AN ANSWERE TO MASTER IOHN de Albines discourse against heresies, called and ac­counted by his frendes, A notable discourse to that pur­pose; made by Thomas Sparke, Pastour of Blechley in the countie of Buck. .1591.
Chapter first.

CALVIN we esteeme and account of, as of a rare & singular minister of Christ, & his writings (as they well deserue) wee thinke reuerently of; and you haue tried them to be of great force & power, to shake the very grounds and pillars of your Ba­bilonical building: but our Patriarch we neither account nor cal him, though you in your third word take it, and therefore set it downe for graunted that we doe. It seemeth, you thinke scorne, that hee should charge your Priesthoode not to bee of God, and so to cal you to an accoūt of your vocatiō. Indeede I cānot blame you, that it grieueth you, y ^t that should be called into question, seeing it is a thing you haue bragged on so long, & haue gained by (at the hands of the blind & ignorāt) both al y ^e credit & wealth you haue, especially [Page 2] [...] [Page 3] [...] [Page 4] seing also, that what words soeuer you vse to countenance the mat­ter, yet you shall neuer be able to iustifie it. Howbeit, as though not onely you were able to answere Caluin to the full in this point: but also as though there were either some great impiety, or vanity (at the least) in his words, you recite them twise, admonishing your Reader, that they are his wordes. Be it that they be so, what haue you saied either to argue the least folly in thē, or to iustifie your vo­cation in such sort, as therein he proueth you must, or els it cannot be of God? First you woulde proue Caluin in these wordes to offer you wrong, in that out of the 5 to the Hebr. he gathereth, that vnlesse you can proue God to be the authour of your vocatiō, it cannot be of God: because the Ciuill law prescribeth, that one should proue his right of possession, before he demaunde it, and that he should restore the spoile, before the suit proceede. But who seeth not, that that which he alleadgeth out of the 5 to the Hebr. doth more iustifie his demaūde, that either you must shew, that god is the authour of your Priesthoode, or els confesse, that you are not called of God: then anie thing that you haue noted out of the Ciuil law, can proue, that he offereth you any wrong in calling for this at your hands. Because you are an Archdeacon, it should seeme, that you would faine that men should thinke (to the ende you may be iudged the fitter man to exe­cute your office) that you haue some skill in the Ciuill lawe, in that you are thus ready, euen at the first to cite it. For to small force else it serueth, for neither is your axiome so general, but that it notwith­standing rightly vnderstoode, a man may lawfully and orderly pro­ceede, and yet first demaūde his right to possession, and after timely enough proue his demaūde thereunto to be both honest and iust: nei­ther doth Caluin or any of vs claime any right of possession of your massing Priesthoode, that you neede bid vs first proue our right thereunto. For we detest it as a thing Antichristian and vtterly vn­lawfull, and we holde that no sound Christian will euer plead for a­ny right thereunto. And as for the spoile of your temples and reuen­neues, that you would haue vs to restore before the suite betwixt vs proceede: we say againe, that both law and reason tesseth you, that be­fore you should so peremptorily call for restitution, you should proue the wrong. Which, neither you, nor none of your side (though to bewray what grieueth you most, namely the parting away from your fat morsels, vnlesse your bare accusation were straight a con­uiction) haue yet once proued against vs, and therefore the action [Page 5] may proceede well enough against you, for any thing, that your Ci­uil law can helpe you. We are in possession (we graūt) of Churches and reuennues, that heretofore you held in sundry places, but here­in wee haue not wronged you at al, howsoeuer you coūt it a spoiling of you. For first, through the mercy of God to his Church, & of his iu­stice towards you (your sins being growen ripe) by the light of his word, he made it appeare, that you were wrong withholders of these things, in that they being founded, and giuen for the maintenance of a holy Ministery, for y ^e sound feeding of peoples soules, you vsed thē for the support of an Antichristian Ministery, to poison the soules of men with his deuilish doctrine and vsages: & therefore, God secōdly stirred vp the harts of Princes, and Christian magistrates, orderly to dispossesse you thereof, & to giue them vnto such, as would vse thē better. Yea so far of is it, that either they or we cā iustly be said here­in to haue done you any wrong, or spoiled you, that wee are able to proue, y ^t you getting, and keeping them in your handes, for the cause aforesaid, most sacrilegiously spoiled y ^e true Church of her reuēnues, conuerting them to the maintenance of the seruice of Antichrist, to the most dāgerous robbing of the peoples soules, of the foode of life due vnto them therefore, and for this cause you had wrong, that you were let alone with the possession of them so long as you were.

Now, whereas before you will proceede to answere Caluins de­maūd, as a sharpe Logician, you say, his argument seemeth vnto you very simple, to say, that if you cānot shew, that God is the authour of your Priesthood, then you must confesse, that it is not of God, seeing that without being called, you take it vpō you. In reciting thus his words, you wilfully alter them, and frame his argument otherwise, then he made it. For he saied not (you your selfe being witnes in set­ting downe his words before) seeing that without being called yee take it vpō you, but seing of their own boldnes (saith he, speaking of you) they haue takē it in hand (hauing therein relatiō to the Priest­hood it selfe) which if you cannot proue (as you neuer shal) to be in­stituted of God, it must needs follow, not only, that it is not of God, but y ^t you haue taken it in hand of your owne boldnes, as he saieth, & so by most necessary consequent, your calling cānot be of God. So y ^t he reasoneth not, frō your rūning into your priesthood of your selues without a calling (as by reciting his argumēt, altering his words as I haue saied, you would seeme to vnderstand him) to proue your Priesthood not to be of God: but frō the vnlawfulnes of your Priest­hood [Page 6] it selfe. For he was not so simple (I warrant you) but he knew as wel as you, that many haue, doe and wil hereafter intrude them­selues, vpon an office of Gods owne ordināce: and that, notw ^tstāding their lacke of lawful calling thereūto, the office yet remaineth holy, lawful and good. And therefore, he most plainly laboureth, to proue your popish calling to your Priesthoode vnlawful, whatsoeuer you make of your ordinary calling thereūto, because the Priesthoode it selfe is not of God, & therfore such a thing, as you haue taken in hand of your owne heads, what ordinary calling soeuer by man you haue thereūto. And therefore, as plainly as may be, he telleth you, by war­rāt of the 5. to the He. that either you must shew, that God is the au­thour & institutour of your Priesthood, or els you must confesse, that it is not of God, but a thing takē in hād, or deuised o [...] your own, bold­nes. And this to haue beene his purpose and drift, vnles your eies be very bad, and your wits yet worse, you could not chuse but perceiue. But this argument (belike) was to strong for you, & therefore (as in the like case, it is a common tricke with the men of your faction) you thought best to frame you another weake enough, and so fit for your strength; which whiles you haue labored to cōfute, you haue fought but w ^t your owne shadow, & slaine a childe of your owne begetting. Your exāples therefore of Dathā, Abirā & Ozias, you may take hōe againe, & keepe thē in store, vntil you haue more neede of thē. In the meane time remēber, y ^t though you haue answered your owne argu­mēt, yet Caluins stādeth in his ful force stil against you. For though it follow not, you haue entruded your selues, therefore the office, wherupon you haue intruded, is not of God, because these, which you named, intruded themselues vpon the lawful Priesthoode of Aarō: yet I hope how simple soeuer (and worthily) this argument of your owne framing seemed vnto you, that you wil graūt, that ther is both strength & force in this, which is Caluins indeed: your Priesthoode it selfe is but a bare ordinance, and deuise of man, and hath not God for the authour thereof; therefore whatsoeuer your calling bee thereunto, it is vnlawfull, and not of God. If you would not haue this conclusion ve­rified of your calling, it is not enough for you to saie, that you came to your Priesthood according to the ordinarie way: nay it is not enough, to proue it, which yet you go not about; for commonly not onelie for this, but for all thinges els of importance through your booke, your bolde assertion is your onelie proofe. For if the office it selfe be not of God, but a plant, which the heauenly father hath not [Page 7] planted, then howsoeuer you come vnto it, your calling cannot bee of God. A vaine thing therefore is it in you, here or any where els, to spend words and time to shew, how you attaine your Priesthood, ha­uing not anie where first proued, the Priesthood it selfe to be of God. That is the thing, that Caluin telleth you you must shew, or els you must confesse your calling is not of God, seing it is but to an office, of your owne boldnes deuised and taken in hand. And yet this being a thing, which (to iustifie your calling) it stood you vpon most, & in the best maner you could, to haue proued, yea without the profe wherof, all that euer you haue saied, or can say of neuer so ordinarie a com­ming thereunto, is merelie vaine & friuolous: yet you saie, you will not meddle with it here at this time, but you put it of to another place, not once finding time & place in this your discourse to speake a word of it againe. Wherein at the first entrance, in the eies of the wise, you haue giuen your Priesthood a greater wound, then al that you haue saied, concerning the lawfulnes of your vocation thereūto, can euer heale vp againe. For this thing being the most pertinent, & material thing, that could be (your drift and purpose in this discourse conside­red) for you to haue laboured about, as about the soule of your cause, to giue al the rest life: how could you perswade your selfe, but that in thus shifting of this, though so thrust vpon you by your owne ci­ting of Caluins words, but that euerie one would straight iudge, y ^t you did it not, because you had no will to haue proued it, but because you feared, that your skil would not serue you substātially to doe it? And therefore in pollicy you thought it more wisdōe, thus to passe it ouer, as though you could saie enough thereof if you list, then by en­tring into it, to lay open your weakenes to your frends, in so great a matter, at your first entrance into your booke.

Howsoeuer you haue thought it the safest waie in this place, to say nothing hereof, & for sauing your credit to make shew, as though you would say enough in some other: in y ^e mean time, euē here, the nature of your popish Priesthood considered, I confidentlie aduouch, that neither you, nor all you togither, can euer proue indeede, that it is of God. For the Scripture teacheth vs, that Christ hath an euerlasting Priesthood, and that he executed that office here, and doth stil there, where he is, for his Church so perfectlie, that he hath this prerogatiue, that he needeth no successors to cōtinue his office, as y ^e Priests of Aaron had, nor anie other either to offer any new, or to iterate that sacrifice, which he offred himselfe for the saluation of [Page 8] mā, he hath offred one so perfect, & so perfectly once for al: He. 7.23.24. & 10, 10. &c. which prerogatiues y ^e massing Priesthoode rob­beth him of, first, in that they will bee his successours, in the office of Priesthoode: and thē, in that they take vpō thē, to offer him again in sacrifice to his father, for the sinnes (as they say) both of the quick & dead: & most blasphemously make thēselues, in their offering him a­gaine to his father, mediators betwixt him and his father, praying him (as it appeareth in there masse-book) that he would fauourably looke vpō, and receiue those hoasts, which they there offer vnto him, for the soules of such and such. Ex missâ pro defunctis, ex secretis. Werefore, I dare be bolde to say, that so far of is it, that their Priesthoode is of Gods ordinaunce, that most certainly it is of Sathans owne deuising, and is most iniurious to the death and passion of Christ, and therefore Antichristian. Howbeit, seeing you haue left Caluins assertion, that it is not of God; standing with­out any refutation, and so are contented (vntil you better aduise your selfe, what to say against it, to let it stand still) in the meane season to render vs account, of your cōming vnto it, vpon condition, that wee will make ready our papers, when you haue answered vs, to an­swere you, how we come by our Ministery: I am content to accept of this your condition, and so to heare first, what you can say, for the iustifying of your vocation, and after when and where you cal for it, to yeeld you an account of ours. But then in the meane time I must put you in minde, and pray the gentle reader to marke it, that for a­ny thing you haue saied yet, Caluins assertion against your office of Priesthoode it selfe, that it is not of God, standeth in full force.

You write, that you are called to this estate according to the or­dinary way, that is (say you) by the right succession of Bishops & pa­stours, and by y ^e cōtinuāce of one catholique faith, deriued from y ^e A­postles to our daies, w ^tout y ^e interruption of it vniuersally. This you say indeede, but what haue you either here, or els where in this your notable discourse (for so either you or your frends cal it) brought vs to proue this? you cite here Mat. 5. Eph. 4. & a place out of Esay, w ^t is there Cap. 62.6. (though in your booke it be quoted Sap. 61.) but neither any of these, nor al these togither do proue your saying to be tru. For taking the places in your own sēce, y ^e things therby proued are only these, first, y ^t the tru Catholick faith hath alwaies so shined, y ^t it hath giuē light at al times in one place or other to thē within the house, y ^t is, y ^t be w ^tin the true Catholick Church & to such as be neare [Page 9] thereūto and within the sight thereof: and that Christ wil haue con­tinually euen vntill his second comming, and vntill his Church bee growen to her ful perfection, his trueth continued in his Church, by faythfull Pastours and Ministers: and to this ende serueth also (in your opinion) your similitude taken from a materiall building, which cannot be perfected without continuance of workemen vn­till it bee done: which yet caryeth with it a dissimilitude, euen in the thing wherein you resemble it vnto the Church. For we see by daily experience, that in material buildings, if they be great, there are often tymes great and many interruptions, and ceasings of the workemen, and yet in the ende the building well enough prefected. But bee it that these places proue these things, and that your vnapt similitude hath no vnfitnes in it, what is all this to the purpose, doth it hereupon follow, that you come to your offices of Priests & Bishops as you haue saied? Because Christ hath alwaies & will to the ende preserue and cōtinue the light of his trueth, by the faithful ministery of some in his church (which is a thing which we alwaies haue constātly & firmely beleeued to be true, because he hath had, hath, and wil euer vnto the ende haue, a holy catholicke Church, against which the gates of hel neither hath at any time, doeth, nor e­uer shall, vniuersally preuaile) shall it hereupon follow, that there­fore your Priests & Bishops are the mē, whom Christ hath alwaies and yet doth vse to this ende? or that amongst thē, there hath alwaies beene the right succession in one Catholicke faith? Their is none so simple, but he may easily see, that there is no necessary coherence be­twixt this antecedent and consequent. For Christ might haue, and indeede hath had (as I shew after in my fourth chapter) by whō ef­fectually from time to time, he hath both continued his Church and his trueth therein, though your Bishops & Priests haue a long time shewed thēselues his most deadly Antichristiā enemies, in opposing thēselues with main & might against both his Church & truth. The matter you haue vndertaken to shew vs is, by what right you exer­cise your ministery, or how you were called to that estate: for that, as a thing more easy, you rather haue chosen to doe, then to proue your office of Priesthood it selfe to be of God, though indeede this be the more material point, & which you should rather haue taken vpon you to proue: but that it seemeth, like a prudent man, you tendered more your owne credit, which you foresaw, was like to take a foile, if you should haue attempted to doe this, which by no colour or shew of [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 8] [...] [Page 9] [...] [Page 10] sound reason you could, then the credit of your cause, w ^c you could not but foresee, must needs lye in the dust, this being left vnproued, whatsoeuer you should say cōcerning the other. But seeing whatso­euer become of your cause, it hath pleased you, like a wise mā, to slip frō vnder this burdē, which was to heauy for you, & now y ^t only thing y ^t we must expect at your hāds at this time, is, to shew that your ma­ner of cōming vnto them yet is honest, good and lawful: I pray you, in good earnest, consider and weigh with mee a little, what you haue saied to proue this. Al you say, is (as I noted before) y ^t you are called by y ^e ordinary way thereūto, that is, as you expoūd your selfe, by the right successiō of Bishops & pastors, & by the continuāce of one Ca­tholick faith, deriued frō the Apostles to our daies, w ^tout interruptiō of it vniuersally: nothing at al you haue added, that so much as sauo­reth of any proofe of any one point of this your assertiō, & therfore se­ing your word, is, nor ought to be of more credit w ^t vs, then the bare partial word of an aduersary in his own case, your frēds might haue thought themselues euen asmuch beholden to you, if you had as wel giuen ouer the taking in hand, to proue their maner of comming to their offices to be of God, as you haue, to proue the offices thēselues to be of his ordināce. If you had mēt or at least could in earnest haue proued the thing you vndertooke, you should haue first made it ap­peare, what is requisite by Gods ordināce in the lawfull outward calling of the ministers of his Church, & then haue shewed vs, y ^t your Popes, Cardinals, Bishops & priests haue alwaies & doe stil so cōe by their offices: but this was to haue dealt too plainely, and in fol­lowing of this course, you knew wel enough, you should be enforced too too openly to betray the badnes of your cause. For who is there of any learning and reading, but he knoweth, that the ordinary way whereby these your officers haue come now these many 100 yeares to their roomes, is as farre differing from the ordinary waie appointed by Christ for his ministers to come to their places by, as the east is from the west. You therefore, like a wilie and subtle fox, thought it no good pollicie, this way to seeke to iustifie your calling or maner of cōming to your prelacies, & yet rather then you would seeme to be able to say no more for your maner of comming there­unto, then for the offices themselues you were disposed, you thought it good, thus brauely and braggingly to set a face vpon it in these words, as though you could saie enough: and that makes your fault the greater. You haue no sooner vttered this your bare and bold as­sertion, which were somewhat, if you could throughlie proue it, but [Page 11] you are quite slipt & gone into the proofe of another matter, which though you proue, yet your assertion is neuer the more thereby strengthened and confirmed. For though we graunt you (which al­waies we do most willingly) that the Church of Christ hath alwaies had in her from her first natiuitie, and shall haue vnto the ende, suc­cessiuely in all ages in one place or other, such as haue shewed the trueth faithfully vnto others, as haue shined as lights in their daies set vpon a candlesticke, and as haue painefully laboured and shall still, to gather together the Saints, to bring them to vnity and per­fection in Christ: yet neither doeth it follow, that these haue bene so visible, apparent & glorious in the eies of al men, & that they haue so orderly succeeded one another, and had their ordination one of ano­ther in one and selfesame place, and after one and selfesame maner, nor that hereupon it should follow, that this hauing bene in any sort that then by and by it must be granted, y ^t yours haue entred the ordinarie way, that they are right Bishops and Pastors, haue had right succession alwaies one to an other, and haue also, which is the grea­test thing of al, had w ^tout interruption alwaies the sound catholicke faith continued amongst them. For, in some sort, these might be in al ages and times, & that effectuallie to serue to these ends so far forth, as stoode w ^t Gods prouidence, & was according to the variable dis­position therof, sufficiēt to cōtinue his holy catholick Church, accor­ding to his good pleasure, & yet not in that visible, apparēt & glorious maner, that you pretēd: & some he might haue to enter into their cal­lings to doe this the ordinary way, though your Bishops & Priestes haue not so entred, be not right Bishops and Priests, and be such as are destitute of al right ecclesiastical successiō, both in respect of per­sons, places, times, & trueth. And yet most euident it is to euery rea­der of anie iudgement, that al your proofes in this Chapter, & in the rest that follow, proue onely, that God alwaies hath had, hath & will haue a Church, and therin alwaies some teachers of the trueth, and some learners and embraces of it. And this the Lord hath had, hath and euer wil haue, though your ordinary waie of comming to your places, though your Bishops and Pastors, your personal and locall, visible and glorious succession, and your supposed Catholicke truth had neuer beene seene or heard of in the world. Yea far more appa­rently and gloriouslie should we haue seene the trueth hereof, if this ordinary waie of yours, these Bishops and Priestes of yours, this succession and counterfeyght trueth of yours, had not in the [Page 12] iust iudgement of God, for the sinnes of the world beene the stop & let thereof. And yet you either were so simple your selfe, or else you thought you should onely meete with so simple a Reader, as would account the prouing of one of these, thus seuered and disioyned the one from the other, the iust and due confirmation of the other. But I cannot be perswaded, that such was your owne simplicity, as once to imagine, that the fift of Mathew, Ephes. 4, Esaie. 62. or any other proofe that you vse to that ende, did serue at all to proue your en­traunce to haue bene as you saied: I am therefore flat of this minde, and so must euery man of any wit and discretion be (vnlesse you will giue vs leaue to thinke, that you had neither of both in thus reaso­ning) that this was your Romish and Popish cunning herein, fin­ding your selfe vnable to proue any of these foure points, that your entrance is by the ordinary waie, that your Bishops and Priests are right Bishops and Priests, that you haue had from the Apostles right succession, and that also now and alwaies you haue beene in possession of the Catholick trueth: you thought it good, confidently, as though their were no controuersie to be made with you about a­ny of these, to aduouch, that you had all these to iustifie your maner of comming to your offices. And so perswading your selfe that you should meete with such franke and liberall Readers, as would easi­ly, vpon this your bolde begging, graunt you all these foure for an almes, taking them for giuē, as sure as though you had them alrea­dy in your beggers budget, euen for and at the very first asking, you goe on as you doe, supposing that your Reader is already wonne to this, to imagine that all and euery place of scripture that speakes of right Bishops and pastours, and of their lawful calling & succee­ding one another frō age to age in the trueth, must needes be vnder­stoode of yours. But with this conceit & phantesy of yours, how­soeuer you may preuaile with men of your owne humour and com­plexion, that haue their wits benummed & blūdered with the drun­ken & enchaunted cup of the garish whoar of Babylon, whiles you take this course, you set your selfe but forth vpon a scaffolde, to bee laught at and derided, as one that hath neither sounde Religion, nor common reason left him, of those that are indeede wise, sober and godly.

