shevveth him selfe vnreasonable. as for example if the King vvould commaund a creeple to follovve him, thoughe therby hee might make him see his ovvne impotencie and giue him occasion by his motion of his body, to declare his desire to follovve, yet if hee commaūde him in deed to folovve, hee is very vnreasonable. Or if Caluin vvill saye that God vvill seeme only to cō ­maund vs, bicause hee vvould make vs to see our imbecillitie and to doe vvhat vve can at least to shevve our desire; then fol­lovveth it that there are noe cōmaunde­mentes, bicause God dothe not verilie commaund them but seemeth only to commaund, to make vs see our ovvne in­firmitie, and to shevve our desire. Or if Caluin vvill not bee so bold as to deny all commaundementes, then must hee graūt that God is vnreasonable, in commaun­ding vs more then vvee are able to perfor­me. As for example if the master vvould commaund his seruaunt not onlye to ron­ne but also to flye on his arraund, and for a shorter cutte to leape ouer a riuer, ouer vvhich he cā scarsely see; vvould you not thinke him vnreasonable and quite be­side [Page 464]him selfe? The like dothe almightie God if vve beleeue Caluin; for he com­maundeth vs to loue him aboue all and our neighbour as our selues, he biddes vs not to steale, not to kill, yea not to couet our neighbours vvife or goods, vvhich is as if hee should commaund vs to flye or to moue mountaines, or to leape ouer the sea: bicause these thinges in Caluins opinion, are noe more impossible, then are the commaundamentes, and therfore in these commaundementes God shevv­eth him selfe as vnreasōable, as hee should doe in the other. Yea if once vvee graunte that god maye cōmaund impossibilities; then is ther noe reason vvhy brute bealles maye not bee commaunded not to kill one another, not to liue of spoile, to faste somes tymes, and to honour yea loue their Creatour; bicause God commaun­deth mā to doe these thinges, vvho yet is noe more able to do thē, then beastes are. And if beastes could speake & vvould tell allmightie God that hee hathe noe reason to commaund them to do these thinges bicause they are not in their povver, then maye men make the same exception, and accuse their Creatour as a Prince most vnreasonable, vvhoe commaundeth them to excute those lavves vvhich they noe more can fullfill then oxen, and asses [Page 465]can doe. And if god vvill condemne them as guiltie of offence, for not obeying his commaundment, they maye ansvvere vvith saincte Christostome: Hom 16 in ep. Heb. Si impotentes nos fecit & deinde imperat, culpa eius est: If he hath made vs impotent (as Caluin sayeth he hathe bicause by his decree and ordinaunce he hindreth vs) or at least if vvee be allready by Adams sinne made impotent, Supra l. 2. Instis. c. 7. sect. 5. And yet he commaundeth vs, the faulte is his, and not ours if vvee transgresse his commaun­dement.

CErdon that infamous heretike, Ex Ter. l. prasc c. 51. and diuers of his folovvers, reading in the old testament, vvhat seueritie in that lavve God had sometymes vsed, and not considering that the enormitie of sinne is such that it deserueth not only temporall, but also aeternal deathe, and imagining that such seueritie could not proceed frō the good God, vvhoe is goodnes it selfe (as thoughe God vvere mercifull, and not iuste also) they affirmed that there vvere tvvoe gods the one good, the other cruel y ^e one the autour of the olde testamēt, the other of the nevv, the one Creatour only [Page 466]of superiour substaunces, the other of this inferiour vvorlde. Against these men saint Austine vvrote a booke entitled. Against the aduersarie of the lavve and Prophetes, in vv ^ch hee proueth that in the nevve lavve God hath shevved as great seueritie, to vvit in the death of Ananias, Act. 3. Mat. 2 [...] & 5. & Saphita, in and threatening aeternal danation (vv ^ch passeth all temporall punishment) against those that shall not giue almes, and not only against those that shall kill, but also against them that shalbe angrie, and shall call contumeliously their brother foole. Vvhence it follovveth that one and the selfe same god is seuere and svveete, iuste and mercifull. And good reason, for as the king must not only be gētle but iuste also, and therfore the Aegiptians Hiero­gliffe of a kinge, vvas a bee, vvhose hony signifieth the svveetnesse vvhich ought to be in a Prince, and his stinge importeth, that hee must bee vvith all seuere, and iuste also, vvhere mercie and faire meanes vvill not serue: so God the king of kinges offereth his grace moste frankelye & be­stovveth benefites on vs bountifully, and many tymes vvinketh at our defaultes & expecteth patiently amendement and re­pentaunce; but if vvee contemne his be­nefittes and abuse his patiēce, then dothe hee lay it on seuerely vppon vs, bicause as [Page 467]hee is good so is hee iust, & must bee iust, else vvere hee not God. And althoughe some, respecting only the shortenesse of the pleasure vvhich they haue takē in sin­ne, thinke it harde to be punished eter­nally for a momētaire pleasure; yet if they consider vvhat it is to offende so great a Maiestie, and hovve vvhen vve sinne, vve doe in affection desire eternally to perseuer in that sinne, and pleasure or cō ­moditie, l. 4. dial. c. 44. vve vvill thinke vvith sainct Gregoire that it is good reasō that the sin­ner vvhoe hath sinned in his eternitie, should bee punished in gods aeternitie? Yea if Princes for a momentarie trans­gression may iustly punishe their sub­iectes vvith perpetuall exile and death it selfe vvhich of it selfe is perpetuall, bicau­se a resurrectiō is not naturall, vvhy maye not God iustelie punishe vs vvith eternall paines, for our tēporall faultes, especially seing that they vv ^ch dye in mortall sinne, neuer thinke of repētaunce, but remaine perpetually obstinate in their mallice, and so may iustely bee perpetually punished, bicause sinne as longe as it remaines, is vvorthy paine, and therfore if it remaine for euer it may iustly bee punished for euer and euer? But althoughe it be so that there are not tvvoe gods as Cerdon sayed, the one meeke and mylde, the other cruel [Page 468]and Churlishe; and althoughe the selfe same God, and the good and the onlygod, bee & must bee, bicause hee is God, mer­cifull and iust, and consequently gentle & seuere vvithout all crueltie, bicause iu­stice is noe crueltie; yet if vve vvill auouch Luthers and Caluins doctrine for currant, vve must of necessitie confesse, that God is the cruellest tyraunte that euer vvas or can bee. For they affirme as vve haue rela­ted in the former Chapter, that God com­maundethe vs thinges altogetherimpossi­ble; and they can not deny but that for transgressing these commaundemēts, the vvicked are tormēted in hell perpetually (for Christe bidds thē goe accursed in to euer­lasting fyer, Mat. 2 [...]. vvhoe clothed him not in his mēbers vvhen hee vvas in them naked, & vvho fed him not vvhen in them hee vvas houngrie) vvhich if it bee so, then is God moste cruel and barbarouse. Luther once vvell perceued, that this consequence, to vvit that God is cruel, follovved eui­dently out of their permises, to vvit that the commaundemētes are impossible; & vvhat thinke you dothe hee ansvvere to it, or hovve dothe hee free gods goodnes from crueltie? hee saieth that by light of na­ture and grace, l. de seruo ar­bitrio. it is vnsoluble, hovve God dam­neth him vvho can not chuse but sinne and trans­gresse, and (here sayeth he) bothe the light of [Page 469]nature and grace do tell vs, that the faulte is in God only and not in miserable man: but by the light of glorie (vvhich the blessed enioye) Gods iustice herein is manifested, vvhich novv seemethe iniustice. Ibidem. Yea (sayethe hee) Gods iu­stice in this pointe is novve incomprehensible. So that Luther sayeth that novve nether by light of nature nor of grace, that is faythe, (for so I thinke is his meaning in his ob­scure distinction) vvee can excuse God from iniustice and crueltie, vvho comma­undeth thinges impossible vvhich vvee can not performe, and yet punisheth vs aeternally. And truly if it bee so as they saye, that God commaundeth impossibi­lities and yet punisheth and damneth the transgressours, then not only by the light of nature, and grace, but by all light and reasō in the vvorld, it is manifest that god is most cruel and tyrannicall. For if that master bee cruel and barbarouse, vvhoe commaundeth his seruaunt that is lame to ronne or leape, and bicause hee doth not soe, beateth him blacke and blevve, breaketh his bones, & in fine killeth him also, thē certes God him selfe vvhoe com­maundes vs impossibilities, and for not doinge them, doth not only punishe vs temporally, but also damneth vs perpetu­ally, and condemneth vs to those aeternall flames of hell vvhere vvee shall euer [Page 470]feele the panges of deathe and yet neuer dye, vvhere vvee shall allvvayes bee dy­ing and neuer dead, vvher after milliōs of yeares of imprisonmēte & torment, vvee shalbe neuer a vvhit the nearer an end of our miserie; he I saye must needs bee moste cruel and inhumaine, more barba­rouse then any Scithian, and so tyranni­call, that in respecte of him, Nero, Do­mitian, and Dionisius, vvere no tyraunts but Clement Princes.

TErtulian that ancient and learned vvriter vvhen hee vvas best dispo­sed (that is vvhen hee vvas a Catholike and a vvriter against heretikes, in defence of the Catholike and Romain Church and religion) vvas of opinion that all he­resies are idolatries, and all heretikes ido­latours. Vvhich opinion thoughe at the first blushe, it may seeme to rigorous, yea erronious, yet if it bee vvell vvayed and considered, it may very truly be ve­rified of the heretikes of his tyme, and of this our vnhappy age, and in some sor­te of all heretikes vvhat soeuer. But befo­re [Page 471]vvee come to the proofe of this his o­pinion, vvee vvill first set it dovvne in his ovvn vvords, vvhich are these: l. praesc. c. 4 [...]. Ether they faine another God to the Creatour (as the Mar­cionistes did) or if they confesse the only Crea­tour, they declare him othervvise then in deed he is; so euery errour cōcerning God is in some forte a variatiō of a kinde of idolatrie. By vv ^ch appea­reth, that in his opinion euery Heresie is a kinde of idolatrie. And truly ther is noe Heresie but ether directly or indirectly it denyeth y ^e true God. For ether it denyeth some thing in God, and then it directly denyeth God, or it denyeth some thing vvhich perteineth vnto God, and so indi­rectly and by a certain consequeace, it ta­keth avvay the true God. As for example the Marcionites affirmed that God vvas cruel and that the good God vvas not Creatour of this inferiour vvorld vvhich conteineth the fovvre elementes and all those thinges vvhich are compounded of them; and seing that there is no such God vvho is cruel, or vvho is not the Creatour of the vvholle vvorld, they denyed the true God and confessed an Idol of their ovvn imaginatiō. In like māner the Ariās denied that God the father had a Sonne coequall and consubstātiall vnto him, and seing that the true god is one god, vvhich is the father the sonne and the holy ghost, [Page 472]the Arrians in denying the second person to bee God coequall vvith the father, de­nyed the true God, bicause the true God is not distincte in nature from God the sonne, and they adored an Idol of their ovvne imagination, that is a God vvho hathe noe sonne, or not coequall and cō ­substantiall vnto him. Ser. 3. & 4. sent. Arianos Vvherfore Atha­nasius complaineth that the Arrians vn­der pretence of religion, had brought in idolatrie, and abādoned baptisme vvhich can not bee equally ministred in the na­me of the father the sonne and the holy ghoste, if those three persons bee not all equall in deitie and dignitie. Other here­tikes there vvere vvhich helde noe er­rour concerning the diuinitie or any di­uine person, and so could not be sayed, directely to deny the true God, but yet indirectly they denyed him by denying some veritie vvhich hathe a connexion vvith him. As for example, Nouatianus, vvhoe sayed that there vvas noe remedie against sinne after baptisme, directly only denyed the Sacrament of penaunce, but yet indirectly and by a certain cōsequen­ce hee denyed God, bicause it is not a true God vvhich vvill not accepte of pe­naunce after baptisme, and therfore seing that hee confessed only suche a god, hee adored a false God, and so vvas an idola­tour. [Page 473]Nestorius also vvhoe sayed that in Christe beside the diuine person, ther vvas also an humaine person, and conse­quently tvvoe persons, directly denyed the vnitie of Christes person, and affir­med tvvoe persons in Christe; but indi­rectly hee denyed Christe and consequēt­ly God, bicause Christe is God and man in one & the selfe same person, and ther­fore hee adoring a Christe consisting of tvvoe persons, adored a false Christe, and consequently a false God, and so vvas an idolatour. 22. q. 2. a. 2. ad [...] l. 9. m [...]t. S. Thomas giues the reason of this: bicause (sayeth hee, and hee allea­geth Aristotle for more authoritie) God is a thing infinit in perfection, yet so sim­ple and deuoide of composition, that in him is noe distinction but of persons, vvhich allso are one indiuisible God, and therfore as an indiuisible pointe is alto­gether touched, or not at all, bicause it hath no partes, so our vnderstāding ether rightly attaineth vnto the knovvledge of God, or not at all, and if it erre in one per­fectiō of God it erreth in all, bicause all is one. And so if an heretique denieth any thing of god, hee denyeth all. But althou­ghe all heretikes are in some forte idola­tours, yet I vvill not denye but that there is a difference betvvixte them, and paga­nes. For these men deny the true God in [Page 474]expresse termes and adore some creature for God, as Iupiter, or the planetes, or so­me such like, but heretikes only affirme some thing of God, vvhich implyeth a denyall of the true God, yet they professe in vvordes, religion vnto the true God. Novv therfore if all heretikes bee in so­me forte Idolatours; then certainly the heretikes of this tyme are especially ido­latours. For they (as is allready proued) saye that God is the autour of sinne, and their doctrine implieth that hee is of a bad nature, vnreasonable, & cruel, vvher­fore seing that there is noe suche God, they confesse and adore not a true God but an idol of their ovvne conceipte and fiction, and so are idolatours, vvho pull the true God, vvhich is a good God, not cruel, nor vnreasonable, nor no autour of sinne, out of his throne, and place therin a false God, and an idol of their imagina­tion.

WEE see by experience, Eccl. 13. and ho­ly scripture teacheth, that like of nature doe easilie forte them selues together. Sheepe do flocke to one fold, deere meet together in one parke, bees in one svvarme, and fovvles of one fether doe flye together, and fishes of one squame, do svvime to­gether. And the reason may bee, bicause like of nature are like in conditions, and so do more easily symbolize and aggree together; and one alone hathe no helpe [Page 476]but of him selfe, and therfore for mutuall ayde and comforte, they accompanye them selues vvith others. But amongest all liuing creatures man especially is ciui­le and compaignable, and therfore is called animal sociabile a sociable creature. For first man is apte to language, by vvhich he de­sireth to expresse his mynd to others, and therfore if he vvill haue any vse of his tongue and facultie of speaking, he must liue in company. Secondly man especial­ly is disciplinable, desirouse to learne of others, and by discoursing and deuising, to knovv vvhat other men thinke and conceue. For as he is vvilling to imparte his ovvne conceites, so is he desirous to be pertaker of the knovvledge and cogi­tation of others, vvhich his desire he can not satisfie vnless he repaire to company. Thirdly mā only emōgest all liuing crea­tures is apte to frendship, that is to loue and to be beloued, and bicause loue co­mes by sight, and sure frendship is not gotten but by much familiaritie, and lon­ge experience, he can not attaine to this also, but in cōpany and societie. Lastly mā only is borne naked, vvher as other liuing creatures garmētes, doe grovv vvith thē, destitute of all vveapons of defēce, vvher as the bull hath his horne, the bucke his head, the horse his hoofe, the bore his [Page 477]tuske, and euery one hathe one vveapon or other to defend and offend. Vvherfore seing that man is soe destitute, that being alone be vvanteth many cōmodities, hee must fly to societie vvher one helpeth a­nother, and bicause euery countrie bea­reth not all thinges, one countrie must tra­sique vvith another & hence proceedeth societie. Vvherfore noe soener vvere men created, but they assembled them selues together, first in families, then in tovvnes and cities, and after vvards as their num­ber increased, in common vveales and Kingdomes. And although the Poets fay­ne that Orpheus vvas the first vvho vvith his melodious tunes called men together, yet certain it is that euen from the begin­ning men liued in societie, induced ther­vnto by no other Orpheus, then Nature, and God the autour of nature. Novv as the naturall body of mā as it is framed by God & nature of diuers members vnited together, so it hath from God and Nature authoritie to defend it selfe against all that shall vniustly seeke to molest or iniurie the same: so the ciuil body of a societie of men be it a cōmon vvelthe or King dome receiueth from God and nature authoritie and povver to conserue it selfe in societie, and to vvithstand all foreinets vvho shall iniuriously inuade it. For if nature did not [Page 478]giue men authoritie to defend & present them selues in societie, in vaine, yea not in vaine only, but also perniciously and to mans great preiudice, had God & nature enclined him to liue in companie. Vvher­fore all societies lavvfully assembled, haue from God and nature, povver and autho­ritie to rule and defende them selues, and bicause the confused multitude is vnfit to gouerne, bicause it is bellua multorum capi­tum, a beaste of many heads, vvauering, incon­staunte, and mutinouse (yea hard it is for the multitude to meete alvvayes together to determine vppō state-matters, & vvhen they are met they can as hardly aggree) i [...] vvas necessarie that this multitude should haue authoritie, to chuse some head o [...] heades, by vvhich this ciuill body might bee directed, Rom. 13. Vic [...]relec de potest ciuili. ruled, and defended. Henc [...] it is that diuines yea scriptures affirme, that all lavvfull authoritie vvhich Princes and superiours haue ouer others, is o [...] God; bicause it proceedeth from the peo­ples election, vvhoe as they vvere by God and nature inclined to liue in societie, so they receiued authoritie to rule, and de­fend them selues, vvhich bicause they could not do by them selues, they recei­ued also authoritie from God and nature to appointe rulers and gouernours; & so all lavvfull gouernours are appointed by [Page 479]God, by meanes of election, and therfore they vvho resiste them, resiste gods ordinaunce. Rom [...]. And althoughe novv for the moste parte Princes come to autohritie by succession, yet the origin also of this proceedeth frō election, bicause the people, to auoyed incōueniences vvhich might happen, if af­ter the deathe of their Prince, they should be to seeke for another, vvere content vvhen they did chuse the first Prince, that all his lavvfull heires, should after him succed in the same authority. Novv if the Prince haue not authoritie to commaūd, and bynde his subiectes also in conscience to obey his cōmaundement, then in vaine is he head and Prince of the people, bicau­se if he commaund and yet the subiectes may chuse vvhether they vvill obey or not, then noe order can be established, and as good noe head at all as such a head. Vvherfore holy Scripture telleth vs that Princes may commaund and subiectes in conscience must obey, Mat. 22. and giue to Caesar vvhat is devvoo Caesar. Rom 13. Sainct Paule sayeth that euerie soule must be subiect to higher pov­vers: & he giues the reason, bicause sayeth he ther is noe povver but of God, and therfor they vvho resiste povver, resiste Gods ordinaunce and purchase to them selues damnation. Ibide [...]. Yea sayeth he: of necessitie be you subiecte not only for dis­pleasure, but also for conscience. And after [Page 480]vvards he bidds vs to pay tributes, and subsidies vnto Princes, bicause they are the ministers of God appointed by him. Saint Peter also bidds vs to be subiect to eue­ry humaine creature for God, [...]. Pet. 2. that is to euery magistrate and tēporall superiour; vvhom he callethhumaine creatures, bicause their authoritie is in tēporall and humain thin­ges. And therfore he addeth as it vvere to specifie vvhat he meaneth by the humain creature: vvhether it be to the King, as excel­ling, or to Rulers sent from him &c. Yea hee bids vs obey not only gentle and courte­ouse masters, but euen those also vvhich are harde to please. And this obediēce these Apostles commaund vs to giue to Prin­cesalthough they be infidels, if othervvise they be lavvfull, for vvhen the Apostles vvrote, there vvere noe Christian Princes, and faithe is not necessarie to iurisdiction, nether is authoritie lost by the only losse of faithe. But yet this must be vnderstood, vvhen Princes commaund vvith in the li­mits and sphere of their iurisdiction; for othervvise, if they cōmaund vs any thing against God or conscience, vve must an­svvere them as the Apostles ansvvered the Ievves, Act. 4. vve must obey God before men. Bicause Princes are appointed by God, and so can cōmaund nothing, vvhich is against God or if they do, vve must obey the supreme [Page 481]Prince before the in [...]eriour, and the King before his viceroy. E [...] E [...]s [...]. Vvherfore sainct Po­licarpe although he refused to obey the Proconsul vvho commaunded him to do that vvhich vvas against God, religiō, and conscience, yet he sayed: Vvee are taught to giue to principalities and Potestates ordained by God, that honour vvhich is devv to them, and not hurtefull to vs. This being so thē that Prin­ces haue authoritie to commaund, and to bynde also in conscience, to obedience, and that from God vvhose ministers they are and by vvhome (as the vviseman sayeth) Kinges do raigne and the lavv makers decerne vvhat is iuste; Pr [...]. [...]: it remaineth that vvee exa­mine our aduersaries doctrine in this point, that vve may see vvhat they giue to superioritie, authoritie, & higher povvers. But peraduenture some vvill thinke that this is a vaine examination, bicause they are so farre from suspicion of detrac­ting from Princes authoritie, that rather they seem to graunte them to much. Lu­ther affirmeth that Bishops and Prelates are subiect to the Emperour euen in Ec­clesiasticall causes, A [...]. [...]. and that Ecclesiasticall iurisdictiō is deriued from the temporall. And vvhen Catholikes in Ingland refuse to go to the Churche, bicause profession is made there of a religion contrarie to theirs, the reformers vrge nothing so [Page 482]much as that vve must obey Princes, and their iniunctions. But this they doe only vvhen Ecclesiasticall povver calleth them to an accounte, or vvhē the Princes lavves doe fauorize their doctrine: for then they flatter Princes, and preferre their authori­tie before the Church: not bicause in hat­te they reuerence their authoritie, but bi­cause by their povver, they vvould esta­blish their heresie. Soe Arius by the mea­nes of Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, first in sinuated him selfe to Cōstantia the Sifter of Constātine the great: Ruff. l. 1. [...]. 11. and by him he getteth audience of Constantine him selfe, and by flattery and dissimulation be procureth a commaundement from the Emperour to Athanasius, to receue him againe into the Church. And aftervvards he crept by this meanes into credit vvith Constantius the Ariane Emperour and sonne to Constantine, by vvhome he banished Catholike bishops, called many councels, and propagated his heresie, in so much that saint Hierome sayeth Ari [...] vt orbem deciperet, Ep. ad Ctesiph forerem principis ante decepit Arius that he might deceue the vvorld first de­ceiued the fister of the Prince. They curried fa­uour also vvith luliā th' Apostata and they offered their seruice, [...]heod. l. 4. c. 3. to Iouinian the Em­perour, but he vvould none of their pro­ferd seruice, knovving that they vsed to [Page 483] [...]latter Princes for promotion of their he­resies. So that one Themistius a Philoso­ [...]her vvas vvont to say, that heretikes a­dore the Purple, not God, & are as muta­ble as Euripus. Luther backed also by the Duke of Saxonie contemned the Popes legate vvho sought to reclaime him, and preached confidently those heresies vv ^ch othervvise he durst not haue doone, and perseuered obstinately in thē also vvhich other vvise peraduenture he vvould not haue doone. Prafat. In [...]. ad Reg. Ga [...] ▪ Caluin sought by a flattering epistle to procure fauour and credit vvith the king of Fraunce, and our Inglish Pro­testauntes by the fauour of our late Prince vvhose guiftes of nature they abused, gotte credit amongest the people, & gra­ced heresie vvith her roiall crovvne. And to vvinne this fauour they vvill not sticke to flatter Princes, yea to adore them and to giue them higher Titles and greater povver, then euer God bestovved vppon them. In king Edvvards tyme vvhen the state fauoured them, they acknovvledged him Supreme head not only in temporall but also in Ecclesiasticall causes. In Quee­ne Maries tyme bicause that Princesl vvas not for them, thē vvoemen could not go­uerne; but in Queene Elizabeths tyme bicause they had insinuated them selues into her Protection, then vvoemen might [Page 484]gouerne as vvel as men; and so they are the beste temporizers in the vvorld. But if you marke their proceedings, or dect [...] ­ne, you shall see that they honour not au­thoritie, but loue their heresies, vvhich if Princes vvill not like, then they contē ­ne and despise all authoritie, and vvill not let to make a mutinie, and stirie vp the subiects to rebellion. to. [...] p st du [...] Edista Cae­sarea. Luther exhorteth the Germaines not to take armes against the Turke bicause the Turke for pollicie, consa [...] ­le, integritie and moderation excelleth all [...] Princes. And in the same place he called the Emperour Charles the fif [...]e, a ro [...] and fraile carcase. And in his booke again [...] the king of Ingland he calleth him all [...] ­naught, l. cont Reg. Angl. l de potesta [...] seculari. by the name of blocke heade, s [...] ­le, and so forthe. In another booke he not only inueigheth agaiust Princely a [...] ­thoritie, but hee also calleth them foole [...] knaues, tyrauntes. In another bookevv hee vvrote against the tvvoe edicts of [...] Emperour, he calles the Princes of th [...] Empire fooles, madmen, furiouse, te [...] tymes vvorse then the Turke. Sur. an. 1 [...]2 [...]. Of vvh [...] doctrine and example Thomas Muns [...] taking holde, vvith an hundred thousa [...] Rustickes troubled all Germaine, and one Franconie he destroied tvvoe h [...] ­dred nyntie three monasteries. The l [...] therane Princes also armed vvith this [...] [Page 485]ample of Luther, tooke armes against the Emperour, & therby vvere the cause that the Turke surprised many holdes, Sur 1530. & [...]66. and stronge fortes of the Christiās. And vvhat stirres the Caluinistes and other sectes ha­ue made in Fraunce, Scotland, and the lovve countries, all the vvorld knovveth, and Flaunders to this day [...]eeleth. And truly this contempte of lavvfull Princes, this disloyaltie and rebell [...]on, is altogether according to their doctrine. o. [...]. Luther in his commente vppon the first Epistle of saint Peter sayeth plainly that he vvill not be copelled nor bound to obey any propha­ne magistrate, bicause he vvill not loose his libertie, vvhich is to bee freed in con­science from all Princes authoritie: yet he sayeth he vvill obey them freely and fran­kely, but not of any obligatiō. And after­vvards explicating those vvords; honour the Kinge: he sayeth that if the Pope as a temporall Prince should commaund any to vvear a friars hood, to shaue his crovv­ne, or to faste certaine dayes (as Luther did before his apostasie) that he should obey him, but yet of free choyse, as a temporall Prince (vvhich yet I doubte vvhether Lu­ther vvould doe (but sayeth he) if he com­maund the in the name of God, vnder paine of excommunication and mortall sinne: Tum dicas, bona verba, sitis mihi propi­tius [Page 484] [...] [Page 485] [...] [Page 486]domine Papa, equidem quod mādatis nultus fecero. Thē saye, Be good in your office, be good vnto vs Sir Pope, vvhat you commaund I vvill not doe. And hee giues you a reason in the nexte vvords: To higher povvers it behoueth vs to be subiect so longe as they binde not our consciences. So that Luther is of opinion that thoughe vve must for or­der sake obey Princes and magistrates, yet vvee are free in conscience, and can not in conscience vnder paine of sinne be bounde by any temporal or Ecclesia­sticall authoritie. l. 3. c. 19. § 14. Caluin subscribeth to him in all pointes touching this matter, for he hauing made a longe discourse a­bout Christian libertie, concludethe in this manner: Vve conclude that they are ex­empted from all povver of men. l. [...] c. 10 § 5. And least that this saying might seem to haue escaped him vnaduisedly, in the nexte booke he repeateth it again diuerse tymes: Our con­sciences haue not to doe vvith men but God onlye. And againe: § [...]. Paule in no vvise suffreth faith­full consciences to be brought into bondage of men. Yet Caluin in the same places fearing to displease Princes, exhorteth vs to doe as they shall commaund vs, not of any ob­ligation, bicause Christe (sayeth he) ha­the freed vs from all the lavves of men, but of free choice and libertie, not for conscience, but for common peace. In [Page 487]vvhich vvordes he is cleane opposit to sainct Paule, Rom 1 [...]. vvhoe sayeth that of necessi­tie vve must be subiect not only for fear of displeasure, but for conscience. Out of this do­ctrine I inferre as a moste euident con­clusion, that in vaine Princes haue autho­ritie ouer their subiectes, for if the subie­cte maye chuse vvhether hee vvill obey or no, then the prince may commaund and hee maye ansvvere, that as hee is not bound to obeye bicause by Christian li­bertie he his freed from all mens lavves, so hee vvill not at this tyme obeye, and so in vayne shall the Prince commaunde. Se­condly I conclude out of Luthers and Cal­uins premises, that there are noe Princes nor Superiours ouer Christians, and con­sequently that all Christian Princes are vsurpers, bicause they chalēge Superiori­tie & authoritie ouer Christiās, vvhich in deed they haue not, and vvill needes bee Princes and superiours, vvho are but pri­uate men. For if they can not so comma­und vs as to bynd vs to obedience, then are vve not subiecte to them, and conse­quently they are noe Superiours; and al­thoughe vvee maye obey them of free choise, yet that makes thē not our Supe­riours, bicause so vvee maye obey our equall and inferiour if vvee vvill, yet bi­cause hee cānot bynde vs in cōscience to [Page 488]obey, he hathe not authoritie ouer vs, and vvee in that vvee are free are not subiecte vnto him. Vvhich that it may the more plainly appeare, vve must note that a Su­periour and a subiecte are correlatiues, as are the father and the sonne, the maister, and the seruaunte, bicause as the father is the sonnes father, and the maister the ser­uauntes maister, so a Superiour is the sub­iectes superiour. And as noe sonne no fa­ther, noe seruaunte, noe maister, so noe subiecte noe Superiour, bicause correla­tiues are of that nature that one inferreth another, and one can not bee vvithout a­nother. Vvherfore if all Christians be set at such libertie that they are not bound in conscience to obey any Princes lavves then are they not subiecte vnto them, but as free as hee that hathe noe Master; and seing that vvhere is noe subiect, the­re can not bee any Superiour, it follo­vvethe, that if Princes can not bynde vs to obey them, vvee are no subiectes, they noe superiours. Is not this gētle rea­der to contemne and deny all authoritie and Superioritie? And consequently, is not this to open the gappe and gate vnto all mutinie and rebellion? For vvhen the subiectes are taught that by Christe and Christian faithe they are freed in cōscien­ce from men and mens authoritie, if the [Page 489]Prince commaund, they may deny obe­dience, if hee exacte tributes, taxes and subsidies, they may Chuse vvhether they vvill pay a peny, and if they like not his gouernmēt, they may by rebelliō free thē selues from him, to vvhome in conscience and before God they are not subiecte, bicause they are free men, vvho in that they are free can acknovvledge no Ma­ster. Vvho vvill novv blame the subie­ctes in Fraunce, Flanders and Germanie, for making rebellion? They did but ac­cording to their doctrine, and in refusing to obey men, they did but vse that free­dom vvhich Christe hathe giuen them, vvhich is to be subiect to none. Yea vvho novve can doe othervvise then to com­mend rebelles for rebellion, and discom­mend all loyall subiects? Bicause in diso­being and rebelling they shevv them sel­ues to bee free men and acknovvledge Christe their Redeemer, and in obeying, they make them selues subiecte to men, they vse not their libertie, and they do in­iurie to Christe, as thoughe hee had not redeemed thē from all seruitude of men. If Princes considered vvell this doctrine, they vvould be so farre from fauouring these nevve Christians, that they vvould banish them their countries. For vvhat assuraunce hathe a Prince of subiectes so [Page 490]persvvaded? or hovve can he but allvayes stand in feare of their rebellion; vvho by their religion are vvarrāted that they can not sinne in rebellion, bicause they are not bound in conscience to obey any hu­maine authoritie.

AS the Morall vertue Iustice vvas euer highly esteemed as the strength of all common vvelthes, so Iudges vvho are the ministers of iustice (vvhose office is to condemne the nocent and absolue the innocente) vvere euer had in such re­uerence, that their sentence vvas counted an oracle, and their seate and tribunall vvhere they vsed to pronounce sentence vvas respected as a sacred place. Vvherfo­re in Scripture it selfe Iudges are called Gods bicause like litle Gods, Psal. [...]1. vnder God they giue sentēce as his vnder Iudges, and if the sentence be iuste, then vvhat they adiudge in earth, God ratifieth in heauen. This honourable conceite of Iudges and Tribunalls the doctrine of our reformers alleaged, diminisheth very much, yea it bringeth them into plaine cōtempte and condemneth them all of Tyrannie and o­pen iniustice. For if Princes haue no au­thoritie as by the doctrine of these nouel­launtes [Page 491]I haue proued that they haue not, then can they giue none vnto their Iud­ges, and consequently nether the Prince nor the Iudge hathe authoritie to giue sentence or to punishe any malefactours, bicause if they haue no authoritie they are but priuate men. For although priuate men may vim vi repellere, repelle force by force, and stande in their ovvne defence, that is vvarde a blovve vvhen it is offered, and strike rather then be stricken, yea kille ra­ther then be killed, bicause this is but to defende them selues, and to repelle iniu­rie: yet after that the iniurie is receued, and quite paste, they can not them selues requite y ^e euill receiued, vvith a like euill, bicause that vvere not to defende, but to reuenge them selues, vvhich God hathe reserued to him selfe, & to them to vvho­me hee hathe giuen authoritie, and vvill not in any vvise that priuate mē bee their ovvne Iudges and reuengers, bicause that vvere to open the gappe to all outrages, much lesse vvill hee permit them to pu­nishe them vvhoe haue doone iniuries vnto others: vvherfore if Princes haue noe authoritie to commaund as in the last chapter by this nevv doctrine I haue pro­ued that they haue not, thē are they priua­te men, & so can nether reuēge their ovv­ne nor others iniuries, and consequently [Page 492]vniustly they condemne malefactours to prison, to death, and other paines and pe­nalties. And truly if it be true vvhich Lu­ther and Caluin and their follovvers also affirme, that noe man can bynde vs in cō ­science by lavve and commaundement, yea if it bee good doctrine, vvhich is their doctrine, as in the nexte booke shalbe re­lated, Chap. [...]. that by Christ and Christian faythe vvee are freed from all obligation of diui­ne lavves also, then the malefactour hathe great scope giuē him to auoyd the Iudges sentēce although the offence be manifest. For suppose the Iudge condemne him for transgression of the Princes lavve, he may confesse the faulte, and cōtemne the sen­tence. And first he may saye that his sen­tence can not bynde him in conscience to accepte of it, bicause by Christe hee is made a free man, subiecte in conscien­ce nether to man, nor mans lavve nor sentence. Secondly he maye confess that he hathe doone contrarie to the kinges lavve, and yet plead, not guiltie; alleaging that the Princes lavve can not bynde him in conscience, bicause hee is exempted by Christe from all humaine lavves and commaundements; And then hee maye saye that vvhere noe lavve byndes in consciēce, there is noe obligation, vvhe­re noe obligation, there is noe sinne, and [Page 493]soe hee maye confesse the facte and yet plead not guiltie, bicause hee sinned not; and he may also refuse the punishement by sentence decred, bicause vvhere noe sinne is, there noe payne is due. Or if the Iudge condemne him for breakinge Gods lavve in stealing, murdering, or such like, hee maye confesse like vvise the facte, and yet denye the faulte, bicau­se hee is so free, that God his lavve also can not bynde him, and seing that vvhe­re noe obligation is, there can bee noe faulte (bicause euerye sinne is against so­me bonde or obligation) hee maye clai­me absolution from the payne by the title of innocencie, bicause vvhere no sinne is, there no paine can bee devve. Yea althoughe hee confesse that hee haue sinned (vvhich yet hee neede not) in transgressing Gods lavve, yet hee may escape the sentence by appeale. For hee may saye I confesse the faulte for vvhich I ame condemned, but I refuse to stande to your sentence, I appeale to God, let him punishe mee if hee vvill (vvhich I knovve not hovve hee can do iustly if I bee free from his lavves in con­science) but of your sentence I vvill not accepte, and if you vrge mee vvith con­science and alleage that I ame bounde in conscience to stande to your arbitre­ment, [Page 494]bicause you are appointed to do iustice, I chalenge Christian freedom by vvhich I ame so free that in conscience I ame not bound to mans lavve, nor sen­tence. And if this vvill not serue to free him from the sentence (as I see noe rea­sou vvhy it should not serue) then hee may defende him selfe by other opinions of the nevve reformers. Hee maye saye that by Luthers and Caluins opinions vvhich are the Patriarches of the refor­med Churche, See the next booke, chap. 6. hee is taught that hee ha­the noe free vvill, nor choise in anye a­ction vv ^ch hee doeth vvhether it be good or badde, and that therfore the iudge is vnreasonable, cruel, and barbarous, in condemning him for thefte, murder, or adoultrie, vvhich vvas not in his po­vver to auoyed. And as iustly might he condemne him for not flyinge at the Kinges commaundement as for not ab­steining from murder vvhen ether by anger or desire of mony hee vvas mo­ued thervnto. Hee might alleage also for his defence, that God moued him vnto those offences vvhich he committed and so forcibly also, that hee could not resiste him, In the fifte booke, chap. 1. for this is Caluins opinion as before is declared, yea hee might saye and haue Caluin also for his authour, that God vvas the authour and principall agent of [Page 495]the thefte or murder, for vvhich hee is cō ­demned, and that therfore by good con­sequence hee can not iustly be condem­ned for that in vvhich God hathe more patte then he hathe, and to vvhich he mo­ued him so forcibly that hee could not re­siste. Vvhat is this then (gentle reader) but to condemne all Iudges and tribunall seates, to stoppe the Iudges mouthe from pronounncing any sentence, and to loose the bridle vnto all malefactours? vvho may commit vvhat outrage they vvill bi­cause there is no tribunall vvhich can iu­stly condemne them, and no sentence can be pronounced against them vvhich they may not avoid by Luthers and Caluins doctrine.

A Kingdome is commonly called a body, not naturall but ciuil and poli­tical, vvhose head is the King, vvhose eyes are the Kinges counsaylers, vvhose body and members are the people, and vvhose soule is the lavve. For as the natural body of man so soone as the soule hathe lefte it, looseth all vitall operation, becommeth gaste, vgly, and deformed, devoide of co­lour [Page 496]and beautie, and subiecte to dissolu­tion of all the members by putrefaction: So the body of a Kingdome destitute of lavve hathe noe reasonable action or mo­tion, bicause it vvantes the rule of the la­vve, vvhich squareth out all suche opera­tions, it loosethe all beautie, bicause it vvanteth lavve to set dovvne an vni­forme order, vvhich is the beautie of all common vvelthes, and it tendeth to a dis­solution of all the partes and members, bicause it is destitute of lavve vvhich is the soule and sinevve vvhich vniteth and knitteth these diuerse partes together. Vvherfore Plato sayed that if men vvete lavvlesse and destitute of lavves, l. 9 deleg. they vvould litle differ from brute beastes; and the reason is bicause as I haue sayed, vvith­out lavves there vvould bee noe reasona­ble operations nor order amongest men, by vvhich especially a societie of men dif­fereth from a heard of beastes. And bicau­se the olde and ancient sages knevv vvell hovv much it imported to haue lavves in a common vvelthe, they deuised meanes to moue the people to a great and highe cōceite of lavves, that they might the mo­re vvillingly embrace them, and more di­ligently put them in execution. Zoroastes vvho prescribed lavves to the Bactrianes and Persians, made Oromasis the autour [Page 497]of them, Trismegistus vvho gaue lavves to the Aegiptians, sayed that a God ena­cted them, Minos, of vvhō the people of Crete receiued their lavves, tolde them that Iupiter vvas the inuentour of them, Charondas, to bring the Carthaginians to a reuerent conceit of his lavves, auou­ched that hee vvas taught them by Satur­nus, Licurgus vvho ruled the Lacedemo­nians fathered his lavves vvher vvith hee ruled them vppon Appollo, Solon vvho deuised lavves for the Athenians affirmed that they proceeded from Mineruas bray­ne, Plato vvho set dovvne lavves for the Sicilians and Magnesians protested that Iupiter and Appollo had inspired him. Moyses vvho promulgated the lavv vnto the Ievves told them that God vvas the autour of them, as in deed hee vvas, and shevved them a table in vvhich an An­gells hand had vvritten them. And christe Iesus the authour of the nevve lavve pro­tested that he vvas sent by his father, and that the lavve and doctrine vvhich hee prea­ching vvas not his, but his fathers vvhoe sent him. And truly good reason had they to imprinte in their subiectes myndes a reue­rent conceite of lavves, bicause nothing is more soueraine, nothing more neces­sarie in a common vvelth, then lavve. Lavves are certaine conclusions of the [Page 498]ae [...]ernall lavve of God and nature, they are like sinnevves vvhich bynde & knit­te the subiectes together, they are the life and soule of this ciuil body, they are rules & squares of humaine actions, they are bridles and curbes of humaine appe­tites, they are dumme Magistrates, vv ^ch looke to good orders, they teach the subiectes their dutie, keepe them in avve and order, maintein peace, vphold iustice, reuenge iniuries, defend the innocent, chastice the nocent, praeserue good sub­iectes from receiuing euil, and hinder the bad from offering euil; vvithout the vv ^ch noe discipline can be kepte, no good or­der obserued, noe peace established, no iustice mainteined. Novve let vs see vvhat esteeme the reformers make of la­vves and vvhat good counsaile their do­ctrine affordeth vs, to excite and stirre vs vp to the obseruation of lavves. l. 4 Inst [...] §. 5. Caluin pronounceth thus: the lavves of men vvhe­ther they be made by the Magistrate, or by the Church, although they be necessary to be kepte, yet therfore doe they not by them selues bynde in conscience. §. 2 [...]. And for an example he affir­meth, that the Apostles nether did nor could make any lavve in their first Councel, Act. 15. but only promulga [...]ed the libertie that Christe had giuen: and added, not as a lavve that bynds but as an admonition, §. 27. that of charitie to their vveake bre­thren [Page 499]they should absteyne from thinges offered to Idols, from strangled and from blood. And after vvards againe hee repeateth that al­though it be necessary for gouernment to haue la­vves humain and Ecclesiasticall in the Church, §. [...]. yet they must not be thought to bynde vs in con­science. So that Caluin is of opinion that althoughe the lavves of the Church, and of Princes, and magistrates, ought to be kept for order sake, or for feare of offence and scandale, yet they binde vs not in cō ­science. And hee giues the reason: l. 5. c. [...]. [...]. 10. bicause (sayeth he) If vve once graunte that men can bynde our consciences by their vvill and lavv, Christe loseth the thāke of his so great liberalitie, (to vvit in redeeming vs from the bon­dage of the lavve) and our consciences their profit: The same is Luthers opinion as is related before in the first Chapter of this booke. I vvill not stand novve to refute this paradox, partely bicause I haue pro­ued all ready in the place last mentioned, that vve are bound in conscience to obey all lavvfull superiours, and consequently that their lavves do bynde our cōsciences partelye bicause the absurde sequele of this doctrine vvhich by and by shall ap­peare, sufficiently confuteth it: nether vvill I repeate vvhich I haue allready de­clared, to vvit that obligation of lavves is nothing repugnant to Christian libertie, [Page 500]bicause vvee are not therfore sayed to bee freed from the yoke of the lavve bicause the lavve bindeth vs not, but bicause vvee haue receiued grace from Christe to full­fill the lavve and so it can no more tyran­nize ouer vs in commaunding more then vvee are able to performe: I vvill therfore dravve to vvards my conclusion vvhich is that the alleaged doctrine of Caluin bringeth all lavves in contempte and loo­seth the bridle to all malefactours. And first of all I must tell Ihon Caluin that in denying lavves to bynde in conscience hee taketh a vvay all lavves, bicause it is the essence of a lavv to be able to bynde the subiecte, and in this only it differeth from counsale exhortation and admoni­tion. Secondly Caluin by this doctrine abrogateth all promises and contractes euen of matrimonie vvhich are particu­ler lavves. And therfore if to saye that lavves bynde in conscience bee to des­poile Christe of the honour of a redee­mer, and man of Christian libertie, then is it also iniurious to Christe and mans li­bertie, to be bound in conscience to kee­pe promises, and to obserue contractes, euen vvith vviues. Thirdly the commaū ­dement also of parentes and maisters are particuler lavves, and consequently vvee are not bound in conscience to obey our [Page 501]masters, or parētos, and so one of the ten­ne commaundementes must bee blotted out, bicause if vvee bee not bound to o­beye our parentes, vvhich is one of the cheefeste honours vvhich vve can giue them, vvee are not bound to honour our parentes. Yea by this doctrine it follo­vveth that the tenne commaundementes bynde vs not in conscience: vvhich thou­ghe our aduersaries vvill not sticke to graunte, as vvee shall see in the nexte booke, yet vvhoe seethe not vvith vvhat absurditie? Lastly at the least, vvhich yet is not the least absurditie, this doctrine bringeth all lavves in contempte: for as the vvilde and vnbroken colte litle ca­reth if you should tye him vvith heares or threedes, bicause hee knovveth that suche bādes are not of force to hold him, so vvhen men are once persuaded that la­vves of Princes bynde them not in con­science, they vvill make litle scrouple to trāsgresse them, and so lavves are brought into contempte. And although feare of the penaltie or punishement vvhich the lavv layeth on them, may make them so­metymes to keepe them for feare of pu­nishement, Yet vvhen they can escape the ministers of iustice eyes, or handes, or auoid by subtile shifte or open force the payne of the lavve, they vvill make noe [Page 502]scruple of transgressing the lavve; for vvhy should they make conscience of that vvhich toucheth not conscience. But Caluin vvill saye that they ought not▪ vvithstanding to keepe lavves for order sake and for auoiding of offence. But thē I aske Caluin vvhat hee meaneth vvhen he sayeth that they ought to keepe the lavve? ether hee meaneth by those vvor­des an obligation in conscience vnder payne of sinne, and then it follovveth (vvhich Caluin vvill not graunte) that la­vves bynde in conscience: or else he mea­neth only a congruitie or decencie, and then it follovveth still that lavves are brought in contempte. For if once a man bee persuaded that it is only conuenient but not necessarie to keepe the lavve, hee needeth to make no scruple to transgres­se the lavve, bicause the transgression is no sinne but only an incongruitie. And so if this doctrine bee true men vvill not care a stravve for the Princes lavves. Re­belliouse subiectes, mutinous souldiours, stubborne children, crooked seruauntes, may bee disobediente by authoritie, bi­cause no lavve, nor commaundement can bynde them in conscience to loyall obe­dience. And then lavves lose their force, authoritie is not to bee esteemed, rebel­lion and mutini [...] are allovved, the gappe [Page 503]is open to all malefactours, all outrages are lavvfull, bicause vvhere noe lavve bin­deth, noe sinne can bee committed, noe man is subiecte, euery man is lavvlesse & as free as the kinge, subiecte to noe lavve nor authoritie of God or man. Vvhat se­curitie hath a Prince amongest such lavv­less subiects? hovv can he chuse but fea­re reuolte and rebellion of those, vvho are persuaded by religion, that noe lavve can bynde them in conscience to order and obedience? Is this religion like to bee of God vvhich is so opposit to humaine au­thoritie vvhich is of God; yea vvhich also despoileth God of all authoritie to com­maund his creatures? If our noble Prince and graue Counsaylours in Ingland con­sidered vvel this doctrine, then certes the first Parlament they called, should be to banishe this lavvless and licentiouse reli­gion, vvhich bringeth lavves in contēpte, Princes in daunger, and openeth the gapp to all outrages of malefactours.

MAn, as I haue already vppon ano­ther occasion declared, is of nature [Page 504]bente and enclined vnto companye and conuersation in some Societie or other; vvhere if he be a Superiour he ruleth, if he bee an inferiour he is ruled and learneth to cōply vvith his fellovve subiects. And of these three parts consisteth ciuil con­uersation. For if the Prince rule not as he should doe, or the inferiour obey not his superiour or comply not vvith his fellovv subiecte as he ought to doe, gouernment degenerateth into tyrannie, obedience, turneth to rebellion, and conuersation to ciuill dissension. These three partes are mainteined by one thinge, vvhich is tru­ste or cōfidence in one another. for seing that the Prince can not do all alone bicau­se he must expecte aide and assistaunce of his subiects, hee shall neuer rule vvell vnlesse hee maye rely vppon the fidelitie and correspondence of his subiects. And if the subiect put not a confidence in his Superiour as in one that tendreth the cō ­mon good of all, and particuler of euery one, he vvill neuer obey vvillīgly nor rely on him securely, but shall euer liue in fea­re & distrust of him. And if one subiecte trust not another, euerie one shall liue in suspicion of another, and so mens vvords vvilbe taken but for vvinde, promises cō ­tractes, and bargaines vvill not hold assu­redly, frendship breaketh, familiaritie de­caieth, [Page 505]and conuersation is ruined. For vvho vvill make bargaines, or strike a league of frendship, or familiaritie, vvith thē, on vvhose secrecie, fidelitie, & other correspondence he hath not any proba­ble assuraunce, bicause he putteth no trust nor confidence in them; rather hathe he cause to fly all company and like a [...], and hater of men, to liue in vvoods & vvilderness, then in tovvnes, cities, and societies. Novv if the reformers doctrine, vvhich teacheth that lavves bynde not in conscience, may goe for currāt, the three partes of ciuil conuersation are taken a­vvay, & so Societies must breake vp, and euerie one must liue alone like an Ana­chorite or Heremite, bicause in company is noe securitie, vvhere according to this doctrine, nether the Prince can rely on his subiects, nor they on him, nor one subiect on another. And to begin vvith the Prin­ce vvhat confidence can he put in his sub­iects vvho are persuaded in religion, that nether his lavves can bynde them to obe­dience, nor the lavve of God or nature hinder them from rebellion, mutinie, or other outrages? hath he not iuste cause thus to discourse vvvith him selfe? This people is persuaded by religion that no lavv byndeth them in conscience, & con­sequently they make no scrouple nor cō ­science [Page 506]of Rebellion, for vvhere noe lavv byndeth in cōscience, there no consciēce is to be made: I must therfore stāde conti­nually on my garde & rely vppō no subiets fidelitie. And how shall I stāde on my gar­de, vvhē euen my garde according to Cal­uins opinion, is bound by no lavve, to be true and faithfull vnto mee. And so he shall liue alvvayes in feare of his subiects. And on the otherside, vvhat confidence can the subiects haue in their Prince? For if noe lavv bynde him in cōscience, he ha­uing all in his ovvne hands, may vse vvhat extorsion and tyrannie hee pleaseth. For vvhat should vvithold him from it? feare of god? God can not iustly punish vvhere noe lavves bynde in conscience, and so he is not be feared? conscience? Vvher no la­vve byndes, conscience needes to make noe scruple. Vvhy then is not all lavvfull for y ^e Prince vvhich he liketh? And so the subiecte shall euer haue his Superiour in suspicion. And vvhat good fellovvship, amitie, or conuersation can ther bee amō ­gest the subiectes, vvho must needs by this doctrine liue in a continuall feare and di­struste of one another, bicause no man is bound to keep touche and correspon­dence vvith another? For if lavves bynd not, promises and contractes, not only in lending and borrovving, buying and sel­ling, [Page 507]but also in marying, are not of force to bynd our consciences, bicause they are but particuler lavves: or if they are more forcible in bynding then lavves, then ac­cording to Caluin, Christe is noe perfecte Redeemer, bicause he hath not freed vs from the bondage of promises, and bar­gaines, vvhich not vvith standing are noe lavves of Princes, but particuler lavves of particuler men, made betvvixte man and man for more assured conuersation. And so the vvife may iustly fear least her hus­band vvhen hee is vveary of her, or liketh better of another, may shake her of & di­uorse him selfe from her. For vvhy maye hee not? If lavves of Princes bynde not in conscience, then the contracte of matri­monie, vvhich is but a particuler lavv, can take noe hold of cōscience, and so by the libertie vvhich Caluin giueth him, vvhich is to be free in cōscience frō all lavves, hee may leaue his vvife vvhen, and as ofte as hee vvill, and as often may hee take ano­ther. And if his vvife complaine that hee keepeth not promise vvith her; he may ansvver her easilie, that if he bee not bo­unde in conscience to keepe Gods la­vve, hee is not bounde to keepe the lavve of matrimonie, vvhich is but a particuler lavve. And if shee replve that god also commaundeth vs to keepe this particuler [Page 508]lavve and contracte, hee may tell her that hee confesseth it to bee true, but Caluin hathe assured him that Christe hathe freed him in conscience from all obligation of all lavves, vvhether they bee humaine or diuine, and soe hee is not bound to kee­pe the lavve of matrimonie, and therfore chalenging his libertie, he may leaue his vvife as lavvfully, and as freely, as if he had neuer made her promise, bicause noe lavve, much more noe promise, is able to bynde in conscience. In like manner let merchauntes vvho vse to lend mony or to sell of truste and credit, looke better about them, thē hether to they haue doo­ne. For if noe lavves binde in conscience, then contractes also bynde not, and so their debters may chalenge the libertie vvhich Caluin hathe giuen them, vvhich is not to bee bound in conscience to pay them a penye. Vvee must henceforthe al­so take heed not only of knovven thee­ues and murderers, but of them also that go for honest men, yea euen of our nec­rest and dearest freinds, for vvhat should vvith-hold them from doing vs a mis­cheefe, if noe lavv nether of God, nor man, nor nature, bynd them in conscien­ce? And so the parētes may distruste their children, and the children their parentes, bicause according to Caluins opinion, the [Page 509]one is not bound to the other nether by the lavve of God nor nature. The hus­band must liue allvvayes in iealousie of his vvife, and shee of him, bicause the la­vve of matrimonie according to this o­pinion, bynds not one partie in conscien­ce, to keepe touch vvith the other. And so by this doctrine noe man in any thing can truste on rely or another, but all must liue in feare iealousie and suspicion of others, and so they must forsake socie­ties and flye to mountaines, and truste ra­ther to beasts vvhome nature vvithhol­deth from iniuries, then vnto men vvho­me according to Caluins doctrine, noe lavve and consequently noe conscience stayeth or vvith holdeth from Mischeef. By this let the reader take a scantling of this doctrine, and tell me vvhether it be like to be of God vvhich is so opposit to all societie vvhich his of God.

TVVOE thinges ther are vv ^ch as firme and constaunte pillers do vphold and susteine all cō ­mon vvelthes from falling, and praeserue vvell ordered societies frō dissoluing; to vvit, hope of revvard, and feare of punishment. Hope like a spurre pricketh forvvard, feare like a bridle re­straineth, hope eggeth onvvard vnto ver­tue, feare pulleth backe from vice, hope incites vs to obserue the lavv, feare ma­kes vs feare to trāsgresse the lavve. Vvher­fore Solon the graue lavv-giuer, vvas vvont to saye, that payne and revvard are the things, vvhich keepe all Societies in [Page 511]avve. And vvell in deed might he saye, so, for take avvay hope of revvard, and men vvilbe slouthfull and sluggish in the excercise of vertue, and laudable actions, and take avvay feare of punishment, & the euil disposed vvilbe as for vvard in at­tempting of theftes, murders, treasons, treacheries, and vvhatsoeuer villanies. These tvvoe things so necessarie in a cō ­mon vvelth, Christe vvould not haue to bee vvanting in his Church, vvhich is the best ordered common vvealth that euer vvas on earth, and therfore he proposeth vnto vs a heauen to hope for, and an hell to feare; the one to stirre vs vp to all ver­tuous actiōs, the other to deterre vs from all vvicked attempts. For although vertue (as the Philosopher sayeth) be so amiable and so beseeming mās reasonable nature, that if ther vvere noe heauē nor noe other revvard of vertue, but vertue, yet vvee should imbrace it for it selfe, and liue chastly for the loue of chastitie, iustly for the loue of iustice, and temperately for the loue of temperancie; and although vice be a thing so detestable, filthie, Th. 1.2. [...]. [...] art. 2. abo­minable, and repugnant to the reasona­ble parte of man, that if ther vver noe hell nor punishment for it, yet vve should de­test it for it selfe, and fly it for the disho­nestie vvhich it implyeth: yet on the one [Page 512]side, bicause vertue is repugnaunte to sen­sualitie and placed amidde many difficul­ties, like a rose amongest thornes, man vvould neuer longe liue vertuously, if there vvere no other revvard for ver­tuous actions, then vertues honestie; and on the other side vice is so pleasing to sensualitie, and so sutable to our corrupt nature, that if ther vvere no other punish­ment to deterre men from it then the dishonestie, vvhich is ioyned vvith it, fevv or none vvould flye and eschevve it. Vvherfore God hathe proposed a hea­uen to allure vs to vertue, and a helle to deterre and scarre vs from vice: Mat. 2 [...]. Come (sayeth Christe to the good, vvhose revvard is heauen) yee blessed of my fa­ther enioye the Kingdome praepared for you from the beginning of the vvorld. Ibidem. And in terrible vvords he thundreth out the sentence against the reprobate vvhose punishement is the fier of hell: departe from me yee accursed into euerlasting fier vvhich is praepared for the deuil and his angells. And that this heauen and the hope of it may the more forcibly moue to good life and ob­seruation of the commaundementes, the holy Scripture settes it forth vvith all the gloriouse titles in the vvorld, and euen vvith the names of those things vvhich men moste desire: If you desire life, hea­uen [Page 513]is called aeternall life. Io. 6 & 1 [...]. Apoc 4. Sap [...]. Apoc. 22. If you couet re­ste, heauen is a repose after labour. If light be gratefull, heauen is a perpetual light shining in the faces of the Saincts. Luc. 12. If ma­riadge like you, Psal. 25. heauen is a perpetual ma­riadge. If pleasure please you, heauen is a riuer of pleasure. If banquetting be thy desire, heauen is a Supper and a great sup­per, Liic. 14. vvhere vvith Angells vvee shall by fruition and clear vision satiate our selues in feeding vppon the diuinitie: If home be gratefull vnto the, heauen is thy coun­trie, Psal. 13 [...]. frō vvhēce accordīg to thy soule thou fetchest thy race & origin, and vvhether thou trauelest so longe as in this vvorld thou liuest, vv ^ch is but a vvaye or Inne, noe home nor māsiō place. If a Paradise vhose name importeth a place of all honest plea­sure & felicitie delighteth, heauē is called so, Lu [...]. 2 [...]. & vvas by christ him selfe promised to y ^e good theef by no other name. Breefly if thou desire a revvard of all thy paines and trauells, Mat. 2 [...]. heauen is the common vvage of all Gods seruauntes, a gole to runne at, 1. Cor. 9. & a crovvne to fight for. In like manner to make vs to refrain from sinne for feare of hell, Vide Bel. [...] l. 4. de Chri­sto. c. 10. & Auihorem Resolut. An­gl. l. 1. p. 1. holy Scripture giues hell very terri­ble names, and paints it forthe in terrible formes. It is called in Greeke and Latin by names vvhich signifie a lovve & deepe place vnder the ground, in Hebrevve by [Page 514]a name vvhich signifieth a great goulfe. The Prophet Malachie calles it a fornace, c. 11 14. for the kindling of vvhich the vvicked must be the stravv and fevvel. Apoc. 14.21. S. Ihon cal­les it the lake of Gods ire, bicause y ^e anger of God is as it vvere all gathered to that place, and there especially is manifested in those exceeding torments, yea he termes it also a standing poole replenished vvith fier and Brimston. Christe him selfe giues it the name of outvvard Darkeness vvhere shalbe vveeping and gnashing of teath. Mat. 22. Iob saieth that in that place is noe order but sem­piternall horrour. [...] And vvhy dothe scrip­ture so liuely set forthe these tvvo things, heauen and hell, but bicause God the au­tour of scripture, vvould haue vs hope for the one and feare the other, knovving that nothinge beareth greater svvay in y ^e rule and good discipline of a cōmon vvel­the, then hope of revvard and feare of punishement. For if the hope of tempo­rall honours, fame, & ritches giueth such courage to the harts of men, that they vvill ronne thoroughe fier and vvater for the attaining of the same; hovve shall the hope of heauē and the immortall crovv­nes vvhich there are layed vp for vs in store, incite vs and egge vs for vvard vn­to all laudable actions. If Mutius could haue the courage to holde his hande in [Page 515]the fier for hope of temporall renovvne and glorie for such fortitude: vvhat fiers and vvaters, heat and cold, shall not a Christian armed vvith hope of heauen, bee able to endure couragiously? Shall the souldiour ronne thoroughe the pi­kes and passe by the cannon mouthe, for hope of a spoile or victorie, and shall not Christians deuoure all difficulties for ho­pe of heauen? And looke hovv much hope eggeth for vvard to laudable actiōs, soe much and no less dothe feare restray­ne vs from euil, and is no lesse necessarie to bridle the licentiouse, then hope to a­nimate the vertuouse. Vvherefore the ancients so esteemed feare that the citie of Spartha made it a God and dedicated a Temple vnto it, as to the preseruer of their common vvelthe. But bicause there are diuers kindes of feare it shalbe ne­cessarie to distinguish them, that vvee may see vvhich is that feare vvhich is so commendable. First therfore there is a vvordly and humain feare, vvhich is con­ceued for some temporall euil, or humai­ne respecte. and this sometymes is good and sometimes also bad. As for example, if for feare of the princes displeasure or torment, or deathe vvhich hee threatene­the vvee offende God in transgressing his lavv, or doing against our conscience, [Page 516]this feare is euil and no lesse euil then the sinne of vvhich it is the cause. Mat. 2 [...]. c. [...]0. This feare made sainct Peter to deny his master: vvhich also our Sauiour forbiddeth say­ing: feare not them vvho kill the body, that is offend not God for feare of them that can only kill the body, but rather feare God vvho can cast bothe body and soule into the fier of hell. But if for feare of the magistrate vvee absteine from sin­ne, this feare is not euil, and therfore S. Paule bidds vs feare the magistrate, Rom. 15. bicau­se (sayethe hee) not vvithout cause he ca­ryeth the svvord, bicause he is the mini­ster of God. Th. 2. [...]. q. 1 [...] The second feare is called a reuerentiall feare vvhich proceedeth from a highe conceite of the diuine ma­iestie, Psal. 12. and remaineth (as Dauid sayeth) and that for euer also, euen in the blessed. For althoughe they be assured that they shall neuer suffer any euil and therfore feare no euil at Gods hands; yet vvhen they behold the soueraigne Maiestie of God, vvho punisheth the damned, and could annihilatethe blessed if hee vvould, they conceue a great reuerence, vvhich is called reuerentiall feare, much like as childrē vvho are assured that their father vvill not touch them, yet conceue a reue­rentiall feare at the very sight of him es­pecially if they see him sharpe and seuere [Page 517]vvith his seruauntes. The third feare is called filial or childrens feare, vvhich ma­keth vs afrayed to sinne, not for feare of punishment, but for feare of offending, and this feare they haue vvhoe thoughe they vvere sure neuer to suffer punish­ment, nether in this life nor the nexte, yet vvould not commit a sinne bicause it is an offence of God: vvhich feare is called fi­lial, bicause good children are afrayed to do any thing vvhich shall offend their parentes, thoughe they vvere sure they should not be punished. Of vvhich feare saint Austin discoursing saieth, in Psal. 113. that other­vvise dothe the adulteresse feare her hus­band, othervvise the chaste Spouse: she feareth least he come and punish, but the other feareth least hee be offended and forsake her. The fourthe is called seruile feare vvhich maketh vs to absteine from sinne for feare of hell and damnation: vvhich is called seruile, bicause it is proper to seruauntes to do their dutie for feare of punishment, and this feare in expresse termes the reformers condemne as I shall relate: the other feares their doctrine dis­allovveth. But least I may seeme to char­ge them vvith more then they say, I vvill make them speake in their ovvne vvor­des their opinion of hope and feare. l. [...] Inst. c. 15. § [...]. And first of Hope Caluin sayeth plainly, that [Page 518]God is not delighted vvith that obedien­ce vvhich the hope of revvard in heauen beateth out of vs: in Antid. sess. 6. Can. [...]. for God sayeth hee, loue­the a chearfull giuer and forbiddeth any thing to be giuen as it vvere of heauinesse or necessitie. So that according to Caluin, it is sinne to giue almes or to fulfill the commaunde­ments for hope of revvard in heauen. But Caluins reason is as bad as his doctrine. For hee proue [...]h it to bee vnlavvfull to bee obedient to God for hope of revvard, bicause that is to giue God his devve vvith heauines: and yet vvee see that ho­pe is so farre frō making vs to do thinges heauilie, and vvith an euil vvill, that it en­courageth vs, and pricketh vs forvvard vvith a vvilling mynde, as is all ready pro­ued & experience maye vvitnesse. And as for feare of hell, [...]. [...]. aepud Roff & ser. 3. p [...]nitent. Luther cōdemnes it euen vnto hell, saying that it maketh a man an hypocrite and a greater sinner. And as cō ­cerning the other kindes of feare, their doctrine in a manner abolisheth them all. They affirme as is before mentioned that noe lavves bynde in conscience: vvhence follovve these conclusions. First that ne­ther Princes nor Iudges haue authoritie to condemne vs to any paine, as is before proued, bicause vvhere noe lavve byndes noe prince can iustly punishe the trans­gression. And so humaine feare is taken [Page 519]avvay. Secondly this doctrine abolisheth all filial feare: for vvher no lavve byndes in conscience, noe sinne can be commit­ted, and so vvee need not to feare theftes and murders for feare of offending God, bicause vvhere noe sinne is, no offence is to be feared. Reuerentiall feare also they abandone, bicause as is before proued, in denying lavves to bynde they take avvay all authoritie euen from God, and vvhere noe authoritie is, no reuerence is devve. As for seruile feare, they condemne it in expresse termes. And Luthers vvordes vvee haue harde allready: let vs heare also Caluin speake. l. 3. Inct. c. 24 § 6.7.8. Hee affirmethe that a sin­ner can not bee iuste, vnlesse hee beleeue assuredly that hee is elect, praedestinate and vndoubtedly to be saued: vvhence follovveth that noe man must feare hell, yea that noe man can feare hell, and re­taine his faithe. For if hee bee by faithe cocke-sure of Saluation, hee can not fea­re hell and damnation, bicause hee is as assured of escaping hell as of attaining heauen, and noe man can feare that euil vvhich hee is assured to escape. As for ex­ample noe man feareth least the heauens falle vppon him. Or if Caluin feare hell, hee looseth his faithe, bicause hee is not assured to escape hell and to attaine to heauen. And bicause Caluin savve vvell [Page 520]enoughe that feare of hell is taken avvay by this his doctrine: § 2. hee checketh sainct Gregorie the great, saying that he teacheth pestilently vvhen hee sayeth in a certain homelie; that vve knovve only our calling but are vncertain of our election: Hom. 38. in Mat. euang. vvherby (sayeth Caluin) he moueth all men to feare and trembling; bicause vve knovve vvhat vve bee to day, but vvhat vve shalbe vve knovve not. Luther also as hee holdes the same opinion of assurednes of saluation, so he biddes vs to take heed least vvee feare hell or iudgemēt, bicause that vvere to loose our faithe. These are his vvords: Vvherfore if thou be a sinner as verily vve all are, in to. 2. Col. [...]d Gal. do not propose vnto thy selfe Christe as a lud­ge in a rayn-bovve, for then thou vvilte be a frayed and dispaire, but apprehend the definition of Christe, that hee is noe exactour of the lavve, but a propitiaiour. So that Luther thinkes that Christe vvill exacte noe lavve at the handes of a faithfull man and therfore he needeth not to feare hell, in vvhich trans­gressours of the lavve are punished. Vvherfore as they take avvay all hope of revvard, so they take avvay all feare and especially the feare of hell, vvhich is the greatest bridle that is, to restraine men from sinne. But first I vvill aske thē vvhy scripture setteth forthe heauen and hell vvith suches names and titles if it bee a sin­ne [Page 521]to hope for the one, or to feare the other? Truly if it bee sinne, thē hathe God in setting forthe heauen and hell so liuely, layed baytes to catche vs, and to allure vs to sinne. And vvhy then dothe scripture in so many places commaund vs to hope and to feare? And hovve are those tvvoe thinges vnlavvfull, vvhich are so necessa­rie in all common vvelthes? Vvhy maye the plovvghman trauell all the daye in hope of his vvage, the husbandman sovve his seed in hope of a haruest, the souldi­our follovve the vvarres in hope of a spoi­le, and yet a Christian man maye not full­fill the commaundementes in hope of a revvard in heauen? For if it bee lavvfull to hope for heauen, vvhy it is not lavvfull also to giue almes in hope of heauen, as Dauid inclined his harte to keepe the lavve for revvard and retributiō? Psal 118. They ansvver that vve must serue God purely for his loue & glorie, but not for revvard. True, that must bee the principall ende, but yet thē ­ce it follovveth not, but that vvee may also serue for revvard, as for a secondarie ende and motiue. But say they, he that serueth for revvard, vvould not serue god if revvard vvere not, vvhich argueth an euil mynde. I ansvvere that allmen are not so affectcted. And if hope of heauen bee of that force as to moue thē to keepe the [Page 522]lavve, vvhy may it not also bee sufficient to moue them to lay aside that euill affe­ction, vvhich is also against the lavve? In like manner if I may lavvfully feare dea­the and other euilles of the body, vvhy may I not feare hell vvhich is the greatest punishement that is bothe of soule and body? and if I may fearre hell vvhy maye I not absteine from sinne or fullfill the la­vve, for fearre of hell? They saye, the rea­son is, bicause he that fullfilleth the lavve for feare of hell, vvould sinne vvith all his harte if hell vvere not. bee it so: yet this ar­guethe feare to bee good rather then euil, bicause it is a cause vvhy vvee absteine at least from the out vvard acte of sinne, and if the mynde bee euill disposed, that pro­ceedeth not from the fear of hell, but frō an euill disposition. Yea if feare of hell bee sufficient to keep vs from the acte of sinne, it is sufficient also to restraine vs from the euill desire of the mynde, bicau­se against that also hell is prepared. And in this is a plaine differēce betvvixte feare of hell and temporall punishments: bi­cause Princes by tēporall paines punishe only the outvvarde acte, of vvhich only they can iudge; and therfore the theefe may absteine from thefte for feare of han­ging, and yet haue an invvarde desire to steale: but God punisheth in hell not only [Page 523]the outvvard acte, but also the invvard affection and desire of sinne, and therfo­re, if feare of hell keep a man from thefte, it vvill restraine him also from the desire. And consequently feare of hell can not bee ill, but rather good, vvhich is no cau­se of ill, but rather a cause vvhy vvee ab­steine from euill. and althoughe some per­aduenture yea and vvithout peraduentu­re vvould sinne and neglegcte the com­maundemētes if hope of heauen and fear of hell vvere not, yet that is noe argu­ment that ther in they sinne, if they haue noe presentil affectiō or consent to sinne; For so many vvould sinne if they should liue longer, or if they had this or that oc­casion, or if God gaue them not this and that grace, and yet, that they vvould sin­ne, is noe sinne, if they haue noe present affection or desire to sinne. Yea this is an argument that hope of heauen and feare of hell are verye laudable and good, bi­cause they are bridles to restraine men from sinning. Vvherfore to dravve neare a conclusion, vvhich is that our Refor­mers in taking avvay hope of heauen and feare of hell, open the gappe to all vice: I reporte mee vnto the indifferente reader hovve the Churche is like to flourishe in vertue vvithout hope of heauen, and fea­re of hell, seing that as is proued, noe com­mon [Page 524]vvelthe can enioy temporall and ci­uil peace and discipline vvithout them. Takeavvay hope of heauen, and take avvaye prayer, almes deeds, erecting of Churches, founding of Colleges and ho­spitalles; then fasting and penaunce, vvor­kes of iustice, mercy and charitie, vvill decay; in breefe men vvill bee negligent and slouthfull in all exercise of vertue and obseruation of the lavve. For vvho vvill ronne that sees no gole? vvho vvill fight that hopes for no victorie? vvho vvill vvorke that lookes for noe revvard. I knovv that the very loue of God, yea of vertue should moue vs to good, but yet so dull vve are, and so backvvard, that these motiues litle moue vs, and so natu­rall vnto vs, it is to be moued vvith hope of revvard, that if men hoped not for heauen, fevv vvould striue to ouer come their passions, and the difficultie in exer­cise of vertue, and obseruation of the commaundementes. Like vvise if feare bee the keeper, praeseruer, and conseruer of all common vvelthes, hovve shall vve imagin that the Church of God can stan­de vvithout it? I graunte that sinne is so fovvle a thinge that euen for the hatred of sinne, vvee should abandone sinne, but seing that sinne is so aggreable to our cor­rupt nature, and neuer appeareth in the [Page 525]ovvne likenes, but is allvvayes masked and disguised vvith a shevv of commo­ditie, pleasure or profit; fevve ther are vvho vvould absteine from sinne for the turpitude therof & dishonestie vvhich it implyethe. For vvhat should restraine a man from sinne? shame of the vvorld? I suppose he hathe a secret place. Feare of temporall punishment, I suppose the fault bee vnknovven? Feare of God? Vvho vvill feare God that feares not the hell, vvhich hee hathe prepared? Vvher­fore if notvvithstanding the hope of hea­uen and feare of hell (vvhich for all Cal­uins heresie possesseth the hartes of moste men) yet so fevv liue vprightly and so many go avvrye, vvhat vvould they do, if hope of heauen, and fear of hell vvere quite rooted out of their myndes? Truly the narrovv path of vertue vvould bee ouergrovvne vvith vveeds, for vvante of treading, and the broad vvay of vice vvould become so smothe, that none vvould imbrace vertue, all vvould tumble headlonge into the depthe of vice, and pleasure: and so the vvay to vertue vvould bee hedged vp, and the gate and vvay to vice vvould allvvayes lie open, heauen vvould be a place inaccessible, and hell our common home.

SAtan the common enemy of man­kind, knovving hovve easily he might entise and allure vs to sinne (to vvhich thing his malliciouse mynde is allvvayes bente and enclined) if hee could persvva­de the vvorld, that only faithe sufficeth for mans iustification, hathe longe since gone about to beate this doctrine into our heades, & to bevvitch our vnderstā ­dings vvith it. And bicause hee knovveth that vvhen he speaketh in is ovvne per­son and likenes he findeth litle audience he hathe gone about and that euen in the Apostles tyme, by certaine of his mini­sters vvhoe vvent vnder the name of Christians, to intrude vppon vs this his pestilent doctrine. 2. Pet. 3. For they not vnder­standing (as saint Peter sayeth) vvhat saint Paule sayed, vvould make him speake as fooles make belles to sound, to vvit as they imagined, and so auouched that on­ly faithe vvas sufficient to iustificatiō and saluation, and that saint Paule so vvarran­ted vs. l. de fide & [...]peribus. Vvherfore saint Austine affirmeth that sainct Peter, sainct Ihon; and sainct Iames, and sainct Iude also, vvrote their Epistles to refell & refute this heresie, and [Page 527]to expound sainct Paules meaning. After these companions, Simon Magus imbra­ced the same opinion, and after him Eu­nomius, vvho bragged that the faithe vvhich they preached vvas sufficient to saue their follovvers, vvhat sinnes soeuer they committed. This damnable heresie longe since dead in the myndes of men, and buried also in hell, Luther not by mi­racle but meare madnes, hath called to li­fe againe: ar. 10.1 [...]. l de Christiana libertate. com. in c. 2. Gal. vvho in diuers places affirmeth that only faith iustifieth, before, & vvith­out charitie and good vvorkes. And bi­cause he savv that in thus saying, he see­med to open the gappe to all vvickednes, he addeth another heresie, to vvit, that true faithe and good vvorkes can not be seuered, & therfore (sayeth hee) although only faithe iustifie, yet that argueth not that good vvorkes are not necessary, bi­cause a true faith allvvayes bringeth vvith it good vvorkes. l. 3. c. 14. §. 1 [...]. c. 1 [...]. §. 8. Caluin ioyneth vvith Luther in this opinion, affirming that fai­the only iustifieth, and that good vvorkes are only signes and effectes of this faithe. Yea Luther & hee bothe, auouch as shal­be aftervvards declared, that good vvor­kes are so farre from iustifying, that they are all mortall sinnes, and by faythe only obteyne this fauour of God, as not to bee reputed nor imputed to the faithfull mā. [Page 528]And this faithe (saith Caluin) iustifieth not as a vvorke of ours, bicause vvhatso­euer proceedeth from our corrupt nature he counteth sinne, but as it is an instrumēt by vvhich vvee apprehend Christes iusti­ce, and so applye it to our selues, & make it so our ovvne, that noe since is imputed vnto vs. §. [...]. These are his vvords: The povver of iustifying, vvhich faith hath, consisteth not in the vvorthines of the vvorke: our iustification standeth vppon the only mercie of God, and the deseruing or merit of Christe, vvhich iustification vvhen faith taketh hold on, it is sayed to iustifie. So that faith also according to Caluin, is a sinne, bicause it is a kinde of vvorke of ours, yet it iustifieth, bicause it apprehen­deth Christes iustice, and so by a sinne as by an instrument vvhich apprehendeth Christes iustice, vvee are made or rather reputed iuste. But before I come to infer­re my intended cōclusion out of this do­ctrine, I vvilbee so bold as to aske them, vvhere they read in Scripture that only faithe iustifieth? Rom. [...]. Saint Paule (saye they) af­firmeth that a man is iustified by faithe; True, but he sayeth not by only faithe, nether dothe any place of Scripture auouch so mnch. Vvherfore Luther seing that this place vvas not plaine enoughe to proue, that only faith iustifieth; in his Germaine translation, he foysted in (only) into the [Page 529]texte, making sainct Paule to say: vvee thinke a man to be iustified by faithe only. And being warned of this his corruptiō of scripture by a certaine freind of his, In Resp ad duos art. ad amicum. Ex Bel to. [...]. l. [...]. de iustif. c. 16. he ans­vvered that that vvas the meaning: vvhe­rin yet hee shevved him selfe a false trans­latour vvhose office is to translate faith­fully as the vvords lye, and not as hee vvould haue them interpreted, for that is the office of an interpretour; and if this be lavvfull for Luther, hereriques haue scope enoughe to make scriptures speake as they vvill imagin that they should speake. But Luther vvill say that sainct Paule sayeth that a man is iustified by fayeth, and not by the vvorkes of the la­vve, vvhich is all one as if hee had sayed, that a man is iustified by faithe only, and not by good vvorkes. But to this I ans­vvere that if sainct Paule had sayed, that a man is iuste by faithe and not by vvor­kes, adding noe more, then Luther had had some argument, but hee sayeth not soe, but only, that a man is iuste by fai­tes and not by the vvorkes of the lavve, excluding only the Iudaicall sacramentes and ceremonies, vvhich he calleth vvor­kes of the lavve. and vvhen in other pla­ces he excludeth vvorkes, he meanethe the selfe same vvorkes, Rom. 4. Gal. 2.3. or else those vvor­kes vvhich proceed not from faithe and [Page 530]grace, suche as vvere the vvorkes of the gentils. Nether is faithe sayed to iustifie, bicause that only iustifieth, but bicause it is the beginning, and ground vvorke of iustification, or bicause it concurreth to iustification, or bicause by that faithe vvhich iustifieth, is vnderstood, not a na­ked faithe, but a faithe ioyned vvith cha­ritie and good vvorkes, such as saint Pau­le speaketh of, vvhen vvriting to the Ga­lathians, hee excludeth the vvorkes of the lavve, Gal. [...]. saying that in Christe Iesu nether Circumcision is of any vvorth, nor the Prepuce, but faythe vvhich vvorketh by charitie. Vvher­fore sainct Paule is so farre from thinking that only fayth iustifieth, that hee auou­cheth that if hee had all the fayth in the vvorld and so great a faithe that hee could moue mountaines, 1. Cor. 33. yet if hee had not charitie hee vvere nothing. And if Luther and Caluin bicau­se scripture sometymes sayeth that fai­the iustifieth, vvill therfore inferre, that faith only iustifieth; then bicause scriptu­re sayeth that by hope vve are saued and that blessed is the man that hopeth in God, Rom. [...]. Psal. 83. I vvill in­ferre that only hope iustifieth; and bicau­se scripture also affirmeth that the man is happie that feareth our lord, Psal 111. I vvill conclude that feare only iustifieth. Or if they vvill ansvvere that hope and feare are sayed to iustifie and to make man happie, bicause [Page 531]they concurre to iustification and happi­nes, the same I vvill say of faithe, to vvit that it is sayed to iustifie, not bicause it only iustifieth, but bicause vvith charitie it concurres to our iustification. For to charitie allso is attributed our iustifica­tion, and more then vnto faith. For as Christe told saincte Marie Magdalen, that her fayeth had saued her, so he sayed that many sinnes vvere forgiuen her bicause she loued much: Lue. [...]. and Scripture attributeth tho­se effects to charitie vvhich are necessa­rilie linked vvith iustification. As for ex­ample, Mat. 22. Rom. 11. Col. [...]. 1. Tim. [...]. charitie is called the fullnes of the lavv, the end of the lavve, the obseruation of the lavv, and the bond or knot of perfection. Charitie also is sayed to make vs children of God, [...]. 10 [...]. Rom. 3.1. Pet. [...]. 1. 10.4. by it the holy ghost is sayed to be diffu­sed in our hartes; charitie is sayed to hide and couer our sinnes, and to make God to dvvell in our hartes. Sainct Ihon pronounceth bol­dly that vvho loueth his brother by charitie is in the light, 1. 10. [...]. and that vvee are translated from the darkenes, that is of sinne, to the light, that is of iustification, bicause vvee loue our bre­therne: Ibidem. c 3. c. 4. yea hee sayeth that vvhoesoeuer loueth not remaineth in deathe. And againe euerie one that loueth is borne of God. By vvhich it is plaine that ether charitie is allvvayes ioy­ned vvith the grace of iustification (as S. Th [...]. 2. q. 210. [...]. 1. & [...]. Thomas sayeth) or that it is all one vvith [Page 532]the sayed grace, S [...]t. 2. d. 26. Our. ibidem. as others saye, and so is the formall cause of iustification; and then faith only concurrethe as a disposi­tion, as hope also and feare doe. At least hēce it follovveth that only faith iustifieth not, bicause hee that hath not Charitie as saint Ihon sayeth remaineth in death, and if a man haue all the fayth in the vvorld (as saint Paule sayeth) vvithout charitie hee is so farre from being iuste that he is nothing and no body. Supra. Novv vvheras they saye that faithe only iustifieth, but not vvithout charitie and good vvorkes, bicause it can not bee vvithout them, it is another absurde heresie. [...]. Cor. [...]. For saint Pau­le vvhen hee sayeth, that if he had all the faythe in the vvorld, and yet haue no cha­ritie, hee is nothing, supposeth that faithe may be separated from charitie. [...]. 2. And S. Iames supposing that it may be vvithout good vvorkes, sayeth that, faithe vvithout good vvorkes is dead, and diuers parables as of the corne, Mat. 1 [...]. ibidem. Mat. 22.25. and cockle in the same bar­ne, of good, and bad fishes in the same nette, of good, and bad gestes at the same supper, yea of the sheep, and goates also, argevve that men maye bee in the Chur­che by faithe, and yet be badde Christians for vvant of charitie and good vvorkes vvhich the good Christians haue. Yea rea­son teacheth that it is one thing to belee­ue [Page 533]and to knovv our dutie by faithe, and another thing to doe our dutie. Yea if there vvere no other argument, then the euil life of Lutheranes and Caluinistes, vvho bragge that they haue true faithe, and yet liue most viciously, it vvould con­uince them that faithe (if there bee any in them) may bee seuered from good vvor­kes, and ioyned vvith euil. But to come to a conclusion, if faith only iustifie then it follovveth that the gappe is opened vnto all vice and villanie. For vvhen they come to the definition of this faithe vvhich on­ly iustifieth, Supra. they say that it is an assuraūce by vvhich vvee are fully persuaded that Christes iustice is ours, by vv ^ch faith, also they saye, Christes iustice is so applyed vnto vs, that it is ours and couerethe our sinnes, and maketh vs appear iuste in the sight of God. Out of vvhich doctrine I deduce this argumente. If faith only iu­stifie then if vvee retaine that faithe, thou­ghe vve commit all the villanies in the vvorlde, they can not hurte vs, bicause so longe as vvee hold that faithe vvee are iu­ste, and so the gappe is opened to all vice. For if a man bee once persuaded, that faithe only iustifiethe, and that this faithe is noe other thinge but an apprehension that Christes iustice is ours, if hee persua­de him selfe that Christes iustice is his (as [Page 534]hee must, bicause Caluin and Luther af­firme that euery man must beleeue so if hee vvilbe a Christian) then needs hee only care to retaine that faithe and ap­prehension. For if that only iustifie, then retaining that, hee is assured that he is still iuste, though hee commit all the sin­nes in the vvorld, and so by this doctrine he hathe good leaue to sinne. And for more confirmation of this argument it must be noted, that Luther and Caluin affirme that Christes iustice is the iu­stice of all men, and that if all men bee not iuste by it, the reason is bicause by faithe they doe not apprehend it, if then the greatest sinner in the vvorld do vppon a sodaine apprehend that Chri­stes iustice is his then is, hee iustified vvithout any other paenaunce from all his former sinnes, and if hee holde faste this apprehension hee need not care for amendement of life, but hee may launce into a Sea of sinne and iniquitie, and neuer feare drovvning, bicause vvhi­lest he apprehendeth Christes iustice to bee his, he is iuste in the sight of God euen then vvhen hee is in the acte of sin­ne, Comment 2. [...] c. 2. Gal. and so as Luther sayeth, he neede not respecte vvhat hee him selfe hathe doone or dothe, but vvhat Christe hathe doone, bicause sayeth Luther, faithe respecteth [Page 535]not vvhat I haue done, vvhat I haue sinned, vvhat I haue deserued, but vvhat Christe hath doone and deserued: vv [...] ^h is to loose the bridle to all vice. Bicause if vvee respecte only vvhat Christe hathe doone, vvee need not care vvhat vvee our selues doe. Wher­fore althoughe Luther some tymes for very shame of the vvorld, affirmeth that good vvorkes are necessarie, and that true faithe can not be vvithout them, yet bicause he seethe that in thus saying hee speaketh vvith noe consequence; some­tymes he graunteth in plaine vvordes the conclusion vvhich I haue inferred, to vvit that if faithe only iustifieth, good vvorkes are not necessarie, and euill vvor­kes are not to be feared: in c. 2. Cal. These are his vvords vvhich shalbe my conclusion: Sola fides Christi necessaria est ad salutem, cetera om­nia liberrima, neque praecepta amplius neque pro­hibita: Only the faith of Christe (to vvit that Christs iustice is ours) is necessarie vnto sal­uation, all other thinges are moste free, nether commaunded, any more, nor prohibited. So that if a man beleeue that Christs iustice is his, he needeth not to care for fulfilling the commaundements, bicause nothing is commaunded, nether need he to feare fornications, adulteries, murders, and such like treacheries, for none of all these villanies are forbidden him. But let the in­different [Page 536]reader be iudge vvether this doctrine be of God or the deuill, vvhich so fauourethe sinne vvhich God forbid­deth and the deuil allovveth, and vvhe­ther that this faithe of theirs be like to be our iustification, vvhich loseth the bridle to all licentiouse liuing.