Seeing therefore you haue saied so much and proued so little, well enough might I euen with the detection, in this sort, of your vanity, leaue you as sufficiently answered, for any thing you haue [Page 13] saied concerning this point. But because I haue not taken in [...]and, onely so to answere you, as might be sufficient to take awaie [...]e power and force from any thing you haue set downe in this [...]our discourse, to winne any more to bee of your iudgement then [...]ee alreadie, but also so, as, by the grace of God, may bee likely to [...]ake your owne frendes ashamed of your dealing in their cause, [...] will both in this, & throughout your booke, for the further bene­ [...]it of the Reader, take the paines to follow you frō steppe to steppe [...]how crooked soeuer your pathes be) & so disclose & lay open before [...]im, not onely the vanity of your proceeding, but also the vntrueth [...]nd grosse impietie of your words and sayings.

Wherefore, whereas to iustify your maner of comming by your [...]ffices, you first saie you come thereunto by the ordinarie way, the Reader is to consider, that through the ambiguttie of your speech, you seeke wilfullie to abuse him. For you could not bee so sim­ple, but you knewe and remembred well enough, that as there is a lawfull ordinarie waie ordeined and allowed by God, and therefore accordinglie practised in his Church, whereby his Church officers should enter into their callings (whereby if you could haue proued yours to haue come to theirs, you had indeede iustifyed their en­trance thereupon) so haue there beene in tract of time, through the boldnes of men to alter Gods ordinance, and therein to preferre the way deuised by themselues, before that which the Lord himselfe had prescribed, many waies both inuented and practised, which though they haue by custome and long continuance of time growen to be too ordinarie, yet for all that, they haue beene and yet are too bad: by anie of which (though in respect of one or other of them you maie truelie saie yours haue entred by the ordinarie waie) yet you haue saied nothing to proue their maner of entrāce to be holie, good, and of God. But to speake plainelie, and yet no more then I can proue out of your owne Cronicles, your verie Bishops of Rome, of whose lawfull and ordinarie calling you vse to brag most, and of whose lawfull entrance and calling (if they bee such heades of the Church as you pretend) the lawfull calling and authoritie of all o­ther inferiour Church officers is deriued and depends, for manie hundreth yeares, a number of them haue so got to their Prelacies, that vnlesse you account those in your sence to haue come to their places by the ordinarie waie, that in compassing of them haue bro­ken all good order both of God and man, I wonder with what [Page 14] face you durst thus indefinitely & generally say of all your Bishops and pastours, that they haue bene called to their estate by the ordina­ry way. For furious braules, monstrous and long contentious, force of armes, and cruell bloudshed, haue beene the ordinary waies, whereby a great multitude of them haue entered, as namely and for exāple, these: Symachus, Boniface the second, Pelagius the first, Boniface the third, Conō, Sergius the first, Zozimus, Paul the first, Constantine the second, Eugenius the first, Hadrian the second, For­mosus, Leo, Benedict, Gelasius the second, Honorius the second, Innocent the second, Gregorie the tenth, Nicholas the third, Cle­ment the fifth, Vrban the sixth, and sundry others. Bribery also hath beene the ordinary way, whereby many of them haue clymed into that chaire, as namely, Iohn 13. Boniface the 7. Gregory the sixth, Siluester the third, and most of late daies. Nicromācy, art ma­gicke, and plaine barganing with the deuill for it, haue beene ordi­nary waies also, whereby a shamefull sort of them haue compasse [...] that place. For, from Syluester the second, vnto Gregory the se­uenth, including them, there being an eighteene or nineteene Popes, your owne Cardinal Benno shewes, that the greater number of thē so came to their roomes, and since wee reade, that Alexander the sixth got it the same way. It appeares also in the saied Benno, that the greater nūber of the Popes from Syluester the second, to Gre­gory the seuenth, were poisoned, or at least by violent means dispat­ched by such, as for thēselues & their frends, thought good so to make the waie readier thereūto, for themselues or some others whom they fancied. And to the same ende, other authours write, that very ma­ny of them beside, haue in like maner from time to time since, beene sodenly vnpoped, that others the sooner might bee popt into their roomes. Yea Genebrard a late writer, and a great frend to the Ro­man Religion and Bishops, in his fourth booke and tenth age in his Cronology, by the plaine euidēce of the truth, is inforced to con­fesse, that from the yeare 884. to the yeare 1048. that is, from Iohn the eighth to Leo the 9.50. Popes all in a rowe successiuely entred not by the dore, but by the posterne gate, whom he calleth Apostati­call monsters, and in whom hee graunts that lawfull Apostolicke succession was disordered. And he that reades Luitprand lib. 3. cap. 12. & 13. shall finde testified by him, that the two famous harlottes Theodora the mother, & Marozia the daughter, were in their times the makers and marrers, and in effect the only setters vp and dispat­chers [Page 15] againe of Popes at their pleasures. Whereupon it came to [...]asse (as it there appeares) that Pope Christopher, hauing shoo­ [...]ed out his predecessour Leo, by the ayde of his concubines, he [...]as quickly shouldred out againe, by one Sergius, who got the [...]lace from him, as partly by much brawling and fighting, [...]o especially by the helpe and support of his paramour Marozia.

Againe (as he shewes) hence was it, that Pope Laudo Iohn the [...]leuenths father by adultery, was by the meanes of Theodora his sonnes paramour deposed, that so shee might bring him nearer her, from Rauenna to Rome: whom againe her daughter Marozia, ha­uing found the meanes to smoother, she, without consent either of people, or cleargy, set vp in his roome a bastard of hirs, which she had by Pope Sergius. And though he were shortly after thrust out again, yet by the helpe of his olde frende Marozia, the matter was so han­dled, that both Leo the sixth, and Stephen the seuenth, his succes­sours, by poison were quickely rid out of the way, and so hee (called Iohn the twelth) recouered his place againe. Likewise her sonne Al­bericus sonne Iohn the thirteenth, as he cāe of a filthy generation, so being a most filthy mā himselfe, he had his preferment to that place by the like meanes. And in like sort we read, that Vrbā the secōd cāe to that roome, by the meanes of his louer Mathilda. Also craft and subtlety in supplanting and cosening their predecessours, hath aduāced many to the Papacy. For Vigilius got it by crafty accusing of Syluerius, so procuring his deposition, to make way for himselfe thereunto. By the same dore of craft and cosenage entred Stephen the second, Martin the second, Boniface the eight, and many others. And when these haue beene the ordinary waies, whereby such a rab­ble of these your most holy fathers, and highest Prelates haue come to their estates, is there any likelihoode to the cōtrary, but that their inferiours of all sorts, in their times learned of them to enter in like maner? For what reason is there, that a man should not be resolued, that downe from the head so corrupted, ran corruption ouer all the body, euen down to the lowest Hedge-priest? And in very deed, euer since these haue beene the ordinary waies, whereby these your head Prelates haue compassed their places, all stories, to the euerlasting shāe of your Synagog, do most vsually & notoriously shew, how that there was nothing more ordinarie, then for the next great Prelates vnder them (as Cardinalles, Bishoppes and Archbishoppes) to come to those their dignities, by the like meanes or by worse, [Page 16] as namely for fauour borne them for the sinne not to be named, for that they were the Popes bastards, or for some other such like [...] honest cause. For Innocent the eighth Pope of that name, was first made Prelate of Sauō, then of Melphit, & then Secretary to Pope Sixtus, and Cardinall of Cicilia for his rare beauty, & not for any other good quality in him, and Iulius the third of very late daies promoted none sooner, then yoūg wāton Ganymedes, especially one of that sort, a very lad called Innocētius, to be Cardinal, whom he had long filthily fansied, & then still did. And to bee a Popes Bastar [...] either in the first or second degree, hath of long time beene a rea [...] way to such preferments. And therefore we read, that Iohn the eleuenth Pope Laudoes Bastard, by the helpe of Theodora his para­mour, not onely (as I haue saied) in the end became Pope, but before easily got first to be made Bishop of Bononia, and then Archbishop of Rauenna. Caesareus a bastarde of Alexander the sixt, for this was by him made Cardinall, & Paul the third stretched his fauour so f [...] in this regard, that hee made one Alexander sonne to his bastarde sonne Petrus Aloysius, and one Ascanius sonne to his bastarde daughter Cōstātia, Cardinals. And the writers of his life doe him wrong, vnles he himselfe before he was Pope, obteyned the Cardi­nals hat, & to be Bishop of Hostia, by deliuering his sister Iulia Far­nesia to be concubine to Alexander the sixt. Sure I am, that our Cronicles are much troubled, and a very great part therof consists, in displaying the brawles, contentiōs, and dangerous consequents, that haue arisen (sometime to the shaking both of our Kings estate and kingdomes also) about the election here of the Archbishops of Canterbury. Yea in them it appeares, that few elections either of them, or of any other great bishops of this lande in these latter daies of the iollity and ruffe of the Roman Prelates and their Romish & Antichristian Hierarchy and religion, haue past here in England of late yeares, whiles your kingdōe stoode, but thereabout either there hath bene notorious brawles and cōtentions amōgst the electours or els some other famous disorder and corruption, and likewise we may be sure it fel out in other places and countries. And as for your ordinary Priests, for the most part, al the world is witnes, so doltish and ignorant they haue beene, that there was no ordinary way for them to enter, but that Balaam was the Bishop, Iudas the patrone, & they were affectioned as Simō Magus. In Boniface the ninthes time, he had an Antipope called Benedict, but howsoeuer otherwise [Page 17] [...]hey raged and raued one against another, in this they both agreed, [...]o make open sale and marchandize of all Church liuinges, the [...]le began the fifth of Nouēber in the fifth year of Bonifaces reigne [...]e that would giue most spedde best, yea his couetousnesse was so [...]otorious herein, as that Theodoricus writing his life, confesseth [...]ot onely thus much, but further, that he had seene one benefice sold [...]o many men in one weeke, yea the former sale reuoked, though vn­ [...]er seale, and the benefice solde to another, that offred more, the first [...]eing well chidden for going about to cosen the holy father for see­ [...]ing to get the benefice at an vnderualew: by meanes whereof & as [...]ee writeth for that this Pope was before a sturdie yonker but of [...]0. yeares of age when he was chosen Pope, and one so ignoraunt, [...]hat he could neither write, sing, nor vnderstand so much latin, as to [...]nderstand the ordinary pleading of aduocates: dolts alwaies at his [...]ands sped best. And yet this fellow was Pope aboue 200. yeares [...]go: whereby though it appeare, that to enter by this dore of Simo­ [...]y, be a very ancient ordinary way, for Popish Priests and inferiour Prelates, to enter into their dignities by, yet this is not the ancien­ [...]est president they haue: for Vrbanus the sixth Pope before this Gregory the ninth, hauing caused a Cardinall of his in one day, to [...]epose, rack, torment and spoile all the Prelates of Cicilia, because they would not aide him, according to his minde, against his Ami­pope Clement. 7. was by this way easily entreated, within a very short time, to let into their roomes 32. new Bishops, Archbishops & Priests how ignorant he cared not, so that otherwise they would be of his faction and satisfy his humour, as the foresaied authour testi­fieth. And Platina in the life of Siluester the third, 300. yeares before either of these, to note both the antiquity and dissent of this ordina­ry way, by occasion of Benedict the ninth his selling of his Papacy to Gregorie the sixth for 1500 ^l. (as some write) & many like tricks that he belike had obserued amongst them, through the notorious e­uidence of the thing, is enforced to write, that then euen the Papacy it selfe was come to that point, that hee that would goe beyond o­thers not in holines of life and learning, but in large giuing and ambition, he onely, the good being oppressed and reiected, should at­taine to that degree of dignity: which fashion I would to God some­times (saieth hee) our times had not retained. And when hee hath saied thus, he addeth, but this is but litle, we shall, vnles god preuent it, see hereafter sometimes far worse things. This man liued and [Page 18] florished in the time of Paulus 2. who was Pope aboue 400. yeares after Syluester the third, & surely herein he was, al the world knoweth, both a true reporter and prophet, and since it hath not bee [...] better, but rather worse, euē from the head to the foote in that kingdome of the Pope. His testimony cannot but presse them of th [...] Religion and Synogog very much, because it is well knowen, th [...] hee, both for his office and opinion, was very partiall of that side. Wherefore euen these things considered, euery man seeth, y ^t thou [...] it were graūted you, that your Bishops & Priests, haue entred al [...] time some ordinary & cōmō way, that yet thereby would arise a ver [...] slender iustification, of their maner of comming to their offices. Y [...] in this case, somewhat further to pose you and to presse you, the r [...] der is further to be aduertised, that beside the most ancient and [...] pure ordinary way of entring of Church officers, vsed and contin [...] in the primatiue Church, vntil Constantines time at the least, the [...] haue since, according to the varietie of times, and diuersitie of the [...] states of the Church, bene sundry other things appointed & prescr [...] bed, by the decrees of sinods & councels, ordinarily to be obserued [...] the election & ordinatiō of such officers, which haue most ordinaril [...] bene broken and neglected, in the entrāce vpon their offices, of [...] of yours, now these many years. For proofe whereof, I refer the re [...] der no further, but to the cōsideration, first of your maner of cōmi [...] to your places, for these last three or foure hundreth years; & to th [...] canons, that your owne frend Gratiā, concerning this matter, h [...] hudled together, dist. 61. 62. & 63. for going no further, thereby sh [...] he finde, in that the consent of the Emperour, the assent of the people, the peaceable and orderly election of the cleargie, hath bee [...] a long time wanting in many of yours, that indeede you cānot tr [...] ­ly saie, that such of your Church officers haue entred by any anci­ent ordinary way, either prescribed by the word, or the ancient ca­nons of the Church, of a long time. Now the election of your Popes is onely by the Cardinals, which to be the ordinarie way of their entrance, was first deuised and enacted in Nicolas the second time (as it is noted dist. 23.) which was a 1000. yeares and more af­ter Christ; and after, vnder Alexāder the third, it was further con­firmed in a Lateran councell, held in his time about the yeare 117 [...]. Nicolas the first began, & Hadrian the third concluded the quite re­mouing and shutting out of the Emperour, from their election, which was about the yeare of the Lord 889. Iohn 19. first shut o [...] [Page 19] [...]he people about the yeare 1003. And so then about 70. yeares after, his decree of Nicolas the second was made. If therefore, including our Bishops of Rome, you meane by the ordinary way of their en­ [...]rance, this, decreed by Pope Nicolas the second, then they that [...]ere before entred not by that ordinary way. And if you looke v­ [...]on his decree well, & the decrees of others since made to back that, [...]ou shall finde not halfe the Popes that haue beene since, to haue en­ [...]red orderly. Yea in reading of the stories of the Church, the de­ [...]rees of the councels, and your owne Canon lawe, though I finde [...]t the least, that there hath beene since Constantine, a sixe or seuen [...]euerall ordinarie waies, decreed and vsed for their entrance, yet I [...]an hardly finde, that three Bishops of Rome succeeding one ano­ [...]her immediately, did orderlie in euery respect enter the ordinarie [...]aie, then in force and vse. For whereas I finde, that the Empe­ [...]ours and the Princes of Italy, or his deputy in his absence, by cu­ [...]tome, their owne right, interest and authority therein, and after by [...]he decrees of Hadrian the first, about the yeare 773. and of Leo & Clement in three seuerall councels in their times consented vnto, [...]ore a principall stroke therein a great while: yet whiles that was [...]ecessary in the ordinarie way of entrance thereunto, I finde, that many entred not onely without their consent, but quite contrary to [...]heir mindes, as one may reade in the liues of Pelagius the 2. Ste­phen the 4. Hadriā the 2. Martin the 2. Hadrian the 3. and diuers o­ [...]hers. And likewise, whereas sometimes, as in the time of Constan­tine the 4. by the Emperours owne consēt, other sometime without his consent, as by the decree of Pope Stephen the 4. the Emperour was not to meddle therein, but onely the cleargy & people of Rome, yet euen then the stories shew, that sundry had their entrāce, not only not without, but altogether by the meanes of the Emperours, yea after the decree of Hadriā the 3. many yeares. Likewise, though for the auoiding of braules & contentions, in the election of the Roman Prelates, Leo the 8. gaue absolute authority to the Emperour, to chuse the Pope, about the yeare 994. & in Clement the 2. time, vpon that consideration, the Romans themselues also gaue ouer their right therein vnto him, insomuch that besides others, Leo the ninth and Victor the second, had the place by his absolute authority: yet, euen whiles this stoode as the ordinary waie agreed vpon, manie entered otherwise. To bee briefe, I dare confidentlie set it downe, for I am able to proue it by their owne storie writers, how [Page 20] often soeuer they haue varied and altered their ordinarie way of entering vnto that place, sometimes by admitting the Emperours consent thereunto, sometimes by shutting it out quite, sometime by giuing him his due right, and sometime more and sometime lesse, or howsoeuer: in like sort they haue varied both as touching the Cler­gy, and the people that should haue to deale therein, wherein they haue had as many diuersities as about the former, or finally what­soeuer concerning other circumstances of their election, they haue thought good to adde or detract from the ordinary way before in force, they haue neither long continued anie one ordinary waie, neither during the time of the continuance thereof, haue they followed inviolably that waie. And as it hath beene with that chiefe Sea of theirs, so hath it bene with other inferiour places, so that no constancie hath beene in anie of their ordinarie waies of entrance, nor yet anie due care either carefully to obserue the canōs of the scripture, the canons of the Church, or their owne decrees made for that purpose. In their late councell of Trent, by sundry canons and Chapters therein set downe, it appeares, that they there assembled, considering what horrible abuses there had beene in the election and ordination of vnfit Bishops and Priests amongst thē, thought it most needeful (to preuēt the like for the time to come) to deuise & to enact sūdry holesōe canons, to breed a learned preaching ministrie, and to procure an election and ordination thence forth for them, as free from corruption, as in their wisedomes they could con­ceaue: but yet who knows not, but that those canōs haue since bine and yet are, as carelesly lookt vnto, and herein kept amongst them, as though they had neuer beene made. Wherefore, to conclude this point, let Albine and neuer so many more of them, brag that they en­ter by the ordinary way, vnles thereby he meane a way that ordina­rily is naught and corrupt, he speaketh more then euer he can proue, and so therein hath saied nothing to proue the comming of their Bishops and Priests vnto their places to be lawfull and good.