ALl is not gold that glisters as the cō ­mon prouerb vvill vvitnesse, and all is not true that seemeth true, as the Philo­sopher dothe tell vs, bicause (sayeth hee) many falsities many tymes are more plau­sible and probable, then truthes and veri­ties. And not to goe farre for an exam­ple; to saye vvith Luther and Caluin that by faithe vvee are assured of our Saluatiō, & acertained that Christes iustice is ours, and that consequently vvhat soeuer our ovvn life bee, vve may boldly relye on him as Children on their father crying Abba Pater, bicause by his iustice and not by our ovvn, vve must looke for saluatiō; hathe a goodly shevv and lustre, and see­meth a doctrine moste piouse and plausi­ble, but vvho soe vvel examineth the same [Page 537]shall finde that this is the doctrine especi­ally vvhich lulleth men a sleep in all impi­etie, and like poppie-seed or cold poi­son, casteth them into such a deepe and dead Lethargie, that they heare noe cla­mours, and feele noe remorses of con­science. Martin Luther in a certain booke vvhich he made of the vvorkes of the first commaundement, preferreth faith as the principall vvorship of God, and defineth it to be an assured confidence, and confi­dent assuraunce, by vvhich vve are assured that vve are iuste. And in another place thus he pronounceth: Comment in c. 2. Gal. Crede eum tibi fore sa­lutem & misericordiam, & ita erit sine dubio: [...]eleeue that Christe vvilbe thy saluation and mercie, and so it shalbe vndoubtedly. See vvhat a compendious and neere vvay to heauen Luther hathe found out. If you be clog­ged vvith all the sinnes in the vvorld, be­ [...]eeue that you are iuste (vvhich is easie to doe) and that you shalbe saued, and then vndoubtely, Luthers soule for yours, you shalbe saued; and bicause so longe as you beleeue that you are iuste, you are in deed iuste, you can not bee damned so longe as you can beleeue, hovv ill soeuer you liue in the meā tyme. l. de captiuit. Babil. Vvherfore the same Luther auoucheth that a Christian man is so ritche and on so sure a ground, that hee can not damne him selfe thoughe hee [Page 538]vvould, vnless hee vvill not beleeue; and vvhat must he beleeue? that hee is iuste, or that he shall bee saued. These are his vvordes Tam diues est homo Christianus vt s [...] damnare non poterit quantumuis velit, nisi sola incredulita te. So rithe is a Christian man that he can not damne him selfe thoughe he vvould, but only by incredulitie. And vvhat is the incre­dulitie vvhich only damneth him? Not incredulitie of the Incarnation, Trinitie, Passion, or Resurrection; but of his ovvne Saluation. So that liue he hovv ill soeuer he vvill, and be hee neuer so incredulous in the articles of his beleefe, yet if hee be­leeue that hee shalbe saued, it shalbe soe▪ And beleeue hee the mysteries of our faithe neuer so firmely, liue hee neuer so regularly, yet if hee feare his ovvne Sal­uation hee shalbe damned, bicause only this assured faithe of saluation saueth, and only vvante of this faythe damneth, if Lu­ther may bee beleeued. Caluin in this do­ctrine subscribeth to Luther and shaketh hands very freindly, these are his vvords Vve shall haue a perfecte definition of faither vve saye that it is a stedfaste and assured knovv­ledg of Gods vvill tovvards vs. l. 3. Inst. c. 2. §. 7. And this only assured knovvledge of Saluatiō and gods good vvill tovvards vs, he calleth the i [...] ­stifying faithe: §. 9. for (saieth he) the vngodly may beleeue that ther is a God, and th [...] [Page 539]the Historie of the ghospel or other par­tes of Scripture are true, §. 10. But this is but an image or shadovv of faithe, not vvorthy the na­me of faith; §. 16. but ther is none truly faithfull but he that being persuaded vvith a sound assured­nes that God is his mercifull and louing father, dothe promise him selfe all thinges vppon trust of Gods goodnes. §. 1 [...]. And althoughe (sayeth Cal­uin) vve see Gods good vvill tovvardes vs a far­re of, yet vvith so sure light, that vvee knovve vvee are not deceiued. At lenghte to make the matter yet more sure, he concludeth that vve are not only sure of presente iu­stice and fauoure, but also of future, and so are sure that vvee shall not be damned. These are his vvords. Ibidem. It is against order to limit the assurednes of faith to a moment of tyme, vvhose propertie is to passe beyond the spaces of this life, and to extend farther to immortalitie to come. So that according to Caluin, beleeue you the Trinitie, Incarnation, Passion, deathe and Resurrectiō of Christe neuer so firmely, yet if you beleeue not vndoub­tedly that you are iuste and shall remaine iuste to the end, that God not only for the present tyme fauoureth you, but also vvill fauour you to the end, you can not be saued: and if you beleeue only that you are iuste, and shall remayne iuste & at lengthe shalbe also vndoubtedly sa­ued, Caluins soule for yours, you can not [Page 540]be damned. And hovv can Caluin assure him selfe or vs, that vvee are iuste and shalbe iuste? hathe hee had any speciall reuelation? noe. but sayth hee I ame vvar­ranted out of Scripture that Christes iu­stice is ours, and so if I vvill beleeue vn­doubtedly that it is myne, & vvilbe my­ne, [...]. [...]r. then ame I sure that I ame iuste, and shalbee iuste, and can not fall so longe as I kepe this standing. Against this phantasticall faith of theirs, I might bring many argu­mentes, but that, as in other matters, so in this, I couet to bee shorte. First if this faith of theirs be so necessarie, hovv com­meth it to passe that Christe neuer exacted it of them vvhom he cured? For it is an o­pinion of some fathers and diuines, that vvhom soeuer Christ cured in body, he healed also and iustified in soule. Vvhen he [...] cured the blind men that came vnto him, Mat. 9. hee exacted faithe of them, and as­ked them vvhether they beleeued; vvhat? not vvhether they beleeued that they vvere iuste or elect, but vvhether they be­leeued, that hee could restore thē to sight. If this stedfest faithe and assuredness of our ovvne saluation be so necessarie, hov­ve came the publicane to be a iuste man, vvho vvas so farre from assuring him selfe of Gods fauour, Lu [...]. 1 [...]. and his ovvn iustice, that he durst not looke vp to heauen. And yet [Page 541]he retourned home iuste, and the phari­see vvho gloried like a Thrasonicall Cal­uinist in his ovvne iustice, & assured him selfe that he vvas not a sinner as the Pu­blicane and other men are, vvas condem­ned and reiected. If this vndoubted faith of our ovvne saluation be so necessarie to saluation, surely the Apostles vvere much ouer seen, vvho inculcated so often the faithe of the Incarnation, Resurrection, Act. 1.2.3. [...]. 8.10.13.17. and such other mysteries, vvhich is but an image and shadovve (as Caluin sayeth) of the true faithe, and make no mention of that vvhich is the only iustifying faith, and all in all; neuer exacting of their audi­tours to beleeue that they are iuste and electe, but only to beleeue that Christe is God & man, that hee dyed, that hee rose a­gain, & suche like. Truly ether this faithe is not necessarie, or they vvere very negli­gent & incircumspecte, vvho neuer men­tioned the same, & yet so often inculcate the faithe of the mysteries of our faithe, vvhich is but a shadovve of the true fai­the, and is not sufficiēt to saluation vvith­out Caluins assured faithe. Like vvise vvhen they made a Creed as a breefe ab­ridgement, of all vvhich vvas necessarie to bee beleeued, vvhere vvas their mynde and memorie, vvhoe omitted Caluins ar­ticle of assuredness of our saluation, and [Page 543]election, vvhich is so necessarie to bee be­leeued, that the faithe of other articles is but a shadovve in comparison of this? If Caluin saye that this his article is included in the article of remission of sinnes, hee is much deceiued: bicause in that article vvee only beleeue that in the Churche is remissiō of sinnes, but that Caluins sinnes or any of our sinnes in particuler are for­giuē, is not there expressed. Novv if scrip­tures and the Apostles had only omitted, this assured faithe vvhich Caluin sayeth is so necessarie, it vvere sufficient to make vs not so assured of Caluins doctrine: for if it vvere necessarie, it is not like that the Apostles, vvhose preachings, trauelles, life and death, vvere ordained to the salua­tion of others, vvould haue omitted that vvhich only saueth, and vvithout vvhich noe other faithe or vvorkes can possibly saue vs. But scripture not only omitteth assured faith of our ovvne iustice and sal­uation, but also condemneth it, and ex­hortes vs to feare of our ovvne state and saluation, & therfore assureth vs as much that this faithe of Caluin is false, as Caluin assureth it to bee necessarie. Caluin sayth that by faith vve are assured of Gods good vvill tovvardsvs, Scripture faithe that a man can not tell vvhether hee be vvorthy hatred or loue: Caluin sayetht hat a iuste man is [Page 544]sure that hee is iuste: Iob [...]. Iob sayeth although I be simple, that is iuste, yet this my soule shall not knovve & S. Paule sayeth that although his cōscience accuse him not of any sinne yet in that he is not iustified, to vvit before his ovvne eyes, Psal. 1 [...]. bicause hee knevve he might haue secret sinnes from vvhich Dauid desired to be clensed. Caluin sayeth that a man may besure and consequently secure of the forgiuenes of his sinnes; Eccl. [...]. and yet Scri­pture bidds vs not to be vvithout feare of our sinnes forgiuen. or as the Greeke text ha­the, of the forgiuenes or propitiation of our sin­nes. Caluin saith that a man may bee assu­red not only of present but also of future fauour & iustice; Eccl. [...]. and yet scripture sayeth that a man knovves not vvhat vvilbe, his end, bicause all are reserued as vncertain for the tyme to come. Caluin sayth that a faithfull man must not feare to fall, but ra­ther assure him selfe that he shall keep his ground and standing; Rom. 11. and yet saint Paule speaking to a faithfull man sayeth: thou standest by faithe, thinke not highly but feare, Philipp. 2. and thou that standest (sayeth hee) take heed least thou fall. And againe, hee bidds vs vvorke our saluation vvith feare and trembling. So that ether vvee must leaue Caluin, or renoun­ce scripture, bicause they are cōtrarie, and stāde in plain termes one against another. Nether is this doctrine opposite only to [Page 544]scripture, but also to reason. For first there are many corners in a mans conscience, vvhich vve seeldom or neuer looke into: For as Hieremie sayeth, C. 17. the harte of man is vnsearchable, and lyeth open only to God. hovve then can Caluin by faith be assured that his sinnes are forgiuen, that hee is iuste and elect? or if hee knovv, god only is not the searcher of harts. And if ther be many corners in mans harte, to vvhich the harte it selfe is not priuie, per­aduenture after all our seeking, some sin­ne may lurke in a corner vv ^ch vve knovv not of. Secondly by Caluins ovvn con­fession, vve must beleeue nothing but vvhat vvee finde in scripture, and vvhere fyndes he, that Caluin is iuste, or that his sinnes are forgiuen? If hee finde it not, hee rashly beleeueth it. If hee sayeth that Christe is our redemption and propitia­tion: I ansvvere that so hee is the redem­ption and propitiation of all, and yet pa­ganes and infidels and many of the repre­bate are not iuste, and therfore must not beleeue assuredly that they are iuste or electe, & if they should they should beleeue that vvhich is not so. Christ therfore is our propitiation, bicause hee hathe payed by his passion a sufficient price for our iusti­fication and redemption, but yet if that price by faithe in Christe, together vvith [Page 545]hope, charitie, Sacramentes, and obserua­tion of the lavve (for all these are com­maunded) bee not applyed to vs, vve are neuer a vvhit the better. Thirdly suppose only Caluins faithe by vvhich he beleeues Christs iustice to be his (vvhich not vvith standing is allready refuted) vvere suffici­ent to applie this propitiation; Supra. yet for as much as Caluin sayeth that good vvorkes do necessarily follovve a found faithe, I demaund of him vvhether that he and his haue not iuste cause to doubte, or at le­ast to feare their ovvne iustice, and faithe also, vvhose euill deeds are so many, and so manifeste. Fourthly euery one of them sayeth hee is assured that hee is iuste and shalbe saued, & yet some of them are de­ceiued, bicause some of them haue con­trarie faithes, and some of the same faithe are damned, vvhy then may not Caluin also feare least hee bee deceued, seing that Christs dyed for all, and yet all are not iu­ste nor elect, thoughe they assure then sel­ues of the same. Lastly this doctrine ope­neth the gapp to all manner of vice and vvickednes. For if it bee sufficient to iu­stification to beleeue vndoubtedly that I ame iuste, or that Christes iustice, is mine, then dothe it follovv that as after I haue sinned I may apprehend Christes iustice to bee myne, and my selfe to bee iustified [Page 546]by the same, soe vvhen I ame moued to sinne by the deuil or my ovvne concupis­cence, yea euen then vvhen I ame in the acte of sinne, I may apprehend that thoughe ther is noe goodnesse in me of myne ovvne, yet Christes iustice is myne, of vvhich, if euen in the acte of sinne, I as­sure my selfe, I maye assure my selfe also, that noe sinne can hurte mee, bicause that assuraūce iustifieth mee. And so y ^e forni­catour may thus discourse vvith him selfe. I confess (ô Lord) that there is no good­nes in me, and that this acte to vvhich I ame novv tempted is a sinne, but Christes iustice is myne if I vvill apprehend it so, am I ame iuste if I vvill beleeue so, and from this faithe, I vvill neuer bee dissua­ded, but vvill hold it faste euen in the acte of sinne, and so I need not feare this sinne, bicause if I hold fast by this faithe, noe sinne can hurte mee, bicause by this fai­the I me iustified. And so the vvay is open to all vice and vvickednes, bicause if a man vvill beleeue that he is iuste, and hold faste by this faith, noe sinne can hur­te him, bicause that assuraunce of iustice dothe iustifie him.

THe reformers are of opinion as ano­ne I shall relate in the next chapter, that all our vvorkes are sinnes, in vvhich least they may seeme to contradicte them selues (for they saye also that true faithe can not bee separated from good vvor­kes vvhich seemeth to allovve of all the vvorkes of a faithfull man) they haue found out this vvay to escape a contradi­ction. True, saye they, all the vvorkes euen of faithfull men are sinnes, and yet true it is that faithe can not bee separated from good vvorkes, bicause faithe ma­kes God to impute nothing as sinne, but rather to esteeme of all the actions of a faithfull man as good & laudable. Vvher­fore Luther in a certain sermon vttered these vvords, Vbi fides est, Ser. super Si [...] Deus dilexit nullum peccatum nocere potest: Vvher faith is, noe sinne can hurte. And so (sayeth hee) a Christian man is so ri [...]ch that he can not damne him selfe but only by incredulitie. Sup. l. de capt. l. 3. Inst. c. 14. sect. 17 &c. 1 [...]. sect. 8. Caluin also sayeth plainly that all iust and faithfull mens vvorkes are of them selues sinnes, but are by faith reputed as good. Vvhich doctrine if it be true then needeth not a faithfull man fea­re [Page 548]any sinne be it neuer so great, bicause God vvill neuer impute it vnto him, and consequently it shall neuer be brought to examination at the later day, nor pu­nished in hell, bicause God imputes it not as sinne, and consequently makes no reckening of it. Psal. 50. Vvherfore Dauid vvho vvas a faithfull man, in vayne cryed God mercie for his adoultrie and murder, bi­cause if hee vvas faithfull (as certes hee vvas) those sinnes could not be imputed as sinnes vnto him. And so if Christians vvill holde faste by Caluins faithe and beleeue that Christes iustice is theirs, they shall not need to feare ether theftes or adulteries, bicause Luther and Caluin ha­ue giuen them a vvarraunte sealed and si­gned vvith their ovvne handes, that if they hold their faithe, noe sinne can hurt them bicause it is not imputed vnto thē. And vvhy then make vvee scrouple any longer of sinne? let euery man if this doc­trine bee true, follovv his hcōcupiscēces; For althoughe hee commit all the sinnes vvhich ether the deuill puttes into his mynd, or the fles he and vvorld suggeste­the, hee is assured that they can not hurte him, biause they are not imputed.

VVoe be to them (sayeth God) vvho affirme bad, to be good, and good to be euib: Isai. 5. vvhich curse must needs light vppon our ghospellers, vvho condēne the iuste mans good deeds as mortall sinnes, and acco­unte the faithfull mans euil deedes as good & honest, or at least as such, that are not reputed euill, but rather good. in c vlt. ad Gal. Luther sayeth that the best vvorkes vvhich infi­dels doe, are sinnes, these are his vvords: Vvhosoeuer out of Christe vvorketh, prayeth, suf­freth; dothe vvorke, pray and suffer in vaine: bi­cause vvhat soeuer is not of faith, is sinne. And in his cōfutation of Latomus reason, thus he speaketh: Omne opus bonum peccatū est nisi ignoscat Dei misericordea: euery good vvorke is a sinne, vnless Gods mercie forgiue it. And in the same place, hee sayeth that God pardons it, in that he imputeth it not to the faith­full. And a litle before that, hee sayeth that sainct Paule neuer did good vvorke in his life, & that the best vvhich euer he did, vvas a sinne, though God imputed it not to him, bicause he vvas faithfull. And yet again before that, he sayeth that euen our iustice is vncleanes, and all our good [Page 550]vvorkes are sinnes. Likevvise in one of his propositions collected and condem­ned by the famous vniuersitie of Paris, he hath these very vvords: Omnes virtutes morales, & scientiae speculatiuae, non sunt verae virtutes & scientiae, sed peccata & errores: all morall vertues and speculatiue sciences, are not true vertues and sciences, but sinnes and errours. Ihon Caluin although he vvill seeme to make a difference betvvixt the morall vertues, l. 3. c. 14. §. 2. and vices of the heathens, (for othervvise (sayeth he) if these be confoun­ded, there shall remaine no order in the common vvelth) and althoughe he calleth the pa­ganes morall vvorkes the guiftes of God, yet presently after, ether forgetting or correcting his former speeches, he sayeth plainly that they are no more to be counted ver­tues then those vices vvhich are vvont to deceue by reason of nerenes and likenes to vertue. Sect. [...]. And he pronounceth this sentence against Sci­pio, Cato, and other morall men amon­gest the Romaines; to vvit, that all their morall vertues vvere vices. Then hee set­teth dovvn this generall conclusion as a finall sentence from vvhich no man must appeale; Sect. 4. vvhatsoeuer man thinketh, purpose­the, or doth before he be reconciled vnto God by faith, is accursed, and not only of no valevv to rightuousues, but of certain deseruing to damna­tion. And hee giues this reason: bicause [Page 551]forsooth, our nature by originall sinne is so corrupted and soked in the poison of sinne, Sect. 5. & l. 3. c. [...] in fine. that it can breath out nothing but corruption and therfore (sayeth hee) oyle shall sooner bee vvrounge out of a stone, then any good vvorke from vs. l 3 c 14 sect. 7.9.11. Yea the same sentence hee pro­nounceth not only against the sinfull, but also the iuste and faithfull Christian; to vvit, that no good proceedeth from ether of them, but that the best vvorke vvhich the iustest man dothe, deserueth shame & damnation. The reason and ground of this their doctrine is bicause they thinke that original sinne hathe so defaced our nature, that it hath blotted out the image of God, bereaued vs of free vvill, encli­ned our nature vvholly to sinne, vnabled it to vertue, in so much that vvhat soeuer proceedeth from this infected nature, is filthy, abominable, and odiouse in the sight of God. But thus they first of all doe mightie iniurie vnto mans nature, vvhich by this doctrine is rather brutis he then reasonable. For if mans vnderstanding bee so metamorphized, that all his scien­ce and knovvledge ether speculatiue or practicall is errour and deceipte, as Lu­ther sayeth, I see not vvhy man should bee counted reasonable, more then a bru­te beaste. And if hee bee vvholly bente to sensualitie and sinne, and hathe noe [Page 552]inclination to vertue, noe povvver nor fa­cultie to do the least acte of vertue, or to resiste the least tentation, then is his na­ture noe more noble then the nature of a beast, bicause he is altogether sensual as a beast is, and no more enclined to vertue or able to doe a vertuouse action then an oxe or an asse. And so the olde definition by vvhich philosophers vse to define man must bee corrected, bicause they define a man to be animal rationale a reasonable crea­ture: vvhich definition by this doctrine aggreeth noe more to a man then to a beast, bicause mā is as vnable to the vvor­kes and operations of reason as a beast is, and so is noe more mā but a beast by Cal­uins definition. Secondly this doctrine condemneth all Philosophers and Philo­sophie, vvhich teach vs, that in the most vitious man that is, there are some incli­nations & seedes of vertue, vvhich is the cause that the most vvicked man that is, loueth vertue at least in others, hathe a re­morse of conscience vvhen hee hathe done euil, blusheth at his euill deedes as not beseeming his nature, and some ty­mes dothe some good vvorke or other: for you shall hardly finde a man giuen to all vice, and enclined to noe vertue. from hence proceeded the morall vvorkes of the Romaines, for vvhich sainct Austine [Page 553]sayeth allmightie God bestovved on thē, l. 5 cin. c. 15. so ample en empire, and honoured them vvith so many victories, hence procee­ded also the lavves of Licurgus, Solon, Plato, and the rest, and all the motall pre­ceptes and vertues, of the ancientes. from hence also proceed the speculatiue scien­ces of naturall Philosophie, Metaphysike, Mathematique, Astrologie, and suche li­ke: vvhich to condemne of errour, as Lu­ther dothe, is meare madnesse: against vvhome I vvill vse the same argument, vv ^ch Philosophers vsed against the Aca­demikes vvho denyed all science: ether Luther knovveth that all speculatiue and practicall sciēces are errours, or hee knov­veth not: if hee knovve not, hee is rashe to deny sciēces, if he knovve, thē in denying sciēce hee graūteth sciēce. And although I vvill not deny but that the vertues of pa­ganes are many tymes vice, bicause their ende or scope is oftē times vaine glorie, or else some other euill circūstaunce is anne­xed. Yet to saye that all their actions are of necessitie sinnes, is to make man no mā, as I haue proued. I vvill graunt also that sinners good vvorkes, as prayer, almes deedes, and such like, are opera mortua de­ad vvorkes, as diuines saye, bicause in that they proceed not from ye life of grace, they are not condignely meritoriouse, [Page 554]yet they may be morally good, and if they proceed from a good intention, and mo­tion of God vvhich is called grace preue­niēt, and vv ^ch is neuer vvanting, they dis­pose a man to penaūce & penaūce dispo­seth to iustification. Vvherfore although Nabuchodonosor vvas in mortall sinne, Dan 4. yet Daniel counsayled him to redeeme his sinnes by almes deedes, vvhich co­unsaile he vvould neuer haue giuen, if to giue almes, had beene a mortall sinne. Thirdly this is to condemne Scripture yea and God him selfe, vvho forbid cer­taine actions as euil, and counsaile and commaund others as good: vvhich is ab­surdely done if all bee sinnes and euil acti­ons. Fourthly, hence it follovveth that all sinnes are aequall: bicause if our actions bee euil bicause they proceed from an euill and corrupted nature, they must bee (at least in this respecte) equally euill, euē as the frutes of a crabbe tree are of like sovvernes, bicause they proceed from the same tree, and take their sovvernes from the same sappe. Lastly thus the gappe is open vnto all vice. For if vvhat soeuer man dothe is sinne, then if hee bee temp­ted to fornication, to vvhat purpose should hee refrayne? For if hee resiste the temptatiō, hee must do it ether by chasti­sing his body, or by prayer, or by a con­trary [Page 555]resolution of the mynde and vvill, vvhich if it bee sinne also, hee auoydeth one sinne by another, and so might as vvel haue yeelded to the temptatiō: And if he hee haue another mans vvife in kee­ping, or his landes, or goodes in posses­sion, hee can not get out of this sinne but by restoring, bicause the sinne is not for­giuen vnlesse the thinge vvhich is vvrōg­fully holden bee restored, and yet to vvhat purpose should hee restore, if re­storing also bee a sinne, as it must bee, if all our actions bee sinnes? truly he hathe litle reason, bicause in restoring hee auoy­deth not sinne, but chaungeth one sinne for another. Yea if this doctrine may take place, the Prince may as vvell vse oppres­sion of his subiectes as bountie and ma­gnificence; subiectes may as vvell rebell as obeye; souldiours need not to feare murder, pillage, Luxurie; courtiours ne­ed not to make scrouple of vanitie, flat­tery, dissimulation, ambition; merchaun­res need not to forbeare vsurie, nor vn­ [...]uste selling and buying? Iudges may take [...]ribes, and pronounce partial sentences; and the Iurie may as vvell giue vvronge, as right informations; the ritche may as vvell bestovv blovves, as almes on the poore, and beggers maye as vvell steale, as [...]egge: bicause as these are sinnes so are [Page 556]the contrarie vertues, Supra. vvhich are no more vertues (as Caluin saieth) then are those vice vv ^ch for their likenes and shovve of vertue d [...]g [...] for vertues; And so no mā shall need to ma­ke bones of any sinne, bicause some thin­ge hee must do, & vvhatsoeuer he do the, is sinne, and vvhen hee thinketh that he do­eth best, his doinges deserue no less then aeternal damnation. But they vvill say that althoughe all actions be sinnes, yet God imputes not all as sinnes, and therfore vve must do almes-deedes and absteine from iniuries, bicause God imputes these as sinnes, but not the other. Thus they saye, but yet thus they take not a vvay the ab­surditie. For yet it follovveth that an infi­del may doe vvhat hee vvill, and make no more scrouple of one action then of ano­ther, bicause God imputes all his actions as they are, that is sinnes, and vices. And if the faithfull and iust mans actions bee all sinnes, ether God must impute all as sinnes, or none at all, bicause all are a like, nether hathe God any reason to repute his almes deedes as good vvorkes, rather then his theftes, if those bee sinnes and de­serue damnation as vvell as these. vvhence it follovveth that vvee must put no diffe­rence betvvixte our actions, but may a [...] freely and as boldly, aduenture vppo [...] theftes and murders, as any vvorkes o [...] [Page 557]charitie, iustice, mercie, or any other vertue.

SAint Austine sayeth that it is a thinge so commonly receiued that man hath free vvill, Ep. 11. l. de duabus ani­mabus c. 1. and that he is not to be blamed for that vvhich is not in his povver, that the Shepheards sing it on the moūtaines, Poetes in theaters, the vnlearned in Cir­cles, the learned in libraries, maisters in Schooles, Bishops in sacred places, and mankinde throughout the vvorld. Aug. l [...]. ciu. c. 19. And Cicero thought it vvould bee counted such a paradox to deny free vvill, that hee chose rather to deny Gods prescience vv ^ch seemed repugnaunte to it, then to deny free vvill vvhich vvas so commonly re­ceued. And so sayeth sainct Austine, he vvas iniurious to God, least hee should bee iniurious to the common vvelthe, vvhich could not stande vvithout free vvill. And yet the Stoikes denyed free vvill as vvitnesseth sainct Austine, l. 5. ciu [...]. Aug ser [...]. and af­ter them Simon Magus, Manicheus, and Vviclephe, and last of all our late Refor­mers, a badde broode of as bad breeders; Luther therfore vvriting against Erasmus and against free vvill also vvhich Erasmus [Page 558]had proued both learnedly and eloquen­tly entitleth his booke, Lut. l de ser [...]o arbitrio. of Seruile Arbitre­ment, in vvhich booke hee disputeth vvith all might and maine against free vvill, and to set before our eyes more plainly our seruile condition, hee calleth mans vvill a Hackney, vppon vvhich if gods spirit chaunce to sit and settle it selfe, it goeth necessarilie that vvay to vvhich the spirit spurreth it, but if the deuill bestride this hackney, it runneth vvhether Satan vr­geth it, and hathe noe povver ether to re­siste the one, or the other. And a litle after he sayeth that frevvill is a diuine name vvhich aggreeth only to God, but not to man; yea in another place hee sayeth that freevvill in mā is a title only and name vvith­out the thing it selfe. c. 8. Caluin in this point ag­greeth vvith Luther. For he in his first booke of institutiōs, c. 15. sect. 8. grauntes that Adam had free vvill before his falle (vvhich I see not hovv he can graūt, l. 3. c. 34. bicause hee sayeth that Gods prouidence and predestina­tiō taketh avvay frevvill, yea that Adams first sinne vvas committed by the ineui­table decree of God) but after his falle, he in him selfe, and vve in him, Iost freevvill: and therfore Caluin rebuketh the Philo­sophers, vvho averre that man hathe free vvill, and that else all difference betvvixte vice & vertue is taken a vvaye, for (sayeth [Page 559]hee) they say true if they take man before his fall. c. 2. And in his second booke hauing giuen a sharpe cēsure and sentēce against bothe Philosophers and fathers, bicause they absolutely affirme that man hathe freevvill, these giue freevvill his parte to­gether vvith the grace of God; he vvis­beth that this name freevvill should no mo­re bespoken of, c. 2. sect. [...]. and hee vvould vvish o­thers if they vvould aske his counsaile to forbeare it also, least that therby they take occasion of pride, and of a proud conceit of their ovvn force? And so if vvishers might be vvoulders, vve should nether haue freevvill nor the name of freevvill. By vvhich it is plaine that Caluin absolu­tely denyeth freevvill, as Luther and me­lancthon once did, althoughe after vvard they graunted it in externall and ciuill actions, as buying and selling, talking and vvalking, and such like; but in morall actions of vice and vertue, yea in super­naturall actions, to vvhich the grace of God is necessarie, as the loue of God, con­nersion, and repentaunce of a sinner, they graunt noe freevvill nor choise at all. The vvhich opinion is so absurd, that by this a man may see vvhat credit is to be giuen them in greater matters, and higher my­steries, vvho haue erred so grossely in a matter so euident, that not only reason, [Page 560]but also experience proueth it. For first vve deliberate and consulte concerning some actions and not others; as vvhether vve shall take Phisicke or noe, and yet vvee cōsulte not vvhether vvee shall dye or noe, flye or noe, and suck like; vvhich is a signe that the former actions are in our povver, else as vvell might vvee con­sulte vvhether vvee should flye or noe in the a yre, vvhen by ronning or riding vve can not escape our enemie. And vvhy haue Princes their counsailers to consul­te & deliberate, if all thinges follovve the Svvay of necessitie? Vve commaund also our seruauntes or subiectes to ronne or goe, but not to flye, or to staye the course of the sonne, bicause those actions are in their povver, not these. Vvee exhorte mē also to leaue this vice, to follovve that vertue, & vve counsaile the sicke to take this not that medicine, bicause all these thin­ges are in his povver & free choise, & yet vvee exhorte him not to put a vvaye his agevve, to bee sicke noe more, and if vve vvould, hee vvould counte vs but fooles for our labours, bicause these thinges are not in his choice. Vvee are also vvary in our actions and heed-full, least vvee erre or banger, vvhich argueth that vvee maye do ill or vvell, and consequently are not enforced by necessitie ether to the one or [Page 561]the other. Vvee are angrye also vvith our subiectes for doinge certaine thinges, and they meruaile not; and yet if vvee vvould bee angrye vvith them for not mouing a mountayne, or not carying a greater bur­dē they a mā is able to beare, they vvould thinke vs mad if vve bee but angrie. Vvee are angrye vvith our selues also, & blame and repent our selues, for ouer shooting our selues in vvordes, for making an euil bargaine, for eating or drinking to much, for stealing, or such like actions, vvhich is a signe that vve might haue doone other vvise, else I demaund a reason vvhy vve repent not our selues that vve did not soare vp into the ayre vvhen our enemye pursued vs, or the theefe robbed vs? vve prayse and disprayse men for vertuous or vitious actions, as for liberalitie, and ni­gardnes, and yet vve praise them not for grovving and vvaxing tall and bigge, ne­ther doe vvee disprayse them for litle sta­ture, or for not putinge forthe their lim­mes. And vvhy, but bicause those thinges are in their povver, these are not, and ther­fore vvorthy nether prayse nor dispraise? vve aske also and enquire of men, vvhy they did this, vvhy they did not that? As God asked Cain vvhy his countenaunce vvas fallen? Gen. [...] Vvhich argueth that they might haue done other vvise. Or if Cal­uin [Page 562]vvill saye that vvee make enquirie of necessarie thinges; then let him demaund of the Lion vvhy hee roareth, of the asse vvhy hee brayeth, of the sheep vvhy hee bleateth, and of ye sicke man vvhy hee vvilbe sicke, and the blinde mā vvhy hee seeth not? But to leaue experience (vvhich cōmonly is called the mistresse of fooles, bicause it teacheth euen fooles to bee vvi­ser, and might persuade Luther & Caluin also that man hathe freevvill, vvere they not vvorse then fooles, and as vvitlesse in this point as mad men) I vvill demon­strate the same by reason also. And first of al I demaūde, vvhy revvardes are pro­posed not only by Princes, but by God also for them that embrace vertuouse and heroicall actions? Certes, noe God a mercie to him that dothe vvell, if hee could not do othervvise. And vvhy do they prescribe punishmētes against trans­gressours of their lavves, if ther bee noe free vvill? Certainly hee that necessarilie is euill, is rather vvorthy compassiō then payne or punishment. Or vvhy doe God and Princes sette dovvne lavves and pre­ceptes, for their subiectes to obserue? If they haue noe free vvill, they may as vvell prescribe lavves to sheepe that they grase not vppon other mens groundes, or to horses that they breake not their masters Hedges to ronne into their neighbours [Page 563]corne, or vvolues that they vvorrye not the innocēt lambes, or to foxes that they liue not vppon the spoile of the Poulte­rers hens and capons? Vvhy are not mad men punished for the euil vvordes, vv ^ch they speake, or euil deedes vvhich they doe in their madnesse, seing that thy haue as much free vvill as men haue, vvhē their vvittes are freshest? Secondly man is en­devved vvhich reason to vnderstand not only vvhat the end is, but also vvhat are the meanes to attaine vnto the same; hee seeth, that there are many particuler en­des to vvhich hee may apply him selfe: he seeth also many meanes to attaine vnto the end vvhich hee proposeth vnto him selfe; as if he propose health hee perceues, that this hee may attaine ether by pur­ging, or letting blood, or exercise, or diet. And seing that the vvill follovvethe the vnderstanding vvhich is her eye, & vvith­out vvhich shee is blinde, and can nether loue nor hate, nether desire nor feare, it must needs follovve, that as the vnder­standing proposeth many meanes, and apprehendeth none of them in particuler necessarie, (bicause if one bee not vsed another vvill serue) so the vvill hathe free­dom to vse vvhich meanes shee vvill, bicause the vnderstanding iudgeth none in particuler necessarie, and therfore by [Page 564]preiudicate opinion enforceth her to none. And in this may be seen a differen­ce betvvixte men and brute beastes, bi­cause thoughe they chaunge their ima­ginations and imagin one vvhile vvater to bee conuenient, another vvhile mea­te, yet that vvhich they first apprehend caryeth a vvay their appetites by a svvaye of necessitie. Lastly ther vvas neuer yet any nation so barbarouse vvhich confes­sed not vertue to bee in some of our a­ctions, vice in others; and therfore they prayse the one and dispraise the other; and yet if vvee haue noe free vvill it must needes follovve, that ther is noe more vi­ce & vertue in our actions, then in opera­tions of beastes, as I shall in another cha­pter proue most manisestly. But they vvill say (as commonly they say vvhen they knovv. not vvhat to saye) that in reasons may be sophistrie and deceite, and that therfore against all the experien­ce and reason alleaged for free vvill, vvee must beleeue the holy vvord of Scriptu­re, vvhich reiecteth free vvill. Is it soe? and are scriptures contrarie to reason? I vvill not deny but scripture teacheth many thinges aboue reason, but that it teacheth any thinge against reason, is moste vntrue. For as grace perfiteth nature in eleuating it to a higher being, and to more heroi­call [Page 565]actions then of it selfe it can attain vnto, and in noe vvise destroyeth it; so scripture vvhich is the booke of faithe, leadeth reason farther then of her selfe shee could goe, but induceth her not to any thing vvhich is against reason, for so God vvhich is the autour of reason and faithe, in ruinating reason by faith and scripture, should denye him selfe, bicause he should be contrary to him selfe. Yea if Scripture should deny freevvill, it should be contrarie to it selfe, bicause it giueth as plaine testimony for it, as for any thing. Eccl. 6.1 [...]. dothe not Ecclesiasticus affir­me that God from the beginning created man and lefte him in the hand of his ovvn counsail? dothe hee not saye in the same place, if thou vvilt keep the commaundemētes they shall keepe thee? dothe he not againe inculcate free vvill vnto vs saying: God hath set before thee vvater and fier, to vvhich thou vvilte put thy hande? To vvhat end doth God saye to man if thou vvilte, if man haue noe free­vvill? vvere it not ridiculous if one should say to a blinde má that can not see; if thou vvilte, looke and thou shalte finde; or to a lame mā, if thou vvilte follovve mee, thou shalt not lose thy paynes? Is. c. 1. [...]. 30. The like vvor­des to y ^e former hathe Esaie the Prophete: If you vvill and shall heare me, you shall eate the goods of the earth. Ang againe: this sayeth our [Page 566]Lord God of Israel, if you retourne and cesse from sinne you shall be saued. The like speeches vseth allmightie God by his Prophete Hieremie: c. 15. If thou vvilt be conuerted, I vvill conuerte thee, And hovve often doth scrip­ture exhorte and commaund vs to con­uerte our selues to God? Ezech. 18.33. Vvhich vvere ri­diculously spoken, if it vvere not in our freevvill by the assistaunce of Gods grace to tourne vnto God. Mat. 19. And in the nevv Te­stament sayeth Christ: if thou vvilte enter into life Keepe the cōmaundementes. And again hee complaineth vvith teares of Hierusa­lems ingratitude saying: Mat. 23. Hierusalem, Hie­rusalem hovv often vvould I haue gathered thee as a hen gathereth her chickins vnder her vvin­ges, and thou vvouldst not? Vvhat man in his vvittes vvould speake thus vnless he thought that Hierusalem had free vvill? else might Hierusalem haue ansvvered Christe in this manner. Vvhy complainest thou so pitifullie of my slouthe and in­gratitude? Knovvest not thou that I can not? vvhy sayest thou to mee, and thou vvouldst not, knovving that I haue noe vvill, & that thine only is the vvill, myne is seruile necessitie? So that it is manifest by experience, reason, and scripture, that man hathe free vvill. And seing that ther is no page of scripture, but it conteinethe ether commaundement, or counsaile, or [Page 567]exhortation, or some one or other of the signes of free vvill, vvhich are before al­leaged, I may be bold to say that there is noe page in holy Scripture out of vvhich may not euidently be deduced a pregna­unte proofe and argument for free vvill. Vvherfore althoughe some fevv places are in Scripture, vvhich, till they be vvel vnderstood, may seeme to disproue free vvill, yet rather should the heretike con­fesse his vvāt of skill to interpret those pla­ces, then to deny free vvill vv ^ch all scriptu­re allmost, so euidētly auoucheth. l. Cor. 12. Let thē not therfore obiecte that God vvorketh all in vs, that mans vvay is not in man: Ier. 10. that it is not of the vviller nor of the ronner but of God that taketh mercie on vs: Rom 9. that God calleth and knocketh at the dore of our soule: Ephes. 5. that God the father dravveth vs; For I can easilie ans­vvere and haue al the sfathers and diuines to backe me in it, Io. 6. that God only opera­teth in vs by his antecedēt grace, but vvee also by vertue of it cooperate vnto his motion: that mans vvay, that is the vvay of Saluation is not in mans povver in res­pect of the beginning, bicause God only puttes vs in the vvay by his vocation and praecedent grace, but yet by vertue of this grace it is in our povver to vvalke in this vvay; that it is God only that begīneth all good vvills and courses, but supposing his [Page 568]precedent grace, vve also vvill and ronne, but not vve only but his grace vvith vs & vve vvith it: That God only calleth and knocketh by his praeuenient grace, but vve also by cōsent do open the dore vnto him; that God the father dravveth by his motions, but svveetly vvithout violence, by persuasion and allurement, not by cō ­pulsion. But to labour no farther in so euident and plaine a matter; by a great absurditie vvhich follovveth this doctri­ne, I vvill demonstrate it to bee absurd, bicause one absurditie follovveth ano­ther. If man haue no freevvill all vice and vvickednesse must goe for currant, and no man must endeuour to auoid sinne, bicause he hathe no povver to auoid it. Be it then that Maister Minister dehorte me from vice vvith all the Rhetorick vvhich he hathe, let him lay before myne eyes the filthines of sinne, the dishone­stie vvhich it implyeth, the offēce of God the scandale of my neighbour vvhich fol­lovveth it, therby to dissuade me from it; yet if I haue no freevvil nor povver to auoid sinne, I may ansvvere him that his persuasions are but lippe-labour vvhich he might as vvel vse to a beast as to a man; For, vvhat I shall do, that of neceffitie I shall doe; and as hee disuadeth me from vice, so the pleasure or temporall profit [Page 569]vvhich vice bringeth, doth so allure me, and the deuil so vrgeth me, that I can not resiste, bicause I haue no free vvill, but must behaue my selfe passiuely, permit­ting concupiscence and the deuil to vvor­ke in me vvhat they vvill, bicause I haue no povver to resiste them. For as a man that is persuaded that he hathe noe force to resiste his enemie, or the Ministers of iustice, layeth dovvne his armes and vve­apons, and permitteth them to do their pleasure, knovving that resistaunce is vai­ne, vvhen vvill he nill he, their pleasure must be doone; so vvhen a man is persua­ded that he hathe no freevvill nor po­vver to auoide sinne, he must yeeld him selfe as a slaue to all vice, and vvhen he feeleth the temptation he must yeeld pre­sently, and acknovvledge his ovvn im­potencie. And if any man rebuke him for his sinnes, or if God herafter at the day of Iudgement accuse him or con­demne him, he hathe an excuse ready for such an accusation, and a tricke in store to auoid such a condemnation, to vvit, that he could do no othervvise, bicause he had no free vvill. And so he may com­mit vvhat sinnes he vvill and no man, yea not God him selfe can iustly finde fault vvith him, vnless they first finde a fault in Luthers and Caluins doctrine, vvhich [Page 570]teacheth him that hee can not do other­vvise.

I Shall not need to dvvell longe on this pointe, nor to vse any longe discourse to come vnto my intended conclusion, bicause I haue already in the fifte booke sette dovvne Luthers and Caluins vvor­des in vvhich they affirme the commaun­dementes to be impossible, vvher also I haue disproued this doctrine and proued the contrarie, to vvit that man hathe po­vver vvith the grace of God to fullfill his commaundementes, only novve out of those premises as in that booke I infer­red God to bee vnreasonable by Luthers and Caluins doctrine, so novve out of the same I vvill conclude, that the gappe is opened to all vice and vvickednes. For if a man bee once persuaded, that hee can not fullfill the commaundement of kee­ping the Sabboth-daye, if desire of gaine, or lacre moue him to seruile vvorkes & labours, hee vvill easilie bee persvvaded to labour, vvho is allready persvvaded that hee can not keepe the Sabothe, as [Page 571]hee should doe. And if hee once giue cre­dit to Caluin that hee can not obserue the lavve, vvhich forbiddeth him to couet his neighbours vvife or goods, if hee bee tempted or moued vvith suche obiectes, hee vvill neuer vrge him selfe to vvith­stand such temptations, bicause hee is persuaded that he can not fullfill this la­vve, but must needes transgresse it, and not only couet and desire, but also inor­dinatelye vse his neighbours vvife and vsurpe his goodes also, vvhen soeuer they crosse the vvaye of his desire. Breefely seing that there is noe sinne, but it is a transgression of one lavve or other, hee that is persuaded that hee can not fullfill any lavve of God (as all Lutheranes and Caluinistes are) is persuaded also that hee can auoid noe sinne, and consequently if any sinne moue or allure him ether by profit or pleasure vvhich it implyeth, hee can not, being so persuaded, endeuour to vvithstande the temptation, bicause that vvere to shevve him selfe able to resiste sinne and to fullfill the commaunde men­tes, and consequently to condemne Ihon Caluins doctrine. And althoughe in so doing hee openeth the gappe to all man­ner of iniquitie, yet therin hee shevveth him selfe a true Caluiniste, vvhoe being persuaded by religion and conscience [Page 572]that hee hathe nether force nor vvill to resiste any sinne, or to fullfill any com­maundemēt, must not, yea can not vvith­out offence of conscience and hazard of faithe, go about to fullfill any lavve, for so thoughe not in vvordes, yet in facte and deed, hee should deny his religion.

THe reformers, as is recounted parte­ly in the third booke and second chapter, partely in the fifte chapter of the same booke, are of opinion that Christe vvas noe lavvgiuer, but rather that he ca­me to free vs from all lavves: vvhich do­ctrine althoughe I haue in the former pla­ces alleaged, yet to ease the reader, it shall not bee amisse here also to set dovvne the samedoctrine in other their ovvn vvords. in cap. 4. Gal. Luther in a comment of his on holy scri­ptur, often tymes inculcateth that by Christ vvee are so freed from all lavves that none of them can bynd vs, or touch vs in conscience. These are his vvords: Discat igitur pius legem & Christum duo con­traria esse prorsus incompatibilia: praesente Chri­sto lex mullo modo dominari debet sed cedere debet è conscientia & relinquere cubil [...] (quòd angu­stius [Page 573]est, quam vt duos capere possit) soli Christo: Let therfore the godly man learn to knovv that Christ and the lavv are tvvoe contraries alto­gether incompatible: Christe being present, the lavv must in no vvise rule, but must depart from conscience, and leaue the bedd (vvhich is to nar­rovv for tvvoe) to Christe alone. Vvhere you see that hee makes Christe and all lavves euen his ovvn lavves so contrarie, that if Christ stand, noe lavv can stande, nor ha­ue any force ouer conscience. in c. 2. Gal. And in a­nother place of the same comment, thus hee defineth: quatenus est Christianus, est su­pra omnem legem: as hee is a Christian, or in that hee is a Christian, he is aboue all lavve. And yet again in another vvorke of his, l. de liberta [...] Christiana. hee speaketh more boldly and plainly: nullo opere, nulla lege homini Christiano opus est, cum per fidem sit liber ab omnilege: for a Christian no lavv nor vvorke is needfull, seing that by faith he is free from all lavve. Supra, & l. 2. Inst. c. 2. §. [...].14. The same opinion holdeth Ihon Caluin as in the former and many other places is plainely to be seen. By vvhich doctrine althoughe they vvill seem to make Christe a more per­fect redeemer as before is noted, yet in deed they make him a fauourer and patrone of all vice and vvickednes. For if vve be freed from all obligation of la­vves, then do they noe more bynde vs then lavves abrogated: if they bynde [Page 574]not in conscience, then noe man is bound in conscience to obserue them: If he be not bound in cōscience to obserue them, then he sinneth not in transgressing them no more then in doing contrarie to a lavv vvhich is abrogated, bicause euery sinne is against the obligation of one lavve or other, yea then he transgresseth not, bi­cause vvhere is noe obligation ther can be no transgression. If it be no sinne to transgresse lavves (as Luther and Caluin say that to a Christian such transgressions are not imputed as sinnes) then need not any Christian make any scrouple of any action by vvhat lavv soeuer it be forbid­den, and so hee may as freely steale as gi­ue almes, and as boldly hee may follovv his lust and sensualitie, as liue chastly, and moderate his appetites; for vvhere noe lavv byndethe in conscience all is lavvfull that liketh, and so the gappe is open to all manner of vice.

I Haue already related the blasphemies of our nevv Christians against the goodnes of God, and I haue demonstra­ted that they are senseles, absurd, and im­pious, [Page 575]in making God the autour of our sinnes, vvhose mercie pardoneth, and vvhose iustice punishethe sinnes, but can not vvorke, or commit the least sinne vvithout preiudice of his goodnesse and deitie also, vvhich is goodnes it selfe. So that novve I vvill suppose for my premises that they are of that opinion, and I vvill deducefor my intended con­clusion, that this doctrine looseth the bridle vnto all iniquitie. For if a man be once persuaded as all Caluinistes are, that God is the autour and vvorker of his sin­nes, vvhat is ther remaining to restrayne and vvith-hold him from sinne? he may and vvill easily discourse thus vvith him selfe, vvhen soeuer the deuil vrgeth, or the flesh allurethe, or the vvorld intiseth him to sinne. This acte to vvhich I ame tempted and vvhich commonly is called a sinne, is the vvorke of God as vvell as myne, and more his then myne, bicause as my oracle, (that is Ihon Caluin) tel­leth me, he vvorketh it in me, and vrgeth me vnto it. Vvhy then should I ether be a frayed or ashamed to do that vvhich God not only dothe vvith me, but also so forcibly moueth mee vnto it, that (as M. Caluin telleth me) I can not possibly re­siste him? Ame I better then he? or can any sinne be so vglye, as not to beseeme [Page 576]me vvhich beseemeth him, vvho is good­nes it selfe? But peraduenture God dis­penseth vvith him selfe but not vvith me, and therfore vvill not haue me to sinne. Vvill he not? Vvhy then dothe he vrge and egge me to sinne? vvhere I ame vr­ged, certes I ame vvilled, and vvilled by him by vvhom I ame vrged. Yea if sinne be the vvorke of God (as it is vnless Cal­uin lye) then is it the effect of his vvill (for as Dauid sayeth hee dothe all by his vvill, and as diuines say his povver is his vvill) and so I in sining shall do his plea­sure and conforme my selfe to his vvill. Let vs sinne then freely, vvee do but Gods vvill, and let vs not make scruple of that, of vvhich hee is the vviller and vvorker, let vs not blushe at the turpitude of sinne of vvhich God him selfe is not ashamed, nether lette vs feare offence vvhere vve doe our masters vvill and pleasure, rather let vs persuade our selues that all sinnes are lavvfull and pleasing to God, bicause they are the vvorkes of his vvill, and con­sequently according to his vvill. But fye rather vppon this impious and licentious doctrine, God forbiddeth sinne by his lavve, and therfore vvould not haue it done, and hee punisheth sinne most se­uerily, and therfore is no autour of it, and hee is goodnesse it selfe and deuoide of a [...] [Page 577]mallice, and therfore cā not vvorke sinne, vvhich is deuoid of all goodnes, and no­thing but mallice.

IT is a thinge so manifest that vertue and vice, honestie & dishonestie, is to be found in the actions of man, that there vvas neuer any people so barbarous or vi­tiouse, vvhich hath not commended ma­ny of mens actions, and hathe not disprai­sed many others, and blushed at them euen in them selues, as not beseeming mans nature, vvhich as it is reasonable, so it should be ruled by reason. Vvherfore to certaine actiōs, honours and revvardes haue beene proposed, and to others seue­re punishmentes and chastisments. The vvisest of the Gētils vvhose reason by sin­ne & superstitiō vvas least obscured, vvere of opiniō that some actions vvere sinnes, and offences of God, & that others vvere gratefull and pleasing vnto him. For they knevv that God the autour of nature, as hee had ordained all thinges to their end, and giuen them faculties to exercise those actiōs, vvhich should bring them to their end; so hee hathe ordained man vnto his [Page 578]end, vvhich is to liue vertuously, and by vertuous life so to serue God here, that he maye enioye him herafter: and therfore hee hathe endevved him vvith reason by vvhich hee may knovv vertue from vice, and good from euill, and a vvill also to ex­ecute that vvhich reason shal cōmaund; so that vvhen hee liueth according to rea­son hee follovvethe his nature, and Gods ordinaunce, and exercise the those actions vvhich beseem his reasonable nature, and are pleasing vnto God, and vvhen he sol­lovveth sensualitie and leaueth reason, thē dothe hee that vvhich is not beseeming his nature, then dothe hee breake Gods ordinaunce, and svverue from the end to vvhich he is ordained, and consequentlye sinneth & offendeth God. l. 1. Eth. c. 8. Vvherfore Ari­stotle sayeth that vvise and vertuouse men vvhich liue according to reason are most deare vnto God. Ex Clement. Alex orat. hortator ad gentes. in Phaedone. Plato affirmeth that God is the reuenger of sinne and dishonestie, and in another place he distinguisheth three kindes & states of men: The first of those that liue vertuously, and they sayeth he, are sent to the happy Ilancls, vvhich vvee vvould calle heauen: the second sta­te is of them vvho commit lesser faultes, vvhich vvee vvould calle veniall sinnes, & such sayeth hee are purged for a tyme, (the same doe Catholikes saye of thē that [Page 579]dy out of mortall sinne yet are defiled so vvith veniall sinnes that they need some purging in Purgatorie) and then vvith the first sorte, are admitted to the happy Ilāds. The last are they vvhich commit enor­mous and hainous crimes, and such sayeth Plato are tormented perpetually, bicause their paines do them noe good, vvhich is as much to saye, as Catholikes say of thē, vvhoe for greater offences of vvhich they repent not before deathe, are condem­ned to a praemunire and perpetuall im­prisonment in hell. By vvhich it may ap­peare that not only Christianes but also paganes and those that vvante the light of fayeth, haue yet by light of reason es­pyed vice in some of our actions, and ver­tue in other some, and haue deemed tho­se vvorthy punishment, these vvorthy some revvard. And yet if vvee giue cre­dit to our nevve Christianes, vvee must acknovvledge noe more vertue or vice in the actiōs, of men thē in the operations of brutish and vnreasonable creaturs. For first if it be true vvhich Luther and Caluin teache vs, that noe lavves cā bynde a Chri­stian, then doth it follovve that a Christia­ne can not sinne and consequently, that ther can bee noe vice in any of his actiōs. For vvher noe lavve byndeth there is noe lavve, vvhere no lavve is, there is noe [Page 580]transgression of lavve, vvhere is no trans­gression, noe sinne can bee, bicause euery sinne is a transgression of one lavve or o­ther. Rom. 7. Vvherfore S. Paule sayeth that vvit­hout lavve sinne is dead and of noemalli­ce. 8. 10. s. And S. Ihon sayeth that vvhosoeuer sinneth committeth iniquitie, and that sinne is iniquitie, that is transgression, for so the Greeke vvord [...] vvhich hee vseth, importeth, & therfore the Grecia­nes commonly calle sinne by the selfe same name. And althoughe some actions vvhich are of them selues cuill, are not sinnes bicause the lavveforbiddeth them, but therfore are by the lavve forbidden bicause of them selues they are sinnes, yet certaine it is that there is noe sinne but it is forbidden, ether by the lavv of God, or of nature, or of man, and therfore vvell might sainct Austine saye, l. 2. de pee. mer. c. 16. that noe sinne should be, if noe lavve did forbid it. Rom. 2. And althoughe sainct Paule sayeth that the gentils sinned vvithout a lavve, and therfore shalbe punished vvithout a la­vve, yet hee excludeth only a vvritten la­vve such as the Ievves had, and vvithout that (sayethe hee) the gētils doe sinne, but yet not vvithout all lavve, for at least they transgressed the lavve of nature, other­vvise they could not haue sinned, bicause euery sinne is against one lavve or other; [Page 581]and so if noe lavv bynd vs in conscience, noe sinne at all can bee found in our a­ctions, be they neuer so crossing and con­tratie to reason. Secondly they denye free-vvill and consequently they take avvay all vice and vertue. For if vvhen I do that action vvhich is counted a sinne I haue noe free-vvill, then I can do no o­thervvise, if I can do noe othervvise, I ame not to bee blamed for that, vvhich I could not auoyed, but rather to bee pi­tyed that I ame so constrained. And if vvhen I pray to God or giue almes to the poore I can do no othervvise, (as I can not if I haue noe free-vvill) I ame not pravse vvorthe, bicause noe God a mercie to him that dothe vvell vnavvares, or vvether hee vvill or noe. Vvherfore vvee commend those moste vvhich doe vvell freely and of their ovvne choise, & vvhe­re vvee see men by feare or cōpulsion are driuē to vvell doing, vvee cōmend them the lesse, by hovv much greater vvas the constrainte; vvhich is a signe that free choise, more or lesse, is necessary to the making of a vertuouse action. Thirdly they say that God imputeth no sinne vn­to a faithfull man, vvhence it follovveth that there is noe sinne in their actions, or that God is deceiued, or is noe right estee­mer of thinges; but this they vvill not saye [Page 582]and therfore must auouch that there is noe sinne in Christians actions. Fourthly although herin they speake not vvith that consequence vvhich might haue beene expected of men of reason, they af­firme that all our actions euen those that go for best, are of them selues mortall sin­nes, vvhich deserue no better revvard thē eternall damnation; vvhich if it be true, thence must needs follovve, that there is not any vertue in our actions, bicause vvhere vice is, vertue can not bee: and so vertue vvhich proceedeth not but ex inte­gra causa, from an intier cause, is cleane taken avvay. Fiftely they affirme that God is the autour of all our sinnes, and seing that his vvill is his power, by vvhich he causeth all thinges, sinne is according to his vvill: yea they affirme that he moueth vs & eggeth vs to sinne, vvhich is a signe that hee vvill haue vs sinne. If sinne then hee accor­ding to God his vvill, it can not offend him, but rather please him, bicause the vve are pleased vvhen thinges do fall out ac­cording to our vvill and desire; and seing that vvhere noe offence is there can bee noe sinne, it follovvethe, that if God bee the authour of sinne, then sinne is noe sinne at all. Out of these opinions I gather that nether sinne nor vertue is remaining in mens actions, and consequently if this [Page 583]doctrine bee true, noe man needeth to feare sinne or to care for vertue, bicause this vvord, vertue, is but a vvorde vvhich hath no thinge ansvvereable vnto it, and this name, sinne, is but a bullibagge or bugbeare, deuised and inuented to scarre fooles vvith all, bicause according to the nevv religion, there is noe more sinne in the actions of men, then of brutishe beastes.

SO carefull is our heauenly father, least vve should commit any sinne, that he hathe prouided, not one, or tvvoe, but ma­ny and sundry meanes to restayne vs from it, as being the only thing vvhich displea­seth him, and preiudiceth vs. He hath en­grauen in our hartes a lavve of nature and reason, vvhich dictateth vnto vs vvhat is good and vvhat is euil, and cōmaundeth vs to embrace the one, and to auoide the other; Rom. 2. by reason of vvhich lavv the Gen­tils (as saint Paule sayeth) could not plead ignoraunce for an excuse for their sinnes, bicause they had a lavve vvritten in their hartes, by vvhich they might haue squa­red their actions and directed their liues [Page 584]according vnto reason, and vvith in the boundes of nature. To this lavve before Christs cōming, he added a vvritten lavv for our better direction in the vvaye of vertue, not only naturall, but also superna­turall. And vvhen the fullnes of tyme, that is the tyme of Christe and the nevve lavv, vvas come, hee gaue vs another lavve mo­re perfecte, then the olde, vvhich therfore leadeth vs to greater perfection. And bi­cause lavves are mute, vv ^ch can not speake nor interprete them selues, and if they bee not put in execution they are easily con­temned; he hathe appointed interpre­tours, suche as are our Pastours and Do­ctours, to expound this lavve vnto vs, and Magistrates also to see it put in exceutiō, and to punish the transgressours. But least that vvee should take our libertie in sin­ning, vvhen vve can auoide the rigour of the lavve, and the eye of the Magistrate; he hathe lodged in our bosoms, a seuere Iudge and monitour, called conscience, vvhich keepeth vs in avve, and makes vs feare to sinne, euen then, vvhen secrecie promiseth securitie. [...]. 2. in c. 2. Ro. Vvherfore Origen calleth conscience a correctour and cor­recting spirit, bicause it punisheth and a­mendeth our faults and disorders, yea hee calles it also a Pedagogue and Schoolma­ster, bicause it instructeth vs and teacheth [Page 585]vs our duties, and keepes vs in no lesse avve then dothe the Schoolmaster his Schollers. ex Th. [...]. p. q. 71.4.18. S. Damascen calles conscience the eye of the soule, bicause it layes all our actions open vnto the vevve of the soule, & ruleth our vvholle life, as the eye doth the body. This cōscience like a lavve tel­leth vs vvhat in euery particuler circum­staūce is lavvfull, vvhat vnlavvfull; like a vvitnesse it accuseth vs, and brings in eui­dence against vs; like a Iudge it condem­neth vs as guiltie vvhē vve haue cōmitted a faulte, and declareth vs innocent of the facte, vvhen vve haue not doone it; and like an executioner or minister of iustice, it tormenteth vs, and layeth vppon vs our devv paine and punishment. That con­science is a lavve vve easily perceue and daily experience in our selues. For vvhen naturall reason and our Synderesis telles vs, that vice is to be eschevved, & that for­nication is a vice, conscience concludeth ergo thou mayst not commit it: and if not vvithstāding cōsciences prohibition, vve do commit the same, vve do against con­science, and transgresse the lavve of con­sciēce, vvhich alvvayes in particuler doth dictate vnto vs, vvhat is to bee embraced, and vvhat is to be eschevved. Vvhen the lasciuious man is moued vnto luste, con­science like a lavve forbiddeth him, and [Page 586]vvhen the theefe is tempted vnto thefte, conscience sayeth he must not comit it, bicause he must not do that to another, vvhich he vvould not haue doone to him selfe. And if a freind leaue a ievvell vvith his freend, to vvhich none but they tvvoe are priuie, conscience vvill vrge him to restitution, and commaund him to resto­re that, to vvhich the Princes lavve can not compelle him bicause it meddles nor vvith secrers. And so conscience is a lavve, and so rigorous a lavve, that it admitteth noe excuse, noe cloake, nor dispensation. It is a vvitnesse also, vvhich accuseth vs euen of our secret sinnes, and vvorkes of darkenes, and pro­ues vs guiltie before the diuine tribunal. And vvhether thou be in bedde or at borde, at home or abroad, in company or alone, it still cryeth against thee, guiltie And if thou seekest by sylence to put this vvitness to silence, or by stopping the ea­res of thy soule, not to giue eare vnto him, he vvill allvvayes busse in thy eares, that vvhich thou vvouldst not heare, and vvill so plainly conuicte thee, that thou canst not deny the faulte. Gen. 3. Vvhen Adam and Eue had eaten of the forbidden frute, be­fore God accused them or tooke notice of the matter, their ovvn conscience ac­cused them, and so plainly convicted thē, [Page 587]that they vvent and hidde their heads in a bushe for shame. Gen. 4. Cain also their vnto­vvard sonne, had no soener made oblatiō of his niggardly sacrifice, but conscience accused him, and brought in such euiden­ce against him, that he chaunged conte­naunce like a guiltie person, and hounge dovvn his head like a sheep-biter. And he had noe soener butchered his inno­cēt brother Abel, Gen. 4. but Abells blood cryed vengeaunce against him; And thinke you that conscience held his peace? noe noe, this vvitnesse cryed out so shrilly against him, that he cryed peccaui and acknovv­ledge his faulte to be so great, that Gods mercie vvas not able to forgiue it. Like­vvise the brethern of Ioseph after that they had most traiterously sold him, and vvith a bloody coat had couered all the matter, and cleared them selues also befo­re their father; yet still, (especially vvhen any aduersitie crossed them) their cons­cience accused them, Gen. 42.44. and made them to confesse, that iustly their disignements vvere crossed for the vnkind parte vvhich they had played vvith their brother. So that the old prouerb herin is verified; con­scientia mille testes, consciēce is a thousand vvit­nesses. Nether is cōscience a lavv and vvit­nesse only, it is a ludge also, vvhich con­demneth vs if vve be guiltie, and absol­ueth [Page 588]vs also, if vve be innocent and guil­tles. Cain you see hangeth dovvn his head like a condemned man and confesseth the sentence Iuste, only his errour vvas that he appealed not from the tribunal of conscience, to the highe Iudge God him selfe vvhoe vvould haue shevved mercie if he had not dispayred of mercie. Cōsci­ence condemned Manas [...]es Dauid Marie Magdalen and all those paenitent sinners vvhich scripture hathe recorded, Psal. 50. Luc. 7. and that vvith suche euidence, that they con­fessed thē selues guiltie and the sentence iust. And vvee see by experience, that vvhē vvee seeke to excuse and flatter out selues, conscience vvill not be flattred, but like an incorrupt Iudge pronoūceth sen­tence against vs, euen they vvhen before Princes tribunals vvee bee freed and ab­solued. Conscience hauing pronounced sentence like a Iudge, executeth the sen­tence and punisheth vs like an executio­ner, and minister of Iustice, causing in our myndes, vvher the sinne vvas contri­ued and conceiued, a certain remorse and vvorme of conscience, vvhose gnavving tormenteth vs. So that vvhen the soule hathe conceiued sinne and borne it also, and brought it to light by external action, farre othervvise dothe this impious impe torment her, then doth the litle infante [Page 589]the vvoman great vvith childe. For the vvoman conceueth vvith pleasure, and though she beare vvith payne, yet after that she is deliuered & brought to bedd, she reioiceth, and vvithe so ioifull a harte, that she forgetteth her paines in bearing. But the soule, thoughe in cōceiuing sinne, she finde some pleasure, yet not vvithout some murmuring and grudging of cons­cience, and vvhen she is deliuered of this bastardly Impe, then beginnes her tor­ment. Mat. 27. Iudas vvas so invvardly vexed and tormented after he had conceiued and contriued his treason against his louing and Innocent Master, that for an ease he vvent and hoūge him selfe, counting that a lesse punishment then the torment of conscience. And true it is vvhich the scri­pture sayethe: Semper praesumit saeua, Sap. 17. pertur­bata conscientia: a troubled conscience allvvayes imagineth cruel and terrible thinges. True it is also vvhich Saint Austine affirmeth, l. 1. conf. c. 12. that euery incordinate mynde is a paine vnto it selfe. And true it is vv ^ch Iuuenal the Poet sayth,

But to go no farther, experience vvill [Page 590]vvitnes that conscience vvill neuer let a sinner be quiet, till by penaunce he hath ridde him selfe of his sinne, but vvaking it tormenteth him vvith remor­se, sleeping vvith fearfull dreames; and vvhersoeuer he goeth, it putteth hell be­fore his eyes, and the seuere Iudgement of God, the abomination of the sinne, and the greatnes of the offence. For as the drounken man, drinkes at the first vvith pleasure, but vvhen he is drounke, his head akes, his stomake is oppressed, and all his body is distempered, so al­though in the committing of the sinne vve take some pleasure, yet vvhen the sinne is committed, vve feele the smarte. And as the adulterer, theefe, or murde­rer, after that the facte is cōmitted, hathe allvvayes the seuere lavves and punishe­mentes before his eyes, and feareth the rumour of the people, and censure of the Iudge, thinketh euery man that looketh on him, ready to arrest him, and vvhere mē are not, is a frayed of trees, bushes and shadovves, so a man vvhose conscience condemnes him of sinne, feares his ovvne shadovve & the darkenes of the night, imagineth that in euery thunder clappe God leueleth at him, that euery old ho­vvse by vvhich he passeth, or into vvhich he entereth, staieth to make a fall on him, [Page 591]& surmiseth that in euery bush, one lyeth in vvayte to kill him. Sir Thom. More in his life. King Richarde the third may beare vvitnesse of the torments vvher vvith conscience vseth to afflicte all transgressours, for hee after that hee had most vnkindly and traiterouhy butche­red his innocēt Nephevves, vvhome, he should haue protected, vvas alvvayes so troubled in mynd, that after that facte, hee looked like a madman, some tymes laying his hande on his dagger, some ty­mes starting, some tymes soodainly loo­king backe, as if hee vvould vvarde some deadly blovve, vvhich allvvayes seemed prepared for him. Besides all this, sinne allvvayes breedeth a vvorme in consci­ence, vvhich is fedd by sinne, and neuer leaueth griping and gnavving, till sinne vvhich is this vvormes food, by penaunce is taken avvay, that so the gnavving vvor­me may dy for vvante of food, and con­sciēce receue ease, and be freed from such a torment. Novve contraryvvise if consci­ence finde vs guiltlesse, she absolueth vs like a Iudge by sentence, and cleareth vs euen then, vvhen men condemne vs, and declaring invvardly our innocencie be­fore God and our ovvne soule, recreateth the mynde and feasteth it vvith a banquet of contentment, according vnto that saying: Securamens iuge conuiuium: Prou. 15. a mynde [Page 592]vvithout care is a continuall banquet. This Peace follovveth a good conscience, vv ^ch like a good iudg declareth vs before God not guiltie. [...]. Io. [...]. So saint Ihon sayeth that if our harte) that is our conscience) reprehend vs not, 2. Cor. 1. vve haue a great confidence in God. And sainct Paul sayeth that our glorie is the testi­monie of our conscience. For althoughe men thinke euil of vs and condemne vs as guil­tie, yet if conscience cleare vs, that is our contentment of mynd, and glorye before God. l. cōe. Secūd. Man c. 1. Vvherfore sainct Austine biddeth the to thinke vvhat thou vvilt of Austine, only (sayeth hee) let not my conscience accuse me before God. By vvhich good offices of conscience it appeareth most manifestly, vvhat a svvay conscience bea­reth in the rule and ordering of mans life, and actions. The Prince and magistrate ruleth only the outvvard man, punisheth only our externall actiōs, bicause of them only he is able ro iudge, but conscience gouerneth bothe the outvvard and in vvard man, iudgethe of our invvard acti­ons, condemneth them and correcteth thē most seuerely as is allaeady declared. So that he that take the avvay conscience out of the vvorld, openeth a vvider gapp to all vice and disorder, then if hee should put all Princes and magistrates out of of­fice, and take the svvorde from them, bi­cause [Page 593]these being taken avvay, yet consci­ence being left, vvee should haue some guide & staye of our morall life, but if cō ­sciēce be abādoned then haue vve noe ru­ler nor gouernour of our invvard man, yea nor of the outvvard man, vvhen ether secrecie promiseth securitie, or povver dares vvarraunt vs to goe harmeles. And this the heathen Philosophers could see, yea could not but see: in so much that Ci­cero sayeth: Orat. pr [...] Milon [...]. magna vis est conscientiae in vtrā ­que partem vt neque timeant qui nihil commise­runt, & panam semper ante oculos versari pu­tent qui peccauerunt: great force hath conscience in both partes (that is in good and euil life) in so much that they feare not vvho haue com­mitted no fault, and they vvho haue offended, haue allvvayes the punishemēt before their eyes. l. 2. de leg [...]. And in an other place he proueth by ex­perience hovve necessarie cōscience is to restraine vs from sinne. For (sayeth he) take avvay conscience and vvhat vvill he do in the darke that feareth nothing but the vvitnesse or Iudge? Vvhat vvill he do in the desert, vvhen he meeteth vvith a mā loden vvith gold, and vveaker then him selfe? Truly if cōscience bee taken avvay, vve vvill neuer make scruple of secret sin­nes, no nor of publike transgressions, if ether by povver or bribe vve can escape the penalties of the lavve. If conscience [Page 594]bee once banished the vvorld, bargaines vvill seeldom holde, and promises vvill as seeldom bee kepte, chastitie vvil allvvaies bee in daūger, ritch, and treasurs vvill not bee secure, Princes liues vvill bee sub [...]et to hazard, false dealing vvilbe rife in buying and selling, th [...]eues, cooseners, cutpurses and conicatches haue good leaue and li­bertie to exercise their artes, and the gap­pe vvill ly open vnto all vice. Hovve per­niciouse then vnto vertue and hovv fa­uourable vnto vice is our Reformers do­ctrine vvhich (as I shall euidētlye proue, and therfore breefly, bicause euidently) despoilethe the vvorlde of conscience more necessarye to mans life then the sonne it selfe. They say as is allready rela­ted, that to a faithfull man and true Chri­stian, God imputeth no sinne: vvhy then should a Christian make conscience of sinne vvhich if it bee not imputed ether is no sinne at all or else not to bee ca [...]ed for? They auouch that since Adams fall man neuer had free vvill and libertie, and seing that vvher noe libertie is no sinne can bee (for no man deserueth euil for that vvhich he could not auoid) it follo­vvethe that vvhosoeuer is persuaded (as all must be by theyr opinion) that hee hath no free-vvill, must make nether con­science, nor scruple of any sinne. They [Page 595]affirme also that by Christe vvee are freed from all obligation of lavves, in so much that noe lavve can bynde or touch our conscience; vvee need not then make scrouple of anye transgression or sinne, vvhich in that it is sinne is against y ^e obli­gatiō of one lavve or other, bicause vvhe­re no lavve byndeth there is no obligatiō, vvhere noe obligation, is noe breach or transgression can bee founde, and vvhere no transgressiō, there is no sinne, & vvhe­re noe sinne is, no conscience of sinne is to be made. It is an article also of fay the amongest them or at least a thing necessa­ry to bee beleeued, that the commaunde­mentes are ampossible. vvho then vvilbee so madde as to make conscience for not full filling the lavve vvhich is impossible to bee full-filled? as vvell truly maye the prisonner make a conscience that hee go­eth not to the Church or sernson on an holy daye vvhen he is faste, chained to a blocke in prison, and the dores are faste locked & bolted. Bicause it is as impossi­ble (if Caluin lye not) to keepe the com­maundements, as for that prisonner to go to the Churche. They are of opinion that God is the autour of all our sinnes as vvell, yea more then vvee or selues, bicause hee is the principall cause vvee are only his instrumēts; vvhich if it bee true, noe man [Page 596]needeth to bee soe scrupulous as to ma­ke bones of that, of vvhich God him sel­fe maketh no conscience? And if con­science bee takē a vvaye, the lavve, vvit­nesse, Iudge and Executioner is taken a vvaye; & so good leaue is giuen to playe vvhat euill parts vvee vvill, if ether vvee can by secrecie auoid the magistrats eye, or by violence and force resiste his po­vver, for then, conscience being taken a vvaye, nothing is remaining to keep vs in avve.

I Haue allready declared hovv the Re­formers by many pointes of their do­ctrine opē the gapp to all vice in generall, novv it shall not be amiss to shevv, hovv they fauourize some vices especially and in particuler. And first I vvill begin­ne vvith pride, bicause that vvas the first sinne and the first cause of all sinnes, [...]li. 10. bi­cause the deuil sinned before man, and his first sinne vvas svvelling pride, by vvhich hee coueted to bee as great, and as highe in perfection as the highest. Yea many are of opinion that Adams first sinne also vvas pride, vvhich moued him to eate of the forbidden frute maugre the comma­undement [Page 597]of God, imagining that soe, (for so the deuill had promised) hee should become like vnto God in knovv­ing good and euil. And this is the cause vvhy proud men especially are called the children of the deuil, bicause by pride they especially ressemble him. Vvher­fore that doctrine vvhich stirreth vp a proude cōceipte in vs, cā not bee of God, bicause it moueth to pride vvhich is of the deuil; and therfore if I shall proue that our reformers doctrine puffeth vp vvith pride all those vvhich follovve it, I shall proue it not to bee of God but of the deuil. For althoughe pride be a common disease of all heretikes (for vvhoe so pre­ferreth his ovvne iudgement before the vvholle Church as all heretikes doe in that they are heretikes, must needes con­demne him selfe of an extraordinarie pri­de) yet some heretikes by some pointes of their doctrine, haue giuen more especi­all cause of this sinne of pride. The Gno­stikes vvere of opinion that as gold thou­ghe cast into the mire, neuer looseth his natiue colour and perfectiō, so a iust man, such as they counted them selues, Ex Iren. l. 10 c. 1. can ne­uer bee soyled, neuer loose his perfection in vvhat actions soeuer hee intermed­leth him selfe, thoughe in adulteries and fornications. Vvhich doctrine moued [Page 598]them to suche a conceit of thē selues, that they thought them selues to knovve al thinges and to be so perfecte, that noe sinne could contaminate them. Ex Anth l. c. de poenit. c. [...]. The like vvas the pride of the Nouatiās vvho ther­fore called them selues, pure, and cleane. And to omit the pride of Arius, Nesto­rius, chap. 5. Luther, and Caluin vvhich in the first booke I haue set dovvne, let vs see hovv their doctrine puffeth mē vp vvith pride. They are of opinion, as is allready rela­ted, that vvee are iust by no other iustice then Christes ovvn iustice; vvhich doctri­ne vvhoe soever embraceth, he must needs be persvvaded that he is as iuste as Christe him selfe, bicause in his opinion they haue bothe one and the same iustice; vvhich persuasiō is enough to stirre vs vp to Luciferiā pride as is allready in another place demonstrated. See the third booke. They assure their Schollers also that the iustifying faith is a full assura [...]nce of iustice, saluation, and election, as may appear by their ovvn vvords vvhich I haue in this seuenth boo­ke allready set dovvn, vvhich also giues great occasion of an insolent pride. For if vvhen vve persuade our selues (as Catho­likes doe) that vvee are nether sure vvhat novv vve are before God, nor vvhat shall become of vs hereafter, vve haue occa­sion to humiliate our selues, Phil. 2. and to vvorke [Page 599]our saluation in feare: then certes he that persuadethe him selfe, that hee is cocke­sure of his saluation, hathe great occasion to become carelesse, arrogaunte, hautie, and high-mynded. Greg l. 6. Reg c. 186. Vve haue an exam­ple of a noble vvoeman called Gregoria mayd of honour to the Emperess, vv [...]oe hauing conceiued highly of saint Grego­ries sanctitie, vvrote vnto him to imparte vnto her a secret, to vvit vvhether her sin­nes vvere forgiuen or noe; but sainct Gre­gorie ansvvered her that she demaunded of him a harde and vnprofitable questiō; harde, bicause his sanct tie vvas not such as to deserue a reuelation from God of so secret a matter; vnprofitable, bicause (sayeth he) such a reuelation vnto you vvere not expedient: better it is that you should be ignoraunte of that till the laste daye, vvhich must allvvayes be feared & suspected, that in the meane tyme you may vvash avvay your sinnes by teares of contrition. See the first booke, [...]hap. [...]. They affirme also that e­uery man hath a priuate spirite by vvhich hee is sure vvhich is true scripture, and vvhat is the true meaning therof: vvho therfore, bee hee man or vvoman, clarke or cobler, is supreme Iudge of religion, and is to rely nether on Pope, nor Chur­che, nor Councell, for faithe and religion. Vvhich doctrine hovve highe it is able to [Page 600]enhaunce the spirites of men that are so persuaded, a blinde man may see; and this is the very cause vvhy Luther vvill iud­ge both of Churches and Councells and preferre his ovvn iudgemēt before them all. See the first booke, chap. 3. For althoughe hee sayeth only that by scripture hee vvill iudge Fathers, Chur­ches, Apostles, & Angelles also, yet seing that the controuersie is not vvhether fa­thers or scriptures are to beleeued, bicau­se they vvere neuer contrarie, but rather vvhether Luther or they better vnder­stood the scriptures, hee maketh him sel­fe, in effecte, Iudge of Churche, Pope, Councelles, Fathers and Angells; vvhe­rin hovv brauely he playeth the parte of Lucifer, it is as euident as that Luther, and Lucifer begin vvith a letter.