And yet if we will beleeue him, their Bishops and Priests are right Bishops and Priests, but if it be true, as it must needes bee, that they can not be so, who neither haue a lawfull way of entraunce to their offices, nor yet their offices are themselues of Gods ordi­nance, then it is apparant euen by that which I haue saied already, that neither their Bishops nor Priestes are right Bishops nor Priests. Their Bishops from the highest to the lowest, by their v­sage [Page 21] and practise chalenge and take vnto themselues, an office of a­nother essence and nature, then the office that Christ and his Apo­stles haue left and prescribed to true Bishops, and so likewise is it with their Priests. For one vniuersall and head Bishop o­uer all others (such as they take their Pope to be) Christ neuer ordeined, for he made all his Apostles by giuing them all equall, one and selfesame commission, his officers equallie to beare for their times the generall and vniuersall care of ouersight, ruling, orde­ring and directing his Church; and to bring it to full perfection, ascending into heauen, when he was disposed this waie in bestow­ing Church officers vpon his Church, by the ministery of his word and sacraments, to consummate it vnto the ende, besides these, as inferiour ministers, hee gaue onely, as you may read Ephesians the fourth, Euāgelists, Prophets, Pastours & teachers, where nei­ther your Popes, Cardinals, nor Masse-priests, are once remēbred. The matter wherein the full execution of the off ce of al the ministe­ries cōsisteth, that Christ hath left vnto his Church, is, duely & soūd­ly to feede Gods people committed vnto them, with heauenly foode, by painefull and diligent preaching vnto them the word of God, and ministring vnto them the sacraments, and rightly and oderly to gouerne the Churches of Christ, by the administration of ecclesi­asticall order and discipline, which are things, that the greatest and fattest in your Romish Synagog, thinke themselues little or no whit at all bound vnto. These things are too base matters for your Popes to be occupied about, their office consists, and therefore they accordingly must busie themselues in other matters: as namely, in making and marring, in setting vp & putting downe seculer Prin­ces, as they call them, in studying by all meanes faire and foule, to mainetaine and to enlarge their authority and patrimony, & in deuising by a thousād waies, though neuer so couetously, tyrānously & insatiably, to gather together infinite sums of money, to buy or to winne by force of armes, great principalities for their bastards, nephews and neeces, to spend in the persecuting & subduing better Christiās thē thēselues, to build sumptuous pallaces, banquetting houses, & temples to shroud idolatry & idols in, costly beutified, the better to intice men for their further aduantage, to commit spiritu­all whoardome with them. In and about these things, your Popes now, these many 100. yeares haue spent their wits, & all these parts of the world, and all Croniclers of any credit, can and wil te­stify. [Page 22] If they haue any leasure from these affaires, then they must shewe themselues not to haue beene idle and fruitlesse in deui­sing some newe ceremonie, in adding some patch or other to their Church seruice, in proclaiming the crosse against the Turke, for the recouery of the holy land, in publishing some Iubile and in­dulgences, in setting vp some new order of Religious men, for the better support of their kingdome, or at least in plotting and con­triuing some conspiracy or trecherous deuise, to supplant and mur­ther some Christian Prince, that hath drawen or is like to draw his people from their Antichristian Religion. And your other Bishops occupation lieth most in blessing with their fingers, in consecrating of their vnholy holie Chrisme, in christening of belles and Chur­ches, in ordering vnorderlie and contrary to their owne canōs, of an idolatrous and new found sort of Priests, & in running vp & downe fondly and superstitiously, to minister the sacrament, as they count it, of confirmation: scarse the tythe of them euer had either skill or will to preach. And as for your Cardinals, as they are of an order but of a late deuise, so by their behauiour we can not iudge their office to lie in any thing else, but to serue the Popes turne, for the better setting forth of his magnificence at home, and to bee his agents in forraine kingdomes, the easelier to con­triue his purposes their. They are and haue beene a long time (their first natiuity considered) notable fellowes to haūt and main­taine the stewes at Rome, and to deuoure and to consume, in ry­ot, vanity and impiety, all the Bishopricks and benefices that they could heape together, without any care for the good of the people: and the vse of them hath beene, to brawle and to breede scismes in choosing of Popes, and to stur al coales, and to moue euery stone, as fast as they could one after another, to thrust into that place. Now to come to your ordinary Priestes, though the matter of tea­ching and ministring of sacraments, especiallie was posted o­uer vnto them, and vnto Friers, yet either were they not able to doe it, which was the condition of most of them; or else if they did it, in steade of feeding the people with the milke of Gods word, which onelie Saint Peter warrants to bee without deceit 1. Pet. 2.2. they fed them, with vaine dreames, fansies, tales and traditions of men. For these onely are the grounds of that which is properly now the Romish Religion. And in very deede, when they were ordered, their especiall businesse appointed for [Page 23] them was, to sacrifice for the quicke and the dead, which is a thing not onely beside the office of anie true minister of Christ, but also directly contrarie, both to their office, and Christs also. For they by warrant expressely from the canonicall scriptures are to teach their people, that Christ himselfe in his owne per­son once for all, when hee dyed for the redemption of man, offered the sacrifice that for both quicke and deade soly and wholy, fully and effectually must serue the turne for euer, and that in offe­ring this propitiatory sacrifice, he is an euerlasting Priest, and may haue no successour, either to offer another sacrifice, as though this were not sufficient; or to offer this againe, as though hee had not himselfe offered it well enough. Besides, herein commis­sion is giuen them, directlie to peruert Christes institu­tion of the sacrament of his bodie and bloud. For where­as by the right vse thereof, thereby should bee offered vnto man the bodie broken and bloud shed of Christ, for him to bee fed on, and receiued by him to saluation: by their commissi­on and intention herein, they offer these thinges to God the father. Further, if wee consider their reading vnto the people, all in an vnknowen tongue, their praying to Saints and Angels, their praying for the dead, their blasphemous i­magination, that they by breathing a set number of wordes vpon a wafer cake, make it very Christ, and other their superstitious and magicall incatations and coniurations of water, oyle, salt, palmes and other creatures, these beeing so directly contrary to the word of God as they bee: whatsoeuer here Albine hath sayed of them, wee may most iustlie and truely aduoutch them to bee right Priestes of Antichrist, and consequentlie no right Priestes of Christ. But seeing hee will needes so in­definitely and generallie pronounce his sentence, That their Bishops and Priestes bee right Bishops and Priests, to leaue these generall obiections and reasons against them, and to come to some particuler examples: first I would faine knowe of him, whereas there haue beene a twenty three scismes at least in the Papall see, sometime two, sometime three, sometime foure, all at once contending that they were right Popes, which of these was alwaies hee, that for the time was to be accounted the right Bishop? And if neuer but one of them, yea sometimes none of them were right, and therefore they were [Page 24] driuen to depose and suppresse them, and to set vp a newe, they all during their times hauing had manie followers, and many were made Bishops and Priests by them, and so success [...]uelie from these, infinite others haue had their consecration and orders, how can wee count these right Bishops and Priestes, that were made by such, as had no right to make any? or how shall we seuer them, that if they fetch their pedegrees, haue had their originall from such, from those that are descended from them that were made by the right Popes? This nutte will trouble the whole Church of Rome to cracke. But to deale plainely and particular­ly, what can he or any of them, vnlesse they be disposed to be conuin­ced of wrāgling by a cloud of witnesses, say for Ioan the eighth, that in the ende proued her selfe, openly in a solemne procession, to bee a harlot by her fruitfulnes; for Christopher, Sergius, Laudo, Iohn the 11.12. & 13. all Popes in a rowe, and yet especiallie aduan­ced vnto, and kept in that dignity, by their concubines and harlots; for Siluester the second, and a number of his successours, who were promoted by Nicromancy and poisoning their predecessours; or for Hildebrand after called Gregorie 7. who the same euening that his predecessour was dead, thrust into the place, not one Car­dinall subscribing to his election, rather euen by force then by any meanes else? Boniface the eightth got the place by cosening Cae­lestine his predecessour, by the sound of a voice through a tronke through the wall of his chamber: Boniface the ninth was chosen Pope by the Cardinalles at Rome, and yet, as I saied before, when they chose him hee was but twentie yeares olde, he could neither write, nor sing, nor vnderstand his latin tongue: Bal­thazar de Cossa Cardinall, through feare at Bononia draue the Cardinals to refer the nomination of the Pope, whom there they were about to chuse, to himselfe, who by and by chose and set vp himselfe. Sixtus the fourth, builded a famous stewes at Rome of both kindes (as Agryppa writeth of him) and wit­nesse Wesselus Groningensis, hee graunted an indulgence to the family of S. Lucia, that for the three hoate monethes in the yeare, they might vse the sinne not to be named. The like Indul­gence graunted Pope Alexander the sixth, to a Spaniard Petrus Mendoza, Cardinall of Valentia, so to abuse his base sonne Marques Sanatensis. Mōstrous are the incests, adulteries & Sodo­mitries, that stories report of Paul the 3. And Iulius the 3. his Sodo­mitrie, [Page 25] especially with one Innocentius, whiles he was Cardinall at Bononia, whō therefore hee made, being still but a very boy, Cardinal, when he was Pope, is in the stories reported very ill of. And the rather, that which in this respect is writen of him should seeme to be true, because in his time, there was one Hierō. Mutius set vp, publickely in bookes to defende certaine filthie and lothsome amarous verses, writen by one Camillus Oliuus, companion to the Cardinal of Mantua, to one Hanibal Coliuus: & that in his time Iohānes Casa Archbishop of Beneuentum, Deane of the chāber A­postolicke, and the Popes Legate in the dominiōs of Venis, wrote in the commendation of that filthy fact of Petrus Aloysius Paulus 3. his sonne, with Cosmus Cherius Bishop of Fane, and that with the applause and liking of that time. Now what? Will Albine say, for all these things, that these were right Popes, Bishops and Car­dinals? right and seemely they maie be, to serue the whoar of Babi­lon, otherwise, such can neuer be right Bishops and Priests to serue the Lord Iesus.

But if neither that which he hath saied, concerning their com­ming to their places, by the ordinary way, nor this vaunt of his, that their Bishops and Priests be right Bishops and Priests, can doe him any good: yet it may be, he hopeth some credit will growe vnto them, in that he hath saied, they haue their places vy right successiō. Indeede succession and the deriuation of it without interruption, downe frō the Apostles, especially in their line of Popes, is a thing that such as he brag much of, saying, that that they haue, & we haue not, & that therfore their Church & the ministers thereof, must needs be good and lawfull, and ours the plaine contrarie. Howbeit, if we examine this point throughly, we shall find, that they haue as weake helpe hence, as from the other, or from any thing else. For whither they vnderstand by right succession, succession without interruption in place, person or office, seuerally or iointly togither, neither can their Bishops and Priests, as they are now, truelie saie they haue it, nor yet if they could, they being gone as they be, from the soule and life of right Apostolicke succession, namely the Catholicke and Apostolicke trueth, are they euer the better. And of the contrarie, though it were neuer so true, that we could not deduce vnto our present Bishops and Pastours downe from the Apostles or their times, without interruptiō, the line of succession, in place, person and office; yet we being able to shew, as wee are, that we holde one and [Page 26] selfesame doctrine with them, that would iustify our Church, and ministers sufficientlie, notwithstanding the want of the for­mer. This is quickly and easily sayed (you will saie) but these thinges cannot so readily bee proued. I graunt, to proue them will cost the more paines, otherwise the proofe is readie and pregnant enough, and that I doubt not, but (if, with any in­differency, that which I shall write to that ende bee marked) shall ere it bee long appeare. I say therefore, first, that the Roman Bi­shops and Priestes, as they are now and haue beene a long time, whatsoeuer they brag, no not their verie Popes (vnto whose right succession Stapleton and others trust most) haue any right successi­on, either to any Apostle or Apostolick man, in place, person or office. For first, they can neuer soundly proue (the proofes out of the scrip­ture are so strong to the contrary, & their proofes out of the stories so disagreeing and variable in all circumstances) that Peter the Apo­stle, whose successours their Popes claime to be, and from whom al other Bishops and Priests amongst them, haue their vocations and authority deriued, was either euer at Rome, or being there, that, hauing laied aside his Apostleship, which was the greater and higher office, he sate there as Bishop. Secondly, vnto this day they cannot agree, of the order of succeeding one another betwixt Linus, Cletus, Clemēt & Anaclet. Vrspergensis in the life of Claudius, hath no­tably & at large set out, both the difference of opinions in this mat­ter, and also the vncertainty of the trueth. Thirdly, none of any lear­ning and reading, can be so ignorant in the stories of the Bishops of Rome, but he knowes, that they haue not succeeded one another, frō the Apostles to this day w ^tout interruptiō alwaies, neither in place, persō nor office. For besids that sūdry times, many Popes for some short time haue sate from Rome, it is notoriously knowen, that Cle­ment the 5. about the yeare 1305. translated the Popes see from Rome into France to Auinion, where it continued aboue 70. years. And as for immediate & orderly successiō of persons amongst them, how is it possible truely & certainly to define & set downe that, seing that see hath not onely stoode vacant, daies, weekes, monethes, and years, somtimes 2. sometimes more, but also there hath bene at once so often, not only 2. but often 3. & sometime more, euery one striuing with his fauorers to be accoūted to be the right Pope. And lastly, by that which I haue said before of the nature of their offices of Popes Cardinalles, Bishoppes & Priestes, their practise prouing daily my [Page 27] words therein to be most true, how dare any mā, that hath any feare of God, once say or think, that they in their offices haue any affinity with the Apostles, or any Apostolicke man? Light & darknes are not more differing the one from the other, then the offices of Apostles, Euāgelists, Prophets, Pastours & Doctours in the ancient primi­tiue & Apostolick Church, differeth from these offices of theirs. Se­condly, whereas I sayed, though yet they could, which now you see they cannot, truely say, that they succeed the Apostles & Apostolicke men in place, person and office, yet they were neuer the nearer: my reasons thereof are these. First, I finde, that wicked people & wicked Priests in the scriptures, often haue had this kinde of succession, to pleade for themselues, against the true Prophets and against Christ himselfe, as you may see Ierem. 7. vers. 4. & cap. 8. vers. 8. Iohn. 8. v. 44. Vriah the Priest in King Ahaz time, had this successiō frō Aa­ron, and yet he to please that Idolatrous king, set vp, cōtrary to the commandement of the Lord, an altar according to the patterne that the King had sent him, of one that hee had seene at Damascus, 2. King. 16.10.11. The high Priests, that withstoode alwaies Christ & his doctrine, and in the ende crucified him, had this kinde of suces­sion, & yet none of these or their doings were any thing the more iu­stifiable for this. Againe though Stapleton lib. 13. doctrinalium principiorū cōfesses, that the Greekes haue beene scismatiques and heretiques this 500. yeares, yet he & all the sort of them of any rea­ding know, that not they only, but also the Patriarches of Antioch and Alexandria, and the Bishops of sundry other famous Churches in the world, all which likewise, they holde, bee scismatiques and heretiques, can & doe make as great shew of this kinde of succes­sion for the countenancing of their ministery and Churches, as they themselues, for they knowe, that the Patriarch of Constanti­nople doeth deduce his locall and personall succession from An­drew the Apostle; & that the Patriarch of Antioch now sitting at Damascus, doeth likewise his from Peter, which he may doe more certainly, then the Popes when they sate at Auinion could, for it is euident Gal. 2. ver. 11. euen by the scripture it selfe, that Peter was at Antioch, & so is it not that he was at Rome. In like maner, they knowe that the Patriarch of Alexandria, now holding his seate at Alcairum, deriues his, from the Euangelist Saint Marke. And ignorant they are not, that the Arrians, preuailing as they did, and in the ende hauing got the most seats of Bishops to be furnished [Page 28] with men of their dānable opinion, that they for that time were able to holde this plea aswell as themselues, and yet I am sure they will graūt, that none of these were therfore, or are therfore to be allowed & iustified. They will say, I am sure (for so I finde thē plainly to re­ply in their writings, yea euen Iohn de Albine himselfe afterward Cap. 7.) that though these all can and doe plead succession in place, person and office, that yet it cannot iustifie them, because not onelie they haue helde, some of them, detestable heresies, but presently also doe still. Indeede I must needs confesse, that I read, that Macedo­nius, Nestorius, and Paulus Sergius abrupted the line of right suc­cessiō, by their heresies at Constantinople; that Paulus Samosate­nus did the like at Antioch; and that Dioscorus and Petrus Mog­gus did likewise at Alexanderia. And I cannot deny, but that I finde all these and the Churches vnder them still charged, to holde errours and heresies, but this then withall I infer, the more true that it is, and hath beene thus with them, the more euident it is, of what small acount this personall and locall succession is of it selfe, either to giue credit to Bishops and Pastours, or their religiō, that can plead that. And this further I adde, if these be sufficient causes to make their alleadged succession to be of no valew, then there is as great cause, why succession bragged on so much by the Romanists, should be reiected, as a thing not worth the naming. For not onely in inferiour places of Bishops and Priestes (which is a thing that they will not striue with vs about) it is so manifest, that there haue beene many heretiques amongst them; but also euen in their line of Popes (who, as some of them hold, cannot erre) there haue bene sun­dry heretiques also. For Tertullian contra Praxeam, writeth of a Bishop of Rome, that did allow of the Prophesies of Montanus, &, as he saieth, therefore sent letters of communion to the Churches of Asia, and Phrigia thereabout. And Athanasius in his epistle ad so­litariam vitam agentes, and so also Damasus in the life of Liberius, and Hierō de ecclesiasticis scriptoribus testifie, that Pope Liberi­us was drawen in the ende to subscribe to Arianisme. And Hono­rius died an heretique, as it is to be seene in the first general councel, Act. 12. & 13. &c. Liberatus also Breuiarii Cap. 22. witnesseth, that Vigilius in secret fauoured heretiques. Anastasius the second, fell into a condemned heresie, as we read Dist. 19. Cap. Anastasius: and therefore would haue restored Accatius a condemned heretique. And yet I say nothing of Pope Iohn 23. condemned for an heretique by [Page 29] the councell of Cōstance & the schole of Paris, for denying in effect the immortality of the soule. Yea the euidence of the trueth in this point is so open and strong, that it hath caused their owne frends to condemne them of grosse flattery, that holde, that Popes haue not and cannot fall into heresie; as any man may see that will read Alphonsus contra haereses lib. 1. Cap. 2. & 4. Lyra vpon the 16 of Matth. and the third Synodall Epistle of the councell of Ba­sill. And that the Romish Church doeth now holde as grosse and palpable errours and heresies, as they charge these withall, if I proue not ere I haue done with Albine, I will neuer craue credit either to our ministers, or to our Churches and cause. Wherfore to leaue the proofe of this to his place or places (to goe on with that which I haue vndertooke to proue against them, concerning this their brag of right succession) whereas thirdly I saied, that though we were not able to deduce or deriue downe from the Apostles w ^t ­out interruption, any locall and personall succession vnto our Mi­nisters that now bee, yet as long as ours teach, and our people embrace the same doctrine that they taught, wee are well enough, whatsoeuer they say to the contrary: that resteth onely now in this case to be proued. But before I come to the proofe of this, least in this my assertion I be mistaken, I would first, that it were marked, that I speake but by way of supposition, that is, if we were not able to set downe a continued line, downe from them to vs without a­ny interruption, for in the 4. Chapter following, I hope, I shall set downe such a descent of our Church from them to vs, as whereby it may sufficiently appeare, that there was neuer age nor time since, but our Church and religion hath had her teachers and hearers. Secondly, I would haue it also vnderstoode, that my meaning is, though it were so, that wee could not make re­citall or demonstration of any such descent or succession: in that processe of time, distance of place, and the force and subtlety of our enemies kept vs from knowing their names, persons and places; that yet for the continuance of the trueth and the Church of Christ amongst men, I constantly holde and beleeue, that there hath beene a continuall and vninterrupted succession of teachers and embracers of GODS trueth, whereof his Church consistes, euen from the first beginning thereof, and shall bee to the ende. Onely this is it that thereby I am contented bee insinuated, that the Churches of Christ, if they [Page 30] can proue, that they are taught by such ministers as God doeth raise vp vnto them, according vnto his good pleasure, whither ordina­rily or extraordinarily, and that they embrace no other doctrine but that which Christ and his Apostles taught (witnes the canoni­call scriptures) that then, they are to be accounted Apostolike and holy Churches of God, and that in such a case, especially in and after great persecutiōs, ruines & long oppressions of their mēbers & chil­dren, they neede not to be daunted nor discouraged, neither in re­spect of their ministers and teachers, nor in respect of their doc­trine, though they cannot be able lineally to name the persons, either by whom their ministers, downe from the Apostles, haue had their vocation deriued vnto them, or else by whom euer since, that trueth hath beene continued. For howsoeuer in visible Chur­ches of GOD, whiles they stande in florishing or vnoppressed state and condition, by the fury of persecutours, there is a set order and forme visibly to bee obserued in the vocation of Church ministers, in respect of which estates and times it is easie for them that liue therein, or within the knowledge and remembrāce thereof, to make demonstration of the lyne of succes­on: yet when in the iust iudgement of God, the Churches shall bee oppressed, as now a long a time they haue beene, vnder the tyranny of Antichrist, then and after such a time, such a thing growes to many not onely harde, but also impossible. And in such tymes wee finde, that the Lorde of his wisedome and power to continue yet his Church, rayseth vp men, though not by the ordinary way vsed in the former tymes, as after the dispersion of the Church at Hierusalem, by meanes of the per­secution there, when Stephen was stoned, we reade that the Disciples beeing dispersed, and namely with them Philip the Deacon, that hee preached, the Apostles not aware thereof, for any thing that appears: so vnder Cōstātine, Antonius the heremite taught at Alexandria, and vnder Valens, Aphraates, Flaui­anus, and Iulianus at Antioch, beeing then but Monkes, who in those dayes were not so much as counted amongst Clarkes, as wee reade in Nicephorus libro 11. Chap. 15. These thinges thus premised, thereby not onely my meaning shall rightly bee conceiued, but also that which I haue saied, in some sort is al­ready confirmed. But my reason indeede is, that true and sounde apostolicke doctrine, in the good prouidence of God to­wards [Page 31] his Church, opened and continued in the same, though by men not comming to their places of teaching by the ordinary way alwayes, but sometimes somewhat extraordinarily, as he seeth need thereof, is and may be such effectuall seede to beget childrē vn­to God, and so holesome foode to feede thē, yea euen vntil they grow to a full age & perfectiō in Christ Iesus, that though their teachers cānot shew for the defence of their calling, who alwaies successiuely in person and place haue gone before them, yet euen this trueth of their doctrine doeth proue them, and their people to be Apostolique Churches, whereas though they could doe the other without this, it were nothing. And because my aduersary seemeth in this point, & otherwise to make great reckoning of the testimony of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Augustine, I will stande to their iudgement in this, whither to succeede the Apostles in doctrine, be not suffi­cient without the other locall and personall demonstrable suc­cession, and not this without that. Irenaeus in his fourth booke and forty three Chapter, teacheth vs onely to obey those Elders in the Church, which from the Apostles with the succession of their Bishopricks, haue receiued Charisma veritatis certum secundum placitum patris, that is, the certaine gift of trueth according to the pleasure of the father; for, as for all other, whatsoeuer they pretend (for he excepteth nothing) he there immediatly sheweth, that absistunt a principali successione, that is, they are gone from the principall succession, and therefore must be suspected. And Ter­tullian in the very same place, de praescriptionibus haereticorum, quoted by Albine after, in his 9. Chapter, immediatly after the words there cited by him, wherein he calleth for personall succes­sion, hath added these, Cōfingant tale aliquid haeretici &c. but let heretiques deuise some such thing, for after blasphemy, what is not lawfull for them (saieth hee) but though they doe faine some such thing, yet it shall nothing preuaile thē. For their doctrine compared with the Apostolique doctrine, by the diuersity & cōtrariety thereof, wil pronoūce, that it hath neither Apostle nor Apostolique mā to be the authour therof. For (saith he) as the Apostles taught not amōgst themselues contrary things, so neither did Apostolique men teach contrary things to those that the Apostles taught. After this sort therefore let them be prouoked by those Churches, which though they cannot produce either Apostle or Apostolique man to bee the founder thereof, in that they were long after planted, as day­ly [Page 32] there bee, tamen in eâdem fide conspirantes, non minùs A­postolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae, yet they a­greeing with thē in one faith, are no lesse to be reputed Apostolicke Churches, then they that were planted by the Apostles. What can be plainer then this, to shewe, that though our Churches could not satisfie his request, in pleading the former succession, that yet if they can shewe this, that they agree with the Apostles in doctrine, that they therefore are far rather Apostolicke, then they that can produce the former without this. And though Augustine in his 165. epi­stle, and also in his fourth Chapter against the Manichees epistle, which they call their foundation, remembred by Albine cap. 6. doe there seeme to make great reckoning of personall succession: yet when he had shewed of what force that and some other reasons were with him, he preferres trueth indeede warranted by the scriptures, before them all. Wherefore, what I haue saied, concerning the va­nitie of their brag of personall and locall succession, either to iustifie theirs, or to disgrace our Church or ministrie, is sufficientlie proued.