ALl creaturs are created to vvorke & labour, and so they must attaine vn­to their ende and perfection, bicause God and nature hathe so ordained it. The angelicall spirits like byrds in the spring­tyme (for heauen is a continuall spring­tyde) sing prayses vnto their Creatour [Page 601]and attend continually vppon the diuine maiestie on highe, yet so, that they haue also an eye vnto our affayres and necessi­ties in this lovver vvorld. For the suprem Angells receue illuminations from God, vvhich they imparte vnto the inferiour, vvhich are allvvayes occupied in garding and defending vs and menaging our af­faires: and so ether mediately or imme­diately they are administratorij Spiritus, Heb. [...]. ad­ministring spirits. The heauens moue con­tinually, for the better and more equal be­stovving of their light and influences vp­pon this inferiour vvorld. The Sonne le­aues our hemisphere at night, not to sle­ep or to rest him selfe, but to ronne ano­ther course in the other Hemisphere for the illuminating of those that are Antipo­des vnto vs, vvhich course being ronne, he retournes to vs in the morning & so is neuer idle. The moone euery monethe en­des her course, & euery starre and planet hathe his taske appointed him, vvhich in a certain tyme he must accomplish. The earthe vvhē he is out of his place moueth dovvn vvard to the Center, and vvhen by force hee is deteined, hee shevveth by his vvaite vvhat an inclination hee hathe vnto his proper motion: The fier moun­teth aboue all tovvardes the Concauitie of the Moone vvhich is his naturall pla­ce: [Page 602]the vvater and ayre take vp the mid­dle roomes vvhere and vvhether they moue continually. Trees, plantes, and hearbes seeme in vvinter to take their rest after theyr former labours, and in the spring tyme they fall to vvorke again, and first they bringe forthe leaues, then bloo­mes and blossomes, and lastly the svveete frutes of their labours. Brute beastes be­sides the labours to vvhich by man they are appointed, haue their ovvn proper exercises in vvhich they occupie them selues. The bee is not soe bigge in body as busie in operation, in so much that vvhen vve vvill describe a laborious mā, vvee say that he is as busie as a bee. These litle creaturs vvhat paynes take they in gathering their hony, in making their combes, in disposing and vvorking their hony, and vvhilest some are vvorking abroad to bringe home the matter of ho­ny, some staye at home to order it, some vvatche for the securitie of them that la­bour, and all are incensed against the idle drones, and do not only expelle them out of theyr company, but punishe them al­so seuerly euen vnto death it selfe. Prou 6. The Ante also of vvhome the scripture bid­deth the idle parson to learne his lesson, laboureth in the sommer to make pro­uision for that on vvhich he is to liue in [Page 603]vvinter. So laborious are these litle crea­turs, that many tymes they cary burdens bigger then them selues, Plin l. [...]. c. 1. Horat. l. 1. Satyr. 1. and that vvith such diligence, that vvith passing often times one vvay, their litle feete doe make a pathe to appeare euen in the flinte. And vvhen amongest other prouision they haue brought home their corne to their barnes, they are not idle after haruest is doone, but sometymes they are occupied in nibling vppon the endes of the corne, and graines, least they should grovve a freshe; and least that the moysture of the earthe corrupte their corne, they bring it forthe in a sonnie daye to drying, and aftervvardes they cary it againe into their granaries. Byrdes builde their ovvne nes­tes and flye farre and often for the tym­ber and morter vvhich is belonging vn­to the making of such a pallace. Conyes vvorke their burrovves out of the groūd, and there is noe creature vvhich is not deputed to vvorke in one kind or other. And shall vve thinke that mans felicitie consisteth in idlenes? Noe, noe, as the bir­de is bread to flye so man is borne to vvor­ke and labour: Iob. [...]. in so much that God appointed Adam his taske in Paradise, vvhich vvas to labour & till the grounde, vvhich labour notvvithstanding should haue been noe paine but rather a pleasure [Page 604]and recreatiō vnto him. For if Cirus king of the Persians tooke such delight in gar­dening, in so much that he caste the bed­des and knottes of his ovvne gardēs, sette his ovvne hearbes and planted, and pru­ned also his trees vvith his ovvne hands; if the Romaine dictatours taken from til­lage and husbandry, retourned againe to the same exercise after, the tyme of bea­rīg office vvas expired, much more might Adame in the state of innocencie and the garden of pleasure haue laboured, Perier l. 4. in Gin. and vvorked for his recreation and pleasure, th [...] God delte vvith Adam to signifie by this corporall exercise vvhich hee appoin­ted him, the taske and labour vvhich is necessarie for the soule in the exercise of morall and supernaturall vertue, vvhose operations are called vvorkes. And truly vvho soe considereth the end of man and his felicity, Th. c. 2. q. 3 a. 2. & 4. vvhich consisteth in the perpe­tuall vision and contemplation of God, vvhich is the most noble operatiō vvhich man hath, vvil not meruail that the mea­nes to attaine to this ende should be good vvorkes and operations. Vvherfore scri­pture all most in euery place exhorteth vs to the obseruation of the cōmaundemen­tes, to vvorkes of charitie, iustice, mercie, temperaunce, fortitude, patience and such other vvorkes of vertue. And for this cau­se [Page 605]our life is some tymes compared to a vvarfare in vvhich vve must allvvayes be fighting, or arming, or fortifying our sel­ues, or obseruing the enemie, as souldiours doe; somety mes vve are compared to la­bourers in the vinyard vvhoe vvorke for vvages, some tymes to runners & vvrast­lers, vvho ronne and striue for a gole, crovvne, or revvard. So that our perse­ction also consisteth in action, labour and operation. And truly vvhoe considereth hovve vnvvorthy a man idlenes is, vvill neuer dreame that in it should consiste a Christians perfection. For idlenes is the mother of all vice, & the very bane of ver­tue, and no lesse pernicious to mans soule and body also, then it is to the grounde of the gardener or husband man. For as the earth not tilled nor laboured, bringes for­the nothing but vveedes, as the tree not pruned beares nought but leaues, and at the length not so much as leaues; so if by continuall exercise of vertue, and good vvorkes, the seed-plotte of our soule bee not continually manured and tilled, the seede of Gods inspirations & inclinations to vertue, vvhich are neuer vvanting in our soule, bring for the noe frute of good vvorkes and vertuouse actions, but only the breres, brambles and vveedes of vices do ouergrovv the soule. And as the poole [Page 606]that standeth and moueth vvith noe strea­me, stinketh, and engendrethe nothing else but frogges, snakes & serpents, so the soule of man vvhich is allvvayes idle and vnoccupied and neuer moued vvith the exercise of vertue, putrifieth in her ovvn corruption, and bringeth forthe nothing but monstrouse vices. Truly vvhen man is idle he is vnarmed and exposed to all danger. Then the deuil takers his tyme, the fleshe aslaultes him, the vvorld mole­stes him, and he becomes slaue & captiue to them all bicause by operatiō he makes no resistaunce. And vvhereas much hurte hath proceeded from idlenesse, neuer yet any exploit or entreprise vvorthy a man. Hence proceed fornications, adulteries, robberies, for vvhen the mynde is not oc­cupied in good cogitations it is occupied in euil, bicause it can not be altogether idle but ether it is vvell or ill occupied. Vvherfore the Poet demaundethe vvhy Aegistus became an adulterer, & he ans­vvereth thus. In promptu causa est, desidiosus erat: The cause is easily to bee tolde: hee vvas an idle person. Vvhen a man is idle and not ex­ercised in vertuouse actions, vvhich pro­duce good habits by vvhich our sensuali­tie is boidled, and our passions are mode­rated; then the flesh vvaxeth vvanton, sensualitie becomes effeminate, the pas­sions [Page 607]are vnruly, and the man impotent to all vertue. Vvherfore Scipio in one thing, vvas vviser thē Cato, bicause Cato vvould haue had Carthage destroyed, that Rome might enioy a freer peace and libertie; but Scipio counted it more profitable for Rome to haue Cathage stand, that Rome might haue an enemie to exercise her: vvhich opinion of Scipio, tyme proued truest, for vvhē Carthage vvas aftervvards ruined, Rome thinking her selfe secure, became careles and idle, and the Romai­nes, by idlenes lost their former force & provves, and became altogether effemi­nate and impotent, slaues to sensualitie, vvho before hand beene Lords of the vvorld. And yet according to our nevv reformers doctrine, idlenes is the accom­plishment and perfection of morall, and Christian life. For they first of all vvill ma­ke vs to beleeue that a naked farthe, by vvhich vvee apprehēd Christes iustice to bee ours, is that vvhich iustifieth, and vvhich is sufficient to saluation, vvithout good vvorkes, or obseruatiō of the lavve. Vvhich if it be true, Christian perfection shall consiste in an abstracted and idle ap­prehension of Christes iustice, but in no practise nor exercise of vertue, in noe la­bour or good vvorke at all: and so vvhe­ras all other creaturs attain to their end [Page 608]by action, motion, and labour, man only by idlenes, that is by apprehending only, and doing nothing, shall purchase his fe­licitie. The artificer shall come to perfe­ction in his arte by labour, exercise, and operation, not of one or tvvoe, but many dayes, yea of his vvholle life, bicause by cōtinuall practise he augmenteth his skill; but the arte of a Christian shall require no practice at all, no labour, no vvorking, bicause according to this opinion, on on­ly acte of faith before a man dyeth, is suf­ficient to iustifie him from all his former sinnes, and to make him as iuste & as ho­ly as Christe him selfe, vvho is the holy of holyes, and so eternal felicitie vvhich is an operation, by vvhich vvee see God face to face & enioie our summum bonum, shall be gotten vvithout operation, and vvee shall vvinne our gole vvithout running, atcheue our victorie vvithout fighting, and gaine our vvages vvithout vvorking; that is by an idle faythe, vvhich apprehen­deth only, but doeth nothing. They teach vs also that since Adames fall our nature is so corrupte, that all our actions euen those that go for best, are mortall, and dā ­nable sinnes, in so much that you may as vvell and as soone, get oyle out of a mar­ble stone, as vvring one good vvorke frō the nature of man; vvhich if it be true, [Page 609]then certes sleeping and idlenesse is our greatest perfection. For if in euery acte vvee sinne mortally, better vvere it to sleepe, then to vvatche and praye, better to sitte idle & to do nothing, then some­thing, bicause in doing nothing vve doe no harme, in doing some thing vvhatsoe­uer it bee, (bee it prayer and almes deeds) vvee sinne mortally, & so idlenesse is our perfectiō, bicause better it is to be idle thē ill occupied. Vvhence follovveth my in­tended cōclusion, to vvit, that according to the reformers doctrine idlenesse is the perfection of a Christian mans life, and the best and surest meanes to attaine vnto his felicitie and to purchasse his Saluatiō.

CHastitie is a vertue vvhich allvvayes hath been priced at an highe rate, & valevved as one of the most precious ie­vvels of morall vertues: in so much that euen the heathens, though destitute of the light of faith, beholding the beautie of this vertue, fell into admiration of it, and from admiration came to bee in loue vvith the same. Lucretia a noble matro­ne of Rome is famous for this vertue, [Page 610]vvho being violently oppressed by Tar­quinius Superbus sonne, tooke the mat­ter for such a disgrace, that vvith her ovv­ne handes she killed her selfe, counting lesse of death thē of life ioined vvith such a disgrace. And the pagane Poets vvere so blinded vvith the splendour of this her vertue, that they could not see the fovvle faulte vvhich she comitted in killing her selfe. [...] c. 19. For as Sainct Austine sayeth if it vvas noe dishonestie to be oppressed vn­vvillingly, it vvas noe iustice to punishe her selfe vvith deathe, vvho had not been dishonest. The vestal virgins also vvere much admired for this vertue, or at least for a shevv of the same, and seuerly vvere they punished vvhen professing chastitie, they liued loosely, Liu dec. 1 [...] 8. Dec. 3. [...] 3. vvhich yet they did so seeldome, that vvhen such a fault hapned, the yeare vvas counted v̄nluckie, and the citie of Rome vvas purged, and the Gods appeased vvith extraordinarie sacrifices. Ex Gorg in [...] pro Hel. The lavve of Areopagus punished no less him, that by importunitie entised, then him that enforced, bicause the first abused bothe soule and body, the second the be­dy only. By vvhich it may vvel appeare of vvhat valevv this vertu is, bicause the deuil as by paganes he desired to bee ho­noured as a God in their Sacrifices, [...] vvould hee be serued of them by his ve­stals, [Page 611]as God is by his virgins. But not on­ly paganes haue esteemed of Chastitie, for brute beasts also, although they be not ca­pable of true vertue, Epiph. her. 7 haue affected an ima­ge of this vertue. The Lionesse permit­teth the Lion but once, and once to pro­pagate her Kinde, and once only to kee­pe Chastitie so much as may be vvithout iniury to her Kinde. Aelian l 14. [...] c. 35. Plin. l. 10. c. [...]0. The byrde called Porphyrion vvill sorte her selfe vvith no moe mates then one, and so abhorreth vvomanish dishonestie, that if she see the vvife commit adulterie, Cirilles. she vvill bevvray it to the husband by hanging her selfe. Yea if this byrd perceue any mayd to play the naughtie-packe or harlot, she vvill pine her selfe avvay to death. The li­ke is the nature of the Turtle, vvho vvhen her mate is dead, mourneth in solitarie places, and neuer vvill admit any other to her company, much lesse vvill she play a­ny false play vvhilest her mate liueth, Carm. [...] Ʋisg. & foe (sayeth sainct Gregorie Nazianzene) she giueth vs to vnderstand, at vvhat a price virginitie is to be valevved. l. [...] c. 1 [...] The Storke is such a louer of chastitie, that (as Aelian reporteth) vvhen on a tyme a cer­tain vvoman of the citie Ceres in Thessa­lia vvas false to her husband in being to familiare vvith her man, this byrde so ab­horred the facte that she pulled out the [Page 612]adulterers eyes. Georg. Picto rius villinga­nus med. & Palladius. Bees also are so deligh­ted vvith chastitie that besides that they conceue vvithout carnall copulation, they vvill not stay in their hiues, if their keper be blasphemous, slouenlyke, grea­sie, vnchast, or impur of body. And in our selues be vve neuer so giuen to Luxurie, vvee experience hovv nature reueren­ceth as it vvere this vertue of chastitie. Aug l. 14. [...]iu. c. 1 [...]. For vvho is so impudent, that is not asha­med of his ovvne lustes, and therfore e­uerie one desireth darkenes, or obscuritie and secrecie to hide them, euen then vvhen hee taketh but his lavvfull plea­sure vvith his vvife. c. 19. Th. 2.2. q. [...]. a. 1. And vvhy sayeth S. Austine are vvee more ashamed of our lustes, then other vices or passions? The reason is (sayeth he) bicause the rebel­lion of the fleshe, is farre different from other vices and passions, bicause these vvee can vvhen vvee vvill especially if vvee adde force to our vvill, represse and moderate, but the fleshe hathe gotten, (since Adams falle) such an hand ouer the spirit, and vvill, that thoughe vvee maye deny consent vnto her lustes and desires, yet vvee can not quite represse them, bee vvee as holy and perfecte as sainct Paule vvas; And this makes the spi­rit ashamed, to take so fovvle a foyle of the fleshe, vvhich as she is inferiour to [Page 613]the spirit, so should she be at the spirits becke and commaundemēt. l. 1 Offi [...]. Out of the­se premises Cicero gathereth this con­clusion, to vvit, that seing man is asha­med of pleasure, it is an argumēt, that it is vnvvorthy the excellencie of mans natu­re, and I vvill adde another conclusion, vvhich is this, that if lust and corporall pleasure bee a thing to blushe at, then chastitie vvhich is an abstinence from pleasure, is a vertue most honourable, gracing, and beseeming mās nature. And allthough in the beginning of the vvorld, vvhen mankind vvas not yet fully pro­pagated, and again after Noes flud vvhen it vvas all most ruinated, God commaun­ded matrimonie, yet did he euen then by many signes and tokens, but after vvar­de, more especially, commend also cha­stitie as a vertue most commendable. Gen. 2. For althoughe hee him selfe made the mar­riage betvvixt Adam and Eue, and bad­de them increase and multiplie, yet he created them of virgins earth, vvhich as yet had not lost her integritie, and he pre­serued them virgins so long as they Kept their innocencie; and so virginitie, and innocencie, vvere companions in paradi­se, and the vse of matrimonie began vvith miserie. And if antiquitie may procure credit, virginitie must take the preceden­ce [Page 614]of matrimonie, bicause the vvoman is a virgin before a vvife, & a mayd before a mother. Yea althoughe both in y ^e lavve of nature, and in the lavve vvritten, the grea­test parte imbraced matrimonie, and fevv then did settle their cogitations vppon virginitie, partely bicause men vvere as yet carnall and imperfecte, partelie bicau­se mankind vvas not fully propagated, partely bicause the Messias vvas not yet borne, and therfore euery one desired to mary, hoping that the Messias might chaunce to descend from their race (vv ^ch vvas the cause vvhy barrennes vvas then so ignominious) yet euen then virginitie had her follovvers, and vvell vvillers. Abel, the first Preest vve read of after A­dam, and the first martyr, vvas a virgin, Helias, Helizeus, Hieremie, and sainct Ihon Baptist, as the scripture insinuateth, and sainct Hierom affirmeth, l. 1. cont. Iou. vvere all chaste and vndesiled virgins. The highe preest of Moyses lawe, although he might marry (bicause that people vvas carnall and their sacrifices vvere carnall and so required no virgin-preests) yet he vvas commaunded to mary a virgin, and to absteine from her also vvhen he vvas to sacrifice. But in the nevv lavve, vvhich brought more grace and greater perfe­ction vvith it, and therfore is called the [Page 615]fullnes of tyme, virgins vvere more fre­quent. For after that the authour of this lavve Christe Iesus vvas borne a virgin of a virgin mother, then all the vvorld seemed to bee inamoured vvith virgini­tie. The Apostles vvhich vvere Christes first Preests, and Bishops, vvere ether vir­gins, or liued chast like virgins, after preesthood. Sainct Philip had fovvre daughters, vvhich liued and dyed virgins. Act. 2 [...]. S. Mathevve the Apostle in Aethiopia in­stituted an angelicall college of virgins, Euseb l. 3. [...]o 30. to vvhich hee appointed Iphegenia y ^e Kings dāghter for the Abbesse, In vita cius. vv ^ch after vvards cost him his life, but got him the crovvne of martydome. I de vit. con­tempt. Philo the levve makes mention of diuers societies, vvhich in the primatiue Churche liued chastly. Apol 2. Iusti­nus martyr affirmeth, that noe people vvas so giuen vnto chastitie, as vvere the Christiās of his tyme, vvhen (as hee sayth) bothe men and vvomen kept virginitie to the end, and caryed it vvith them to their graue, yea to heauen, for a ievvell. The like report giueth Tertullian of the Christians of his tyme, S. Ignatius, Apol. c. 9. Ep. ad [...]hilad. sainct Paules scholler in one of his epi [...]les, Sa­luteth a College of virgins, and a societie of vvidovves, Ep ad Haron [...] and vvhen he vvas going to martvrdome, the cogitation of his de­ath, and the lions vvhich vvere to deuour [Page 616]him, could not put them out of his mynd, but euen then hee commended them to his Deacon and successours, as the precious Ievvels of Christe. Ruff. l. 1 c. 8. Theod. l. 1. [...].1 [...]. Ruffinus also and other Historiographers in commendation of Queen Helena Constantines mother, and our countrie vvoman, telleth hovve vvhē she came to Hierusalem, she that vvas the Emperess of the vvorld, vouchsaffed to serue the virgins at table, as a vvayting maide. l. 4. vitae Cōst [...]. 28. And Eusebius puttes it amongest the prayses of Constintine her sonne, that he caryed allvvayes a great respecte to virgins, persuading him self, that God him selfe, dvvelled in such chaste myndes. Nether cā our Reformers ansvvere vvith any probabilitie, that this vvas the abuse and corruption of that tyme, bicause it vvas the vse and custome of the prime Christians, in vvhose memories the life, vvorkes, vvords, and examples of Christe, and his Apostles, vvere freeshe, and in vvhose harts, the blood of Christe as yet vvas vvarme. And if this vvere an abuse, holy scripture is the cause of it, vvhich in many places commendeth Chastitie, and virginitie. [...] The Prophere Isaie or rather God by his mouthe, biddes Eunuches that is, chaste virgins, not to cōplain that they haue noe posteritie in vvhich their name maye continevv, for sayeth hee, I [Page 617]vvill giue them a place in my hovvse and a bet­ter name, then they could haue in sonnes and daughters, for I vvill giue them an aeternall name vvhich shall neuer perishe. Vvher hee can not meane Ennuches by nature, bicause hee hathe no reasō to pro­mise more to them then to others, bicau­se theyr chastitie is forced, but hee must needes bee vnderstood of those Eunu­ches, of vvhich Christe spoake, Mat. [...]. vvhen hee sayed, that there are some, that haue gelded them selues, that is haue depriued them [...]el­ues of corporall pleasures by free electiō. Sainct Paule also auoucheth, Cor. 7 [...]. that it is good not to touch a vvoeman, And againe hee counsayleth them that are free from a vvife not to seeke a vvrfe. Ibidem. Yea sayeth hee I vvould haue all like my selfe, that is chast and conti­nent, as all the Interpretours expound. And allthough (sayeth he) I haue noe la­vve, yet I counsail all to be virgins: Ibidem. Yea reason also giueth chastitie the preccdēce of ma­trimonie: For first as I haue sayed allrea­dy, in that vve are ashamed of all carnall copulatiō, euen of that vvhich by maria­ge is made lavvfull, it is an argument that Chastitie is more beseeming the nature of man. Secondly, man is reasonable and sensual, spirituall, and carnall, by reason of his compound nature, and by the reaso­nable parte, hee aggreeth vvith angells, by [Page 618]the sensuall parte vvith beastes; and seing that the reasonable parte, is the best and noblest portion in him, abstinence from corporall pleasures makes him most like to him selfe, yea to Angells, bicause by that hee liueth a reasonable life, yea and Angelicall, and more then Angelicall, vvhoe in fleshe, and blood, liueth chastly like an Angell. Thirdly oure goods are di­uided into three partes, to vvit the goods of fortune, vv ^ch are ritches, honours, of­fices, and such like; the goodes of the bo­dy, vvhich are healthe, and pleasure; the goodes of the mynde, vvhich are vertues, and our ovvne vvilles, and desires: if then it bee a thing highly pleasing God, vvhen by voluntarie pouertie, or almes­deedes, vvee despoile our selues of our goods of fortune, for his sake, or his mē ­bers the poore; if it pleaseth him also, vvhen by obedience vvee resigne our vvilles and desires, vvhich are the goods of our mynde, into the handes of our Su­periours, and consequently into the han­des of God, from vvhom they haue their authoritie; vvhy shall it not bee laudable to vveane our selues, euē in the flovvre of our yeares, from those goods of the bo­dye, vvhich are called pleasures, but yet so are goods and pleasures of the body, that cōmonly they doe the soule the grea­test [Page 619]domages and displeasures. Lastly if to vse moderation in eating and drinking, bee a vertue called temperaunce, vvhy shall not a moderation in pleasurs of the fleshe and sensualitie, (vvhich vvee call chastitie) bee esteemed also as a vertue? But our Epicurs vvill say, that a modera­tion in pleasurs is good, but yet as it is vn­lavvfull to absteyne altogether from mea­re, so is it a sinne to renounce all pleasurs of the body. To this vvee haue an easy ansvvere, to vvit, that the first abstinence is vnlavvfull, bicause it killeth the bodye vvhich can not liue vvithout meate, but the second is lavvfull and laudable, bicau­se corporall pleasures are not necessary for the bodyes maintenaunce, and com­monly are preiudiciall to the soule, and sometymes to the body also. But yet they haue not doone, it is against nature as they saye, & preiudiciall to mankinde to liue chastly. I ansvvere that chastitie is a­gainst the nature of the fleshe and sensua­litie, by vvhich vve aggree vvith beastes, but it is most beseeming our reasonable nature, vvhich is the principall parte of man, and so is absolutely aggreable vnto man, bicause the reasonable portion is that, vvhich maketh him a man. And al­thoughe if all men should liue chaste it vvoulde bee preiudiciall to mankind, yet [Page 620]for some to bee chast, it is not any vvise derogating; and vvee need not feare least all men be chast, bicause it is not a thing so easie, but is an harde and heroicall ver­tue, vvhose difficultie deterreth the most parte of men. Such an obiection Vigilan­tius once made, Hier l. [...]. con­tra Ʋigil. If all be virgins (sayed he) mariadges shall not bee, children shall not cry in cradles, and mankind shall perish. But sainct Hierom a [...]svvereshe him: rara est virtus, nec à pluribus appetitur: vertue is rare, and not desired of many, and so it is not be feared least all be virgins. Novv therfore it being proued, that virginitie and chastitie is lau­dable, and more beseeming man, then ma­trimonie, bicause it is agreable to man as hee is reasonable, it remaineth that vvee declare hovv our aduersaries by their do­ctrine, do misprice this vertue. But first it shall not be a misse to distinguishe three kinds of chastitie, that so it may appeare the better vvhat enemies, they are vnto all the three kinds. The first chastitie is neuer to haue experienced carnall plea­surs, vvhich is called virginitie. The se­cond, is to haue experienced them in ma­trimonie, but neuer after, and this is vvi­dovves chastitie. The third is a moderate vse of these pleasurs in matrimonie, bet­vvixt man and vvife. The last is lavvfull and honest, bicause as matrimonie is lavv­full [Page 621]so is the vse of it, and consequently, lavvfull also is the delight v. hich follov­veth this vse. The second is more perfe­cte, bicause it absteynes at least from fu­ture pleasurs. The first is perfectest of all, bicause it is an abstinence, from all carnal pleasure. To come therfore more neare our purpose, let vs see vvhat is the conceit of our reformers concerning this goodly vertu. Luther seemes to bee of Rabbi Salomons opinion, in c. 9. Gen. vvho condemned all those as guiltie of homicide, vvho ende­uoured not to begett children: bicause he laboureth by all meanes for multiplicatiō; and to make matrimonie more frequent, and to giue sensualitie a greater scope, he taketh avvay all impediments, and obsta­cles, vvhich the Churche had layed in the vvay of sensualitie, partely for the loue she hath of chastitie, partely for the grea­ter honour and decencie of matrimonie. And first to begin vvith consan guinitie, to. [...]. ser. de Mat Wistēh. 1 [...]22. l de cap Bab. c. ae matrim. he permitteth and admitteth matrimonie betvvixt Sisters and brothers children, betvvixte the sonne and Mother in lavve, yea (sayeth he) if the vvife can do it secret­ly, she may ly vvith her husbāds brother, if she experience, that she can haue no issue by him. In breefe he taketh avvay all impedimēts of consanguinitie, vvhich are not set dovvne in the old lavve. In af­finitie, [Page 622]he makethe very fevve impedi­ments: for (sayeth he) a man may mary vvith his vvifes sister, vvith his vvifes mo­thers daughter, vvith the daughter of his vvifes vncle, vvith any cousin germaines of his vvifes cousins. In spirituall cogna­tion, vvhich is contracted by baptisme, he acknovvledgeth no impedimēt at all, but allovveth of mariage euen betvvixt the God-father, and God-daughter. In adop­tion also he findeth as fevve impedimēts, permitting the father to marye vvith his adopted daughter. Infidelitie, vvith this man of faithe, is noe obstacle, for (sayeth hee) it is as lavvfull to mary vvith a Tur­ke, or Ievv, as to eate and drinke vvith them. Vovv of virginitie is noe hindera­unce vvith him, and therfore hee being a Fryar maryed a Nonne. The like is his o­pinion of preesthood. And thus he ma­kes the vvay broader to all sensualitie and consequētly to hel it selfe. l. 4. Inst. c. 1 [...]. Caluin in parte subscribeth to Luther in this pointe, for he misliketh much that the Church hath made spiritual cognation an impedimēt, and hath made moe restraintes from mariad­ge then ether Moyses or the Policie of many countries haue euer dreamed on. And thus they giue greater libertie to ma­riage, & endeuour by all meanes to bring virginitie, vvhich is the noblest and vvor­thiest [Page 623]kind of chastitie into disgrace. And this noe doubt is the cause, vvhy Luther & all the packe of the reformers so highly esteem, and prayse matrimonie, coldly commēding, yea by odious comparisons iniuriously despising virginitie. Luther sayeth that virginitie only in this, S [...]rm. cit. de matrins to. [...] in 1. Cor. [...]. excel­leth matrimonie, that it is not combred vvith cares, and troubles, vvhich are inci­dent vnto mariage, and thersore is a lesse hindraunce to preaching and prayer, but as for merit before God hee sayeth, that matrimonie is as good as virginitie: yea so vvas this mans mynde sotted vppon mariadge, that hee vvas not ashamed to saye, that matrimonium est velut aurum, Ibidem. status verò spiritualis veluti stercus: matrimonie is like gold but the spirituall state of life is like an homly thing. See hovve carnal this man of God is, hovve sensual hee is and beastly, that ta­keth vppon him to reforme the vvorld, and auoucheth him selfe the only mā that hath the spirit of God. See hovv opposit Luther is to S. Paule, hee counsayles virgi­nitie as better, then Matrimonie, Luther sayeth it is no better thē an homly thinge, vvhere vvith it had beene better that his mouthe had beene filled, then that hee should haue vttered such beastly doctrine. But hee vvill saye that it is not virginitie, vvhich vvith so fovvle a mouthe hee thus [Page 624]mispriceth, but the vovve of virginitie, vvhich is astate of life, but if virginitie bee good, lavvfull, & cōmendable, vvhy may not a man vovve that life vv ^ch hee may laudably lead, Ps. 75. Ecc. [...]. especially seing that Scrip­tures allovve of vovves, and commaun­de them to keepe them that make them. In propositio nibus de biga­mia 62, 6 [...]. [...]. Secondly Luther auoucheth that if one vvife vvill not contēt our sensualitie, vve may haue mo then one, at once, for (saye the hee) this vvas permitted in the old lavv, and in the nevve I finde it lefte in­different, nether forbidden nor cōmaun­ded. And seing the vvomans sensualitie is as hardly satisfied as the mans, shee also by the same reason may haue many hus­bandes at once (vvhich vvas neuer per­mitted to the Ievves) and seing that noe iuste number can be set dovvne (for if tvvoe vviues content one man, three vvill not satisfie another) it follovveth that a man haue a tot quot of vviues and so may contend vvith Salomon in the number of concubines. Thirdly this spirituall fa­ther permitteth diuorsemenor in many cases, not only in bedde or cohabitation, but also euen in the bond of mariage, and allovveth of them vvho not only se­parate them selues from the company of their vviues or husbandes, Luth l. de ca­ptiu Bab c. de matrim. but vvho also take others in their places. In vvhich poit [Page 625]Caluine and all the nevve confreerie ag­greethe. Cal l 4. Inst. c 19. §. 37. And first in case of fornication they all affirme that the partie innocent may marry another, not vvithstanding that Christe sayeth, Vvhat God hath conioi­ned let not man separate, and again: Mat. 17. Mar 10. 1. Cor. 7. vvhoso­euer shal dimisse his vvife and shal mar­rye another, cōmitteth aduoutrie vppon her. And sainct Paule not in his ovvn, but in Gods name cōmaundeth, that the vvife leaue not her husband, and if [...]he leaue him he biddes her remaine vnmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband. And therfore seing that Scripture can not be cōtrarie to scripture, vvhen Christe sayed: Vhosoeuer dimisseth his vvife, but for fornicatiō, Mat. 1 [...]. and shall marrye another doth commit aduoutrie: the sense is not, that in case of fornicatiō a man may take an other vvife, but only that he may leaue his vvife, and therfore (saieth our Sauiour) if hee leaue her (vvhich he may not do but in case of fornication) and marrie another, he cō ­mitteth aduoutrie, vvhence it follovveth not that for fornication he may bothe lea­ue and marie an other, for sainct Paule sayeth plainly that if the vvife leaue her husband she must remaine vnmarried. Luther yet addeth another case in vvhich the husband maye take another vvife, l. cap. Bab. c. 6. de Matr [...]. that is vvhen the first vvife vvill bee gad­ding, [Page 626]and vvill not staye vvith her husbād, in vvhich case (sayeth hee) I see noe reason vvhy the man may not take another. So that if the vvife of stubbernesse, or the man, for some longe iourney vvhich hee hathe to make, vvill leaue home for a ty­me, the other partie according to Luther, is not bound to staye the others cominge, but may take another. To this he addeth yet another case, for hee saiethe that vvi­ues are some tymes so crabbed, Co. [...]. ser. 5. Matr. that al­thoughe they see there husbandes fall in­to aduouteries, yet they vvill not seeke to giue them satisfaction; And in this case (sayeth hee) the husband may saye: Si tu nolueras, alia volet, Si domina nolit adueniat an­cilla: If thou vvilt not, another vvill: if the mi­stresse vvill not, let the mayd come. Fourthly hee yet findethe out another case in vv ^ch the man maye leaue the olde vvife, and mary a nevve; to vvit, if the vvife sollicit him to sinne, Luth. com. in [...]. Cor. 7. or be litigious, and so hee maye vppō such occasiōs take ten nevve vviues one after another. And least hee may seeme to speake vvithout reason, hee yeldeth this reason: neminem enim vult Deus in incontinentiae discrimen esse coniectum. For God vvill not haue any man to be cast into daunger of incontinencie. So that bicause according to this mans doctrine, a man can not liue chaste vvithout a vvife, if one vvife vvill [Page 627]leaue her husband or bee stubborne, or litigiouse, or giue not satisfactiō, the hus­band may take another, as often as hee vvill, least for vvāte of a vvife hee should be incontinent. in c. 19. Mat. Vvherfore Bucer spea­king conformably to this doctrine auou­cheth, that as often as the vvife seemeth nor fit for the mans purpose, hee may ta­ke another, and shee so often as shee is vveary of one husbād, may take another. And good reason also if Luthers and Cal­uins doctrine bee true: for if man hathe no free vvill, hee hathe noe force to resiste the assaultes of the fleshe if hee bee temp­ted, and seing that hee is not sure hovv long hee shalbe vvithout a temptation, to make all sure, if one vvife satisfie not his lust, hee must take another, least hee cast him selfe into daunger of incontinencie. Ser. cit. de Matr. Lastly Luther affirmeth that mā is so bent and prone vnto luste, that hee can no mo­re be vvithout a vvoman, then it is in his povver not to bee a man: these are his vvordes: Vt non est in meis viribus situm, vt vir non sim, tam nō est etiam mei iuris vt absque muliere sim. Rursum vt in tua potestate non est vt foemina non sis, sic neque in te est vt absque vi­ro degas: As it is not in my povver, not to be a mā, so is it not in my povver to be vvithout a wo­man: again as it is not in thy povver not to be a vvomā, so is it not in thy povver to liue vvithout [Page 628]a man. Vvhich doctrine if it be true, then euery one must marry, & so virginitie and vvidovves chastitie is exiled the vvorld, crelse he must take a queane, and so ho­nestie is gone. For if it bee as impossible for a man to liue vvithout a vvoman, or for a vvoman to bee vvithout a man, as for a man not to bee a man, or a vvoman not to bee a vvomā, thē must the case oftē ty­mes happen, that the mā must needs take a queane, or that the vvomā must needs, haue a man besides her husband. For first if the man or vvife be longe from home, seing that nether partie can liue any tyme vvithout a mate, it follovvethe that the vvoman must vse the helpe of her man or some other, and the man must vse his mayd as Luther sayeth, or some other mās vvife, mayd, or daughter; else Luthers and Caluins doctrine is false, vvhich teacheth that aman can not liue vvithout a vvomā nor a vvoman vvithout a man. If they ans­vver that hee maye liue some tyme vvith­out a vvoman, then saye I, that it is not as impossible to bee vvithout a vvoman, as not to bee a man, bicause in no tyme is it possible for a man not to bee a man. And I suppose that a temptation maye happen as vvell in an hovver as in a yeare: vvhat then shall the partie tempted doe? if hee resiste, Luther and Caluins doctrine is false, if hee can not resiste, then if hee can [Page 629]not marrye (as many tymes there is so­me tyme required to get a vvife) hee must needes haue a Queane. Vvhence it follovveth, that not only merchaunt ventures, must take heed hovve they goe from home, but noblemen also must not aduenture to goe soe much as a hunting, vnlesse they locke vp their vviues, or take them vvith them. Hence it follovveth also that vvhen the vvife is sicke, especially any tyme, or vvhen shee lieth in, the man maye take a nevve vvife, if hee bee tempted to luste. For if hee bee tempted hee can not absolutely ouerco­me that temptation, ergo hee must haue a vvoman, but in these cases his vvife vvill not serue his turne, ergo he must haue ano­ther vvife; and if hee can not get a vvife, hee must haue a queane: And this also in this case of such a great necessitie, must bee lavvfull for him, bicause noe man sin­neth in that vvhich hee can not avoid, ne­ther is hee to bee blamed but rather pi­tied for doing that, to vvhich necessitie compelled him. And seing the vvoman in this pointe is as frayle yea frayler thē the man, being the vveaker sexe, shee may as often take a nevve husband, as the man a vvife. Vvhich doctrine vvhat a vvide ga­te it openeth to all dishonestie I leaue it to the gentle readers iudgement. Vvher­fore [Page 630]very vvell do the a certain frenchman in a booke of his, Las Actes du Synode de a saincte Refor­mation. that treateth of the Sy­node holden by the reformers at Monpe­liar, bring in a vvoman deputed for the femal sex of the Reformed, complayning of this doctrine of Luther & Caluin, vv ^ch holdeth that vvee haue noe povver to liue chast, nor no force nor freevvill to resiste the violēce of the fleshe: for (sayeth shee) if vvee haue noe force nor freevvill to re­siste our ovvne fleshes temptations, it fol­lovveth that vvee and our daugthers are all Queanes, and our husbandes cuckol­des, and not only cuckoldes but hore­masters. For if the fleshe assault vs (sayeth shee) vvhen our husbandes are abroad, or if vvhen they are at home vve take a grea­ter liking of another man, ether vvee can resiste the temptation, or vve can not? If vvee can, then haue vvee force and free­vvill, vvhich is contrarie to that vvhich Luther and Caluin teache vs: if vvee can not resiste, then are vvee all Queanes, and our husbandes cuckoldes, vvhich is the greatest disgrace to our sexe that can bee. Vvherfore shee demaūdeth that this do­ctrine may bee chaūged; else the vvoma­nis he sex is defamed. For ether the vvo­man to shevve her selfe a Caluiniste or Lutherane, must yeeld to the temptation acknovvledgīg her vveaknesse, or if shee [Page 631]resiste, shee dothe not like a Caluinist, and so ether shee must deny her selfe to bee a Caluiniste, or confesse her selfe a Queane. But I ame ashamed to deduce any moe of these beastly consequēces out of these fo­vvle premises of Lutheranisme and Cal­uinisme, & peraduenture I haue offended the reader, in raking in these dunghilles and haue iniured my pen, and paper, in fovvling that, and blurring this, vvith so filthie ordures; yet as it is good to set for­the vertue, to allure men vnto it, so is it not amisse to lay open the filthe of vice and heresie, to make men detest it. This I ame sure vvas my intention and pro­iecte, and I hope, yea I persvvade my selfe, that I haue brought to passe my intended purpose. For vvhat man of a chast and honest mynde, can herarter allovve of this doctrine as the pure, immaculate, and chaste vvorde of God, from vvhich pro­ceede and follovve so beastly cōsequen­ces, or vvhoe can thinke the tree good that beares so bad frutes? Yea vvhat vvise man can be persuaded, that the autours of this doctrine vvere mē of God, indevved vvith his spirite, that haue noe taste of things belōging to the spirit, such as Cha­stitie, & virginitie are, in vvhich vvee fo­lovve the spirit, not the fleshe, and resē ­ble Angells, not carnall men; But applye [Page 632]them selues vvholly to the fleshes desires, and therfore haue taken a vvaye all im­pediments, vvhervvith the Church in fa­uour of virginitie, and for the decencie of matrimonie, had crossed the vvaye of sensualitie, and haue giuen libertie to haue many vviues at once, and to take a nevve, as aften as the olde displeaseth, or is not presēt, and vvhen a vvife can not bee got­ten, by their doctrine they permit euery one that vvill to take a Quean. Vvher­fore I meruaile not that their clergie is so dissolute, that vviuing and revviuing, and chopping and chaunging of vviues, is so rife amongest them; nether is it staung vnto mee, vvhere as amongest Catholi­kes vvee haue euer seen many thousaun­des of societies that haue professed virgi­nitie, that amōgest the reformers you shall finde noe such, but in lieu of them, Col­leges of maryed ministers filled vvith their brattes, bicause such flovvers as vir­ginitie and Chastitie are, grovv not vppō suche dunghilles, and such pretious mar­garites are not to bee cast before such fil­thy hogges.

VVee haue seē in the former Chapters of this booke, hovve easily the re­formers doctrine leadeth vnto all vice in generall, and diuers also in particuler; no­vve if it did shevv as easie a vvay vnto pe­naunce and iustificatiō, as vnto sinne and iniquitie, and did as speedilye helpe vs out of the myre, as it thrustes vs in, it should make some recompence, but I in­tend to proue that as their doctrine tum­blethe men headlong into the depth of sinne, so it holdes them captiues vvith an impossibilitie of rising vp again, and so is vvorthy double detestation. And hovve shall I proue this conclusion, vvhich see­meth such a paradox? Trulie very easily and that vvithout rūning farre for an ar­gument. If you remember they are of opinion that the only vvay for a sinner to arise vp again after he is fallen by sinne, is to beleeue assuredly vvithout all doubte or staggering, that hee is iust, & elect, and that Christes iustice is his; vv ^ch if I ptoue to bee impossible for a sinner to beleeue, shall proue also that by their doctrine, it is impossible for a sinner to bee iustified or to arise from the lovve fall of sinne to the highe and eminent state of grace. To proue this I vvill only suppose one prin­ciple and Maxime of Philosophie, to vvit that truthe and veritie, or at least some probable apparaūce therof is, the obiecte [Page 634]at vv ^ch our vnderstanding aymeth, & that therfore, as the vvill, can not imbrace any obiecte vnlesse it bee good, or at least haue some apparaunce of good (for noe man can like of euil as euil) so the vnder­standing can not yeeld her assent to any thing, vnlesse it bee a veritie or haue at le­ast some probable shevv [...] of veritie. And this is the cause vvhy vve can not beleeue & saye vvith harte, that blacke is vvhite, or that a knovvn falsitie is a veritie, as I haue declared in my Epistle to the reader more at large. Out of these premisses I gather this conclusion: that it is impossi­ble for a sinner, to frame on a sodayne this assent, that hee is iust, and consequen­tly, if this bee the only vvaye for a sinner to rise vnto iustification, it is impossible for him after hee is fallen by sinne, to rise againe by iustification, and so vvhere the tree falleth, there it must lye. For as it is impossible for a sicke manne (if hee bee in his vvittes) to beleeue veryly that hee is vvholle, vnlesse hee see some alteration in him selfe, and finde some ease of his di­sease, so is it as impossible for a sinner vvho is spirituallie sicke, yea dead, vppon a sodaine to beleeue (especially so assu­redly as Caluin vvill haue him) that hee is iuste, vvhole, and sounde, and fully reco­uered of his spiritual disease, vnlesse hee [Page 635]see some alteratiō in him selfe before hee frame so firme an assent. For I vvill aske of Caluin vvhē hee commethe freshe from this vilanie, vvhat moueth him to this as­sent and beleefe that hee is iust, and elect? hathe he a reuelation? or haue euerie one of his follovvers vvhom he vvill haue to beleeue the same, any illumination from God by vvhich they are acertained? hee must needs say noe, bicause they experi­ence in them selues that they haue no su­che euidence: finde they any contrition, or loue of God, or haue they any inhe­rent grace in them, vvhich hathe altered them and made them of sinners, iuste, and holy? They vvill say noe, for then faithe should not iustifie, but that vvhich goeth before this faithe. And this they must needes say, bicause faithe is the first good­nes in vs, and vvith them it is the first and only thinge vvhich iustifieth; yea in their opinion, contrition vvhich is inherrent in vs, can not be our Iustificatiō, bicause they saye that there is noe inherent grace nor iustice. And if before this faythe of theirs, God should by infusion of grace iustifie them, yet vnlesse they had a reuelatiō, they could not, especially vvith such assuraun­ce beleeue it, bicause the vnderstanding can not giue assent vvithout some appara­unce of truthe. They vvill saye that Chri­stes [Page 636]iustice is theirs, so that they vvill ap­prehend it by faith, and so they are iust by that iustice if they vvill beleeue so. but ne­ther vvill this shifte serue their turne. For before they beleeue this, Christes iustice must bee theirs, and by it they must bee iuste, bicause that is the obiecte of their beleefe, and the vnderstanding must see it to bee so, before shee beleeue soe; vvherfore seing that before this faithe of theirs, Christes iustice is not theirs, and they also are not yet iuste, it follovvethe that they can not, so longe as they are in their vvittes beleeue that they are iuste, bicause this veritie must appeare to the vnderstanding before shee can beleeue it; and therfore if before faithe they bee not iuste, they can neuer beleeue so. For as the sicke mā must bee vvholle and sound before hee can beleeue that hee is so, bi­cause it is not in his povver to beleeue that vvhich is not, or vvhich at least ap­peareth not, soe a sinner can not on a sodaine (vnlesse hee haue some reason for it) beleeue assurdly that hee is iust. And therfore if this assured faith bee ne­cessarie to arise after our fall taken by sinne, it is impossible to rise again, after that vvee are fallen. And to make the matter yet more playne; as if the only re­medie for a sicke man to recouer his he­althe, [Page 637]vvere to beleeue that hee is vvell, it vvere impossible for him to recouer, bi­cause vvhilest his disease remaineth, hee can not beleeue that hee is recouered, ha­uing noe reason to thinke so, but rather the contrarie; so if the only meanes for a sinner to recouer, bee to beleeue in the middest of his sinnes, that hee is iuste, it is impossible for him to recouer, bicause hee can not vvith harte thinke so, hauing no reason for it, but rather to the contra­rie. Hence I gather tvvoe thinges to be noted. First that if a sinner bee iustified by beleeuing that hee is iust, then is hee iustified by a lying faithe, bicause hee be leeueth that vvhich is not; and if you saye that so soone as hee hathe beleeued so, hee shalbe so; that is not sufficient, for yet it follovveth that hée beleeueth that hee is iust before hee is iuste, bicause iu­stice follovveth faythe, & so he is iustified by a false, and lying faithe. The second thing vvhich I note, is hovve malitiously and yet hovve couertly the deuill by his members seeketh our damnation. For not content, by theyr doctrine to haue induced vs to all sinne, hee taketh a vvaye the meanes of rising again from the state of sinne, denying penaunce to bee ne­cessarie, yea affirming in Luther that con­trition is a mortall sinne, and auouching [Page 638]in Luther and Caluin bothe, Supra. yea and in all theyr Schollers, that the only meanes for a sinner to bee iustified, is to beeleeue vvithout all staggering, and vvith all pos­sible assuraunce, that his sinnes are forgi­uen; vvhich beleefe being impossible, as is allready proued (bicause it is not in the vnderstandings povver to beleeue vvhite to bee blacke, or that a man is iuste vvhen noe probabilitie of it appeareth) it fol­lovveth that vvhen a sinner is fallen, it is impossible for him to rise againe, bicau­se it is as impossible for him to beleeue that hee is iust before hee see some appa­raunce of the same, as for a sicke man to beleeue that hee is recouered and vvell at ease, vvhen hee is in the middest of the fitte of an hoate ageue, or in the panges of deathe. And so our reformers do not only tumble vs headlong into the very depth of sinne, but hold vs there in per­petuall duraunce, vvithout hope of liber­tie, bicause they require at our handes an impossibilitie, vvhich is in the midst of our sinnes to beleeue that vvee are iust, and electe, hauing no probabilitie of the same, but rather great euidence to the contrarie; vvhich is as impossible for vs to beleeue vvith harte, as it is for the sic­ke mā to assure him selfe that hee is vvell, vvhen hee is in the middest of his fitte.

VVhat God is, it is so hard to Knovv▪ that nether the light of reasō, nor fai­the, nor bothe lights ioined together, are able to discouer this veritie. Vvherfore Trimegisthus being once demaūded this obscure question, gaue as obscure an ans­vvere; to vvit that God is a thing vvhose center is euerie vvhere, and his circle or circumference no vvhere: signifying therby, that the least thinge in God (if a man may saye so of God in vvhem all thinges are so great that they are no lesse then God) is so great that it farre surpas­seth the spheare of our capacitie, much more doth the circumference of his infi­nite perfection, exceed the compasse, and reach of humain vvit. Simomdes being asked the same question, required tyme to consider, after vvhich tyme hee being demaūded to giue his cēsure, he required longer tyme: At the lengthe being vrged to make no moe delayes, he ansvvered [Page 642]only this, that God vvas such a thinge that the more vvee consider him, the lesse vve conceue of him, & the more vve conceue of him the lesse vve can say of him. Ari­stotle the Prince of Philosophers could only say of God that hee is Ensentium, a thing of thinges, that is a thing, from vvhich all things proceed, as from the fountaine and first cause of all thinges, and a thinge vvhich is all thinges, bicause eminently (as Diuines say) and compēdiously, hee con­teineth in him selfe all thinges. Not that in God, they be liuing, and not liuing, corruptible, and incorruptible, great and small, differēt, and diuers, perfect, and im­perfect, as they are in them selues; bicau­se all in God is liuing, all incorruptible, all great, increat, and infinite, all one, all perfecte vvithout imperfection; to bee breefe in God, all is God. For as the cau­se conteineth diuerse effectes vvithout di­vision and imperfection of the cause, and as the artificers peece of vvorke, hathe a more noble being in the artificers Idea and mentall platforme, then in it selfe; so all thinges are in God, in more eminent manner, then in them selues; bicause in him, they are as in their cause, and foun­taine, yea as in their idea; & therfore thou ghe in them selues, these creatures, some bee corporall, some bee spirituall, yet in [Page 643]God all are spiritual, thoughe in them sel­ues some bee liuinge creaturs, some de­uoid of life, Io. [...]. yet in God all are liuing and life it selfe, thoughe in them selues they bee create, yet in God they be increat, though in them selues they be imperfecte, yet in God they be perfect, though in them sel­ues, they be diuerse, yet in God they are all one, though in them selues they be creatures, yet in God they are God. This the learned scholler of sainct Paule Dio­nisius Areopagita, c. 5. de diuin [...] nominib [...]. explicateth by a fitte similitude. As the lines (saieth hee) vvhich are dravven from the Center, are diuided from them selues, and diuerse in them sel­ues, but in the Center, they are vnited in one, vvithout any distinction: so all crea­turs, as they proceed from God, vvhoe is the Center and resting place of all thin­ges, are diuers and different, but as they are in god, they are all one. And as the for­saied lines in the Center, are nothing else but the Center; soe all creatures vvhich are but so many lines dravvne from Gods indiuisible nature, in God are God, vvith­out all diuision, and imperfection. But as vvhat God is vve knovv not, so that ther is a God, it is so manifest, that thoughe the toungue maye denye him, the harte can not, if it bee not caryed a vvaye vvith passion, and inconsideration. True it is [Page 644]that Protagoras and Diagoras, vvere so godlesse, as to doubte, yea to deny that ther vvas a God; yet these men vvere long since Hissed out of the Schooles of all Philosophers, and could not haue denied God in harte, vvhere the light of reason discouereth him, had not some blinding passion ouer ruled them. And therfore if it vvere not, that heresie had countena­unced Atheisme, and giuen it authoritie to passe amongest Christians vvithout blushing, yea vvith honour and credit; I vvould haue contented my selfe to haue hissed also at these cōpanions, and vvould neuer haue gone about to ouerthrovv that by reason, vvhich standeth vvith no reason. But least that the authoritie and svvaye, vvhich atheisme novv a dayes beareth in the vvorld, may ouer rule the vviser, and seeme reason enough to the simple, I vvill by certain pregnaunt rea­sons, conuince these godlesse Atheistes, that ther is a god, & a diuine povver? And first of all this vvorld seemeth to me to bee a booke, in vvhich vve may read this veritie. For, as the booke vvhich vvee read (if vvee vnderstand the vvordes) teacheth vs the veritie or science vvhich it cōteineth, so if vvee read vvith diligē ­ce the booke of this vvorlde, in vvhich euery creature is a vvorde, vvee shal by it [Page 645]learne, that ther is a God. Ro. 1. For as S. Paule sayeth, the inuisible things of God (that is his diuine attributes and perfections) are kno­vvne by those things that are created. Vvherfo­re that couragious mother in the Macha­bees, [...]. Ma [...]. 7. vv ^ch vvas as forvvarde to prefer her sonnes to Martyrdome, as others vvould be to detein them, biddeth her sonne to read this booke of creaturs, and to looke vppon heauen and earth and all vvhich is in thē conteined, and therby to learne, that God it vvas that made them all of nothing. This booke sainct Antonie studied, and profited ther­in so much, that hee could confute Phi­losophers, and convince a godhead and diuinitie. Yea these creaturs are not only so many vvordes in vvhich vve may read this veritie, but they are also so many preachers vvhich cry out vvith a voice most lovvd, and shrill, Psal. 9 [...]. and in a language intelligible of all men that God it vvas that made them and not they them selues. And so a God-head is taught vs not only by y ^e vni­uersitie of Athens, Paris, or Louaine, but also of all the creaturs in the vvorld. For first I demaund of vvhome this vvorld (vv ^ch Philosophers do call (Alle) bicau­se it cōteineth all) receiued his beginning, being, and existence? If thou say vvith Epicure or Democritus, that it vvas made Fortuito causarum, vel atomorum concursu, [Page 646]by a chauncing cōcourse of causes, motes, or indiui­sible bodies; Taske vvho made these causes and indiuisible bodyes? If thou ansvvere that a creatur made thē, I aske again vvho made that creature, & so at lengtht I vvill bring thee to a thinge exempt from crea­tion, vvhich created all things, and this I call God. If thou sayest that the vvorld framed it selfe, I must needs tell thee that that is impossible: bicause nothing can operate or vvorke, before it hathe a being bicause as the Philosopher sayeth prius est esse, quam agere: And so if the vvorld made it selfe, it vvas before it selfe, vvhich im­plyeth, a contradiction. If thou say that it vvas nether framed by it selfe, nor by any other cause, but vvas euer of it selfe, vvithout any making, then thou makest the vvorlde a God, and so vvhilest thou seekest to deny a God, thou grauntest a God. For if it bee of it selfe, it is indepē ­dent of any other, and so hathe a necessa­rie being vvhich euer vvas and euer shal­be; bicause if it be of it selfe, it can not by any cause bee brought from nothing to some thing, and so euer vvas of necessitie, nether can it bee brought frō some thing to nothing, and so euer shalbe, and that of necessitie. If it haue a necessarie & inde­pendent being, it hathe an infinite essen­ce, bicause it is not limited by anye, and [Page 647]soe exceedeth the bounds of a creature; & therfore if the vvorlde vvas of it selfe, it is a God: vvhich perfectiō not vvithstāding it can not haue, bicause the vvorlds mate­riall substance, mutabilitie, visibilitie, and determinate quantitie, arguethe a crea­tur, not a God, vvho is immaterial, inui­sible, and infinite in his immensitie. Vvho thē vvas it that created this goodly palla­ce & so huge a building as is this vvorlde? Not it selfe, as is proued, not any Angel, or other creature, bicause creation of no­thing, argueth infinit povver, and vvhere is infinite povver, ther is an infinite essen­ce, and so God only vvas hee that could create it. And if thou vvilt obstinately de­fend, that an Angell, or some other crea­ture created it; I vvill thus argevve against thee. ether that creature vvhich thou ima­ginest to haue created the vvorlde, vvas of it selfe, or it vvas created of another? If it vvas of it selfe, it vvas God, and so thou grauntest, vvhich I endeuour to vvrest from thee by force of argument; if it vvas created of another creature, I aske vvho created that other, and so at the lengthe I vvill leade thee to the first cause, vvhich created all, and vvas created of none, vvhich is the God vvhom vvee seek for.

Secondly not only the vvholle vvorld but also euery parte of it, vvill make a [Page 648]plain remonstraunce of a God-head. And to begin vvith man, vvho though hee bee a litle vvorld, yet is but a parte of the great vvorld; vvho I pray you vvas it, that gaue the first man his being? Vvee see by ex­perience that men breed not as flyes and vvormes doe of the corruptiō of other li­uing creatures, nether do they spring out of the earthe like hearbes or toadstooles, as Iulius Caesar sayd of the first inhabita­untes of England, nether are they begot­ten of beasts of another kinde, as mules, and chickins are, but rather as vve see by experience, man only begetteth man, and of no other liuing creatur, no not of an Angel, can he bee begotten. Vvho then vvas it that gaue the first man his being? of him selfe, man could not bee, bicause then had hee been a God; of another man hee could not be begotten, bicause no man could bee before the first man, no other creature could beget him, as is al­ready proued, ergô some thing that vvas no creature created him. And vvhat is that but God?

Another part of the vvorld, & that the most noble, is an angell: And vvhoe I pray you created those spirits and immateriall substāces? One Angell could not beget a­nother, bicause that vvould argewe thē to be materiall substāces, & corruptible crea­turs, [Page 649]and so no spirits: To say that men can produce Angelles, or that any other crea­ture extant could do the same, is farre les­se probable, bicause they are the highest creatures in perfection, and so could not bee produced of their inferiours. It fol­lovveth therfore that some cause not in­cluded vvithin the ranke of creaturs, created them: and vvhat can that bee but the Creatour. l. 12. met. c. 9. s. l. 1. de cas [...] c. 9. To denye all Angells and spirits, is against Philosophie, and all the best Philosophers. For Aristotle the Prin­ce of Philosophers, affirmeth, that the heauens are not moued by their ovvne proper formes, and faculties, but by Angelles, vvhich he calleth intelligences. In Plyt. ad Tyrannum, & in Sympo. sio Zenoc l. de morte Mer­cur, in Pymā. dro. Plato and the Platonists make often men­tion both of good an euill Angells. So doth Plutarche also, and diuers others, and vvho hathe not read of Socrates fa­miliare, vvhich vvas called demonium, that is a good or euil spirit. Yea experience proueth that ther are deuils, vvhich are spirits and differ only from the good An­gells, in mallice. For if vvee behold the straunge effectes vvhich are to bee seene in those vv ^ch vvee call possessed persons, vvee can not vvith any probabilitie ascri­be all to a melancholike humour: for those pullinges, and conuulsions, straunge motions, and operations, can not proceed [Page 650]from any humour or naturall and ma­teriall cause. Bicause vvee see them some tymes lifted vp from the ground, some tymes they hovvle like dogges, some ty­mes they yell like vvolues, some tymes they tell secrets, and speake in straunge languages. The manifolde and straunge operations of vvitches, their meetinges and voyages vvhich they make in the ayre, the straunge apparitions, vvhich all the vvorld talketh of, and therfore can not lye (bicause the voice of the people is the voice of God) demonstrateth that ther are angelles and immaterial spirits. And seing that these creaturs can nether produce one another, nor bee produced of any create cause, vvee must needes confesse a God and an increated spirit, vvho created them. The like proofe for a diuine povver the heauens do also yeeld vs, for seing that noe creature, nor second cause, could create those huge and incor­ruptible bodyes, vvee must needs confes­se a God and first cause, vvhoe extended and framed them. Thirdly the goodly order and disposition of things vvhich vve see, argueth a nature of intelligence not conteined vvithin the ranke of crea­turs, vvhich ruleth, guidethe & directeth all, and appointeth euerie creatur his tas­ke, and place. Vvee see hovv the Elements [Page 651]are disposed of, and appointed euerie one to his natutall place. The fier as moste noble and of a most light and aspiring na­ture, taketh the highest place, the aire and vvater take y ^e middle roome, bicause they participate of tvvoe extremes, the one aggreeing vvith the fier in heat and ligth­nesse, the other vvith the earth in cold and heauynes: And the earth being of a heauy and lumpish nature, is vvorthilie thrust dovvn to the lovvest place. Vve see hovve the heauens and planets moue in order, and distinguishe the tymes and seasons, neuer altering their course since they vvere created, in so much that by their vniforme motion the Astrologers can tell most certainly, the tyme, yea mi­nute of the chaung of the moone, of the sonnes setting, and rising, and of the son­nes and moones Eclipses. Vvee see the order and diuersitie of partes and mem­bers in plantes, beasts, and men, vvhich are so furnished of all partes and faculties be­longing vnto nature, that there is noe parte vvanting, none superfluouse not so much as a veine, sinevv, or litle bone, as vve see by experience vvhen vve vvant the least of them. The eyes are placed in the head, vvhich is also made to turne a­bout, that vvee may looke about vs, and therfore are called the guides of the bo­dy. [Page 652]The eares are the organes of discipli­ne, bicause by them vvee heare vvhat o­thers say, vvithout the vvhich mans life vvere noe life at all, bicause it should bee deuoid of conuersation. The nose smel­leth a farre of, all odours vvhich are good or bad for the bodyes healthe, and besides it is the trompet of the voice. The sence of feeling is dispersed throu­ghe out all partes of the bodye, vvho­se office is to feele vvhatsoeuer appro­cheth or toucheth the body, therby to fly it, if it bee hurtefull as fier is, or to take commoditie of it, if it bee conuenient. The mouthe receueth the sustenaunce and meare, vvhich is necessarie for the bodye, the toungue besides that it is the instrument of speaking, and the interpre­tour of the mynd, is to taste this meate and to iudge of it before it passe any far­ther, vvhich iudgement beinge giuen, the throate svvallovveth it dovvne; The sto make boyleth and disgesteth it, the liuer makes blood of it, y ^e veines cōueighe this blood to all partes of the body, and no­thing ther is not necessarie or expedient, not so much as the guttes vvhose office as it is base, bicause they are as it vvere the sinkes of the Kitchin to passe the filthe and excrementes, so is it so necessarie, that othervvise the body vvould bee [Page 653]poisoned and infected. Tell me novv, ô godless Atheist, vvho it is that hathe sett dovvne this order? vvho is he that so ru­lethe the motion of the heauens, that they moue at the same tyme from East to vvest and backvvard againe, and one vvithin another, and one more slovvly then another, and yet so, that they hinder not one another? Vvho hathe established a perpetuall peace amongest the fovvre elementes, vvhich yet by reason of their contrarie qualities, are of a iarring nature. And vvho hathe so placed them as they may best aggree? for the aire aggreethe vvith the fier in heat, and therfore is pla­ced nexte vnto him: the vvater in moystu­re aggreeth vvith the ayre, and in cold vvith the earthe, and therfore is lodged betvvixte them, vvheras if the vvater vve­re placed next the fier, and the ayr next vnto the earthe, they vvould make vvarre cōtinually one vppon another, and neuer vvould bee satisfied vvithout the ruine of one another, bicause they disagree in bothe qualities, the fier being hoate and drye, the vvater cold and most, the aire hoat and moyst, and the earthe cold and drye. Vvho hathe so ordered the partes of the bodyes of liuing and mouing crea­turs, as they may best serue their turnes, and by their proportion and disposition [Page 654]bee the greatest ornament. Vvho sorteth all beasts vvith their kinde, and placeth them in roomes fittest for their nature; some in the vvater, as fishes, some in the aire, as birds, some on the earthe as beastes and plantes, some in the fier, as the Crekit and Salamandre. Vvho setteth the plan­tes and hearbes, and giues them a roote as a mouthe, to receiue their conueniente nourriture, and veines to conueighe it euē from the roote, to the highest bovves yea leaues and frutes; and giues to euery one of them a seed, or some other thing in steed of seed, by vvhich they propagate them selues and retain a posteritie? Vvho I pray thee, ô vngodly Impe) considering this goodly order and disposition, vvhoe I pray thee beholding this goodly Palla­ce of God and men, I mean the vvorlde, in vvhich is all this furniture, prouision, order, and disposition, vvill not thinke of an artificer of intelligence, vvhoe buil­ded it, and of a hovvs-keper most vvise and prouident, vvho ruleth and disposeth of all in the same? Thou vvilt say vvith Epicure, and such gracelesse, godlesse, and vvitlesse companions, that all this goodly order happened by a chaunce, and that by the like chaunce, this good­lye pallace vvith all the partes and vvork­manship therof, vvas framed and effe­ctuated. [Page 655]By chaunce, sayest thou (o man) or rather no man, but some monster of mankinde? Considerest thou vvell vvhat it is, vvhich thou auerrest to haue been effectuated by chaunce? The prin­ter, shall neuer bee able to set his printe by casting his letters together at all ad­uentures; the painter by a careles casting of his colours vppon a clothe or table, shall neuer dravve his intended picture; The mason by throvving of stones one at another, shall neuer builde his goodly pallace; And canst thou thinke that all this goodly order, vvhich is set dovvne in the vvorlde, that this curiouse peece of vvorke of the vvorlde, at vvhich men and Angells stande astonished, vvas fra­med and established by chaunce med­dlie? If thou shouldst enter into a vvest­minster-Halle, a Non-Such, or Royall exchaunge in Ingland, into a Louver in Pa­ris, or a Scurial in Spaine, vvhere thou shouldst see statelie building, aspiringe turrets, loftie roofes, vvittie conueighaū ­ce of Roomes, and chambers, and order­ly disposition of vvindovves, pillers, chi­mnies; vvouldest thou, or couldest thou imagin these artificiall vvorkes and buil­dinges, to haue beene vvrought by a chauncing flight of stones frō the Quar­rie; and not rather by the arte and skill of [Page 656]some ingenious Artificer? And canst thou entering into the sumptuouse building and pallace of the vvorld, vvhose paue­ment, is the earth, paued vvith so ritche stones, and metalls, and rushed vvith the greenes of all hearbes and plantes; vvho­se foundation is the cēter, vvhich stayeth all; vvhose roofe are the heauens, siled so ritchely, vvith so many bright and glitte­ring starres; vvhose vvalles are the same heauēs, vvhich do not only couer but also compasse all aboat; vvhose diuers roomes and lodgings, are the fovvre elements, in vvhich diuers creaturs according to their diuers naturs, are diuersly lodged; vvhole indvveller and inhabitaunt is man, vvho vnder God also is Lord ouer all; vvhose prouisiōs and moueables, are the goodes and fruites of the sea and lande, layed vp in store for mans prouision: Vvho I say entering into this Princely pallace, so vvell ordered and gouerned, can imagin all this to proceed from chaunce, and not rather from an intelligent Artificer, vvho vvorkes these vvonders and miracles of nature, and a prouident prince vvho gouerneth and ruleth all so vvisely, and like a pilot sitteth at the sterne, guiding and directing the course of this vvorlde, and of euerye creaturs actions. l. 2. de natura de [...]rum. For as Ci­cero that famouse Oratour, and Philoso­pher [Page 657]auoucheth, nothing is so open and so euident, vvhen vvee looke vppon the heauens, and the celestial bodies, as that there is some diuine povver of most ex­cellent vnderstanding, by vvhome these thinges, as they vvere first framed, so are they still conserued and gouerned.

Fourthly against these vvitlesse Athei­stes, the very brute beastes shall argue for their Creatoure, vvhose operations are so vvittye and agreable to the ende, vvhich is to them by God and nature prescribed, as if thy had discourse, and vvere indev­ved vvith reasō. They feare those thinges vvhich are contrarie to their good, and distinguishe the good from badd, as if they had the science, of good and badde. The sheepe, yea the younge lambe, euē at the first, discerneth the vvoolfe from the dogge, and quaketh at the very sight of him, althoughe hee differeth litle frō the dogge vvhich hee ferreth not. The chic­ken can put a difference betvvixe the kite and the Peacocke, and feareth that, litle caring for this, althoughe in body big­ger; The byrdes feare the sparavv havvke, the ducke the faucon, and do tremble at the very noise of their belle, and yet they care not for y ^e svvāne, nor Crane, thoug­he in body many tymes bigger. Vvhoe teacheth them thus to discerne their ene­mies, [Page 658]vvho putteth in thē such a feare of that, vvhich in deed is to be feared? Thou vvilt saye, the instincte of nature, but vvhoe put such an instincte in them, by vvhich they flye their foes, as if they had reason, but hee that is the autour of natu­re & reasō? Vvho teacheth brute beastes, in a medovve or garden, vvhere ther are so manye hearbs one like another, to chu­se the good, and to refuse the badd, and so coningly, as if they vvere Phisitians, or herbistes, & knevve the naturs of sim­ples? in so much that vvher as men, many tymes are poisoned in taking one drugg, or hearb, for another; such an errourneuer hapneth amongest them. Vve see hovv artificially byrdes do build their nestes, vvherin they make such a defence a­gainst the vveather, that no mason can correct their vvorke. The spider spin­neth the threed out of his ovvne substa­unce, vvhich aftervvard hee vveaueth so artificially, that hee maketh a formal nette, vvhich also he placeth in those pla­ces, vvher flyes are likest to passe. And hee like a byrd-catcher, lyeth lurking in a corner of the same, vvithout any motion; but no sooner dothe the flye touche his nette, but hee perceueth, and no soene [...] is the pray taken, but hee vvith all spee [...] maketh hast vnto it. I haue allready des­cribed [Page 658]the trauelles of the Antes in ma­king their haruest, In the seuēt [...] booke. and carying in their corne, and hovve they eate the ende of it, least it grovv in the earthe, and bring it forthe to dryinge in a sounye daye, least moysture corrupt it. And I haue in parte described the common vvelthe of bees, vvhich is so vvell ordered, that a statist & common vvelth-man, may learne policie and gouernement, of them. The Hare vvhat slighte vs [...]th shee to escape the houndes, hovve many leapes makes shee, hovve many bi-vvayes takes shee, and if shee come neare a vvater shee vvill passe it, if neare a heard of Catell, shee entreth amongest thē, to deceue the ho­undes, and to make then loose the sent. Hovv subtile and crastie the Foxe is, I re­port me to Huntsmen; and vvhat deui­ses hee vseth to attain to his praye, fevve ther are vvhich knovv not. On a tyme (as a man of credit tolde mee vvhoe vvas an eye vvitnesse) the Foxe espying duckes in a riuer, deuised this stratagem to de­ceue them. hee taketh a bushe of ferne, vvhich hee caryeth in his mouthe to the vvater, and putteth it in to the vvater, farre aboue them, least hee should bee espyed, and aboue the streame also, that it might descende dovvne vnto thē, and passe also thorovve them; and this hee did [Page 660]tvvise, or thrise. The duckes suspecting nothing, let the ferne passe by them; at the lengthe the foxe him selfe come the svviming dovvn the streame, vvith a fer­ne-bushe in his mouthe, and that so co­uertly, that nothing appeared aboue the vvater, but the bushe; the duckes susper­cting no more deceite, then vvas before, & imaging that it vvas but aferne-bushe vvhich came dovvne the streame, neuer fled for the matter, bicause they feared nothing; but vvhen the Foxe came a mō ­gest them, hee shevved him selfe to bee a fox, for leauing the bushe, hee snatche▪ the at a ducke, and chaungeth his bushe for the same. Hence I deduce this argu­gument: These creaturs are vvitlesse and deuoid of reason, and yet do they pro­ceed in their actiōs most vvittilie and rea­sonably, as if they had discourse and rea­son, & some tymes they shevv more vvit­te in their actions, then do men them sel­ues, vvho are reasonable and discoursing creaturs. And seing that so orderly and so reasonable actions, can not proceed from any reason, vvhich is in thē, bicause they are vnreasonable, I do inferre that there is some one of reason aboue all the­se creaturs, vvho thus directeth and go­uernethe their actions. Nether vvill i [...] suffice to say, that they do all this by th [...] [Page 661]instinct of nature, vvhich is nothing else but a naturall inclination; bicause seing that this naturall instincte is no reason, & yet directeth them so reasonably, it must needs preceed from one of reason, vvhoe could imprinte in them suche an inclinati­tion, vv ^ch being no reason, dothe directe them notvvithstāding, and gouern thē in their actiōs, as if they had reasō. Vvherfore as vvhē thou seest the arrovv flye directly to y ^e marke, thou straite vvayes imaginest an Archer, thoughe thou seest him not, bicause so directe a motiō, could not pro­ceed frō the arrovv, had not the Archer, vvho is indevved vvith reasō, giuen it his direction, and imprinted in it a force also, vvhich carryeth it directly to y ^e vvhite, at vvhich hee aymed: So vvhen thou seest vnreasonable creaturs to proceed in their actions so vvittilie, and so orderly, thou must thinke of some one of intelligence, vvho hathe imprinted in them a naturall instincte, vvhich directeth them in their actions, as if they had reason.

Fiftly, vvhat soeuer is in this vvorld, ether it is of it selfe, or of another. If of it selfe, then is it God, bicause, as be fore is proued, to be indepēdent, is to haue a ne­cessarie & infinite essēce, vv ^ch is no other thing thē God. If it bee of another, I aske of vvhom is that other? If of another, [Page 662]I aske againe of vvhome dependeth that other; & so at lēgthe I vvill bring thee to a thing, of a vv ^ch all thinges are depēding & that is depēding of none; vv ^ch is the God vvee seeke for. To this argumēt may bee reduced that argumēt of Aristotle by vv ^ch hee prouethe the first Moouer, 2. p. q. 2. a 3. vvhich S. Thomas also vseth. vvhat soeuer (sayeth Aristotle) is moued, is moued by another. The inferiour creaturs are moued by the heauens, and their influēces, vvhich reach euen to the bovvelles of the earth, vvhere by vertue of them, gold and siluer are en­gendred, the inferiour heauēs are moued by the first heauen, vvhich is called primum mobile, bicause all the other heauēs follov­ve the svvay of that. The first heauē then, ether it moueth it selfe, or it is moued of another? it can not moue it selfe, bicause it is a creature, & so as in essence and being, so in motion and operation, it dependeth of another; If it bee moued of an other, then I demaund, vvhether that moueth of it selfe, or by the motion of another? if you saye of another, I aske againe vvhether that is moued by it selfe, 2. Met. or by another? And so ether vvee must ascend in infinitum (vvhich is impossible) bicause an infinite distaunce can neuer bee passed, and so the inferiour cause vvhich receiueth vertue from the Superiour, should neuer bee [Page 663]able to mooue, bicause it should expecte an infinite tyme, to receiue motion from a Superiour cause, vvhose motion must passe through infinite inferiour causes, before it come to the lovvest; or else at leng the vvee must staye in a supreme cau­se, vvhich moueth all, and it selfe is mo­ued of none. And vvhat is that, but God?

Sixtly I vvill bring a morall argument, vvhich also cōuinceth this veritie. It is the opinion euen of the Paganes, to vvhich the light of reason hathe induced them, that there is vice and vertue in our actiōs, and that the one deserueth punishment the other revvard, as in the last booke is related; and seing that in this life, nether vice hathe his devve punishment (bicause the vitiouse liue in prosperitie and enioye moste commonly the felicitie of this life in more ample maner then the vertuou­se) nor vertue her revvard, bicause the vertuouse are misprised; it follovveth that ther is another life, in vv ^ch God, vvho ha­the an equall prouidēce ouer all, shall giue to euerie actiō his iuste & devve reward.

Seuenthly (as Cicero sayeth) neuer any nation, vvas so barbarouse, Supra. vvhome the light of reason, indevved not vvith an opi­nion of God, or Gods; yea euen the A the­istes, them selues, if they falle into any ex­tremitie, are forced by nature to crye, and [Page 664]call vppon a God. For if a man by ship­vvracke vvere in daunger of drovvning, then so longe as he seeth humaine mea­nes to saue him, he vvill snatch at a cord vvhich is cast vnto him, or he vvill reach for a borde, or seeke to get hold of a boa­te, rocke, or tree, to helpe him selfe by; & if he be an Atheist, then so longe as these meanes faile not, he seeketh for no other, but if he perceue, that by no creaturs hel­pe, he can be holpen, then be he Christian or Pagane, Ievv or Atheist, he thinketh vppon some higher povver, and vvhen all creaturs forsake him, and his ovvn for­ce vvill no more serue him, nature bidds him to seeke farther, & to demaund that helpe of the Creatour, vvhich no creature can yeeld him.

Lastly the greatest sinners that are, vvho vvould vvith all their hartes that ther vv [...]r no God, that they might sinne the more freely, in y ^e middest of their vices, & plea­sures, haue many tymes remorses of con­science, and feare euen naturally, by na­turs instincte and instruction, some diuine povver, that vvill call thē to an accounte. hence proceed their melanch olike mo­ods, by day, & fearfull dreames, by night, as in the former booke, & in the Chapter of cōsciēce, may appeare. And truly vvee see that nothīg hathe so much force in y ^e [Page 665]rule of mens actiōs, and direction of their life, as the cogitation of a diuine maiestie, to vvhom they must yeeld and render a stricte and straite accounte. For thus some tymes the greatest sinners are enforced to discourse. I let the bridle loose to all vice and pleasure, I bridle noe passions, I re­fraine from noe iniustice, vvhen by iniu­ring others, I can profit my selfe: I liue ac­cording as I vvill, and as freely as he that hath no master, and if ther vver no diui­nitie, to vvhom I ame to yeeld an acco­unte for euery actiō, I might take my har­tes ease amidst all my pleasurs: but if ther be a God, as I feare ther is, and as me thin­ke ther is (for else vvhy dothe this cogita­tiō of a diuinitie so oftē crosse the vvayes of my pleasurs?) then haue I cause to loo­ke to my actions, and to make my acco­unte, before hand, least I bee taken in the Lurch. But vvhat if ther bee no God? then had I lesse cause to care. But bicause per­aduenture ther is a God, in the middest of my pleasure, I haue not my hartes desire, and full repose. Many other argumentes I could alleage for a diuine povver; but these are sufficient, and these are the prin­cipall. Vvho desireth more, let him read sainct Thomas in his first parte of his Theologicall Somme, and in his vvorke vvhich he vvroteagainst the gentiles, as [Page 666]also Granado in the beginning of his Catechisme, and the Englishe resolu­tion; and hee shall finde that vve all saye the same allmoste insubstaunce, yet varye in the manner, and in some reasons also & additions. Novve let vs dravve nearer to our conclusion, and intended purpose, vvhich is to shevve hovv our reformers doctrine leadeth vs vnto the denial of a God-head. Vvhich I vvill do breefly and yet so plainlye, as the reader shall con­fesse, that to haue vsed moe vvordes in a matter so plaine, had beene prolixitie, and superfluitie. See the fifte booke. If you remember they are not afraid to auouch that God is the autour of all sinne and vvick ednesse, that hee hathe ordained vs to sinne from all aeternitie, that vvee sinne not only by his permission, but also by his vvill and com­maundement, yea that hee vrgeth vs and compelleth vs to sinne; vvhence it follo­vveth that hee is of a malicious nature, bent to all euill, bicause so badd frutes can not proceed from a good tree; hee cōmaundes vs also vnder payne of dam­nation to refraine from all sinne and vice, vv ^ch notvvithstanding by the reformers doctrine vvee cā not do, bicause vvee ha­ue no free vvil; & if vvee sinne and dye in sinne, be punisheth vs vvith a perpetual and hellishe fier, for that faulte vv ^ch vvee [Page 667]could not auoide, and in vv ^ch hee him sel­fe, had as much parte as vvee our selues: vvhence it follovveth that he is not only mallicious, but cruel also & tyrannicall, as vppon another occasiō, is before demon­strated. If a Christian bee once persuaded that this doctrine is true, hee vvill easily be induced, to thinke as Atheistes doe, that ther is no God at all. For seing that the common conceit of God hetherto, hathe beene very honourable, euery one deeming that vvhich is most perfecte, best, and most amiable, to bee God; men vvill more easilie bee persuaded vvith Diagoras and Protagoras, that ther is no God at all, then that hee is of so badde, cruell, and malicious a nature.