But all this labour (will Albine say) I might haue spared, for he spake not simplie of succession, but expressely of right succession of Bishops & pastours; and to shew what he ment thereby, he expres­ly added the continuance of one Catholicke faith deriued from the Apostles to our daies, without the interruption of it vniuersally at anie time. Moreouer, I confesse that sundry times after (so forci­ble was the trueth in this point with him) that in wordes he con­fesseth, that personall and locall succession, without continu­ance in this trueth, is not the thing that he vrgeth, and yet for all this, this that I haue saied of this point, is not needlesse. For besides that fewe of his opinion, will bee brought to confesse thus much, this both in others, and in himselfe in sundrie Chapters fol­lowing, maie be obserued, that when this confession is made by anie of thē, it is wroong frō them much against their wils, for their shew of proofes run wholy for the magnifying of personall successiō to be the marke, whereby true Churches, and the ministers thereof maie vndoubtedly be discerned. Againe, if in this he spake as hee thinkes, why doeth he make so much adoe, about the personall and visible succession of Bishops and pastours, and neuer ioines this issue with vs, to trie out soundly and throughly, whither they or we haue this Catholicke and Apostolicke trueth. For herein onely lieth [Page 33] all the controuersie betwixt them and vs, and this determined, the question betwixt vs were quite ended: let them once therefore but proue indeed, that they are in possession of this soūd trueth, and that alwaies downe from the Apostles they haue continued therein, if we ioyne not streight with them, and repent vs hartely of our de­parture from them, accursed be we. Yea, if we cannot proue by cō ­paring their doctrine, with that which wee are most sure the Apo­stles taught, to be both diuerse from that, and contrary vnto it (vn­derstanding by their doctrine, as wee doe, that, which is proper to them, and wherein we are against them) let vs for euer leese our cre­dit and cause. Now for the decyding and determining of this great & maine cōtrouersie, wee appeale to the canonical scriptures, which we knowe are most fit and sufficiēt iudges herein: whereunto, vnles they will deserue the name of lucifugae (that is, of shunners of the light) which for the like cause Tertullian gaue the heretiques of his time, de resurrect. carnis, they will be contented to bring their doc­trine as to the touchstone. Indeede in Tertullian and Iraeneus time, the heretiques (as it appeares in their workes) for the triall of their opinions, fled from this touchstone, and when they were vrged here­with, they behaued themselues the likest these our aduersaries that euer I saw. For Iraeneus in his third booke and second Chap­ter testifieth thus of them: cùm ex Scripturis arguuntur, in ac­cusationem conuertuntur ipsarum, quasi non rectè habeant ne­que sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sunt dictae, & quia non possit ex his inueniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt traditionem: that is, when they are reproued by the scriptures, then they are turned streight into an accusation of them, as though they were not right, nor were of authority, both because they are so set downe, as that va­riably or diuersly they may be taken, and because by them the trueth cannot be found out by those, that are ignoraunt of tradition. This notwithstanding, it appeareth both there and elsewhere, that he cal­leth them to this triall. And so doeth Tertullian de resurrectione carnis, Cap. 3. saying, Auferantur ab haereticis quae cum aethnicis sapiunt, vt de scripturis solis suas quaestiones fistant & stare non possunt, that is, let those things be taken from heretiques which they holde with the heathen, that onely by the scriptures they may determine their questions, and they cannot stand. And nothing was more vsuall and familier with Augustine against the heretiques of his time, then to call them, for the triall of the question, both whither [Page 34] he or they were of the true Church, & also whither of them had the trueth, to this way of triall by the scriptures. And therefore de v­nitate ecclesiae, Nolo humanis documentis, sed diuinis oraculis ecclesiam demonstrare, I will not make demonstration of the Church by the writings of men, but by the diuine oracles, saieth he Cap, 3. & again, there also he further addeth, pressing the heretiques with whom hee had there to doe: sunt libri dominici, quorū autho­ritati vtri (que) consentimus, ibi quaeramus ecclesiam, ibi discutiamus causā nostrā, that is, there are certaine bookes of the Lord, vnto the authority whereof we both consent, there let vs seeke the Church, there let vs discusse our cause. To the like effect he writeth in the 2 Chapter of that booke, and elswhere very often. Vnles therfore they wil once bee contented to come to this trial of the controuersies be­twixt thē & vs, we must needs tel thē, y ^t they are not desirous in ear­nest euer to haue it appeare, which of vs haue the better cause, but as men who know in their owne cōscience, that their cause is bad, they labour to maintaine the credit thereof, as long as they can, by cun­ning shifts & delaies. But yet let them assure themselues, as long as they shun this trial, how cūningly & colourably soeuer, though sim­ple fooles already besotted with superstition, & bewitched with po­pish enchantments, vpon their bare worde & stought bragges, that it is nothing but the ancient catholicke faith that they teach, may sometimes beleeue thē: that yet withal those that haue any wisdō at al, by this means they leese quite both the credit of thēselues & their cause. For faith being, as it is, not a wauering & vncertaine conceyt & opiniō of the thing beleeued, but a most certain sure & infallible perswasion of the trueth thereof, how can any be assured, that the doc­trine that he beleeues, is such as he may soundly & firmely rest vpon, for vndoubted trueth, without euident groūd thereof, out of the wri­tē word of y ^e Lord in y ^e canonical scriptures? For thēce onely Peter dare warrāt the sincere milke, which cānot deceiue y ^e childrē of god, to be fetched, 1. Pet. 2, 2. & therefore, y ^t he would haue thē to desire, as new borne babes doe milk, y ^t they may grow vp therby. And as for y ^e writings & traditiōs of mē beside, hath not & doth not experiēce dai­ly teach, that they may not nor cānot chalenge y ^e preeminence & pre­rogatiue, alwaies to be free from errour? And euery one that is a Christiā hath learned, that this prerogatiue al the writers of the ca­nonical scripture had in the writing thereof, therein not to haue er­red at al. Who therfore cā be so simple (vnles the Lord in his iustice hath blinded him, because hee would not see y ^e trueth shyning about him) y ^t he should receiue y ^t for the sound catholicke faith, y ^t he heares [Page 35] not first frō point to point, proued vnto him so to bee, out of this vn­doubted certaine word of God, y ^e canonical scriptures, what shew or colour of proofe soeuer otherwise be made thereof? And this Iohn de Albine could not but conceiue, & yet neuer once going about in this his discourse thus to coūtenāce his cause & religiō, but as one loth to be brought to this trial, he laboureth most earnestly to discourage al mē frō appealing vnto it, & yet almost in euery leafe braggeth and boasteth, that both his Church, his doctrine and al, are soūd & catho­lick. Wherin howsoeuer he pleased himselfe in that his vaine, any in­differēt mā may see, he hath rather bewraied y ^e weaknes of his owne cause, thē any way (whatsoeuer he haue saied otherwise) impaired the credit of ours. But how vainly hee hath swet, euen to the tyring of himselfe, & his reader about this point, in many chapters: That by y ^e scriptures controuersies are not in the church to be tried & determi­ned: whē I come vnto that place I shal god willing shew more fully.

In the meane time ( Iohn de Albine, to turne my speech to you) I hauing thus examined your answere to our demand, how you come to your prelacies and offices, and hauing found the weaknes and vn­truethes thereof such, as that your calling or cōming thereunto can claime no more credit thereby, thē y ^e calling & cōming to their offices amongst y ^e Arriās & Greekes (whō you count heretiques and scisma­tiques) cā doe, because they cā & could say as much, and that as truly for theirs, as you haue here said for yours: let vs now proceed, to the examinatiō of y ^e places of scripture in this Chapter quoted by you, & vrged as you thought strōgly to your purpose. By y ^e Mat. 5. Ye are the light of the world &c. by christ spokē properly to his Apostles, you would seem to proue, y ^t therfore right successiō of Bishops & pastors in y ^e Apostolique truth, in al ages in diuers partes of the world hath ben euer cleare & shining like a light set on a table. & by that Eph. 4. & Esa. 62. (w ^t your book quoteth Sap. 61. very wisely) you would infer, y ^t not ōly alwaies, vntil Christs body cōe to ful perfectiō, there should be doctors & pastors in the Church to teach the truth (w ^c is the most that by those places cā be proued) but also that they and their cōgre­gatiōs haue euer ben known & visible, therby (doubtles) meaning so visible (as the rest of your side doe, whē to this end they alleage these or the like places) as y ^t frō time to time in al ages, mē may be able to nāe thē and their places. Wherūto I answere, that you stretch these places and the words therin further thē their natiue sence wil bear. For the first of these, is properly to be vnderstood of Christs Apostles onely, who in respect of their ministery & other graces of the spirit that should be powred & bestowed vpō thē, to beutifie & strēgthē their [Page 36] extraordinary ministery withall, are there by Christ comp [...] the light of the world, to a lighted candle set vpon a candlesticke not put vnder a bushell, lightning all in the house, and to a city [...] on a hil, which could not bee bid: all which afterward they in the [...] ecution of their Apostleship, and holy conuersation, proued to be [...] tles truely and iustly giuen them. This was no prophesie (as yo [...] would make it) that their should be vntill the second comming [...] Christ, a visible and alwaies demonstrable succession of such [...] sters in the Church without interruption, as these metaphor [...] [...] scribe. And yet I deny not, but that alwaies, in one place or ot [...] [...] the Church hath had from the beginning thereof, and shall haue [...] the ende of the world, such and so many ministers, whereby the L [...] [...] hath alwaies and will continue the life thereof: but that this pl [...] of Matthew proueth so much (which is yet far lesse then you [...] enforce vpon it) I deny. Notwithstanding I graunt, that all [...] faithfull pastours and teachers, according to the nature of their [...] ling, and measure of their gifts, so far forth as they therein haue [...] thing common with the Apostles, and are found like vnto thē, [...] also in some sort haue these things applied vnto them, & vnderst [...] of them: but then withall it must be noted, and alwaies remembr [...] that as there was and is diuersity of gifts and offices in sundry [...] spects, betwixt the Apostles and common pastours and teachers, [...] it must follow, that there is proportionable difference, betwixt the apparent light and visiblenes of the one and the other. The Apostles were by their office appointed to preach to all nations, Math. 28. [...] therefore worthely called in that respect, the light of the world: and by their extraordinary giftes they were set vp as burning lampes, and mighty cities, to be seene & discerned a farre off: whereas Bi­shops, Pastours, & Doctours haue charges limited vnto them but of final compasse; and giftes but such, as if they giue true light, and be seene of those that be about them, and neare vnto them, it is well Howsoeuer, certaine it is (as I saied before) that Christ doeth not there prophecy or foreshew, how visible & lightsome his Pastours & teachers should be from time to time to the worlds end: but he tea­cheth his Disciples and Apostles, what by his grace they should be, and so others succeeding them in the office of teaching, what they ought according to their place, to striue to bee. And I would haue this marked also, that euen they, to whom Christ spake properly, were but tolde, that there light should lighten those of the house, and [Page 37] that a citty built on a hill, though it be not hid to those that are [...]eare vnto it, yet to those that dwell in another cuntrey farre of, it may bee hid; and that therefore though this place, were as pro­perly to be vnderstood of al true Pastors, as of the Apostles: that yet [...]t inferreth not, that their persons and light should bee seene and [...]iscerned but of them, that be nigh them, or ioined with them in the [...]ame house, or communion of religion. And as for that in the 4 to the Eph. though it proue, that there shall be teachers in the Church to gather togither the Saintes, and to edifie the body of Christ, vn­till it be brought to perfection: yet it proueth not therefore your visibility of them; neither doeth that in the 62 of Esay. For it onely sheweth, that God would blesse his Church with watchfull and dis­creet pastours, which accordingly after he performed. But there is nothing saied, to proue that they and their succession in the truth, should be so visible & apparent, as you dreame of. But to awake you out of this dreame, you must heare and vnderstand, that though it be as certaine, that neither the trueth, nor teachers thereof, hath at any time, or shal hereafter vtterly faile, or cease to be in the Church, as it is, that the Church if selfe cōtinueth euer, & neuer quite ceaseth: yet thereupon it followeth not, that therefore both the trueth and tea­chers thereof haue so continued a personall succession one vnto another, or one immediatly after another, and are withal so visible and apparent, that their names and places may straight not onely then, but alwaies after of euery one (as you vpon these places would infer) be pointed and painted out. And for the confirmation & proofe hereof, let vs briefely take a view of the state of the Church frō time to time, as it is set downe vnto vs in the holy Scriptures. And in this point, let vs beginne w ^t the Church, when in respect of all the former times it was best setled, & began to haue the most visible ap­parence, namely when vnder the conduict, & by the seruice of Iosua God had placed it in Canaan. After this, though God therein had e­stablished a Priesthood, & tied it Leuit. 10. by his ordināce & promise to the tribe of Leui, & though the Church thē had most notable pro­mises of Gods presence, & fauour towards it, Psal. 68.2. Chro. 33.2. Chr. 7. Esa. 60.62.63. yet for al this, for the sinnes & iniquities of y ^e people, it was driuē oftē into those streights, that successiō of priests & pastors was interrupted, & of y ^e teachers & of the professors of the trueth there could hardly be made demōstration. For in the time of the iudges, that followed Iosua (as it appeareth in the booke of thē) [Page 38] Cap. 10.13. &c. it had many such ecclipses, that we read ther, of their general Idolatry, & other sinnes, & therefore of their slauery vnder heathē princes, in Gods iustice laied vpō thē diuers times, for many yeares togither: & in y ^e meane time we finde little mention, either of priest or people, that feared God aright. And in Elies time (1. Sa. 2.) the priesthood & al grew so corrupt, that therefore by Samuel Elie is threatned, that the priesthood (notwithstanding Gods promise Leu. 10.) should be trāslated frō his house: & after we read (Cap. 4.) that y ^e very Arke of God was lost, & takē of y ^e Philistines. And it canot be denied, but y ^e God had his church in Israel, in king Achabs time. For Obadiah had thē hid 100 prophets in two caues, 1. King. 18. & God himselfe told Eliah, that he had 7000 there, that had not bowed their knees vnto Baal, Cap. 19. & yet Eliah (though there & thē a prophet) was so far frō being able to name thē, & to point out, who they were, & what they were, y ^e he thought himselfe in that kingdome to be left alone. And in y ^e kingdome of Iudah, where (in cōparison of the king­dome of y ^e ten tribes) the Church vsually had a more visible estate, yet in the latter end of Salomons raigne, Rehobohās, & Ahiiahs, y ^e estate thereof was so growen out of order, that the prophet Azariah saied vnto king Asa, their next successour there (hauing relatiō to the state of the Church in y ^e kingdō, as sūdry good interpreters take his words) now for a long seasō Israel hath bene without the true God, & without priest to teach, & without law. 2. Chr. 15. Be like then their successiō, & their nāes were not so visible, as you seeme to imagin, alwaies they must be in the Church. And though by Asa & his son Iehosaphat, the church was wel reformed again, yet in king Ahaz time (as appeareth 2. Chr. 28.2. King. 16.) grosse Idolatry ouerspred the kingdōe so, that the tēple was polluted & prophaned, & Vriah the priest ioyned w ^t the king in the erection of a new altar, & in cōmitting abhominatiō before the Lord, though he were one y ^t had his calling by the ordinary way of succession of priests frō Aarō. A­gaine, though Ezechiah, succeeding Ahaz, for his time did notably rid y ^e Church of the abhominatiōs, wherw ^t his father had defiled it, yet whē he was dead, his son Manasses, & his son Amon, brought it to as il an estate, as euer it was: in so much, y ^t frō y ^e beginning of Manasses raign, vnto the 18 of Iosiahs, the booke of the law of the Lord was lost, w ^c was wel nigh 80 years: for thē it is noted y ^t Hilki [...]h the priest found it, 2. King. 22. In Manasses his time it is euidēt, Ido­latry opēly preuailed, & the whole Synagogue, saue a few prophets [Page 39] & their folowers erred. If we proceed, during the 70 years captiuity in Babylon, what visible & apparēt shew of any successiō of Bishops & pastors cā we finde, y ^e ioined togither in the exercise of Gods reli­giō? Was not their tēple then destroied, & consequently did not the publick exercise of their religiō (w ^c for the most part was tied therū ­to) cease? as it was prophesied by Hosea, Ca. 3. & therfore lamēted by Ieremy, Ca. 3. Lā. Whē Christ our sauiour cāe into the world, sure­ly then God had his Church. For it is a most certaine article of our faith, y ^t since it begā, it hath neuer ceased, nor neuer shal, & yet what visible succession of pastors and priests was there thē in possession of soūo religiō? Had not they (as euidētly appeareth by y ^e stories writē by the Euāgelists) y ^t were in y ^e visible personal succession, corrupted the doctrine of the Messias, both concerning his person, and office so, that they were the deadliest enemies, that he had?