REligion is a morall vertue, and one of the principal vertues of that kin­de, vvhose office is to offer vnto God su­prem honour, homage, and vvorship, as vnto the highest: vvhich although she haue not the diuinitie for her immediate obiect, as the Theological vertues haue, yet cōmeth shee as near as may bee, bicau­se she hathe the vvorship of this diuini­tie, for her obiect & attendeth vppon the diuinitie so faithfully, that no sooner is a [Page 668]God acknovvledged, but religion ado­reth him, and yeeldeth him his homa­ge for a tribute. Vvherfore euer since ther vvas a reasonable creature, able to knovv God, the vvorld vvas neuer vvith­out religion. In paradise our first paren­tes vvorshipped a God for the tyme, and if that state had conrinued, there should haue beene a publicke practise of reli­gion, and that by sacrifice also, as some di­uines do imagin. Suarez. 3. p. de sacrificio Missae. And vvhat vvorship of God by sacrifices, and sacramentes vvas vsed in the lavve of nature, and of Moy­ses I haue allready declared. Yea neuer as yet vvas ther any nation, Supra. vvho acknovv­ledged a diuinitie, but it also vvorship­ped the same vvith some kinde of reli­gion. For men easilie perceiued, that to maiestie, povver, and excellencie, honour vvas a devve tribute, and by good conse­quence, that to supreme maiestie, povver and excellencie, vvas devve also supreme homage and religion. Vvhich is the cau­se as Liuie reporteth, l. [...] that Rome vvas no sooner builte, but a religion also vvas esta­blished, and temples dedicated vnto the Gods. l. 1. c. 1. For vvhich deuotion, Valerius Ma­ximus commendeth the Romaines, say­ing, that they thought nothing vvas to bee preferred before religion, but that rather as the Gods vvere esteemed aboue [Page 669]their Senatours, Dictatours, and Empe­rours, so religiō should take place before their ciuil lavves & customes. Of vvhich opinion Plato also shevveth him selfe to haue been, vvho in his vvorke vvhich hee made of lavves, decreed some for go­uernment and pollicie, l. 4▪ others for reli­gion, and these he counted the principal and fundamental lavves: vvel knovving that to bee true, l. 1. de natur [...] deorum. vvhich Cicero after him obserued, that if once pietie and religion to vvards God, be taken a vvay, fidelitie and iustice amongest men, can not longe continevv. And Plutarch affirmeth that you shall sooner find a citie vvithout coy­ne, vvalles, lavves, & learnīg, thē vvithout temples and vvorship of Gods. And al­though this religion of the paganes, vvas no religion but superstitiō, yet this super­stition proceeded, by abuse, from a natu­rall inclinatiō, vvhich man hathe to vvor­ship and honour a God. Bicause supersti­tion and religion do only differ in this, that superstition ether vvorshippeth a false God, or at least giues not a right ho­nour vnto the true God, but religion vvorshippethe the true God, and not vvith a vaine and phantasticall, but vvith a true, sincere, and reasonable vvorship. So that man by natur is inclined to reli­gion, only he faileth ether in the thing [Page 670]vvhich is to bee vvorshipped, or in the māner of vvorship; and therfore if a man be of any discourse able to knovv, that ther is a God, you shall not need to per­suade him that God is to be vvorshipped, only in this he shall need your help, vvhat is this God, and vvith vvhat vvorship and religiō he is to be serued. And herin con­sisteth the principall pointe of the con­trouersie vvhich to this day euen frō the beginning, hathe troubled the vvorlde, & the greatest vvittes of the vvorlde, to vvit, vvith vhat vvorship and religiō God is to bee serued, for althoughe all allmoste ag­gree in this that God, is religiously to bee honoured and respected, as the diuersitie of religions vvhich possesse the vvorld, vvill testifie; yet in the other point, to vvit vvith vvhat religion he is to bee reueren­ced, men are as diuerse, as ther are diuers religions in the vvorld. Vvherfore here might I take occasion to refure the reli­gion of the Ievves, paganes, and hereti­ques by many argumentes, and by as ma­ny argumentes I could demonstrate the Catholique and Romaine, faithe and vvorship of God, to bee the only true religion, vvhich I haue done in my com­mentaries vppon Secunda Secundae, but this vvere a thinge to longe and besi­de my purpose, vvhich vvas onlye to ma­ke [Page 671]general a suruey and examination of the nevve religion, vvherfore that I leaue to others, and peraduēture to some other booke, vvhich, if this bee vvell accepted, I may herafter set forthe: onlye here, in a vvord or tvvoe, I vvill direct the reader to certaine places of this Suruey, in vv ^ch vppon occasion I haue disproued the nevve religion, and established the olde, by pregnaunte reason. For first of all my first booke demonstrateth that vvee can not admit nether them nor their reli­gion, for good and lavvfull, vnlesse vvee bynde our selues by the same reason to receue all heretikes and heresies that euer vvere hertofore, or shalbee herafter; yea in the fifte chapter of the sayed booke I haue proued the Catholike religion to bee the only religion, bicause it is confor­mable to that vvhich vvas so straungely planted by the Apostles, and in the same place I haue proued manifestly that the reformers haue noe probable meanes or motiues to induce a reasonable man to bee of their profession. In the second booke I haue declared hovve the markes of heretikes aggree vnto them, and that therfore they must be taken for heretikes, & their doctrine for heresie, if Arianisme or any other suche like doctrine bee iu­stly so to be censured. In the third booke [Page 672]I declare hovve their doctrine disgrace­the Christe, and so can not bee Christiane religiō, & in the bookes follovvīg I she­vve hovve it repugneth to ciuile state and pollicie, hovve iniuriouse it is to God, ho­vve it openeth the gap vnto all vice and Atheisme, and so can not bee of God. Yea in the fourth booke I proue that they ha­ue no religion, bicause they haue noe preestes nor sacrifices nor prayer, & scar­sely any sacramentes, notvvithstanding that these thinges and religiō euer vvent together. Secondly in the alleaged fifte chapter I haue compared our ancient pa­stours of vvhom vve receued our religiō, vvith their nevve ministers of vvhom they receiued theirs, and I haue proued that our pastours in all pointes are to be preferred, and consequently our religion. Thirdly in the second booke and fifte Chapter, I proue that once Christian re­ligion vvas planted in the vvorld, and Pa­stours vvere appointed. I haue proued al­so that this religiō and these Pastours are neuer to bee chaunged, and that conse­quently, that novv is the true Churche & religion, vvhich can deriue it selfe by a cō ­tinuall succession from the first pastours and the first faith that vvas planted and practised; I haue proued also that the re­formers haue not this succession, and that [Page 673]Catholikes haue, vvhence it follovveth euidently that their religion is not the true Christian religiō, and that ours is the true and only religion. In the Sixte Chap­ter I proue that in Christes Church & re­ligion is peace and vnitie in faith and do­ctrine, vvhich Christe at his departure be­queathed to his Church, & I haue demō ­strated that this peace and vnitie is not to be found amongest the reformers, but on­ly amongest Catholikes, and cōsequently that the Catholike religion is the only Christian religion. In the Seuenthe chap­ter I proue that the religion of true Chri­stianes is noe particuler sect, but catholike and vniuersall, and one, and the same in all countries and ages, and seing that only the Catholike religion hathe this proper­tie, it follovveth that that is the true Chri­stian religiō. So that I shall not need to vse any other argumēt, to proue that the Ca­tholike religion only, is the true religion and vvorship of God. It remaineth ther­fore only, that I novve declare hovve the reformers open the gappe to a certaine kinde of Atheisme, vvhich is irreligiositie and cōtempte of all religion, and bicause this conclusion is often tymes to be infer­red out of other pointes of their doctrine in the Chapters follovvinge, I content my selfe in this Chapter vvith their do­ctrine [Page 674]alleaged in the former Chapter, and out of that only I vvill deduce my inten­ded conclusion, vvhich I maye doe vvith as muche breuitie as facilitie. For if God bee the autour of all sinne, then if vvee maye gather vvhat the tree is by the frute, hee is of a malitious nature as is before proued: and if hee commaund vs impos­sibilities and punishe vs vvith Hell fyer for not fullfilling them, then is hee vnrea­sonable, cruel, and barbarous. And if vvee once make this conceit of God (as vvee must needes) if vvee beleeue the aduersa­ries opiniō, then must our hartes of neces­sitie bee cold in religion, and vvorship of God. For vvho can bee induced to vvors­hip, loue, and honour such a God in vvho­me is nothing vvhich is amiable, nothing vvorthy honour? vvel may vvee feare him for his crueltie, but loue him, and honour him from the harte vve can not. And so religion fallethe.

IT is a maxime and almost an article of faithe receued amōgest the reformers, that the true Churche vvhich once vvas, hathe erred grosselye, & in no lesser mat­ters [Page 675]then faithe, iustification, merit, free­vvil, vvorkes, satisfaction, purgatorie, pra­yer to Sainctes, vvorship of images, nū ­ber and vertue of Sacramentes, Sacrifice, & such like. Yea they confess that the Ro­main Church vvas once the true Church, but thy adde vvith all that aftervvardes it erred grossely and fell sovvlye, & novv of the Church of Christ, is become the Syna­gogue of the deuil. This is the cause vvhy vvhen vvee vrge the authoritie of the an­cient and present Churche, for the proofe of the reall presence, free vvill, prayer to saintes, & sacrifice of the Masse, they ans­vvere vs that the Church, vvas but a con­gregation of men, vvhich hathe erred in these and other matters. And therfore Luther careth not for a thousand Chur­ches, and Caluin, Beza, and others despise all the Councelles, and ancient fathers, as appearethe by their vvordes vvhich are related in the first booke, and the third, and fourth chapter. So that vppon the bare authoritie of the Churche they vvill not hange their faithe, as they saye, least they hange their soules, bicause the Chur­che as it maye bee deceued, so it maye deceue. I demaund of thē therfore vvhat assuraunce they haue of scripture, and by vvhat meanes they come to y ^e knovvled­ge of it? A Catholique vvould say that he [Page 676]beleeuethe these bookes to bee the vvor­de of god, bicause the Catholike Church, vvhich is it the piller of truthe, vvhich by the sonne of God vvas promised a spirit vvhich should teach her all veritie, 10.14.15. l. ont epist fund c. [...]. hath cuer so beleened and defined. Vvherfore saint Austine sayeth that hee vvould not beleeue the ghospel vnlesse the Churches authoritie m [...] ­ued him; not that the Church maketh scri­ptures, or giueth them their truthe and veritie (for that they haue of God vvho vvas the indighter of them) but bicause vvee can not knovv vvhich is Scripture, vvhich is not, but by the voice of the Church, to vvhich only in this matter the ancient fathers vvere vvont to harken, as Ireneus, l. 2 c 2 3. 4. l pr [...]esc. de ex­pos. Symb. l. 2 c 1. 46. l. 4. c 11. Tertulian, sainct Hierom, Leo the first, and d [...]uers others, of vvhom Ni­cephorus maketh mention. Vvherfore the first Toletane Councel, in the one and tvventith canō, accurseth thē vvho accept of any other Scriptures thē those vvhich the Catholique Churche receiueth. Hee vvould alleage for an argumēt that Chri­stemade Peter, & his successour the Pope, supreme pastour of the Church, and com­maunded him to feed his sheep; lo. 2. and seing that a principal office of the shepheard, is to shevv them suche pasturs as are most holsom for them; it perteineth to the [...]u­prem Pastoure of the Churche, to tell vs [Page 677]infallibly, vvhich are the true scriptures: for vvhen hee declareth vv ^ch are the true Scripturs he shevves vs our pasture, & the place vvher vvee are to graze, and vvhen hee expoundethe them, hee feedethe vs. And seing that the Pope of Rome is this Pastour (as is proued in the last chapter of the first booke) it follovveth that vvee must receue, that for scripture vvhich hee allovveth of as scripture. He vvould al­leage also the antiquitie of scriptures for a profe of their sinceritie; l. 2. cont. Ap. [...] prabar. Euangel in Apolog c 19. 20. 24. bicause Moyses vvhoe vvas the vvriter of a great part of the old testament (as Iosephus, Tertulian, and Eusebius affirme) by many handred yeares, vvas more anciēt then all the vvri­t [...]rs of the Romains and Grecians also: vv ^ch therfore deserue great credit & reue­rence, 1 Tuse. bicause as Cicero sayeth in his Tus­culane questions, to Antiquitie noe lesse is devve. Hee vvould confirme this argu­ment by another of no lesse efficacie, to vvit that these bookes haue beene conser­ued so many thousand yeares, not vvith­stāding so many captiuities of the Ievves, and persecutions of the Christians, vvhich argueth that God vvho vvas the Authour of them, had a speciall care of them, and a vigilant eye vnto them, as vnto his ovvn vvord and vvriting. Hee might alleage al­so the cōformitie of those booke, vvhich [Page 678]vvere indighted of diuers, & at diuers ty­mes, and yet haue in them no contrarie­ties, and vvere translated out of Hebrevv into Latin by 70 Interpretours, [...]nstin. orat. paroen. ad gē ­ [...]. diuer­sely disposed, vvho yet not vvithstan­ding soe aggreed, as if all their trāslations had been copied out of one; For vvhich causes euen the Gentils & Paganes them selues, haue borne great respect vnto the­se vvritinges, not daring to mingle them vvith their ꝓphane vvritinges, bicause (as Iosephus and Eusebius affirme) some that haue attēpted it, l [...]. Aut. c. 1. [...]. l. [...]. praepar­ [...]. [...]. by the diuine and secret povver, haue beene very sharpely and se­uerly punished: all vv ^ch is vvarrāted by hi­storie & traditiō. This a Catholike vvould saye vvith great applause and no lesse pro­babilitie, for the authoritie of scripture, But vvhat vvould, or vvhat could our re­formers saye? vvould they saye vvith the Catholike, that they beleeue them to bee holy scripture, bicause the Church sayeth so? [...] Host [...]. l. 3. [...]nt. Brent. Luther in deed sayeth that hee in this point beleeuethe the Churche and Pope, and good reason hathe hee: bicause of vvhō did hee receue the scriptures vvhen hee began first to preach his nevv doctri­ne, but of the Romaine Churche, vvho cuer had the custody of them, euen since the tyme of the Apostles? And hovve could he knovve that the ghospel of the [Page 679]Nazarens, of sainct Barnabas, Euseb. l. [...]. c. 25. and sainct Thomas, vvere not as rrue scripture as the ghospel of sainct Matthevve, and other Euangelistes, but that the Romain Chur­che allovved of these, and not of those? For this cause some of them do saye, that in this point they must needs beleeue the Pope, & Romain Church, bicause they cā not in deed haue any probable knovv­ledge of Scripture, but by this meanes, as shall appeare by the refutatiō of all other meanes vvhich they can faine or imagin. But I vvill bee so bold as to take this me­anes from thē, and then I vvill aske them, hovv they knovve that the nevve and old testamēt are not meere fables, and fictiōs as the Atheistes say that they are? For they are of opinion, that the Romaine Church maye deceue, & bee deceeued, and ther­fore they vvill not beleeue her for the number of canonicall bookes, nor for the meaning of scripture; hovv then can they credit her vvhen shee defineth that the old and nevve testament are holy scri­pture? her authoritie is one and the sa­me in the affirmation of this, and of other thiges; if thē they beleeue her not in tho­se thinges, they cā not beleeue her in this. For as if the Astrologer saye that to mor­rovv shall be rayne, & that vvith in three monethes ther shall bee rayne, I cā not be­leeue [Page 680]this to bee true for his assertion, vn­lesse I also beleeue that, bicause his autho­ritie is the same, and yet I maye beleeue rather that vvithin three monethes vvee shall hauerayne, thē that to morrovv vvee shall haue rayne, bicause that in it selfe is more likely: so if vvee beleeue one thing vvhich the Romain Church affirmethe, and not another, vvee beleeue not any thing bicause shee sayeth so, but ether for the probalitie of the thinge or for some other reason vvhich pleasethe vs. Vvher­fore seing that out reformers beleeue not the Romain Church in all pointes, it must neede follovve, that they can not beleeue that the old and nevve testament are holy scriptures bicause shee sayeth so, but for some other imaginations vv ^ch they haue, for if they belecued this bicause shee sayeth so, they vvould beleeue other thinges also vvhich shee auouchethe, bi­cause her authoritie being the same, de­serueth the same credit in the one, and in the other. But let vs suppose that they be­leeue that the old and nevv testament are holy scripture bicause the Romaī Church sayeth so, yet bicause they affirme that the Romaine Church maye lye, and hathe al­so lyed loudly in many importaunt mat­ters; it follovveth that they haue herby no assuraunce of Scripture, bicause as the [Page 681]Church, in their opinion, hathe erred in other thinges, so may she in this, & if she may, peraduenture she hathe erred, and so they haue no assuraunce of scripture. They vvill saye peraduentur that they are assured by tradition frō tyme out of myn­de, vnto this present, that those bookes are holye Scripture, bicause our forfa­thers euer esteemed them soe. But nether can this bee a sufficient vvarrauut, bicause they are vvont to saye, that all thinges ne­cessarie to bee beleeued, are conteined in scripture, and that therfore they vvill be­leeue no traditions. And if they beleeue that these bookes are holy scripture, bi­cause by tradition so it is deliuered vnto them, vvhy do they not beleeue the real presence, and the Sacrifice of the Masse? Vvhy cōtemne they, the Fast of lent, Ima­ges, holy vvater, the signe of the crosse, & such like, vvhich vvee haue by the same tradition, by vvhich vve haue the scri­ptures. Yea seing that Tradition is no­thing else but an opiniō or custome of the Churche, not vvritten in holy vvritte, but yet deliuered by the handes of the Chur­che from tyme to tyme, and from Chri­stians to Christiās, euen vnto the last age, and Christians; if the Churche can erre, she may allovv, of euil traditions and so traditions also may bee erroneous, & cō ­sequently [Page 682]can be noe sufficient vvarrant vnto the Reformers, for the authoritie of holy scripture. They vvill say peraduen­ture, that they beleeue most voices, and therfore seing that all the vvorld allov­veth these bookes for holy scripture, they vvill ioine vvith them in this opinion, bi­cause y ^e voice of y ^e people, is the voice of God. but nether can this voice assure thē ▪ for ether they vnderstand by this commō voice, the voice of the vvholle vvorld, or the voice of the Christian vvorld, if they meane y ^e voice of the vvholle vvorld, thē haue they moe voices against them, then for them, bicause the greatest parte of the vvorld vvas euer Pagane; if they meane the Christiā vvorld, then in deed the most voices are for Scripture, bicause the Ca­tholike Church vvhich allovveth of scri­pture, vvas, is, and shalbe, the greatest part of Christianitie; but bicause they saye that this Church may erre, they can haue no assuraunce of scripture by this voice. They vvill saye peraduēture that they be­lceue that sc [...]ipture is the vvord of God, bicause their ovvn Churche, vvhich is the true Churche, affirmeth it to be so. But nether vvill this shifte serue their turne. Bicause first of all they cā not proue their Churche to bee the true Churche, not their Pastours to be the true Pastours. Bi­cause [Page 683]their Church hathe not the markes of the true Churche, hauing nether suc­cession from the Churche planted by the Apostles, vvhich should make it Apo­stolique, nether hauing euer possessed the greatest parte of the knovvn vvorld, vv ^ch should make it Catholike, and being so farre frō being, one, that it is diuided into cōtrarie sectes, & so farre also from being holy, that it leadeth to all vice and Atheis­me, yea hauing all the Markes of here­sie, as my second booke demonstrateth: As for their pastours, they can not proue their mission, as also is proued. But if I should graunt them that their Church is the true Church, yet by their Churches vvarraunt, they can haue no assuraunce of Scripture, bicause they are of opiniō that the true Church maye erre, and consequē ­tly their Church also maye erre, and if it maye erre in other thinges, it may erre in this, and if it may erre in this, peraduēture it hath erred in this, and so they haue no assuraunce of Scripture. Vvherfore laying a side the Churches authoritie, as insuffi­cient▪ in their opinion, I demaund vvhat assuraunce they haue of scripture? They can not alleage Scripture to proue scrip­ture, bicause no part of scripture affirmeth that the bookes called Scripture, are the vvord of God, dictated and indighted [Page 684]by his spirit. And if Scripture did affirme it selfe to be holy Scripture, yet vvere not that a sufficient vvarraunt, for as I may doubt vvhether y ^e bookes called Scriptu­re be the vvord of God, so may I doubte of that testimonie vvhich scripture giueth of her selfe, vnlesse by some other meanes I bee assured, that these vvritinges are the vvord of God. They vvill say peraduen [...] that the very maiestie of the phrase of Scripture, and the diuine matters, and mysteries vvhich it conteinethe, do argue, that it is the vvord of God. But this ans­vvere is also insufficiēt; bicause to a vvor­dly man or Prophane Philosopher, the stile of Scripture seemeth base and bar­barous, and the mysteries seeme to bee nothing else but dreames and imaginati­ons, the histories seeme tales, and the matters seeme ether follies or impossibi­lities; and so they vvould seeme vnto vs also, vvere it not that vvee haue a reuerent conceite of them, bicause vvee beleeue them to bee the vvord of God. Vvher­fore Iulian the Apostata, Celsus, Porphi­rius, Apion, and others, contemned scri­ptures, bothe for the Phrase and matter, and esteemed no more of them, then vve do of Aesops fables. They may ansvvere mee peraduenture (and novv I knovv not vvhat else they can ansvvere) that the [Page 685]spirit assurethe them that these bookes & no other; are the holy Scripture. But against this spirit; I haue disputed at large in the [...]rst booke and third Chapter, and so I might referre the reformer, and the reader vnto my argumentes, vvher vvith in the afore sayd place, I haue refuted this phantasticall spirit; yet to ease them bothe of that labour, I vvill in a vvorde reiecte this ansvvere, by reiecting this spirit. I vvill aske of him that thinkes him selfe moste deeplye inspired, vvhy bee beleeueth this his ovvn priuate spi­rit, rather then the common spirit of the Churche? especially seing that it is more like that God vvil more amplye com­municate his spirit to his Churche then to a priuate man; and if the Churche may be deceued (as they say shee may) not vvith standing that Christ promised her a spirit vvhich should teach her all veritie; Io. 14.15. vvhy maye not euery priuate mā doubte at least, least his ovvne priuate Spirit bee a lying and deceiuing spirit? hee ansvve­reth that his spirit assures him, that it is a true spirit. But hovve dothe it assure him? by vvhat reasons, miracles, or reuelations? by no such meanes (saieth hee it dothe as­sure me) but yet I ame sure. Vvhy art thou sure? if nether for reasons, nor miracles, nor reuelations; then art thou sure only [Page 686]bicause thou thinkest thy selfe sure. And so did Suenlkfeldius thinke him selfe sure of a right spirit, vvhen he denyed all scri­ptures, and vvould bee ruled only by the invvard spirit, and yet hee for all his suer­nes, vvas deceued, and consequently so mayst thou bee, thoughe thou thinke thy selfe assured. And do not all heretiques thinke then selues to bee inspired vvith the right spirit? As they therfore are de­ceued, So mayst thou bee, vnlesse thou haue some certaine rule and Iudge, suche as the Churche is, to acertaine thee of thy spirit. If novve some infidel or atheist vvould deny the old and nevve testament to bee holy scripture, hovve vvouldst thou conuince them? vvhat a Catholike could saye for the proofe of scripture, I haue allready declared, I demaund ther­fore vvhat thou vvho takest vppon the to bee a reformed Christian, couldst al­leage for the authoritie of Scripture? Vvouldst thou alleage the Churches de­finition or tradition, or common cōsent? hee vvould saye, Tushe, tell mee not of Churche, Tradition, Fathers, Councels, all these by your ovvn confession maye erre and haue erred in other as great mat­ters as this, and therfore this can bee no sufficient vvarraunt. Vvouldst thou saye that scripture giueth testimony of her sel­fe [Page 687]that shee is Scripture? hee vvoulde aske thee vvheare, and thou shouldst not bee able to quote the place, & if thou couldst, yet hee vvould say that Scripture is not to bee beleeued in her ovvne cause, and that as hee doubteth of scripture, so hee doubteth, vvhether it bee Scripture, vv ^ch affirmethe these bookes to be Scriptur. Vvouldst thou say that the phrase of scrip­ture argueth it to bee god his ovvn vvord? Hee vvould tell thee that hee vvill shevve thee as good phrases in Tullie, Liuie, & o­ther ꝓphane vvriters. And if thou shouldst saye that thy spirit assures thee, that these bookes are of Gods ovvn indighting, hee vvould laughe at thee, and tell thee that Suenkfeldius by his spirit denyed all scri­pture, and that hee hathe no more assura­unce of thy spirit then of his. Yea hee vvill come vppon thee vvithe the cōmon spirit of the Romain Churche, and tell thee, that if that spirit maye deceue, as thou sayest it maye, muche more may thy priuate spirit deceue thee, and all that vvill bee so mad as to beleeue thee. And so if thou contemne the authoritie of the Romain Churche, thou shallt bee able to assure him no more of Scripture, then of a Robin Hoods tale. If the Churches au­thoritie then bee reiected as insufficient, vvee haue no probable assuraunce of scri­pture, and so vvee may iustly doubte least [Page 688]it bee but some Apocriphal vvriting, vv ^ch hathe hetherto been called the vvord of God, to keepe fooles in avve. And if vvee may doubte of the bookes of Scripture vvee maye as iustly doubte of the contē ­tes, and so the mysteries of the Trinitie, and incarnation, Christes life, doctrine, Passion, death and resurrection, may bee called in question, and soe Christian reli­gion falleth; and seing that after an Apo­stasie from Christianitie, vvee haue noe reason to imbrace Turcisnie, or the Iudai­call ceremonies; much lesse the supersti­tions of Paganes, and Idolatours, adevve all religion, and vvelcome Atheisme. And thus thou seest, gentle reader, hovve con­tempt of Scriptur must needs follovv the contempte of the Churches authoritie, vvhich being layed a side, vvee haue not so much as probable assuraunce of Scri­pture or Christian religion. Vvherfore let vs holde faste vvith the Catholike, Apo­stolike, and Romaine Churche, and let vs neuer linke our selues in religion vvith the reformers, vvho like Chammes con­temne their mother the Churche, least vvee bee inforced to shake handes vvith Atheistes, vvhose frendship vvee can not refuse, if vvee breake amitie and league vvith the Romaine Churche, as is most euidently demonstrated.

Vve say commonly that a lyer had need to haue a good memorie; for othervvise he being allvvayes ready to speake, not as the truthe requireth, but as he may best for the present serue his ovvn turne, vvill bee in daunger to contradict him selfe, and to varye in his ovvn tale. for vvant of vvhich memorie, the refor­mers do often eate their vvordes, and goe from that vvhich before they stood vnto. And amongest many other examples, this may serue for one, that they vvill nee­des receue scripture at the Romain Chur­ches hand, and for this point accompte her authoritie sufficient, but their memo­rie is so shorte, that forgetting them sel­ues, they vvill not accepte of the number of the bookes of scripture vvhich shee ha­the deliuered vnto them; althoughe they haue not any other vvarraūt of Scripture, then they haue of the number of the boo­kes of Scripture; vvhich is the Romain Churches authoritie. I must therfore de­sire them better to remēber them selues; For if the Romaine Churche bee of suffi­cient credit, to vvarraunt vs of Scripture, [Page 690]vvhy is not her authoritie a sufficiēt vvar­raunt also, for the nūber of the bookes of Scripture. Or if shee maye erre in the nū ­ber of the bookes of scripture, she may er­re also in scripture, and so if they vvould remember them selues better, and tubbe their brovves harder, they vvould see plainly, that ether they should take all, or none, of her, bicause her authoritie is as sufficiēt (being one and the same) to vvar­raunt vs for the number of the bookes of Scripture, as for scripture. If they beleeue then that ther is scripture, bicause shee sayethe so, they must beleeue that ther are so many bookes of scriptures, bicause shee also sayeth soe; her vvord being as good for the one as for the other. But as they are lyers so are they forgetfull, & therfo­re so contrarie in their tale, that they vvill saye that they beleeue her in that, but not in this, vvher as rather it follovvethe, that they beleeue her nether in the one nor in the other; but onlye do giue credit to their priuate spirite & imaginations, affir­ming that to be scripture, vvhich they imagin, & those bookes only to bee scri­pture, vvhich their spirit liketh of. Vvher­fore Luther affirmeth that the booke of Iob is but a tale, in ser. con. tit. de libris vet. & noui test. deuised to set forthe an ex­ample of patience before our eyes; hee iesteth at the autour of Ecclesiastes, saying [Page 691]that he vvanteth bootes and spurres, and therfore rideth in his sockes, as he did vvhen he vvas a fryar. Praef. in no­uum Test. Yea he spareth not the nevve testament, affirming that he li­keth not of the common opinion, vvhich allovveth of fovvre ghospelles: and hee addeth, that sainct Ihons, is the on­lye true and principal ghospel: vvhence it follovveth that the other three are not authenticall. For if they vvere, then vvere all fovver of equall authoritie, Prafat. in Heb. and so saint Ihons ghospel vvere not the principal. hee denyes that the epistle to the Hebrevves is Apostolical, the like is his cēsure of the epistle of Iude, and Iames. Praefat. li. 1. Inst c. 11. §. 8 l 2 c. 5. §. 18. l. [...] c. 5. §. 8. Ant. s [...]ss. 1 [...]. Caluin reie­cteth the bookes of vvisdom, of Ecclesi­asticus, of Iudith, of the machabees, of Tobie. And vvhy? trulye for no other rea­son, then that these bookes seem most cō ­trarie to diuers points of their doctrine. For other vvise, seing that they can not discerne scripture from other vvritings, but by the cēsure of the Romain Church, as is proued in the last Chapter, they haue noe reasō to receue some bookes on her vvord, and not all, seing that she giueth the same testimonie of all. But giue an Atheist this aduātage, and vvhat vvill hee say? hee vvill tell the Reformers, that hee seethe no other vvarraunt vvhich they haue for the epistle to the Romains, then [Page 692]for the epistle to the Hebrevves, and the epistle of saint Iames: nor for saint Ihons ghospel, more then for the other three [...] nor for Genesis, more then the first and second booke of the Machabies, Tobie, Iudith, and Iob; and that therfore if the reformers denye these, hee vvill deny all the other, bicause if the Romain Chur­ches vvarrant (for they haue no other vvarrant as in the former Chapter is pro­ued) bee not sufficient for some of these bookes, it can bee no sufficiēt vvarrāt for any. And so he vvill saye, that you maye as vvell denye all scripture, as some boo­kes of scripture; or if you vvillnot, he vvill denye it for you, and ground him selfe in your ovvn doctrine. And hee vvill yet goe farther, & auouche; that if hee maye doubte of Scripture, (as vvhy not, bicau­se ther is no other vvarraunt for it but the Romaine Churches vvord?) hee vvill doubte also of the contentes of Scrip­ture, and so hee vvill call in questiō Moy­ses, Christe, the Apostles, the Trinitie, the Incarnation, the Passion of Christe and Resurrectiō, and all the mysteries of Chri­stian religion. Vvherfore as you credit the Romain Church for scripture, so giue her credit for the nūber of the bookes es­scripture, bicause her vvord & vvarraunt is as good for this, as for that; or if you [Page 693]vvill not beleeue her in this, you can haue no assuraunce of any parte of Scripture, and so you maye bringe all into question; vvhence follovveth contempte of all re­ligion, as is before proued.

NOthing is of more force thē religiō, vvhich keepeth vs in avve, brid­leth our appetites, ruleth our actions, go­uerneth our life, and inculcateth vnto vs our dutie tovvards God and man. And if there vvere noe other argument, then the example of so many thousand martyrs, vvho haue endured so exquisite tormēts and so horrible deathes, rather then they vvould denye their religion; it vvere suffi­cient to beare vvitnesse for religion, that it is of greater force, then all the violence of the tyrauntes, then all their engiues, and instrumentes of crueltie, yea then death it selfe. But so the force of a riuer is great, and so great, that sometymes it ouer-throvveth hovvses, and bridges, and beateth dovvne all vvhich stādethe in the vvaye of his streame; but yet diuide it into many litle brookes, and a childe vvill resiste his force. Euen so religion is of [Page 694]great force and efficacie, and beareth a great svvaye in the life of man; but yet if it bee diuided into diuers sectes, it looseth force and vigour, and vvheras, vvhilest it remaineth vnited, See the second booke chap. 6. it vvill not bee resisted, vvhen it is diuided it is easilic cōtemned. I haue already described the iarres, and dissensions of the Reformers in matters of religion, and by this marke I haue des­cried them to bee heretikes; novv let vs see vvhat an aduantage, this their dissen­tion, giueth to an Atheist, and vvhat a vvide gap it openeth vnto Atheisme. An Atheist out of these their diuersities of o­pinions, maye easilie dravv this discourse. I see, sayeth hee (or at least hee maye saye) diuers sects and opinions diuers Synago­gues, and religions, diuers conuenticles, and congregations, amongest you: vvhich as they haue diuersnames, so professe they diuers doctrines, and follovve diuers Au­thours. And some of them are called Lu­theranes, some Caluinistes, vvhich are by a subdiuision parted into softe and rigo­rous Lutheranes, and into Protestantes, & Puritans, others are called Zuinglians, others Bezites, others Anabaptistes, others Libertines, others Brovvnistes, others Martinistes, others are of the familie of loue, others of the dāned crevve. And al­thoughe all these aggree against the Ro­maine, [Page 695]Catholike, and Apostolike Chur­che, yet they disagree amongest them sel­ues, and althoughe they hold many, and those also contrarie opinions, yet they all vse one argumēt to proue their opinions, to vvit Scripture sensed by their priuate spirit. And so, vvill this Atheist saye, if I beleeue one of these sectes, I must beleeue all, bicause they alleage one proofe for their religion; but seing that I can not be­leeue all, bicause they teache contrarie­ties, least I do any partial vvronge in pre­ferring one before another, all hauing the same reason; I vvill beleeue none of of them all, nor none of their opinions. And seing that they condemne the Ca­tholike and Romain religion, for a fardell of superstitions (vvhich not vvithstāding vvas euer counted the true Christian reli­gion euen by the Paganes them selues, vvho therfore persequuted it) and haue noe reason to bynde mee to any of their religions, vnlesse I vvill be bound to an impossibilitie, that is to bee of all their re­ligions, and nether can, nether vvill, vvith any reason persuade me to bee ether Tur­ke, or Ievve; I may by authoritie bee of noe religion. And thus Atheisme must needs follovv diuision in religion, & con­tempt of the Romaine Church.

IN the first booke, and last chapter, I haue declared at large, hovve necessa­rie a visible head is in all societies, and especially in the Church of Christe, and I haue also demonstrated, that ther is no suche visible head in the Synagogue of the reformers; vvhence I haue inferred, that amongest them, it is lavvfull for eue­rye heretike, to preach vvhat doctrine hee vvill, and no man shall cōtrolle him. Novve I ame to deduce another conclu­sion, to vvit, that thus also the gate and gapp is opened vnto Atheistes, and god­lesse, and irreligious persons: vvhich I can do easily, and vvill doe in a vvord. For if a visible head bee vvanting, euery man may preach and imbrace vvhat reli­gion hee vvill (as in the alleaged place I haue proued) and seing that, if this head bee vvanting, ther is noe certaintie for any religion, but only the priuate spirite, and bare scripture, vvhich are altogether vncertaine, In the first booke, ch. 2.3. as before is proued, it vvill fol­lovv that a man shall haue no more rea­son to imbrace one religion thē another, yea hee shall haue noe probable reason [Page 697]to induce him to any religion at all, and consequentlye he may take good leaue to bee of no religion. And thus he may argue in forme and figure. If ther be no visible head to determine by authoritie vvhat religion is to be imbraced, euery man may be of vvhat religion he vvill, and no man can controlle him, and so I also may vse my libertie in choosing my religion, as vvel as another. And seing that if the authoritie of a visible head be layed a side, I haue no more reason to bee of one religion then another (bicause all religions, alleage the same reason vvhich is no reason, to vvit, bare scripture sensed by the priuate spirite) and I can not possi­bly be of all, bicause they be contrarie to one another; I may by good reason refu­se to bee of any religion, and noe man can controlle me for it, if there bee no visible head, vvho can proue that hee ha­the authoritie to determine of religion. And so he that forsaketh the Catholique Church, vvhere only this visible head is to bee found, hath leaue and licence to bee of vvhat religion hee vvill, yea to be of no religion at all, bicause leauing that hee hathe noe more reason to bee of one religion then another, bicause hee hath no other reason then bare scripture sen­sed by a priuate spirite, vvhich is not suf­ficient, [Page 698]as is proued in my first booke and third chapter; yea leauing the Catholike Churche, he can not haue any probable reason to induce him to any of these nevv religions, as I haue proued in my first booke, and fifte chapter, and seing that God nether can, nor vvill comman­de him to bee of a religion, for vvhich hee seeth no reason, nor motiue vvhich is sufficient to induce a reasonable man, as in the same place is proued, hee maye vvith reason, after hee hath lefte the Ca­tholike Churche, ioyne vvith Atheistes vvhoe are of noe religion.