But you wil say perhaps, that though these thinges were thus in the Church, in the time of the olde Testament, yet it may not be so in the Church now, in the time of the new. And why so? Howsoeuer o­therwise there be some differēce betwixt the Church then and now, in respect of the more cleare reuelation now, then then of the doc­trine of the Messias (whereof that Heb. 8.6. is by sōe vnderstood) yet in this respect you shal neuer be able, by the word writē, or any true story, to proue any necessary difference; vnles it be that God had ti­ed then his promises to that peculier people, & his seruice in great part to their temple, and that he had ordained amōgst them a priest­hood to continue by natural succession so, y ^t the Church thē had more right to plead visible succession, then now. In the meane time, thus much is gained by these stories of the Church, in the time of the olde testament, that this outward clearenes & visible succession, you talke of, is not an inseparable note of the true Church, for therby we haue seene it seperated oftētimes from it. And vnles men were peeuishly disposed to maintaine a manifest vntruth, conuicted so to be both by Scripture and experiēce, you would see & graūt, y ^t it is as separable from the Church now since Christ. For is it not plainely prophesied 2. Thess. 2. that there should come a departing from the faith by the comming of Antichrist, and that very great and effectual? And least you should babishly, & foolishly (as many of you doe) vnderstand this of an Antichrist, that towards the end of the world should come and raigne, & seduce men, 3 yeares & an halfe: marke, that here Paul tel­leth vs in his time, that this mistery of iniquity did already worke, [Page 40] which it did, in that there were false Apostles there that taught men to seeke iustification partly by faith, & partly by the workes of the law, as it appeareth by the Epistle to the Galathiās: & weigh that he attributeth vnto him such things, as could not be brought to passe in that space: & lastly consider, that he teacheth, that though he should be detected and fal into a consūptiō by the Spirit of Gods mouth, yet he should not be fully abolished before Christs second comming. All which make it most euident, that Paul here prophecieth of a longer lasting Antichristianity, which should trouble the Church, thē yours of 3 years & an halfe continuāce. But least yet, this notwitstāding, you should imagine, that the fulfilling of this prophecy, & your fāsie of perpetual clearnes & vniuersality of the church, may stād alwaies togither, S. Iohn in his Reuelatiō describing (as you al must cōfesse) the state of the Church, seeth her in a vision by the great 7 headed Dragō, driuen into the wildernes, and there glad to be fed for a sea­son, Chap. 12. And he seeth the Babilonish harlot (the true patterne of your Romish prelacy; by w ^c harlot he most notably setteth forth Antichrist, & his kingdome) committing fornication, not w ^t a fewe, but w ^t the Kings and inhabitants of the earth; not ruling or sitting ouer a few, but (as the Angel there expoundeth the waters, whereon she was seene to sit) people, multitudes, natiōs, & tōgues. Apoc. 17 Al w ^c laied togither doe plainly shew, that after Christ, there should grow such a defection frō the fayth, in the world by the means of An­tichrist, that during the florishing of his kingdome, the true Church and her pastours should be driuen into the wildernes, and so for that time should haue in comparison of Antichrists followers, small visi­bility, and shew in the eies of the world. Which we say, and con­stantly are able to defend, hath beene verified in the late florishing of your Romish Prelats. Besides, view the stories of the church, & the Cronicles of times, and you shal be driuen to confesse, that though y ^e Church hath had alwaies her two witnesses (Re. 11) to testifie to the trueth, & that they neuer could be extinguished quite by Tyrāts, yet she hath often beene driuen from carying any great shewe of visibi­lity in the world. For certaine marble pillers at Salmantike e­rected in the hill of S. Bartholomew, doe witnes, that Diocletian, Iouius, and Maximinianus Herculeus imagined, when they cau­sed them to bee erected, that they then had quite layed the ho­nour of Christ for euer in the dust, and as it should seeme by the circumscriptions, that they thereupon caused to bee engraued, [Page 41] they set thē vp euen of purpose to brag, that they had like great con­querers quite extinguished (as they terme it) y ^e superstitiō of Christ. Which they would neuer haue done, if either they or their fauorites had then seene a visible succession of Bishops and pastours amongst them, and had knowen their names, and where to haue found them. If wee go on to the time that the Arrians most florished, wee shall read, that the Emperour Constantius sayed to Liberius, Quota pars es tu orbis terrarum, qui solus facis cum homine scelerato, meaning Athanasius, Ecclesiast. Hist. Theodoreti. lib. 2. cap: 16. whereby it appeareth, that then the Catholiques that withstood the Arrians, in the sight of this Emperour, had but a poore visibility to bragge of. Yea Piggius, your owne man, confesseth Hierar. lib. 1. cap. 6. that their poison had defiled not a part, but almost the whole world: in so much that almost al the Bishops not only of the east, but also of the West, by one meanes or other were blinded, and no small time continued this heresie: and this is certaine, that they bragged then as much of visible succession, of the name of the Church, and v­niuersality, as euer since you haue done: calling the true Christians Homousians (as you doe now Lutherans, & Zwinglians) as appea­reth in the writings of those that wrote against them. You may see therefore, that these weapons or staies, are cōmon to you with blas­phemous and condemned heretiques. These places of Scripture, and experiments therefore caused August. vpon the 10. Psalm. & 78. Epist. to compare the Church vnto the Moone, which besides the monethly waynings, suffereth oftentimes ecclipsies. And surely vn­les we be too too wilfull, al these things togither may make vs out of doubt, that the Church of God both before Christ & since, hath oftē failed to cary any such outward visible shew in theeies of the world, that it is so easie a matter, to make at al times demonstration of her Pastours & teachers, who they were, and where they taught, as you our aduersaries would beare the world in hand it is. And therefore for answere to this Chapter, to any reasonable man, this is sufficiēt.

The II. Chapter.

IN this second chapter, you obserue further out of the 4 to y ^e Ephe. before alleadged, that God established a ministery in his Church, that we should not be like childrē caried away with euery blast of vain doctrine, thorow y ^e subtlety of mē, & their crafty words full of deceit: whereupō you inferre, that thereby God hath taught vs, to be constāt in our faith, groūded vpō y ^e word of God, interpreted & de­clared vnto vs by y ^e doctors & pastors, that successiuely haue cōtinu­ed frō the beginning in y ^e same. Who of vs euer either wrote, spoke, or thought otherwise? But herein is your subtlety, that you take this stil for graūted, which indeed is the maine question betwixt vs, and for determinatiō wherof on your side, you haue as yet saied nothing, that the faith and religion, which your Synagogue is in possessiō of is that faith, which you speake of, which we constantly deny, affir­ming y ^e faith & religion, which we professe, to be that indeede, where­in [Page 43] the Apostle would haue vs constant and setled, and which hath al­waies cōtinued in y ^e Church, and hath bene taught and iustified out of the word writen, by the true pastors thereof in one place or other, frō time to time. And therfore herein you haue saied nothing, but y ^e (we vnderstanding it of our faith and religion) maketh as much for vs, as for you. We graūt you also, that false teachers, and wrong in­terpreters of the Scriptures, worthily there, may haue their subtle­ty expressed by a word importing cogging or cosening, but then still we adde, that your teachers a long time haue bene the mē, that haue vsed, and yet doe vse that cogging tricke. Which (if it would please you once by the soūd rules of interpreting the scriptures, to let your interpretations and ours be examined) we doubt not, but to make most manifest vnto all men quickly.

The III. Chapter.

IN the 3 Chapter, you say as little to the purpose, as in the second. For vnderstanding by the Church, the true catholique Church in­deede, [Page 44] and not your late Synagogue of Rome (falsely by you so na­med, because neither it, nor the faith thereof is vniuersall, neither in respect of time nor person) whatsoeuer you haue writen therein, we confesse to be most true, and sure we are, it maketh more for vs, then for you. For we neuer denied the ministry of the true Church to be needefull (according to Vincētius rule) to finde out the true sence of the scriptures: and certaine we are, that we are farre bet­ter able, to iustifie our interpretations thereby, then you are yours: and he liuing a 1000. years agoe (as you write) we boldely affirme, that you shall neuer bee able to proue, that the Catholicke Church and her doctours and pastours before or in his time, taught the er­rours and heresies now taught by yours, for the which wee ac­count yours Antichristian. And yet, as in the former Chapter most beggerly you begged this principle, that your doctrine is the anci­ent Catholicke faith: so here in this you begge this also, that your Church is the true and vndoubted Catholicke Church. But you must vnderstand, howsoeuer your owne frendes will giue you at your first asking both these, that yet we will graunt you neither of them both. And therefore writing (as you would seeme) purpose­ly against vs, you should not thus miserably alwaies haue begged them at our handes, but by sound and iust proofe (at least) haue en­deuoured to proue, that you had iust right thereunto, and then with some more honestie and credit might you haue gone on, in this sup­posall, that they are yours. This also you must vnderstand, that when it is in question, which is the trueth of Religion, yea euen in the fundamentall points (as indeede it is betwixt you and vs) it is alwaies also in question, which is the Church of Christ. For as both parts imagine, they haue the trueth, so will they perswade them­selues, that they are the true Church. Your frendes also and all o­thers must bee aduertised, that it is no newe thing for damnable he­retiques, to brag much both of the truth of the titles of the Church & of the doctours thereof, least through too much simplicity, they think streight, that you haue al these things on your side, because you haue them so much and so often in your mouthes. For (as Cyprian wri­teth Epist. ad Iubaianum de baptizandis haereticis) the Nouations (after the fashion of apes) challenged vnto themselues the name of the Church, and all other they called heretiques. And we reade, that in the time of Arius, Macedonius, and Donatus, these heretiques accounted themselues the onely Christians, and that the true Chri­stians [Page 45] indeede were counted by them Homousians, Macarians, Caesarians, and Caecilianists. So doeth Tertullian de Prescrip: ad­uersus haereticos, testify, that the heretiques did in his time. So did the Donatists (saieth August: Contra Epist: Parm: lib. 2. cap. 1. and Epist. 161.) and he writeth Cōtra Epist: Fundamenti cap. 4. that a­mongst the Manichees, there was great brags of the trueth. Ber­nard also in his 66. sermon vpon the Cāticles, speaking against cer­taine filthy heretiques that condemned mariage, and superstitiously absteined from meates, yet saieth that they gloried, that they alone were the body of Christ, bragging also, that they were the successours of the Apostles and Apostolicke, & the Church of Christ. And indeede wee finde nothing more vsuall with the ancient here­ticks, then to boast, that they had the Church and Catholique trueth on their sides. And very vsuall we finde it also with them, to stand much vpon fathers, in the defence of themselues and their here­sies. For it appeareth in the Councell of Calcedon the 1. Acti­on, that Eutiches bragged, that he had reade Cyprian, and Atha­nasius: yea that then and there he confidently saied for his defence, that he had so learned of his ancient predecessours, and that he had beene baptized in that faith, had liued, and hoped to die in it. And we reade in the 4. Action of the same councell, that Carosus an Eutichian heretique, saied stoutly, I beleeue thus, according to the exposition of the 318. fathers, and so was I baptised. Diosco­rus also, in the 1. Act: of that Councell, cried and saied, I haue the testimonies of the holy fathers, Athanasius, Gregorie, and Cyrill on my side, I go not from them in anie thing, I am cast out with the fathers, I defend the fathers doctrines: I haue their testimo­nies, euen set downe in their bookes for me. And (as we reade in August: contra Cresconium the Donatist, 2. booke cap. 23. and in his 4. booke cap. 17.) he cited for himselfe Cyprian: and it seemeth that Maximinus the heretique (against whom August. wrote) vsed to alleadge for his defence, the councell of Ariminum, and therefore Augustine saieth vnto him. Neither will I obiect the councell of Nice against thee, neither oughtest thou to obiect that of Ari­minum against me: 3. booke. 14. chap. What a vaine thing is it (these things considered) for you and your fellowes then, to carie away the simple vnder the bare titles of Catholique trueth, Catholique Church, Catholique faith, Catholique Bishops, succeeding one another? When as indeede and trueth, it is as impossible for [Page 46] you to proue that you haue any iust right to anie of these, as it was for those heretiques. But howsoeuer you make some be­leeue, you haue all these, yet I say vnto you, with Saint August: De vnitate Ecclesiae, against the Epistle of Petilian chap. 10. That euen Catholique Bishops are not to bee consen­ted vnto, if that anie where they be deceiued, in thinking a­nie thing contrarie to the Canonicall Scriptures. And there­fore when all commeth to all, and when otherwise you haue runne your selues out of breath, in conclusion (will you, will you) by these Canonicall Scriptures must it bee determined, whither you haue anie right to anie of these or no. For if you appeale from them (as indeede you doe) to the Church and fathers, they will sende you backe againe for the triall, whi­ther that which they speake, bee true or no, onelie to the Scriptures: as it maie appeare vnto you, not onelie by this one place, which I haue cyted out of Augustine alreadie, but also by a number such like places, both to bee founde in him else where, and also in others. For you maie reade in the first booke and seuenth Chapter of Theodoret, that when Constan­tine sawe great controuersies in the Church in the Nicene coun­cell, and perceaued that euerie seuerall companie bragged of the trueth, and so also of the Church, and fathers to bee on their side, to ende all those controuersies, he saied, Ex diuinitus inspiratis oraculis quaeramus solutionem eorum quae propo­nuntur; that is, out of the oracles, that are come by diuine inspiration (thereby meaning the Canonicall Scriptures) let vs seeke the determination of those thinges that are propounded: and so they did. And as Constantine the Emperour was of this minde, so it appeareth that Athanasius was of the same. For to Serap: hee saieth, Solum exsacris literis condiscas (meaning, that the holie Ghost is God) sufficiunt enim documenta, quae in illis reperias: Thou maiest learne it onelie out of the holie Scriptures, for the documents or lessons, which thou mai­est finde in them, are sufficient. And Origen vpon the 16. to the Romanes, in his tenth booke (agreeing herein with these) saieth, that onely by the holie Scriptures the difference of trueth from errour, in the examination thereof, is to bee discerned. And yet more plainely, the same Origen in his first Homilie vpon Ieremie writeth, of necessitie wee [Page 47] must call for the testimonie of the Scriptures: for our senses and declarations without them as witnesses, haue no credit. Well therefore saied Augustine, de naturâ & gratiâ cap. 61. Onelie to the holy Scriptures doe I owe my consent without refusall: And therefore franckely hee telleth Hierome in his nineteenth Epistle: that hee had learned to yeelde that honour onely to the Canonicall Scriptures, to thinke that the au­thours thereof therein neuer erred. Where he plainly sheweth vs, by his example, how we should reade his writings, or the writings of any other father, namely, beleeuing that which they wrote no further, then we see it by scripture confirmed, or by probable argument not dissenting from the trueth. And the like he teacheth yet more plainelie in his 111. & 112. Epistles, to Fortunatus and Paulinus, & in the proeme of the third booke of the Trinity. Wherefore with the same Augustine, I confidently say and write, whither of Christ, or of his Church, or of any thing that appertaineth to our faith and life (I will not say wee, that are not to bee compared with him that saied though wee, but as hee addeth) though an Angell from Heauen shall preach any thing, besides that yee haue receaued (marke hee saieth not contrarie, but besides) in the legall and Euangelicall scriptures, let him be accursed; in his third booke against Petilian. cap. 6. Yea your owne Vincentius in the very place quoted by you, denyeth not, but taketh it for graunted, that the scriptures of themselues alone, are sufficient for all things, yea and more then sufficient. Whereupon it is euident that Vin­centius, by the rule, line and true sence of the Catholique Church, that there he speaketh of, vnderstandeth onely such a sence or line, as agreeth best with the scriptures themselues, and the right rules of the interpreting of them, wherof more afterwards. In the meane time, howsoeuer Vincentius his meaning was, Augustine an anci­enter father, & more famous somewhat then he, speaking of the rule of faith, that alwaies in interpreting of the scriptures, men must haue an eie vnto, and be ruled by, saith, that it is euen that which is taught in plainer places of the scripture: de doctrinâ Christia: lib 3. cap. 2. & de trini: lib. 1. cap. 2. &. 4. Yea in the same Augustine de doct: Christ: lib. 2. cap. 6. & distrinc: 37. c. Relatum. we may reade, noted out of Clemēt, that the church is not to receaue any fence for the true sēce of the scriptures, which cānot be proued so to be out of the scriptures thēselues. And therefore all interpretation of [Page 48] scripture, newe or ancient, deliuered by the fathers in former time or receiued of their children of this later age, must and ought ac­cording to this rule and line, bee iudged catholique or not.

The IIII. Chapter.

TO this fourth chapter, I answere, that with Salo­mon to finde out the true Church of God, wee as well as you, exhorte Christes sheepe, to followe the tracte of the flocke of Christ, and to feede by the tentes or Tabernacles of his sheepheardes: that so they maie bee ledde on and vp, to Christ himselfe. But then for­asmuch as wee haue learned before, by that which hath beene noted in the former Chapter, concerning the fashi­on of heretiques, especiallie seeing the same confirmed in you, and other heretiques and apostataes in these our daies, that euerie flocke is not Christes flocke, that will pretende so to bee: nor they alwaies his true sheepeheardes, that are so accounted, wee wish euerie one that wilfullie is not disposed to suffer himselfe to bee seduced, by those that falsely thus pretende, to learne to bee able (as Saint Iohn hath taught all true Chri­stians in the first Epistle and fourth verse) to trie the spi­rites, whether they be of God or no, which they shall and may doe in trying both the flockes, and their sheepheardes, by the infallible worde of Christ contained in the Ca­nonicall Scriptures. For Christes sheepe will heare and obey his voice, Ioh. 10. which vndoubtedlie and suf­ficiently is sounded in the written worde. For the Scrip­tures are able to make a man wise vnto saluation, through the faith which is in Christ Iesus. For the whole Scrip­ture is giuen by inspiration of God, and is profitable to teach, to improue, to correct, and to instruct in righ­teousnesse, that the man of God may be absolute, being made perfit vnto all good workes. 2. Tim. 3. And therefore his true sheepeheardes will feede his sheepe, with the sincere milke of this worde, because that is it which they must desire, as new borne babes doe milke, that they may growe vp thereby, if so be they haue tasted how boun­tifull the Lord is. 1. Pet. 2. And because that is it, according whereunto he that speaketh must speake, because it is writen, if [Page 51] any mā speake, let him talke as the words of God 1. Pe. 4. By which rule, if the flockes and sheepeheardes whom wee followe, bee tryed, they shal bee founde the sheepe whose tracte is to bee followed, and the sheepeheardes by whose tentes is safe feeding. And contrarilie by this rule, your flockes and sheepeheardes (come to the tryall of it when you will) shal bee founde flockes of goates and not of sheepe, and foxes and wolues, seeking the destruction of the sheepe, rather then true sheepe­heardes. But you would make the Reader beleeue, that Salomon in this place by you cyted, out of the first of the Canticles, doeth teach the true Church, safelie alwaies, to pitch her tentes, and to feede by the visible and apparent succession of pastours which from age to age, can leade her without leauing her by the waie euen to Christes time, Which you saie yours can doe, and ours cannot, boldlie aduouching, that vnlesse we be not ashamed to lie, wee cannot shew where our Church or Religion, was an hundreth yeares agoe, and that wee cannot denie, but Luther began to preach our new Gos­pell, in the yeare 1517. And thus againe, partlie by this note of visible succession of pastours, and partly by vpbrayding vs with certaine differences of opinions a­mongst vs, about the maner of Christes presence, and diuerse and sundrie fantasticall heresies, that of late daies haue sprung vp, and beene reuiued, you la­bour to iustifie your Synagogue of Rome, and to con­demne our Church of Christ: which thinges you harpe vpon, very much and often afterwarde in this your trea­tise. Wherefore to aunswere you to all these thinges, here once for all: first I tell you, you offer violence to Salomons wordes, in making them to containe a prophesie of any such perpetuall and visible succession of flockes and pastours, in the possession of one trueth, as you inferre thereupon, and make it the speciall marke and note to discerne Christes true Church, from all that falsely bee so called. For then it should bee contra­rie to that view of the state of Christes true Church, which I haue set downe vnto you, and prooued [Page 52] by infallible arguments in the first Chapter: which may not be, se [...] ­ing the scripture alwaies agreeth with it selfe. And yet the Church may haue good vse of Salomons aduise giuen her here, in her grea­test ruins and interruptions, of her ordinarie and visible forme and beautie, in looking to the visible flockes and sheepheardes, that were before that God so chastised her: as in Achaz time, in looking to and following those, that were in Dauids and Salomons time [...] in Manasses and Ammons time, in looking to and following those in Ezechiaths & Iehosaphats times: & in the time of the captiuity, in looking to & following those, that were in Iosiahs time. And yet doe not so take me, as though I thought, that either Christes true Church, or the true sheepheards thereof, did at anie time vtter [...] cease or faile: for I am perswaded they neuer did, nor shall. But this onelie is the thing that I now say, that though this place of the Canticles doeth shewe, that in no time there is any true flock [...] of Christ, but there hath gone before a flocke, and shepheardes, which that may safely followe euen to the finding of Christ: yet it proueth not, that there hath alwaies immediately gone before it, from time to time, some visible & so apparent flockes and shepheards, one im­mediately succeeding another, as that the names of the sheepe and shepheardes, are alwaies famously knowen, and therefore easily to be reckoned vp of euery one: which are the thinges, which you seeme to inferre hereof, and therefore require of vs to bee done, or else you would faine make the Reader beleeue, that wee neither are the Church, haue the trueth, nor true & right ministers thereof. Where­in, many waies, you offer vs great wrong, for after you your selfe (distrusting belike) that in any seate or line of Bishops, without in­terruption, this can be performed (speaking of your line of Popes, whereof all the sort of you bragge in this case most, cap. 8. to vp­holde and drawe along your right succession) you tell vs flatly, you meane not, when you speak thereof, onely of them, but of al Bishops elswhere, that they may continue it, in the interruptions of that liue somewhere else: and yet at our handes, you require vnder the penal­ty aforesaied, that we should frō age to age, and from person to per­son, orderly succeeding one another, deduce ours. For when we say it was continued alwaies by some, in some other places, when wee can no longer finde it in your Romish see, whereinto by little, and little, you haue craftily [...]rept: and wherein for many hundred yeares before, men of our Church, and Religion sate and taught, you reiect [Page 53] that our answere as a shift. Another wrong that you offer vs herein, is this, that your Antichristian Synagogue hauing accor­ding to the prophesie Reuel. 12. persecuted our flocke into the wil­dernes, with the sheepherdes thereof, you require that wee should, euen in respect of such decaied & distressed times of the church, giue you as euident demonstration of our flockes and sheepheardes, as may bee giuen thereof in the florishing and peaceable state of the same. For there is no reason in requiring that, in the decaies and ruines of the Church, which accompanieth alwaies the Church in her prosperous and standing estate. Besides, herein you offer vs the greater wrong, in that notwithstanding it be graunted of vs, that both perpetuall continuance of the Catholique faith, and also some kinde of succession therefore of teachers, be necessary alwaies for the continuation of the Church, yet you cannot but knowe (especially seing that prophesie before named, & that also 2. Thes. 2. must bee fulfilled of the church of Christ, in respect of some time of her soiourning here on earth) that thereupon it followeth not, that therefore their succession is visible and demonstrable alwaies, in your sence, or else wee must yeelde, that there were none such. For who is so simple, but hee is resolued, that all men now aliue come by lineall succession from some of Adams children, and yet fewe or none can bee found that can rightlie, no not the skil­fullest harrold of them all, deduce their pedagree from thence. Must it therefore followe that there hath not alwaies beene, for all that, a certaine lineall descent? if you should thus inferre, euery one might laugh at your follie. For long processe of time, di­stance of place, betwixt some of our progenitours and vs, lacke of Cronicles, or the neglect of such genealogyes in them, alte­rations of names and countries, and diuerse such like things ma­keth the one not onely hard, but for the most part impossible, and yet no man doubteth of the certainty of the other. Euen so in this our present question, most certaine it is, there haue alwaies beene both flockes & sheepherdes, to continue both the trueth & Christes church. For that wee graunt is necessarie: but yet through con­tinuance of time, force of your Antichristian persecution, distance perhaps of the flockes and sheepeheards in place from vs, that God in some ages vnder your tyranny hath vsed to continue his church by, and lacke of faithfull and carefull writers to cronicle such mat­ters, especially your wouluish and foxy sheepheardes, beeing [Page 54] alwaies watchfull, and mindefull to their vttermost, either to blot out their memories quite, in not suffering their Croniclers to mention them; or else in causing them to deface them, with strange name and false slaunders, maketh it very hard (yea if impossible no marueile, you hauing the euidences, whereby we should doe it, for the most part, a long time in your owne kee­ping, to vse at your owne pleasure) for vs to name from time to time, the places and persons, that haue alwaies succeeded one another, for the continuance of our faith and Church. But to returne againe to the consideration of this place of the Can­ticles: further I saie, as I saied before, that you erre in al­leadging this or any other place of the Scripture, to proue that the Church of Christ may safely account those flockes in possession of the trueth, and therefore to bee followed: and those sheepheardes true sheepheardes, and therefore meete al­waies to bee consented vnto: that lineally downe from Christ can deduce their personall succession. For so (as I haue shew­ed in the first Chapter, and it is not denyed of your selues) sundry heretiques in their times, haue done and can doe still. If therefore you say, you meane still that flocke and those sheep­heardes, that together with their visible personall succession, haue alwaies beene in possession of the true ancient faith, I answere, first, you begge still the thing in question, in supposing that, to haue beene alwaies ioyned with your flockes and sheepheards, which we say, and are able to proue, they fell from many hundreth yeares ago.

Secondly, I tell you once againe, and now this time for all, that you shall neuer bee able to proue, but that both that personall succession may bee separated from trueth, and also trueth from it, and that therefore it is neither a certaine meanes to knowe the trueth, nor the Church of Christ by. Thirdly, for your collection out of this place, for the iusti­fying of your Church before ours, because (as you say) from time to time, for this thousand and fiue hundreth yeares, you can shew the descent and continuance of yours, and we can­not of ours for one hundreth yeares, no not beyonde the yeare one thousand fiue hundreth and seuenteene, we affirme that both in the one, and in the other, herein you write vntruely. For first, if your Church as it is now either in respect of the doc­trine, [Page 55] or gouernement thereof, bee compared with the anci­ent Roman Church in the Apostles times, or for many hun­dreth yeares after, there is such diuersitie betwixt the one and the other, as that the one beeing founde the chast spouse of Christ, the other must needes bee proued to bee the very whoar of Babylon. The simplicity of the ministerie that then was, is turned amongst you into a pompous, Lord­ly, and more then Princely prelacy. And then the Church was fedde, with the pure worde of God, conteyned in the Scriptures, and so ledde thereby perfectly to vnderstand the will of God; and with you, as carefullie as may bee, that is kept from her, and in steede thereof, shee is fedde with the dreames, inuentions, and traditions of men. Then she was taught to account the name of Christ, the onelie name, where­by commeth saluation, Act. 4. and therefore that in him all thinges were prepared: Math. 22. and now with you, be­sides him, Saintes, Angels, your owne merites, and the merites of others, satisfaction in this life by your selues, and after by others, with a number of baser things, must ioyne with him in the of­fice of intercession betwixt vs and God, and in the most glori­ous worke of our saluation: as though hee either could not or would not, go perfectly through with the worke of our salua­tion in himselfe, and by himselfe, but had so begunne it, as that the accomplishing and perfecting thereof were left to these vaine and foolish by-meanes. Then her faithfull doctours and tea­chers taught her, that Christ, in saying, Hoc est corpus meum, this is my body, meant, that it was a signe & figure of his body, as you may reade in Augustine against Adimantus, the Maniche cap. 12. and in Tertull. against Marcion cap. 4. and in infinite pla­ces elsewhere, in the ancient fathers: and now contrary to na­ture, yea to the verie nature of a sacrament, contrary to the analogie of faith and good manners, yours teach, that those wordes being vttered by your Priestes, thereupon followeth such a transubstantiation of the bread into his bodie, that whosoeuer receiueth the outward parte of that sacra­ment, receiueth in by his mouth, the naturall bodie of Christ. If thus I were disposed to go a long, as farre as I might, and to leade the reader to a full view of the difference, betwixt the Romish Church that nowe [Page 56] is, and that which hath beene, I should euen therewith make a great booke. But further of these differences I haue no­ted, as you may reade Chapter 19. & 20. and else where in this booke. And Doctor Fulke against Stapletons Fortresse, hath noted out of Bede and other authours of good credit 50. diffe­rences betwixt the church of the English Saxons in the time of Augustine the monke (who was 600. yeares after Christ at the least) and the Popish church, that now is; and infinite be the dif­ferences then, betwixt the Church before, in her puerer times, and the Popish Synagogue now. And therefore whatsoeuer you bragge, neither you, nor all your fellowes, shall euer be able to proue indeede, that your personall succession hath beene ioyned with the continuance of one and selfesame doctrine of Christ, vnto these daies.

And to come to the other point, therein I saie, you write vntruely also. For so far of is it, that we graunt Luther to haue beene the first that preached the Gospell that wee now embrace, and that wee cannot shewe by whom and where it was preached and receaued before: that there is nothing more common with vs, in answering this your obiection of new­nes, then to tell you, that so farre of is it, that it is newe indeede, that it is the very ancient Religion and Gospell, taught both in the olde testament and newe: and therefore (though it grieue you) wee tell you that the ancient Patriarches and Prophets, Christ and his Apostles, taught the verie same, and no o­ther, and all the ancient doctours and fathers, as farre forth as they were able to iustify that which they taught, by the Scriptures, were sheepheardes of our church, and teachers of our Religion. Indeede, we confesse, that as Hilkiah the Priest in Iosiahs time (2. King. 22.) found the booke of God, and was so a meanes to bring those thinges to light, that by the wic­ked proceedings of Manasses, Amon and others, had for a certaine season lien hid: So Luther in these late daies was a singuler instrument of God, to reuiue and bring to light diuerse pointes of Christian faith, which your Antichristian Synagogue had long laboured to smo­ther, and hide from the eies of the Church. And yet here­upon it no more followeth, that he was the first that prea­ched our Religion, then vpon the former it follow­ed, [Page 57] that Hilkiah was then first the meanes, to preach the lawe of God. And I tell you truely, that I cannot maruaile yet sufficientlie, that anie man of anie reason, iudgement and lear­ning (as you would seeme to bee) should be so farre past all shame, as confidently to set downe in print, that wee cannot deny, but that Luther 1517. began first our Church and Religion: & that we can name none 100. or 200. yeares before, that taught it: when you cannot be ignorant (vnlesse your ignorance be verie grosse) that we name vnto you verie manie, and that in all ages, to haue beene of the same Religion and Church, that wee are now of. For first there is nothing more vsuall with vs, then to tell you, that all the ancient Patriarches, Prophets, Euan­gelists, and Apostles (witnesse the canonicall Scriptures) li­ued and died in our Church and Religion. The same opini­on wee tell you wee haue of all the Christian martyrs (whose number is infinite) that were slaine in the first 300. yeares af­ter Christ, vnder the 10. bloudy persecutions, that were in that time. For during that time, our Religion was onelie pro­fessed and embraced in the Church, and verie little or nothing was there of those opinions, for the which especiallie, wee ac­count your Religion Antichristian (vnlesse it were of here­tiques, and such as had learned it of them) in those daies once thought of. And after for three hundreth yeares more at least, in all the most substantiall pointes of Christian Religion, and the greatest questions betwixt vs and you, all the ancient do­ctours, and the Christians that liued in their times (as wee haue diuerse times sayed, so haue wee often so proued it, that you shall neuer bee able therein to disproue vs) were fully ours. And though after these times, when Boniface the third, had once obteined of that traiterous murderer Phocas, the Anti­christian title of Oecumenicall, or vniuersall Bishop, the mysterie of iniquity did euery day work more plainelie then other, & hasted to his height: yet (as I haue shewed in my answere to your publishers preface, and in the sixteenth Chapter of this my answere to your selfe, where you bragge againe, as you doe here, of 1500. yeares antiquity and continuance) there were after these times from time to time, that both spied the growth and proceeding thereof, and set themselues against it. For Bertram & Iohannes Scotus, were with vs against your [Page 58] grosse real presēce, aboue 700. years ago. Trithemius maketh mē ­tion of a booke writen 400. yeares ago, which is supposed was writen by one Arnulphus, for (as Sabellicus and Platina te­stifie) much about that time was hee put to death of the Romish cleargie: in which booke the authour grieuously complaineth, of the enormities amongst the saied Cleargie, and findeth many faultes in the Romish Church. Gisburne also in his storie writeth, that in the yeare 1158. Dulcinus Naua­rensis and Gerrhardus, preached earnestly, that the Pope was Antichrist: and that they had thirtie followers, whom they brought into England, who were persecuted then, here for prea­ching that, and other such like doctrine against the Romish Church. Much about this time (but somewhat rather before) a company of Christians (who by your Prelates were nickenamed Albigenses) did florish: and there were great mul­titudes of them, euen about Tholossa (whereof you Master Al­bine are called Archdeacō) who did vehemently resist your Pope, and his proceedings, setting vp vnto themselues a Bishop, whom they called Bartholomew, oppugning the grosse pointes of your Religion, euen as wee doe: witnesse Nicolas Triuet and others, in their Stories. Hildegarde, though shee were a Nunne, yet in the yeare 1146. prophesied the ruine of your kingdome at Rome, and bitterly inueighed against the wicked­nesse of your Cleargie and Friers. So did Geffery Chaucer about the same time (namely in his Dialogue called Iacke Vpland) very saltly taunt, and deride the vanity of your frierly superstition. In the yeare 1164. was Petrus Valdus a citizen of Lions, whose followers after had giuen them di­uerse names, to disgrace them withall. For your frendes call them Waldenses, Albigenses, pauperes de Lugduno, Picardos, Boslauienses, Thaboritas, and Leonistas, changing their titles and names, according to the diuersities of places and times they liued in, howsoeuer their Religion was all one. And these haue beene of ancient time, and of great continu­ance, in very many places, namely in Prouince, Sarmatia, Lyuonia, Bohemia, Morauia, Polonia, Silesia, Belgia, and in Calabria: and of you wheresoeuer, or whensoeuer they were, they haue beene cruelly persecuted for heretiques: and yet if their opinions bee iudged of, not as you (the more to disgrace [Page 59] them) haue charged them, but as they in their owne confessions of their faith and Apologies, haue set them downe, they in many thinges helde the verie same that wee doe, and condem­ned the same for errours in you, that wee now doe. They are of 400. yeares continuance at least. For Aeneas Syluius a man of your owne (for he was Pope ere he died) writeth, handling the stories of Boeme, that they had continued vnto his time from the yeare 1160. And Gulielmus Paruus writeth, that their doctrine was examined in Oxforde, and found sound, concerning God and the merites of Christ (for your doctrine concerning the iorning of our owne merites with Christes, to make vp full sa­tisfaction and redemption, is of farre later inuention) and their life (saieth hee) was commendable, but in the doctrine of the Sacrament, they were found to differ from the Church of Rome. Yea Reinerus a writer 300. yeares ago, who (as he himselfe saith) was often at the examination of them, in his booke of inquisitions, writing of them, calling them Leonists, confesseth that some saied they had continued from Syluesters time, and that some saied, they had beene euen from the time of the Apostles: & he further reports that they had great shew of holy life, in liuing iustly before men, and that they beleeued all things well of God, and all the articles con­tained in the creede: onely he chargeth them, that they hated & blas­phemed the Romish Church. And this he further writes, that there was no land, wherein that sect did not creepe, & speaking but of thē that were thē but in one cuntrey, yet this he testifieth, that they had there, ten schooles in one parish, called Camach, that there were forty congregations or Churches of them, euery one hauing their leaders or teachers, and that their power in his time was such, that none (as hee saieth) durst then openlie resist them. There are yet to bee seene (as good authours re­port) the consultations and records of the proceedings of foure great Bishops in France against them, writen three hundreth yeares ago; namely of Narbonensis, Arelatensis, Aquen­sis, and Albanensis: yea 355. yeares ago, I read, there was a Councell kept in Tholossa especially against them. And yet though both of ancient times, and later daies, the Synagogue of Rome hath sought to roote them out by all possible cruelty, they and their successours continue vnto this day, in great numbers in Bohemia, and in other places.