SAcrifice is a thing so highly pleasing, and acceptable vnto God, that he vvill haue none to be pertakers vvith him in such honour, but reserueth it as an homa­ge devv only to him selfe, and proper to a diuine maiestie. 1. Reg. 15. Yet obedience is more gratefull vnto him, then all the Heca­tombs and Sacrifices in the vvorld: bi­cause by sacrifice vve consecrate vnto his seruice the liues and substaunce of brute [Page 699]beastes, but by obedience, vvee make a burnt-offering, and Holocaust of our ovvne soules, resigning our desires and vvilles, yea our ovvn selues, vvholly vn­to his vvill and pleasure. But vvhilest this obedience resteth in the vvill, thoughe it be very meritorious, yet hath it not the full complement of perfection, bicause so longe as the vvill hathe reason to per­suade her, the lesse thankes she deserueth for obeying: but vvhen this vertue rea­chethe to the vnderstanding, and maketh reason, against sence and aboue reason, to yeeld to more then reason can reach vn­to, then hath this vertue the topp of her perfection. But this perfection shee hath not of her selfe, bicause of her selfe, she can only submitte the vvill vnto the com­maundement of the Superiour, but she is fayne to borrovv so much of the Theo­logicall vertue, called Faithe, vvhose pro­pertie is, to make the verie vnderstanding to stoupe, & vvithout any reason to yeeld to thinges, for vvhich ther is noe reason, bicause they are aboue reason. Many such thinges ther are in Christian faithe vvhich seeme to sense senseless, to reason vnrea­sonable, and to humaine faithe incredi­ble, and (as farre as mans reason can see) euen to diuine povver impossible. Emon­gest the vvhich, three are the most prin­cipall, [Page 700]and to humain reason, most incre­dible, to vvit the Trinitie, in vv ^ch vvee be­leeue that three are one, that is that three persons are one God; The incarnation, in vv ^ch vvee cōfess that tvvoe are one, that is tvvoe natures in Christe, the one diuine, the other humaine, are one and the same person; the blessed sacramēt of the altare, in vvhich vve acknovvledge that bread and vvine, by the vertue of Christes vvor­de, are changed into his body and bloud, and that one body is not only in one, but in diuers places, at one and the selfe same tyme? But as these three, are the hardest to conceue of all the mysteries of Chri­stian fayth, so hath our blessed Sauiour giuen vs more plaine and euident testi­monies of them in his holy vvritte, then of any other vvhich are more easilie to be conceued. For the blessed Trinitie, vvhat more pregnaunt proofes can vve desire, then vve haue in sainte Matthevv? Going therfore teach you all nations in the name of the father, cap. vlt. and of the sonne, and of the holy ghost. Vvhere the ancient fathers note that three are named, to signifie three distinct persones, and yet Christe biddeth his A­postles to baptise, in the name, not names of these three, to signifie that these three are one God. And that the father is God euery leafe almost of Scripture dothe te­stifie; [Page 701]that y ^e sōne is God, many places most manifestlye do beare vvitnes, Rom. 1.9. Tit. 2.3. Iuda 2. Mat. 1 [...]. Act. [...]. & testimo­nie. That the holy ghost is God, S. Peter a­verreth, vvho hauing demaunded of Ana­nias the reason vvhy hee vvould lye vnto the holy ghost, auoucheth, that he lyed not to mē but to God. vvherfore S. Paule sayeth that vvee are the temple of the ho­ly ghost? and seing that to God only tem­ples are erected, if vvee bee his temple hee is our God. novve that these three are one God, sainct Ihon vvill acertaine vs, for (sayeth he) three ther are vvhich giue testi­monie in heauen, the father, the vvord, I. Io. 5. and the holy ghoste, and these three are one. No lesse pregnaunte proofes doth holy vvrit affor­de vs, for the incarnation, in vv ^ch mysterie vve confess one diuine persone, Christe Iesus, to bee true God and man. And first let the father speake for his sonne. Mat. 3. This is my beloued sonne in vvhom I haue taken great pleasure. Secondly let the disciple spe­ake for his master: cap. 18. thou art the sonne of the li­uing God. Let another disciple, and no o­ther then hee vvhome Iesus loued, bicau­se hee loued, tell vs his opinion in this point: Io. [...]. hee sayeth that in the beginning vvas the vvord and that the vvord vvas vvith God, yea vvas God. and after vvards hee sayeth, that this vvord vvas made fleshe that is became man. Let Christ him selfe [Page 702]bee credited also in this matter, bicause hee is the truthe: vvhen the Ievves told him that hee had not yet 50. Io. 8. yeares of age, and therfore could not see Abrahame: he ansvvered that hee vvas before Abraham, and yet the same Christe is called by saint Mathevve, Mat. 1. the sonne of Abrahame, vvhich must needs argue tvvoe natures in one person of Christe, the one diuine, in respect of vvhich hee vvas before Abra­ham, the other humaine, by vvhich hee vvas after Abrahame, as the sonne is after the father: and so the selfe same per­son, is God and man; and that man Iesus that liued in earth and conuersed amon­gest vs, is the naturall sonne of God, & the vvorde of God, is the vvorde Incarnate, vvho in respecte of his diuinitie vvas be­fore Abrahame, but in respect of his hu­main nature, vvas longe after him. Novv as cōcerning the third mysterie, if I bring not as plaine texte for it, as can be brought for the others, I vvill yeeld the bucklers, and graunt the victorie, vnto my aduersa­rie. But to auoid multitude of allegations, I vvill make choise of tvvoe places only, vv ^ch seeme to mee to bee y ^e plainest. And the first shalbee taken out of the Sixt of saint Ihon, Io. 6. vvhich Chapter althoughe of some it bee expounded only of Spirituall eating of Christe, yet by the common [Page 703]consent of Interpretours, it speaketh not only of a spirituall, but also of a Sacra­mentall, and reall eating, as shall be ma­de moste manifeste. For first our sauiour Christe, to dispose them to a firme beleefe of this mysterie, made such a multiplica­tion and increase of fiue barley loaues & tvvo fishes, that hee fed and filled about fiue thousand persons thervvith, and that so sufficiently, that the fragmentes of the banquet vvere as much as the vvholle fe­ast. For if hee could make so much of a litle, vvhy can hee not turne bread and vvine into his bodye? and if hee could vvithout diminution of the feast, satisfie so many, vvhy may hee not feed vs all vvith his body; vvithout diuision or di­minution of the same? And if after that fiue thousand had eaten their fill of the loaues and fishes, the fragmentes and re­liques, vv ^ch they lefte, vvere as muche as the feast vvith vv ^ch they vvere filled, vvhy should it seeme impossible, that Christes bodye should bee eaten of vs, and yet re­maine in the pix, or Altar, or that after, that the communicantes haue receued it, the Reliques vvhich they leaue, should remaine still as great as the vvholle ban­quet vvas? Secondly after that this mira­cle vvas vvrought, bicause there vvas a great aggreemēr, betvvixte it, & the bles­sed [Page 704]Sacrament, thus hee taketh the occa­sion to discourse vvith them of it, and to induce them to the beleefe of the same. Amen Amē I say to you, you seeke me not bicause You haue seen signes, but bicause you did eate of the loaues, and vvere filled; so svvet a tast had that miraculous banquet, and such con­tentmēt it gaue, thoughe of it selfe it vvas meane, that they follovved him for the good cheare hee made them. but sayeth Christe vvorke not the meat that perisheth, but that vvhich endureth to life euerlasting, vvhich the sonne of man vvill giue you. They ansvve­red, vvhat shall vvee do, that vvee may vvor­ke the vvorkes of God? This is the vvorke of God (sayeth Christe) that you beleeue in him, vvhō he hathe sent. Vvhat signe (sayed they) doest thou, for vvhich vve should beleeue thee? Our fathers did eate manna in the desert; and God ga­ue them bread from heauen to eate. Here Chri­ste beginneth to close vvith them, and to enter in to his intended discourse of the blessed sacrament. True (sayeth Christe) but Moyses gaue you not that bread, but my fa­ther only hath the giuing of bread from heauen. Lord (sayed they) giue vs alvvayes this bread. Iesus ansvvered, I ame the bread of life. At vv ^ch the Ievves murmured, bicause they vnderstood him not. And yet most fitly is he called the bread of life: for first in Scripture all that nourisheth is called [Page 705]bread: vvherfore seing that Christe is the food of our soule, vvell is hee called bread, and not vvhatsoeuer bread, but the bread of life, to distinguish him from common bread. Secondly in scriptures vvhen one thing is chaunged into another, that into vvhich the chaunge is made, taketh the name of the thinge chaunged. So the ser­pēt into vvhich Aarons rodd vvas chaun­ged is called a rodde, Exod. 7. bicause it vvas made of a rodde; vvherfore bicause bread vvas to be changed into Christes bodye and blood, vvell is hee called bread. Thirdly bicause his body vvas to bee couered, vvith the formes of bread, it is called bread bicause it hath the shevve and for­me of bread, Gen. 49. and for this cause his blood is called, vvine, and the blood of the grape, bicause it vvas to be inuested as it vvere, vvith the accidentes of vvine in the same blessed Sacrament. But not vvithstan­ding the Ievves murmuration, Christe vvill not eate his vvord, but againe he re­peateth it; I ame the bread of life, your fathers did eate manna in the desert, and they dyed; this is the bread that descended from heauen, that if a man eate of it he dye not. And I (sayeth hee) ame this liuing bread that came from heauen, of vvhich hee that eateth shall liue for euer, and the bread that I vvill giue, is my fels he for the life of the vvorld. Novve hee speaketh his [Page 706]mynde plainly, and so plainly that he compareth the figure, vvith the veritie manna vvith his bread of the blessed Sacrament, and giues the preminence to the veritie; for (sayeth hee) your fa­thers did eate of manna and yet dyed, but my māna is a more soueraine viande, bicause vvho soeuer eateth of it shall liue for euer. Novv if it bee true that the blessed Eu­chariste, is only a signe of Christ and his body and blood; then I demaund of our aduersaries vvith vvhat shevve of truthe Christe could preferre it before manna? Vvhy should Christes bread giue life ra­ther then manna, seing that manna signi­fied Christe, vvho is this bread, as vvell as the Eucharist? Yea vnlesse the Eucha­riste contein Christes fleshe and blood really, manna must needes take the prece­dence in dignitie, as it hathe in antiquitie. For first manna vvas better in substaunce, Sap. 16. Psal. 77. See the fourth booke chap. 6. as being made by Angels handes, and in the aire, hauing also all tastes, as is befo­re declared, and so in substaunce manna, is more excellent. In figure and signifi­cation, manna is as good, if not better, for if the Eucharist cōtein not really Chri­stes body and bloud, it is but a signe and consequently noe better then manna, bi­cause it signified the same Christe, and so vvas as noble a signe, & it vvas more apte [Page 707]to signifie, and so vvas a fitter figure. for as Manna, vvas framed by Angells handes, Ex 16. Ioan. 6. and neuer passed the heate of the fyer; so Christe our bread of life, vvas framed by the kinge of Angells fingers, vvithout all helpe of man, and vvas baked in the ouen of the Virgins vvomb, vvithout all heate of concupiscence. As vvhen God rayned dovvn Manna, the Ievves cried Manhu, that is vvhat is this? So vvhen Christe pro­mised his Manna, the Capharnaites mur­mured. That Manna vvas giuen to the Ievves in the desert, this to Christians in the vvildernesse of this vvorld only, for in the nexte vvorld, I meane in heauen, our only home and land of promise, vvee shall not feed any more of Christes body by eating or communicating, but vvee shall tast of y ^e svveetnes of his diuinitie by fruitiō. That Māna vvas vvhite, but yet vvas no common bread, and it vvas like a coriander seed, but yet vvas not of any such substaunce. and this Manna in exter­ne forme and colour, seemeth bread, but in deed is the bodye of Christe: That vvhen it vvas measured vvas found to bee of one measure, in all the gatherers hands, and this Manna althoughe some haue great hostes some litle ones, althoughe some receue vvholle hostes, some but a peece, some many hostes, some one only, [Page 708]yet vvhē by faith it is measured; vvee fin­de as muche in the litle hoste, as in the great, as much in the vvholle hoste, as in the peece, and as much in fevve, yea in one, Sap. 16. as in many. That manna had all tastes, and those moste delicate, according to the eaters desire; but this it had not of the ovvne nature, but of God, vvho gaue it suche a supernaturall vertue; So hathe this Manna also, bicause it tasteth to our soules, according to our deuotion, and desire, and thoughe it bee but fleshe, yet it feedeth the soule, not by the ovvn ver­tue, for to the soule, flesh of it selfe non pr [...] ­dest quicquam, profiteth nothing, but by a su­pernaturall vertue, vvhich it receueth by the straung coniunction, vvhich it hathe vvith the diuinitie, euen as the hoate iron burneth, but not as iron, but as it is vni­ted to the fire. And seing that such con­uenience, and aggreement, can not be found betvvixte bare bread, and Christes body, it follovveth, that if the Eucharist bee but bread in substaunce, that Manna vvas a better signe then it, and so the fi­gure shall excell the veritie, and the sha­dovv shall surpasse the body, and the pro­mise the performaunce. But let vs goe on. After that our Sauiour had tolde the levves, that he vvas the bread of life vvhich descended from heauen, and gi­ueth [Page 709]life euerlasting, vvhich manna could not do; bicause it only extinquished hon­ger, and prolonged life for a tyme; the Ievves murmured once again, and grom­bled at the matter, yea, as the texte sayeth, they stroue amongest them selues saying, hovv can he giue vs his flesh to eate? But Christe vvill not goe from his former vvords, ra­ther novve hee threatneth, that vnlesse they cate his fleshe, and drinke his blood, they shall haue no life in them. And he inculcateth a­gain, and again, that his flesh is meat in deed, and that his blood is drinke in deed; that he that cateth him shall liue by him; that his bread, is the bread that came dovvn from heauen; and so for the. Vherfore, novve, many of his dis­ciples begin to stagger, saying, that this is a hard speech not to be endured. But yet Christe for all this their scandal [...], chaungeth not his tune nor tenour of vvordes. Only bi­cause he knevv, that the matter vvas har­de & highe, of vvhich he spake, he seekes to induce them to beleeue this mysterie, by another of as great difficultie. doth this, sayeth he, scandalize you, that I say you must eate my flesh and drinke my blood? if then you shall see me ascend, from vvhence I ame descended, you vvill much more be scandalized. but yet to ta­ke avvay as much scandall as I can, and to ease your vnderstanding as much as the [Page 710]mysterie vvherof I talke, vvill permit; It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, Aug tract. 7.10. the vvords vvhich I haue spoken vnto you be spirit, and life. That is, you must not conceue any horrour in that I tell you that you must eate my flesh, for you must not imagin, that I vvill giue it you ravve, or rosted, as the meate vvhich commeth from the shambles or kitchin, I vvil giue it you after a spiritual manner, hiding it from your eyes, vnder the veale of a Sa­crament, Ibidem. and in this spiritual manner it shall profit you, for as for that carnal man­ner in vvhich you do imagin, that I vvill giue you my fleshe, that profiteth no­thing. Or if you thinke it impossible that flesh should giue life, it is not flesh only that can do it, bicause flesh only profiteth nothing, but it is the spirit of the diuinitie and flesh vnited to this spirit that quic­kneth; Ibidem. for (as saint Austine sayeth) if flesh could profite nothing, Verbum caro nō fieret vt habitaret in nobis, the vvord vvould not haue been made fleshe to dvvell amongest vs, So that Christ meaneth that they must eate his fleshe, not only in a figure (for so they had eatē it in the paschall lambe) nor only by faythe (for so their for fathers and all that euer beleeued in Christe had eaten Chri­ste, and therfore at this eating they could not haue beene scandalized) but hee spea­keth, [Page 711]of a reall eating, thoughe in a spiri­tual and sacramentall manner; and so the Ievves euen after the explication mentio­ned, vnderstood him, and therfore still they murmured; yea after this (as the tex­te sayeth) many of his disciples vvent backe and novve they vvalked not vvith him. Blessed Sauiour, thou that cāmest not to deceue, but to saue soules, if thou haue any easier meaning then that is, in vvhich these men do take thee, tell it them out of hande, to helpe their vnderstanding. If thou mea­nest only an eating of thee in a figure, or by faithe only, as Caluin and Zuinglius do interprete thee, do but saye so, & thou shalt take avvay from these men, all cause of scandale, & murmuration: bicause they are vvell accustomed to figures vvhose vvholle lavve vvas figuratiue, and they cā easilie conceue hovve thy maye eate thee spiritually by faithe, bicause that is only to beleeue in Christe and the Messias, vvhich thy disciples that stagger at these thy vvords, do allready beleeue, and all their forfathers haue longe since be­leeued. But Christe vvill giue them no suche easie ansvvere: vvhich argevveth that hee spoake nether of figuratiue ea­ting only, nor of spirituall eating only, but of reall eating of his flesh, thoughe in a spirituall manner. Vvhat then ansvve­rethe [Page 712]our blessed Sauiour vnto these affli­cted people, nothing at all more, then vvhich allready hee hathe ansvvered, but rather novve hee turneth to the tvvelue Apostles, saying. Vvhat vvill you therfore de­parte? As if hee had sayed: I haue told you a highe mysterie, at vvhich many mur­mure, many are scandalized, and for vv ^ch many haue lefte mee also, but I haue no other thīg to saye, faithe is here required, vvithout vvhich none can come to mee or my father, none can beleeue this my­sterie: but, they that vvill not captiuate their vnderstanding to the obedience of faithe, let them goe; but vvill you my tvvelue vvho are vsed to my parables and mysteries, be gone also? Sainct Peter ans­vvereth for all tvvelue, (not knovvīg Iu­das infidelitie, vvhom not vvithstanding Christe calleth, a deuil for the same) Lord, to vvhome shall vvee goe? thou hast the vvordes of eternall life. Out of this discourse I gather tvvoe thīges for my purpose. first that the Ievves vnderstood Christe, not of a figu­ratiue, or spirituall eating by faithe, bicau­se such eating could not haue scandalized them, vvho vvere accustomed to spiritual eating, nether vvould such meates haue gone against their stomake, bicause figu­ratiue dishes, vvere their ordinarie fare. Secondly I gather that Christe meant not [Page 713]figuratiue or spiritual eating only, but sa­cramentall and reall eating. For if hee had meant so, hee noe doubte vvould haue explicated him selfe, to take avvay all oc­casion of offence and scandall, vvhich they conceued, bicause they vnderstood him of reall eating, as is proued; or if Cal­uin vvill needs haue it, that Christe meant only figuratiue and spirituall eating, hee must needes say vvith all, that christe vvas most cruel, and peremptorie, and that hee endeuoured rather to deceue soules, then to saue them, & to blinde them rather thē to illuminate them: vvhoe, thoughe he perceiued that they vnderstood him of his fleshe, vvhich scandalized them, yet vvould not vouchsafe, to tell them that hee meant only a figuratiue, and spirituall eating; that so vvith a vvord hee might haue taken a vvaye the scandall, taught them the truthe, and giuen the deceued soules, satisfaction.

My second argument, Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Lu [...]. 22. 1. Cor. 11. shalbe dedu­ced out of the vvords of our Sauiour, vvhich hee vsed, in the institution of this Sacrament; This is my body: this is my bloud: or, this is the Chalice of my bloud. Vvhat could hee haue sayed more plainly? Tel me, Caluin, if Christe vvould haue gi­uen vs to vnderstand, that hee meant to giue vs no bare figure, but his true body, [Page 714]vvhat playner vvords could hee haue vsed? hee might haue sayed (sayeth Cal­uin) This is my true bodye. but might not yet Caluin haue vsed his ordinarie glosse and haue sayed, that hee ment only to saye that it is the true figure of his body, or the figure of his true body? And I de­maund of Caluin, vvhether Christe vvas able to turne bread in to his body, as be­fore hee had turned vvater into vvine, and multiplied the loaues and fishes? If hee saye hee could not, Io 2. Io. 6. I aske vvhy? If hee ansvvere, bicause it seemeth impossi­ble; I must needes tell him, that he taketh much vppon him, in confining God his povver vvithin the narrovv compasse of his shalovv head; as thoughe God could do iuste as much as Caluin can conceue, but no more. All the ancient fathers, thoughe they could not conceue this my­sterie, yet bicause Christe calleth that vvhich vvas in his handes, his body, do confesse that Christ vvas able to do it, bi­cause they knevv hee could doe more then they could conceue. And vvhy could hee not do this as vvell as hee ha­the done the like? speake Caluin, and tell vs vvhere lyeth the difficultie, vvhich maketh thee vvith Iudas and the Caphar­naites, to thinke that Christe can not giue vs his body reallye? ether thy reason is bi­cause [Page 715]hee can not turne bread into a mans bodye: and vvhy I pray the can he not as vvell turne one thing into another, as create a thing of nothing? Vvhy can he not turne bread into his body, and vvine into his blood, Io. 2. Exod. 2. Psal. 77. Exod 7. vvho turned vvater into vvine, a rodde into a serpent, and a ser­pent into a rodde, and a rocke into vva­ter. Yea he that turned vvater into bloud, can he not turne vvine into bloud? Or else the reason is, bicause a mans body can not bee in so litle a roome, as is a litle hoste or a litle peece of the same: And vvhy can hee not make a great bodye to bee in a litle roome, as hee can make tvvoe bodyes, by penetration, Mat. 1.2. Mar. 16. Lu. 24. to bee in one roome, vvithout enlarging the place; vvhich hee did vvhen by penetration hee issued out of the virgins vvomb, vvithout breaking her virginal closett, and vvhen hee came out of his graue, vvithout re­mouing the stone, entered into his disci­ples, the dore being shut, and passed tho­roughe all the heauens in his Ascension, vvithout diuision of those incorruptible bodyes? or else y ^e reasō is, bicause one bo­dy cā not bee in diuerse places: And vvhy maye not one body, bee in diuers places, as vvel as diuerse bodyes by penetration vvere in one place in his natiuitie, and re­surrection, in his entraunce into the ho­vvse, [Page 716]vvhere his disciples vvere, and in his ascension into heauen, and aboue all the heauens? Breefly it is noe more repugna­unt, for a body to bee in a litle roome or in diuerse places at once, then for a mans body to stand vpirght vppon the vvater and not to sinke, Mat. 14.4. Reg. 6. as Christes and saint Pe­ters bodyes did, or for a heauy body to as­cend in the vvater as the head of a hat­cher did? nether is it more impossible for a body to occupie more place then the ovvne quantitie is, then for a body to liue a longer age then nature vvill afforde, & yet Exechias liued longer, and Elias and Henoch are as yet liuing. But Caluin vvill saye that it is noe more necessarie to vnderstād Christe really in these vvordes this is my body, then in diuerse others, in vvhich hee sayeth I ame the dore, I ame the vine or in those, Christe vvas the rocke, or in those, behold the lambe of God. But by Caluins leaue ther is much more reason, vvhy vve should vnderstand Christe real­ly in those vvorde, This is my body, then in the other vvordes alleaged. For vvhen Christe sayed. This is my body, hee made his laste vvill and testament, at vvhich tyme men speake plaine, and not in parables or figures, least that the heyres should take occasion to vvrangle, and to sevve eche other in the lavv, about the meaning of [Page 717] [...]he vvill. Hee spoake also those vvordes [...]o his Apostles, Luc. 8. to vvhome hee vsed not [...]o speake in parables but in plaine vvor­des, or if hee chaunced to speake obscure­ [...]y to them, Mat. 14.15. Io. 16. they vsed to desire him to ex­plicate him selfe, vvhich here they did not, or else some one of the Euangelistes vvould haue explicated this figuratiue speeche, as they vsed in other matters to doe; yea vvhen Christe spoake these vvordes, hee lifted vp his eyes to hea­uen, & blessed the bread vvhich hee ne­uer did, but some great miracle follov­ved, as appeareth by the miracle of the multiplication of loaues and fishes, Io. 6. and such like; vvhich argevveth some real chaung in the substaunce of bread; vvhich can be no other thē transubstatiation, the very vvords, this is my body, importing no lesse. secōdly hee sayed in the present-tēse this is my body vvhich is giuen for you: [...]. This is my bloud vvhich is shedd for you. For so the great texte teacheth vs, vvhich addition also argueth some thing, that then vvas offred for them, and seing that bread and vvine, could only be offered to them, but not for them, nor for remission of their sinnes; it follovveth that Christe then, made an oblation and sacrifice vnbloudy, of his body and bloud, as is before, vppō another occasion, proued. vvhich sainct [Page 718] 1. Cor [...]. [...].Paule confirmeth saying that Christ sayed This is my body vvhich for you is broken (for so the greeke vvorde signifieth) to signifie that Christes body vvas really vnder the accidentes of bread and vvine, else it could not laue been sayed, to haue beene broken in respect of the accidents of bread, vvhich are broken: vvherfore saint Chrisostome sayed, that Christe vvho vvould suffer no bones to bee broken on the crosse, vvas broken in the Sa­crament. Thirdly if Christe had giuen them but bare bread, or a bare signe of his body, hee vvould neuer haue added this is my body vvhich is giuen for you, bicause that argueth a reall giuing of his real bo­dy, and thetfore vvhē hee sayed I ame the vine, hee added not, vvhoe suffred on the crosse, nor any suche like vvordes: and al­thoughe pointing to the image of Cesar; vve saye sometymes behold Cesar, or, this is Cesar, yet not so aptly can vve saye of the image, this is Cesar, that ouercame Pompey, bicause that addition argevveth Cesar in person. Fourthly vvhen vve spea­ke metaphorically, vvee name and ex­presse the thinge; so Christe expressed him selfe, vvhen he sayed I ame a vine, so sainct Paule named him expressely, vvhen hee sayed, Christe vvas a rocke, so sainct Ihon pointed at him, vvhen hee [Page 719]sayed beholde the lambe of God, and seing that Christe remaining Christe, can not bee trulye a vine, a rocke, or a lambe; vvee easily perceue that suche speeches are to be taken metaphorically. And so if Chri­ste had sayed, this bread is my body, vvee must haue vnderstood him figuratiuely, and metaphorically, bicause bread remai­ning bread, can not bee really his body: but for as much as Christe sayed only, in confuso, confusedly, this is my body, vvee must vnderstand him really, and so the sense of these vvordes must bee: this vv ^ch I haue in my handes, is truly, and really my body. Lastly the greeke text in sainct Luke is sufficient to demonstrate this ve­ritie, c. 22. vvhere speaking of the chalice he ha­the these vvordes, [...]. By vvhich it is plaine that the pronoune (vvhich) is referred vnto the chalice, vv ^ch in the greeke, is of the neutergender, as also the pronovvn (vvhich) is. And so this is the sense of those vvordes: This is the cha­lice the nevv testament in my blood vvhich cha­lice is shed for you. Vvhere the continent is taken for the conteyned, for the mate­riall chalice or cupp, can not bee shed, and seing that vvine can not bee sayed to bee shed for vs, it must needes follovv that Christes blood vvas in the chalice, [Page 720]bicause that only vvas shed for vs. Vvhich text is so plaine, In Annot. that Beza confesseth, that it must needes be translated quod pro vobis funditur, vvhich chalice is shed for you, if vve vvill follovv the Grammaticall constru­ction, yet bicause thus hee maketh an ar­gument against him selfe, hee translateth it qui pro vobis funditur, vvhich blood is shed for you, saying that thus it should bee, and that ether the Euangelist made a sollecis­me, or that the text is corrupted. But in the one hee is very saucie to correcte the Euangelist, in the other hee lyeth, bicause all the greeke copies, haue it as I haue set it dovvne. By this, it is manifest, that as Christe promised, that hee vvould giue his body and bloud to bee eaten and dronken really, as is proued in the first ar­gument, so he gaue really his body and bloud to his Apostles, at his last supper, vnder the formes and accidents of bread and vvine. And so the texte and letter of Scripture is plain for the real presence; and that the letter is to bee vnderstood really, as it soundeth, and not metaphori­cally, tropically, or figuratiuely, I haue proued by many coniectures, and not only coniecturs, but by a plaine discourse of Christe vvith his disciples, in the first argument, and by many circumstances and euident signes in the second argu­ment. [Page 721]Yet bicause euery man must bee beleeued in his Arte, especially vvhē the­re is no suspicion of partialitie, I vvill proue the meaning of Christes vvordes to bee reall and literall, and not figura­tiue or spirituall only, by the authoritie of the ancient fathers, vvhose arte and profession vvas to interprete scriptures, in vvhich also they vvere so couning, that for the same, they are as famous amongest Christians, as Aristotle for Philosophie or Cicero for eloquence, Homer, Virgil, and Ouid, for Poetrie, Liuie and Salust for historie; vvho also can not be suspe­cted to fauour partiallie one side, rather then another, bicause they are more an­cient thē ether the Catholikes or the Re­formers of this tyme. And hauing these mē on my side I vvill not feare to shevve my selfe in the feeld against all the refor­mers in the vvorld, bicause hauing them on my side I shall haue many moe to fight for mee, then against mee. And as hauing thē on my side, I may take coura­ge, so my aduersaries if they had any for­heade, vvould be ashamed, so fevve, to stande in feeld against so many, so younge vpstartes agaīst so anciēt Captaines (vvho most of them haue vanquished one Arch­heritike and sectmaster or other, by their lerned vvritinges) so vnlearned against [Page 722]so learned, so vicious against so renovv­med Saintes, and so light ministers against so graue Pastours, and Prelates. But bicau­se a Chapter is not a feeld large, and spa­ciours enoughe, to muster all these soul­dious of Christe together, I vvill only bringe forthe a fevve of them, and those that speake most plainly, and consequēt­ly do strike most forcibly: and for the others I vvill referre the Reader to Car­dinal Bellarmine, Suarez, Gregorius de Valentia, and others, vvho haue brought them all into the feeld, and placed euery one of them in his ranke, and station, that is, in the tyme, and age, in vvhich he liued. And bicause all these fathers, ether ex­pressely do interpret the vvords, afore sayed, This is my body, or at least do ground them selues vppon them, or allude vnto them; their sayings may vvel serue for in­terpretations of the texte alleaged. Igna­tius, sainct Paules Scholler, hath these vvords: Ep. ad Rom. non gaudeo corruptibili nutrimento, pa­nem Dei volo, panem caelestem, qui est caro Chri­sti & Filij Dei viui, & potum volo sanguinem eius: I reioice not in corruptible nutriment, I vvill haue the bread of God (he alludeth to Chri­stes vvords in sainct Ihon, Io. 6. vvhere hee cal­leth him selfe bread) the heauenly bread, vvhich is the flesh of Christe and the sonne of the liuiug God, and I vvill haue the drinke vv ^ch [Page 723]is his bloud. To vvhich vvords, Caluin can not shape any reasonable ansvvere, vn­less hee vse much violēce, in vvresting the texte: for he calles the Euchariste incor­ruptible nurriment, Caluins Supper is as corruptible as bread, he calles it the bread of God and bread celestial, alluding to Christes vvordes, Io. 61 vvho of his ovvn fleshe and not of common bread, pronounced those vvordes I ame the liuing bread, vvhich descended from heauen, Caluins bread hathe no higher source & origin from vvhich it is descended, then the backhovvse or ouen; This bread hee calleth the fleshe of Christ the Sonne of God, and this drinke hee auoucheth to be the bloud of Christe, vvheras Caluins bread and vvine, is but bread and vvine, or to make the moste that may bee of it, is but a signe of the fleshe and blood of Christe, but in deed it is noe signe nor sacramēt at all, bicause Christ instituted, that bread for a signe and sacrament, vvhich is consecrated by a consecrated Preest, vvhich consecration Caluins bread hathe not, bicause his mi­nisters are no Preestes as I haue demon­strated. See ye fourth booke chap. [...] But bicause Caluin might by a violēt glosse, affirme that Ignatius calleth the Eucharist, incorruptible meate, cele­stial, and the bread of God, bicause it is a signe of Christes flesh, vvhich is incorru­ptible, [Page 724]and celestial, & the bread of God! I vvill bringe places, that can admitte noe glossing. And first of all I vvill bring some fathers, vvho saye that this Sacrament is not a bare figure, but is the true flesh of Christe. Saint Chrysostome, that golden Mouthe of the Churche of Christe, stop­peth Caluins mouthe, vvith these vvords: Semetipsum nobis commiscet & non fide tantum, Ho. 61. ad pop. verum & reipsa nos suum corpus efficit; he dothe mingle him selfe vvith vs, and not only by fai­the, but also in very deed he maketh vs his body. Caluin sayethe that vvee eate Christe on­ly by faithe, and consequently that his substaunce, is not really vnited to our sub­stance, bicause according to his opinion, they are distante as farre as heauen and earth, but sainct Chrisostome sayeth, that Christes substaunce in this Sacrament is mingled vvith ours, not only by faithe, but also in very deed, ergo in very deed, Christes body is in the sacrament, and by meanes of the sacrament, in the receuers also, and communicantes. Theophilactus vvriting vppon the sixte of sainct Ihon speaketh, Theoph. in c. 6.10. if it bee possible, more plainly: Attende autem quod panis qui à nobis in myste­rijs manducatur, non est tantum figuratio quae­dam carnis Domini, sed est ipsa caro Domini: Marke, that the bread vvhich is eaten of vs in the mysteries, is not a figuration (that is an expres­sion [Page 725]or figure) of the flesh of our Lord, but it is the very flesh of our Lord. hovv is it possible for the greatest Papist that is, to speake more plainly? Hilarius speaketh as plain­ly, as if he stroue, vvho should speake most plainly: De veritate carnis, l. [...]. Trin. & sanguinis non est relictus ambigendi locus, nunc enim & ipsius Domini professione, & fide nostra, verè caro est & verè sanguis est: Of the veritie of the flesh and bloud, ther is no place lefte to doubte, for novve, both by our Lords profession, and by our faithe, it is truly fleshe and truly blood. Vvhere the vvordes, veritie, and truly are clean opposite to Caluins figures, and spi­ritual māducation. Secondly the fathers admire hovve Christes body remaining in heauen, is not vvithstanding receued of vs in the blessed Sacrament. Saint Chry­sostome as a man astonished, exclameth in this sorte. O miraculum ô Dei benignitatem, l. 3. de Sa [...]erd. qui cum Patre sursum sedet, in illo ipso temporis momento omnium manibus contrectatur: O Mi­racle, ô Gods benignitie, he that sitteth aboue vvith his father, in that very moment (that is in tyme of Consecration and Communion) is handled in euery ones handes. Novv if Chri­ste be only in the Sacrament as in a signe or figure, vvhat miracle is ther here, vvor­thy such an exclamation? For so Christe is only really and in his ovvn person, in heauen, and in earthe hee is but as in his [Page 726]Image, and consequently it is no greater a miracle, then that the King at the same tyme should be really in his chamber of presence, and yet figurately in as many other places as he hathe coynes or images. Yea this miracle the vintner maketh day­ly, vvhose vvine is really in the caue or Celler, and at the same tyme in the Iuie­bushe vvhich is vvithout the Celler, bi­cause in it, the vvine is as in a signe. Saint Austine vvondreth, hovv Christe caryed him selfe in his ovvn hādes vvhē he sayed this is my body; Cano. 1. in Ps. 33. vvhich is no vvonder if the Sacrament be but a figure and signe of him, for so he caryeth him selfe, vvhoe ca­ryeth his ovvn image. Thirdly the fathers cōpare this sacrament vvith straunge and miraculous mutations. Li 4. c. 34. Cat. 4.5 l. de [...]js qui initiā. [...]. 9. & su­ [...] Iren l. 3. c. 12. Ab. l. 4. de see c. 4.9. Ireneus and Ci­rillus compare it vvith the Incarnation, sainct Ambrose cōpares, it vvith the crea­tion of the vvorld, and the Natiuitie of Christe of the Virgin Mother. The same Ireneus, and sainct Ambrose, liken it to the conuersiō of the rodd into a serpent, of vvater into bloud, and of the rocke into vvater, vvhich straunge mutations, vvere vvrought by Moyses in Aegipte & in the desert. Vvhich comparisons vvere very foolishe, if the bread and vvine, had no other mutatiō, then that of bare bread and vvine, they are made a signe; and as [Page 727]vvell might they cōpare an Iuie-bush vn­to the same mutatiōs, bicause y ^e Iuie-bus­he, vvhē it is hāged before the Inne, of no signe, is made a signe. Fourthly as in these alleaged cōuersions & mutatiōs, the afore named fathers, make recourse vnto Gods omnipotēcie, so do they in the mutatiō of this Sacrament, prouinge that it vvas pos­sible, bicause God is omnipotent. Sainct Ambrose sayeth; li. de ijs qui initiātur c. 9. hee that of nothing could make something, can hee not turne one thing, Cipr. ser de Coena Do­mini. into another? And sainct Ciprian sayeth, that by the omnipotencie of the vvord, the bread is made flesh. And vvere not these fathers madde, to endeuour to ex­plicate by so harde examples, hovve God his omnipotencie vvas able to cha­unge bread into Christes body, and vvi­ne into his bloud, if the mutation vve­re figuratiue only, seing that the vinte­ner vvithout omnipotencie, can do the like, in making an Iuie-bush, of no signe, a signe? Fistly they admire herin our sa­uiours great charitie and bountie, vvho is so liberall, as to feast and feed vs, vvith his ovvn flesh, and bloud. Ho 45. in 10. Vvhat shepheard (sayeth saint Chrisostome) feedeth his sheep vvith his ovvn blood? And vvhat say I, She­pheard? many mothers ther are, vvhich vvill not bestovv their milke vppon their suckling babes, but rather do put them forthe to nourcing, but [Page 728]Christe dealeth not so niggardly, but rather fee­deth vs vvith his ovvn flesh and bloud, and min­gleth his substaunce vvith ours. Novve if Chri­ste hathe giuen vs, only a bare signe of his flesh and bloud, I see no such extraor­dinarie loue and charitie; at least herin he shevveth no more, yea not so much chari­tie, as he shevved to the Ievves, to vvho­me he gaue manna from heauen in their extremitie, vvhich vvas a more noble sub­staunce, and a better figure then Caluins bread is. Lastly the fathers note for a straunge thinge, that Christe is eaten of vs in the blessed sacrament, and yet nether diuided, in vita apud Sur. nor diminished, nor consumed. This sainct Andrevv tolde Aegeas the Proconsul for a great miracle. I (sayeth he) do offer dayly vnto the omnipotent God, the Immaculate lambe, of vvhom vvhen all the peo­ple haue eaten, the lambe remaineth vvholle, and intiere. Ser de Coena Domini. Hom 2. de Verb. Apost. Sainct Cipriane calles this sacra­ment, inconsumptibilem cibum, meat incon­sumptible. Sainct Austine speaking of this Sacrament, and of the murmuration of the Ievves vvho imagined that they should teare Christes flesh vvith their teeth, sayeth thus: sicreficeris, vt non deficiat vnde reficeris: so thou art refreshed, that it is not deficient, of vvhich thou arte refreshed. And the reason is, bicause Christes body is glo­rious, and is receued vvholle of euery one [Page 729]and so is not deuided, and vvhen the for­mes of bread and vvine perishe, Christs body leaueth them, and though one man receueth Christes body vvholle, yet ther is neuer the lesse for another, for hee also receueth it vvholle, nether in this is there any greater difficultie, then that 5000. Io. 6. men should bee fedd vvith fiue barly, loaues, & tvoe fishes, & yet the reliques, to bee as great or more, thē vvas the feast. novv if Christe be not really presēt in this Sacramēt, but only as in a signe and figu­re, it is no more meruaile, that hee is not consumed, then that the Kinges picture should bee burnt or broken, and he re­ceue no harme; and if vvee eate him only spiritually by faithe, vvhat vvonder is it, that his substaunce is not diuided, seing that faithe hathe no teeth to rent or teare him. I could adde to these fathers, vvho as I haue proued in the first booke ener vvent vvith the Churche, Chap. 4. the practise of the Christian vvorld, l. 1. de Eu­charist. c 20. vvhich for reueren­ce of this Sacrament (as Cardinal Allen noteth) hathe builded so goodly Chur­ches, errected so stately Aultars, prepared so ritche vessels, of gold and siluer, to con­tein this Sacrament, hathe caryed it in Procession, and adored it; vvhich honour and homage, Christians vvould neuer haue giuen it, had they thought that it [Page 730]vvere but bread and vvine, or a bare si­gne, or figure of Christes, body. So that if euer there vvere any truthe in the Chur­che, this of the real presence, is a truthe, bicause the Scriptures are as plain for it, as for any other mysteries of our faithe, the fathers aggree in the exposition of the scripture for the real presence, as they do in the exposition of scriptures against the Arrians for the defence of the Trini­tie, or against the Nestorians or Eutichi­ans, for the Incarnation; the practise of the ancient Churche, argueth noe lesse, miracles, vnlesse all bookes euen lately Printed lye, vvere allvvayes as frequēt for this mysterie, as for any, the consent of all Christians conspireth in this article as vvell as in the Trinitie, & this the paganes knevv full vvel, In Apol. c. 5.7. Pamel ibid. Euseb. l 5 c. 1 vvho therfore called vs Anthropophagos and Infanticidas as vvitnes­sethe Tertulian. And so if vvee haue any truthe of any article of our faithe, this is an assured veritie: and if euer ther vvere any heresie, Caluins opinion, vvhich de­nyeth this real presence, is an heresie, bi­cause the autours of this opinion, vvere euer noted for heretikes, as Berengarius, Vvicleph, and others before them; and their follovvers had particular names, as the Arians haue, they vvere condemned by Councels, and by that Church vvhich [Page 731]vvas commōly called Christian, and they haue all other markes, of heretikes, set do­vvne in the second booke, as vvill easilie, appeare, by application of thē, vnto Cal­uin, and his follovvers. Vvhen this opi­nion vvas taught, the vvorlde vvondred at it, and the Pastours and fathers of the Churche, vvrote against it, and they alle­adged as plain scripture against this here­sie, as euer they did against Arianisme. And so, if euer there vvere any heresie in the vvorlde, the denial of the real presen­ce is an heresie. Conferre novve (gentle reader) the testimonies vvhich Catholi­kes haue for the real presence, vvith those vvhich the reformers alleage against it, and tell mee vvhere is likest to bee the truthe? Catholikes haue plainer scripture for it, then they haue against it, the fathers also vvho are interpretours of scripture, stand for it, the reformers stand against it. Vvhich are to bee beleeued, thinkest thou? Vvhether all the fathers, or all the Reformers, yea or euery one of the Reformers, bicause they aggree not, and euery one vvilbe supreme Iudge, by his priuate spirit? They vvill say scripture must bee beleeued before ffathers. but this is not the question; for scripturs are plainer, for the real presence, then those are, vvhich the reformers bring against [Page 732]it, And fathers bringe scripturs to proue it, as vvel as they do to disproue it; so that the question is, vvhether the fathers are liker to vnderstand the scripturs rightly, rather then the reformers, yea, rather thē any one of the reformers, in particuler. But to dravv to my intended conclusion, out of all this discourse I gather, that vvee haue as plaine scripture for the real pre­sence of Christes body and bloud in the blessed Sacrament, as vve haue for the blessed Trinitie, and vvee are as sure of the real meaning of the textes, vvhich are alleaged for the real presence, as of them, vvhich vvere vsed for proofe of the Trini­tie or Incarnation; bicause the texte is as plaine, and the Interpretours as many and as plain also, the circunstances also of the texte make as much for the real presence, as for those other tvoe mysteries; The real presence is no more impossible, nor incredible, to mans conceite, then those mysteries are, yea those are of greater dif­ficultie. Vvhy then do the reformers de­ny the Real presence, rather then the Tri­nitie or Incarnation? If vvee haue as good proofes for this as for those verities, vve can not beleeue those, but vvee must be­leeue this, or if these testimonies bee not sufficient for the reale presence, they are not sufficient for those verities, and so if [Page 733]not vvith standing plaine texte, circun­stances of the texte, Interpretours of the texte, and practise of the Church, vve de­ny the real presence, or doubte of it; vvee must necessarily doubte of the Trinitie and Incarnation, and call them, and all the other mysteries of Christian faithe in question, for vvhich vve haue no grea­ter, nor no other proofe, bicause one proofe is for all; and as good for the Eu­chariste, as for any. And if all the myste­ries of christian faith be called in questiō, then seing that vve haue no reason to ioyne vvith Turck or Ievv in their Reli­gion, vvee may bid adevv to all Reli­gion, and sorte our selues vvith Atheistes, vvho are of no Religion.