But because you very oft in this your booke, and the rest of your side continually beare the simple reader, and vnlearned Christian in hand, that before Luther there were none of our religion, that haue so condemned your Church and religion, as we doe: I wil vouchsafe for the better inabling of euery one, that shall read this my answere, to see your vanity and impiety (though this which I haue noted already be sufficient to lay open your folly) to proceed yet somewhat further in this matter. Wherefore (to go on in the course of times) though your popish Church hath bene in her ruffe, and at the heighest, that euer she was, this latter 400 yeares, yet we are able to shew, that there haue bene many euen in this time from time to time (and that in sundry places) that haue ioyned with vs against you, & that therefore, there is no such newnesse, or strangenes in our religi­on a d doings, as you would make the ignorant beleeue. For in the dayes of Gregory the 9, in the yeare 1230 the Greeke Church, and other Easterne Churches did quite forsake communion with yours: who euer since ioyne with vs, in a number of thinges against you, as namely in withstanding the supremacy of your Romish Bishop, as appeareth not onely by one Epistle that Germanus Pe­triarch of Constantinople wrote vnto the pope in the yeare 1237, but also by a large booke, writen about the yeare 1384 by Nilus Archbishop of Thessalonica, wherein he doeth not onely confute his Supremacy, euen as we doe, but also he enueigheth against al those that hold communion with the Popish or latin Church. And (as it appeareth in ancient record, in the Church of Herford, wherein 29 of the Articles, wherein they differ from the Church of Rome, are set downe) they ioine not only with vs in this point, in seperating thēselues frō the Romish Church, & in denying the popes suprema­cie (which is the very foundation of your Church and religion) but also in denying purgatory, and masses for the dead, in holding it law­full for their ministers, to enioy the benefit of matrimony, in not v­sing any priuate masse, in not denying the cup to any that receaue, in not ministring the communion in priuate houses, in not vsing ex­treme vnction, and in sundry other points. And by diuers Epistles writen from thence of late, extant in print both in greeke and la­tin, to Chitreus and other Germans, it euidently appeareth, that they ioyne with vs against the Romish Church in many other great and weighty points of our religiō, and that great hope there is, that they might easily be brought to ioyne with vs in the rest. Besides [Page 61] these Easterne churches, euē here in these westerne parts, euident it is, that there haue beene many great, learned and famous persons, with innumerable followers, at all tymes from age to age, in these latter 400 yeares, when the tyranny of your popes to represse them hath bene the greatest and strongest, that euer it was, which yet haue openly with vs stood forth against them and their religion. For Fre­dericke the second (as diuers other Emperours had beene before him) as namely Constantine the 5. Leo his sonne, and Constan­tine the 6 in the East, and Henry the 4 and 5 in the West) was a notable Antagonist of the 3 popes in his time, contending against them, to maintaine the authority of Christian princes against their vsurped Supremacy ouer them, about the yeare 1260, as notorious­ly the Cronicles of those times writen by your owne men Pla­tina, Sabelicus and others declare. And 20 years before that, Krāt­zius testifieth in his history: that there were many that preached o­penly in Sueuia, that the Pope was an heretique, his clergy Sy­moniakes, and generally they all seducers of the people. Ten yeares after that, florished Arnoldus De nouâ villâ, a Spaniard, who taught, that Sathā had thē seduced the world, that the faith thē taught, was but such as deuils had (meaning belike a bare hi­storicall faith) that the pope led men to hell, that he and his cler­gy did falsifie the doctrine of Christ, that masses were naught & not to be saied for the dead &c. and therefore your popish Church condemned him for an heretique. Much what about the same time was Gulielmus De Sancto amore, a master and chiefe ruler then in Paris, who went as farre as Arnoldus, applying the same Scrip­tures, which concerne Antichrist, as we doe, to the pope and his cler­gy: and therefore hee also was condemned for an heretique, and his bookes burnt by your popish rout. And in the yeare 1260 Lauren­tius Anglicus a master of Paris also, tooke this Williams part against the pope, & wrote a booke in his defence. In the yeare 1290 Petrus Iohānes, a Minorite, directly preached the pope to be An­tichrist, and Rome great Babylon, and therefore he was burnt af­ter he was dead. 30 yeares and more before this, Robert Grost­head, a famous learned man, and Bishop of Lincolne (for hee died in the yeare one thousand two hunderd fifty three) was a great withstander of the popes tyranny, and three dayes before his death, hauing conference with his clergy, he laboureth to make them see by sundry demonstrations, that the pope was Antichrist, and his [Page 62] doings Antichristian. King Philip of France, about the yeare one thousand three hundred, was a great withstander of the Su­premacy, which now the Pope challengeth, and a resister in his do­minions, of sundry of his enormities; and William Nagareta, and the prelates of France, then ioyned with their king against the pope. Grosthead, this king Philip, and his clergy, as afterward king Ed­ward the 3. king of England, in the yeare 1346, despised the popes curse, & appealed frō him to God. There is in an ancient Chronicle of S. Albons, a notable Epistle of one Cassiodorus to the Church of England: wherein are layed forth a number of lamentable a­buses in the Roman Church: in the yeare one thousand three hun­dred twenty eight. In the Extrauagants, we reade, that Marsillius Patauinus, Iohannes de Ganduno, Michael Chesenas, Petrus de Carborea, and Iohannes de Poliaco (all great learned men) were condemned by the Pope for preaching against his Supremacy, and other errours of that Church of his, about the yeare 1326. There were thē also many learned mē more, that disputed & wrote against his Supremacy, & which took part w ^t Ludouicke the Emperour a­gainst him, as William Occam, Luitpoldus, Andreas Landanen­sis, Vlricus Hangenor, the Emperors treasurer, and others. Dan­tes, liuing in the yeare one thousand three hundred, wrote against the Pope, the orders of religious men, and the Doctours of the De­crees, saying, that these were three great enemies to the trueth: he flatly hath left in writing in his cāticle of Purgatory, that the Pope of a pastor was become a woulfe, & that he was the whoar of Ba­bylon. In the yeare 1350. Gregory Ariminensis, Andreas de Castro, and Burdianus, taught as we doe; against your doctrine of freewill and merites. Taulerus then a preacher in Argentine, prea­ched openly against your doctrine of mans merites, and praying to Saints &c. And Franciscus Petrarcha florishing about that time. in his ninteenth & twentieth Epistle, calleth the seate of the papacy, the whoar of Babylon, the temple of heresie and treachery: and in such sort describeth it, both at Rome, and at Avinion (where then the Pope sate) that he (as it ther seemeth) coūted it the greatest euil, that can befall a man, to be made pope. Iohannes de rupe scissâ, a­bout 10. yeares after, in the yeare 1340, was so sore a rebuker of the abhominations of the cleargy, that he was therefore imprisoned: he also compared the pope to a bird, richly clad with other birdes fea­thers: & yet so, as that for the pride of that birde he prophecieth, that [Page 63] the time would come, when the other birdes would call for their feathers againe, and so make him know himselfe. Cōradus Hagar one of the city Herbipolis, about this time preached 24 yeares (as it appeareth in the Recordes of Otho, bishop of that City) that the masse was no propitiatory sacrifice either for the quicke, or the dead. And within three yeares after, the booke called Paenitentia­rius Asini, was writen, wherein the Pope is resembled to the Woulfe, the Cleargy to the Foxe, and the Laitie to the poore Asse. In the yeare one thousand three hundred and fifty, Gerrhar­dus Ridder, wrote a book, called Lachrima Ecclesiae, wherein he ve­hemētly inueigheth against begging Friers. Michael Chesenas be­fore mentioned, amongst other things, preached, that the pope was Antichrist, and Rome Babylon. Hee had many followers, whereof I read some were burned, as Iohannes de Castilone, & Franciscus de Arcatarâ, and he himselfe beeing Prouincial of the Grey Friers, was depriued and condemned, in the yeare one thou­sād three hūdred twenty two, or there abouts. And in the time of In­nocent the 6. 1353, I read, that two Frāciscane Friers were burnt at Auinion: whereof the one was one Iohn de Rochetalayda, o­therwise called Hayabolus, witnes Premonstrat: and Henry Her­ford. Who (as Henry of Herford writeth) preached in the time of Pope Clement the 6, in the yeare 1345, that he was commanded by God to preach, that Rome was Babylon, and that the pope, and his Cardinals were very Antichrist: and beeing brought be­fore the pope for it, to his face he boldly did aduouch the same. Brigit (whom you your selues haue made a Saint) about the yeare 1370, in her booke of Reuelations, was a most bitter rebuker of the pope and his cleargy: and so likewise was Katherina Senensis 2 yeares after, as Antonine writeth in his 3 part of his story, terming the pope a murderer of soules, a spiller & piller of the flocke of Christ, saying, that they were more abhominable, thē Iewes; more cruel, thē Iudas; more vniust, thē Pilate; & worse then Lucifer himselfe. And y ^e former of thē plainly prophesied, that their kingdō should be thrown downe as a milstōe into the deepe: & that the clergy had turned al Gods cōmandemēts into these two words, Da pecuniā, giue money. Mathias Parisiēsis a Bohemiā, about the year 1370 wrot a large book of Antichrist, prouing him to be come, & that the pope was he, & the Locusts in the Apocalyps (he saith) are his hypocritical clergy. About this very time Greg. y ^e 11, sent a bul to the Arch-Bishop [Page 64] of Prage, stirring him vp thereby to persecute one Melit­zius, and his followers, who is charged in that bull to haue prea­ched, that the Pope was Antichrist, and to haue had congrega­tions following him. As Brushius writeth, in the yeare 1390. there were burned at Bringa 36. citizens of Moguntia, for the do­ctrine of the Waldēses, holding also that the Pope was Antichrists and Massens recordeth, that there were burnt about the same time 140. for the same cause in the prouince of Narbon: and the same authour testifieth, that in the yeare 1210. 24 suffered at Paris, and that the next yeare there were 400. burned for the like cause; 80. beheaded; Prince Armericus hanged; and the Lady of the castle stoned to death. Houeden also noteth, that about these times, there were great numbers put to death, in France for this cause of Religion. Trithemius writeth that Ecchardus a dominicke Frier, was put to death at Hiddelberge in the yeare 1330, for withstan­ding the Popish doctrine. There is an olde monument of pro­cesse against 44 [...]. persons for the same cause in Pomerania, Mar­chia and places there about in the yeare 1391. And certaine it is, that if the recordes and statutes of all countries in these westerne partes should bee searched, euen thereby would it appeare, that the number of those that haue gainesaied the Pope, & his proceedings, in the time of his greatest florishing, and cruelty' haue beene from time to time infinite, how much greater then, is it likely, was the number of them, that informer times (when hee was not growen to that power to vexe the seruants of god, as he hath beene for these last 300. or 400. yeares) haue professed the trueth boldely against him? Thus are we come to Iohn Wicklifes time, who florished here in England about the yeare of the Lord 1372; and yet I haue, for the auoiding of too, too much tediousnes, omitted the names of a number of famous men, that haue also withstoode poperie, and ioy­ned with vs in sundrypointes against them, in those times that I haue run thorow, as namely Alcuinus Archbishop of Canterbu­rie, directly with vs against them in the matter of reall presence, Aelfricus, Ioachim Abbot of Calabria, Arnoldus Brixianus, Al­mericus a learned Bishop in Innocents time the third, iudged a [...] heretique, for teaching (as we doe) against images; Beringaiius, Reymundus Earle of Tolossa, Lord Peter de Cogneriis, Eudo Duke of Burgandie, the Archbishop of Armah, and infinite o­thers. I might also here againe haue remembred that with H. Mu­tius [Page 65] writeth, of an 100 burnt in one day in Alsatia, vnder Innocent the 3, in the yeare 1215, when Antichrist in the Lateran councell, bringing in the new and monstrous article of Transubstantiati­on, shewed himselfe to be euen growen to his highest degree of ini­quity.

But to let these passe, and to proceede: Iohn Wicklife (as it is fa­mously knowen) was with vs against you in the most and weighti­est things betwixt you and vs in controuersie, and therefore in your councell of Constance, you condemned him and caused his dry and rotten bones to be taken vp againe and burned. Whiles he liued, he had many great learned men here in England that ioyned with him, as namely Nicholas Herford, Philip Repington, Iohn Ashton, and Laurence Redeman, and so many followers had he, and they and hee had such fauour and protection, especially of the Duke of Lancaster, that then was, that though your prelates here in England vexed and molested them what they could; yet they and their fauourers in short tyme grew to that strength and multi­tude, that by the yeare 1422 Henry Chicheley then Archbishop of Canterbury certified the pope, that they all could not be sup­pressed, they were so many, but by force of warre. Now be­twixt Iohn Wicklifes tyme and the florishing of Iohn Hus (which was about the yeare 1410) very many both here and elsewhere for following Wicklife were persecuted, as namely here in Eng­land William Swinderley, Walter Brute, William Sautry, Iohn Badby, and William Thorpe, whereof diuerse were most cruellie burned. Then when Iohn Hus and Hierome of Prage had beene burnt at the councell of Constance, for taking the like course in Boemia, that Iohn Wicklife & his fellowes had done before here in England, about the yeare 1417, the religion that we now professe began to gather so great strength in Boemia, that the professours therof were able, not onely to defend themselues, by force of armes, from the intended oppressions against them by the Bishop of Rome and his adherentes, but also to get many glorious victories against the strongest powers, that the pope could raise against them. Now from the yeare 1410, when Hus began to florish, vnto Luthers tyme 1517, wonderful many both there in Boemia, here in Englād and elsewhere, continually rose vp and stoode forth, euen vnto the death, against popery, in the profession of our religion. Amōgst whō here in England, at one tyme, in the yeare 1413 there were bur­ned [Page 66] in Saint Giles fielde, vnder the name of Lollardes 36. Amōgst whom Sir Roger Acton Knight, Master Iohn Browne, and Ma­ster Iohn Beuerley, were put to death. After, 1415, Richard Clay­don, and Richard Turning were burnt in Smithfield: about this tyme 16. of name, were persecuted in Kent, and very many in other places of this Land. Within a while after, in the yeare one thou­sand foure hundred twenty two, William Tailor was burnt here, and two yeares after that, William White was burne: and betwixt that time and the yeare 1430, father Abraham of Colchester, Iohn Waddon, and Richard Houeden were burnt. And about that time Paul Crow a Bohemiā was burnt there, & Thomas Rhodonensis, at Rome. And ere Luther beganne to preach against the Pope and his doctrine, from the yeare one thousand foure hundred and thir­ty, here suffered for the same religion that we now preach and em­brace, amongst many others Richard Wich, Iohn Goose, one Babran, one Ierome, and others with him, Iames Marden, William Tilsworth, one Father Roberts, and Sir Iohn Olde-castle, the Lord Cobham. Now since Luther, I hope you will not deny, but the nū ­ber of them that are on our side against you, euen in these Westerne parts, cary such a visible shew, that you cannot but heare and see the multitudes thereof, round about you, at home and abroad to be such, that I dare say your harts begin to feare, that if the number increase but a while longer, as it hath done of late, your Romā prelate is like to turne vp his heeles, & to leese his glory in these westerne parts, as­wel as hee hath done long ago, in the Easterne cuntries. And there­fore you cannot but likewise thinke, that he doth very wisely & pro­uidently to send before hand (as he doth) his Ihesuits amōgst the sa­uage and wilde Indians, to prepare him there a new kingdome, a­gainst he hath lost his old here. For not onely vnder your owne noses in Italie and Spaine, and elsewhere, wheresoeuer your antichristian tyranny causeth your religion to haue outward and publicke allow­ance, to your griefe you see, doe what you can, our religion findeth still many constant confessours euen vnto death, and hath done now these many yeares: but also you know, that so many kingdomes and cuntries, haue giuen & yet doe, open allowance to ours, and defyance to yours as antichristian; that by this time, you cannot but see, your old argument of vniuersality, groweth fast to be out of date & force with you, and beginneth a pace to stand on our side. For euē in these Westerne parts, our doctrine is embraced and professed, and hath [Page 67] beene now a good while, with the allowance of publicke authority, and yours openly defaced, writen and preached against as antichri­stian, in the kingdomes of England, Ireland, Scotland, Den­marke, Sweden, and France; likewise in Bohemia, and in Polonia in diuers whole territories & Dukedomes, in Holand and Zeland, and in the Prince of Russia his dominions. And besides who know­eth not, that in like maner it is now, & hath beene long, in the Duke­dome of Saxonie and of Brunswicke, in the dominions of the Pals­graue of Rhene, the Dukedome of Wittenberg, & in the territories of the Lantgraue of Hessia, and the Marques of Brandeburge, be­sides the great common weals of Heluetia, Rhetia, Vallis Tellina, and the cuntries of diuers other noble men in other places of Ger­many and elsewhere?

But they that hereby sufficiently doe not perceiue the folly & fals­hood of your saying, that before Luther we can name none to haue beene of this mind, I refer them for further confutation of that your shamelesse vntrueth, vnto Illiricus Catalogue of the witnes­ses of the trueth, to the Centuries of them of Magdeburge, and to master Foxes Actes and monumēts of the Church, where they shal finde not onely much of these thinges, here briefly touched by me, more at large set down, but also further proofe out of good authors, that this religion which wee nowe professe, hath had alwaies since Christ, to these dayes in once place or other, both embra­cers and teachers of it. And therefore though it hath not al­wayes had so visible and glorious a succession of pompous, am­bitious, and proud prelates, as yours hath had, for these la­ter tymes, since Antichrist grew to his pride and height; yet it hath neuer beene without flockes and sheepheardes, one going before another in the profession of our religion, euen vp from our dayes vnto Christ. But when for very shame, conuicted with the force of the trueth, you are driuen to con­fesse, that in some parte it may be true, that there were alwaies some that ioyned with vs, yet to driue vs from alleadging their names and succession against you, you say, they yet helde so many different and lewde opinions, that we cannot fetch any continuance to our faith or religion from them. Whereun­to I answer, first, that we are not to beleeue your reportes of them, but their owne Apologies and writings: whereby it appeareth, that it hath bene alwaies your fashion (the more thereby to discredit thē) [Page 68] to charge them to holde a number of absurd opinions, which they neuer held. Besides, I say, though it may be in some points, we and they differ, yet as long, as we & they agree in the foūdation, we haue learned to account them our brethren. 1. Cor. 3. and so to ioyne with them, in that which they hold well. And lastly (to driue you from this shift) we tell you, that if you will countenance your religion and Church with none, but with those that agree with you fully in all pointes, there is neuer an ancient father for 600 yeares, no not any writer, or pastour in the Church of any good credit, for 1000 yeares, that you may make any reckoning of: & that (which then wil go very neare you) euen since Augustine the monkes comming into Eng­land (as I haue saied) and for 300 yeares after him, your glorious succession must faile: there are so many apparent differences for so long space at least, betwixt the opinions, that your pastors and doc­tors hold now, and them that were held then. Take heede therefore, whiles you measure thus to vs, and so seeke to disgrace them, whose names we cite, that the same be not measured to you againe, & so the necke of your visible Succession be broken, to the perill of the life of your Church, which draweth her breath thereby.

Now to come to your disgracing of our Church with the diffe­rence of opinion betwixt Luther and Zuinglius, and your laying to our charge, all the heresies, that haue sprung vp, since Luther be­gan first to preach against you, therein do you vs manifold wrong. For who knoweth not, that it is no strange or new thing, to finde the deare seruants of God, and the true members of Christs Church sometimes and in some things differing, and hoatly dissenting in o­pinion? Doe we not read ( Mat. 16.) that one thing seemed good to Peter, and the contrary seemed, and was indeed, good in Christs iudgement? Did not Peter take one course, and Paul another at Antioch, Galat. 2. insomuch that Paul there rebuked Peter open­ly and sharpely? And finde we not ( Act. 15.) Paul and Barnabas, growen to that heat of contention, about the receiuing againe or re­fusing of Iohn Marke, that they parted companies? And if we leaue the Scriptures and go downe to later times, and view the state of the Church euen in the purest times thereof, we shall finde it no strange thing to see diuersities of opinions, and therefore also hoat contentions, betwixt those, whom yet we will and must ac­count the true members of the Church. Betwixt Polycrates & Vi­ctor, the East and West Churches, Irenaeus and certaine other Bi­shops [Page 69] of France, and some Popes, the contention about the obserua­tion of Easter, was such Euse. 5.21.22.23.24. that one side excom­municated another, that diuers Synods were held to appease it, and yet it cōtinued 300 yeares & more. And who knoweth not, that there was contention betwixt Cypriā & other Bishops of Africke; & Cor­nelius & Stephanus Bishops of Rome, for y ^t they euē thē at Rome, encroched too much (as y ^e other thought) to intermeddle within y ^e iu­risdictiōs of the Bishops of Africke, in receiuing condēned & excō ­municated fugitiues, that ran to Rome frō thence. Neither was the controuersie small betwixt them, about the rebaptizing of those, that had beene before onely baptized by heretiques. For proofe of both which points, I refer you to the third and fourth Epistles of Cyprians first booke of Epistles, and to the first Epistle of his second booke, and to the third and fourth Chapters of Eusebius se­uēth booke. Basil also, and the Church of Caesarea (as it is well knowen) were at hoat contention about Ecclesiasticall songes and ceremonies. Theophilus of Alexandria, and Chryso­stome of Constantinople, had betweene them a violent and trou­blesome contention, and great part taking there was of both sides, and that along time. Cyrillus of Alexandria, wrote against Theodoret, in a controuersie of Catholicke religion. Betwixt Miletius a Bishop of Aegypt, and one Peter of Alexandria, and their followers of both sides, there arose and continued a long whyle, to the great trouble of the Church, a lamenta­ble contention. All Ecclesiasticall stories (for the most part) haue with griefe made report of these: yea downe from Christ to the age wherein euery one of them wrote, it too plainly appeares in them, that there was neuer yet any one century of yeares, but it hath had new contentions and those many, not onely betwixt heretiques and catholickes, but also euen amongst those that otherwise of both sides, were to bee reputed sounde Christians. Hierom and Augustine (as all men will confesse) were in their times worthy so to be accounted, and yet it appeareth in their works, that there was great diuersity of opinions, and that in many things of great moment betwixt them. Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus and Chrysostome (of whom I spake before) were both famous Christians, and yet the stories of their tymes shew, that they were bitter enemies. It is notoriously knowen, that amongst the Bi­shops assembled against the Arrians at the councell of Nice, Con­stantine [Page 70] by the bookes offered vnto him one against an other found, that they then had amongst themselues many contentions and vari­eties of opinions: and infinite it were, to reckon vp all the exam­ples that might easily be found to this end. Indeede I reade, for these and such like differences, the Iewes and Heathen people, mocked at the Christians, and hereby sought mightily to de­face them and their religion: seuenth Stromat: Clement: Alex­andrini. But I neuer read, that either then or since, euer any sounde Christian (though for this cause they tooke occasion to mourne) yet that they or any of them tooke occasion to condemne either the one side, or the other, or both; as not to be therefore at all of the Church of Christ. For, notwithstanding these diffe­rences, they saw, that they ioyned togither otherwise as brethren in holding togither the fundamentall pointes. And that they, whom you call Lutherans & Zuinglians, doe so, the booke of late set forth of the Harmony of the confessions of all the Churches, that herea­bouts professe the Gospell, doeth make it most manifest and eui­dent. And therfore for any force, that this reason carieth with it, this their differēce (which is in effect only about the maner of the pre­sēce of Christ in the Sacramēt) they both may be mēbers of the true anciēt Catholick Church, as wel as these other, whō I haue named.

Another wronge that herein they offer vs is this, that beeing themselues at variance amongst themselues, and hauing had ma­ny and great contentions, and yet hauing still some, about as great a matter of religion, as this: that yet forgetting the beame in their owne eies, like hypocrites, they are so busie with the moate in ours. For who so readeth the histories of their Popes writen by their owne frendes, besides a number of hoat and contentious schismes, troubling all Christendome, for many yeares togither, yea some­times fourty years, continuing betwixt their Popes & Antipopes, he shall finde it so common a thing for the succeeding Pope, to con­trary the proceedings of his predecessour, as though the chiefe glorie of their papacy lay in that: and therefore, poore Gratian tooke a combersome worke in hand, to make a concorde of such discording Canons. Their religion considered, it is one of the greatest controuersies that can be, whither the pope or a generall councell, haue the superiour authority; and so must be the ca­rier of the Churches tongue, to decide and determine controuer­sies: and yet euen in this controuersie, they are so at concorde, that [Page 71] the councell of Constance and Basil, determined one way, and the councels of Florence and Ferraria the other way, and yet both sides hath his stout champions. The Scotistes and Thomistes ma­ny an hundred yeares haue beene at contention, & yet (doubtles) are not agreed, about the conception of the Virgin Mary, whither it were in sinne or no, & about diuers & sundry other great myste­ries of their religion. Yea euen in the Sacrament of the body and bloude of Christ (wherein they would seeme to be at greatest vni­ty) yet if a man were disposed to note the diuers opinions therein amongst themselues, he should scarse euer knowe, when to make an ende. For there be some of them that holde, that there Christs body is torne and chewed with the teeth (as it appeareth in the Recantation, that they prescribe to Beringarius) others (as Guy­mund: de Consecra: Dist: 2.) thinke that too grosse. Some (as Gardener) would haue Hoc to signifie indiuiduum vagum, a certaine thing that is, but they cannot tell what: others now would haue it to note that, which is vnder the accidentes of bread and wine. Scotus and Innocentius the fourth, holde consecration to be, not by the fiue wordes, but by Christs blessing: others holde now that it is done, by the fiue wordes. When it commeth to the ea­ting, some holde that it entreth the mouth, but no further: others wil haue it to passe into the stomacke, but not into the guttes: others wil haue it to go thither also. Infinite are the questions, that they are fallen into about this matter. And in their last conuenticle at Tri­dent, where they had hoped to haue healed all these sores, yet euen then there grew a great contention betwixt two great captaynes of theirs, Archbishop Catharinus, and Frier Soto; and that about no small matters, namely, about assured confidence of the fa­uour of God: Predestination, originall sinne, free-will, and such like matters; Insomuch, that for all the councell could doe, for six yeares together, they continuallie went on in writing bookes bitterly one against another. The same Catharin also, wrote a booke against Caietan a Cardinall, laying therein to his charge 200. errours. Cōtention also the same Catharin had, with Frāciscus Torrensis, a man otherwise of his owne faction, about single life of priests, & residence of Bishops, both which, the one helde was (as hee taught therein) warranted by Gods worde, the other stoutly holding the contrary. In the Articles of iustification, free grace, and originall sinne, Ruard Tapper a great Papist and Deane of [Page 72] Colen, in his second tome, wrote against Piggius an Archpiller of that Synagogue, contending to proue, that he was deceiued and erred in those pointes. But what should I take vpon me, to rec­kon vp the contentions and controuersies that are amongst them: For certaine it is, they are so many and infinite, that a man, if he were disposed, might write a booke of a whole quire of paper, consisting onely of a bare recitall of the differences of opinions, that their writers haue set downe in their owne bookes, about points and questions of religion. And yet see, as though there neuer had beene iarre amongst them, they brag of vnity amongst the simple, and labour our disgrace, with the obiection of variety of opinions amongst vs, especially about this one point, of the maner of Christs reall presence in the sacrament.

But seeing now hereby in parte you see, at what agree­ment they are, I hope you thinke it reason; that they should agree better amongest themselues, before they insult any more against vs, for our disagreement. Lastly, they doe vs wrong, in seeking to disgrace vs and our religion, in that since Luther beganne to preach, there haue risen vp diuerse and sundrie fonde and foolish heretiques. For wee read, that immediatly after the Apostles tymes, euen within few yeares, Epiphanius by his tyme, could reckon vp eighty, and Augustine more seue­rall errours and heresies, which in effect did growe togither with the Gospell, and yet the Gospell not to be blamed therefore, but Sathan, who where the good seedes-man sowed good seede, vseth to sowe also his tares: Matthew the thirteenth. And yet it seemeth by Saint Iohns preuention of this obiection, that some, aswell affected to the Gospell then belike, as you be now, were ready hereby to discredit both the Apostles, and their doctrine. But Iohns answere is, they went out from vs, but they were not of vs: for if they had beene of vs, they would haue continued vvith vs. But this came to passe, that it might appeare, that they were not all of vs: 1. Iohn. 3. Euen so, wee answere you concerning those, that you say, haue any where since Luther risen amongst vs, and fallen into heresies. Yet further, so much the more apparent is the wronge that you offer vs in this behalfe, in that not onely you knowe, we shun communion with them, as wel as you: but that also it euidently hath appeared to the world, that wee haue beene [Page 73] both the first and the forwardest in detecting of them, and in con­futing of them from time to time. Wherfore I conclude, that hither­to you haue saied nothing of any force, for the iustification either of your vocation, Church, or religion.

The V. Chapter.

YOu must remember, that Vincentius liued 1000 yeares ago (by your own cōfessiō) & that therfore he speaketh of their time, and of the Catholique Church, and ancient faith, that then was. Whereof (if you vnderstand him) we say as he saied, and are more willing to ioine and holde communion with that Church of Christ, that he speaketh of, then you; but then his saying maketh directly a­gainst you. For neither your Church, nor faith was in his dayes. We graūt you also, that Irenaeus did vrge succession of persons, to stop the mouthes of the heretiques, as you shew in this Chap­ter out of him: but withal then you must not forget, that he liued not long after the Apostles times, when as yet they, whose Succession he alleadged, continued in the sincerity of the Apostolique doctrine, [Page 75] from which long ago your Roman Church, as it is now, hath fal­len by antichristian apostacy. For that hee calleth the principall succession: and those bishops onely he teacheth are to be obeyed, who togither with the succession of their Bishoprickes, haue re­ceiued the gift of trueth, as I noted vnto you out of his fourth booke 43 Chapter, in my answere to your first Chapter. But Irenae­us no where prescribeth, that his example of vrging hereticks to see their folly by Succession, for a perpetuall rule to followe; neither therein doeth he prophecy, that for 1000 yeares after, & further, those successiue lines of Bishops, or any other would continue so in pos­session of the trueth of doctrine, as that safely alwaies they might be ioyned vnto. For he was not ignorant, what was prophecied concer­ning the comming of Antichrist, 2, Thess. 2. and Reuel. 17. and that Paul tolde to the Pastors of Ephesus (Act. 20.) that after his departure, there would arise vp euen amongst themselues grieuous wolues not sparing the flock: which must needs import, that how­soeuer in his time he thought sometimes of succession of bishops, that continued in the trueth; that yet it was farre from his meaning to prophecy, that so it would be alwaies. You reason there­fore in this point as one; that to proue the stewes at Rome now to be pure virgins, should alleadge for proofe thereof, that they were so when they were yong children. For euen like difference and ods there is, betwixt the Church of Rome now, and her bishops and pa­stours, and that that was in the daies & times, that you and the au­thours, that you alleage, speake of. For whereas vnto these times, y ^e Church of Rome & her bishops & pastours, stoode and continued in the trueth; since, not only many of the bishops of Rome themselues, whom you hold are freest & furthest of, of al other from erring (as I haue shewed already most plainly) fell into heresie, but also al your Romish doctrine, which we now count & cal papistical, was diuised & found out since those times, and is also not only beside, but contra­ry to the doctrine then taught & receiued, by the ancient Church of Rome & her pastours; as, ere I haue done w ^t you, I hope (at least in great part) sufficiētly to proue. It should seeme therfore, that either you in thus reasoning are very childish your selfe, or els you thinke you haue to deale but with babes and fooles; in that because Ire­naeus that florished within two hundred yeares after Christ (when the Church was yet pure and vndefiled, in comparison of the tymes that followed) could and did vrge Succession [Page 76] of persons ioined with succession of trueth: therefore you may, that liue 1500. yeares after Christ and more. You must first proue, that succession of trueth is vnseparable from personall succession, & that euer since, and now also, the Bishops & pastours, whose personall succession you bragge of, haue continued in the trueth as well, as they did, whose names he reciteth. Whereof neither, shall either you or any of you be able to proue, as long as the world standeth. Fye therefore for shame, that you neuer hauing proued either of these, nor yet being able to doe it, you should cōclude, that your pre­scription against our doctrine (which you call newe, at your plea­sure though indeede it be most ancient; witnesse the olde testament and the newe) much rather ought to take place, then his in his time against heretiques, that then taught diuerse basphemous heresies directly against the scriptures. You say, our Religion hath beene vnknowen this 1500. yeares: or at least, if any body sought to pub­lish it, he was condemned as a false pernitious heretique. But you doe but say thus, you proue it not, nor euer shall. For it was both heard and knowen, many 100. yeares before yours was hat­ched: and if euery one were so condemned that taught it, then was Christ and his Apostles so condemned. For vnlesse by scriptures we can proue ours to be, the same that theirs was, wee aske no fa­uour at your hands. And as long as we can doe so, the more we and our predecessours haue beene condemned by you, the more we knowe, we haue beene blessed of God. Now whereas you say in this Chapter further, that Irenaeus did withstand heretiques, by the traditions of the Apostles, adding your glosse, that is to say, by doctrine not writen, but deliuered from hand to hand, and so receiued from age to age, frō the Apostles to that time: there­in through the ambiguity of the word (Tradition) craftsly you seeke to deceiue your simple reader, and indeede you giue a glosse, that corrupteeh the text. For let that place of Irenaeus in his third booke and second Chapter be perused, and that also which followeth in the third Chapter of the same booke (though either you or the Printer mistaking it, send vs to the fifth Chapter, where the wordes are not, which you cite) and most euidently it shall bee proued, that though Irenaeus haue there the words by you cited, yet by the traditiōs of the Apostles, which he speaketh of there, he mea­neth no doctrine, nor points of doctrine (as you doe vsually by that word) contrary, or besides that, which was also taught in the word [Page 77] writen. For the question was of God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ, which Valētinian & Marcion denied: against whō he there sheweth, that he fought first with the scriptures: wherewith when they were vrged, he saith, they are turned streight into an accusa­tion of the scriptures, as though they were not right, had not au­thority, might diuersly be takē; saying further, that trueth could not be found of them, by those that are ignorant of traditiō. For the trueth was not deliuered by them, but by liuely voice: & that therefore Paul saied, we speake wisedome amongst them that are perfect, not the wisedōe of this world. And this wisdome to eue­ry one of them (saieth he) is that which he himselfe hath deuised. Of which heretiques (their wordes & yours, when you are called to the touchstone of the scriptures, are so like) vndoubtedly you haue learned to plead against the scriptures, for your vnwritten traditi­ons. Now when thus he had shewed, how the heretiques in his time, shunned triall by the scriptures, and appealed to tradition, he goeth on and sheweth, that when he was contented to come to the traditiō of the Apostles, kept & obserued in the church, downe from the Apostles to those times by succession of pastours, then they resi­sted tradition also, saying, that they were wiser, then either those pastours, or the Apostles themselues: and so indeede neither by the scriptures, nor yet by making demonstration vnto them, that the same doctrine taught in the scripture, was also deliuered by liuely voice, first by the Apostles, and so receiued from age to age and con­tinued in by those pastors, of whose successiō he speaketh, could stop their mouthes. And thus any mā of meane capacity may perceiue, that in these places Irenaeus his drift only is, to shew the heretiques, that the doctrine which he taught, concerning God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ, first was warranted by the Apostles writings, and then also taught by them, by liuely voice, and so deliuered and continued from hand to hand, amongst the faithfull pastours, suc­ceeding one another euen vnto that time. And that he calleth this the tradition of the Apostles, and not (as you falsly expound him) doctrine vnwriten, beside or contrary to that which is writen (as the Popish traditions you striue for bee) if you had beene disposed you might haue learned in the 1. Chapter of the same booke, where he saieth, That which first they preached, after by the wil of god, tradiderunt nobis, they deliuered vs in writing, to be the foun­dation and piller of our faith. And indeede it is an vsuall thing, [Page 78] with the fathers of the primitiue Church, often by the tradition of the Apostles, to vnderstand the very same doctrine, which is con­teined in their writings. Herein therefore, & so likewise in all other points in controuersy betwixt vs, it is a cōmon tricke w ^t you papists, to vrge the fathers wordes quite contrary to their true meaning.

But because you first, and namely bring in Irenaeus for your vn­writen traditions, which is the window indeede, that you would haue faine left open vnto you, for then thereby, you hope you may thrust in and vpon the Church, what you list: and so countenance thereby your Antichristian doctrine, when all other shifts faile: let vs see, whither this cannot yet further be made manifest out of him. He (as Eusebius reporteth Hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 14.) saied, that Polycarpe taught, that one and sole trueth, which he had lear­ned of the Apostles, quae & Ecclesia tradit, which the Church deliuereth forth. Where of necessity, by those things which the Church deliuereth by tradition (that he there speaketh of) you may not vnderstand any other, but those which haue warrant from the word writen, and in no case those things that are besides that or cō ­trary thereunto: for then, hee would not haue called that which Polycarpe preached, the one and sole trueth: for questionles those things are true, that are conteined in the scriptures. And this clearely appeareth, if you marke the wordes as they are in Irenaeus himselfe, in his 5. booke & 20. cap. that Eusebius hath relation vnto; which are these, Polycarpe did mention, or teach those thinges, which he had heard of the Apostles, that is, all things agreeable to the scriptures. Againe the same Irenaeus in his 3. booke and 3. cap. (which is one of the Chapters by you before alleadged) saieth, that vnder Clement, the Church of Rome wrought to the Corin­thians, shewing them, quam traditionem, what tradition of late they had receiued of the Apostles, that is to say, that God the father almighty, and so forth (as is expressed in Moyses) is the fa­ther of our Lord Iesus Christ. And that he is so taught to bee, of the Churches (saieth hee) they that will learne, may by the Scriptures, and so they may vnderstand the Apostolique traditi­on of the Church. Where it is most cleare, that he telleth vs him­selfe, that by the Apostolique tradition, he vnderstandeth this same doctrin of God the father, which before they wrote, the Apostles de­liuered vnto the church by liuely voice, & afterward, as it appeareth, they set down in writing. Is this thē honest dealing in you, to make [Page 79] your Reader beleeue, that he meant of vnwriten doctrine (such as y ^e is, for which you & we striue) seeing he telleth you himselfe, that by the Apostolique tradition of the church, you are to vnderstād this do­ctrine of God the father, most plainely & plentifully writen and set downe in the scriptures? You might haue learned of S. Paul (2. Thes. 2.15.) that the word [...], tradition, may as wel be refer­red to expresse doctrine in scripture, as that w ^c is deliuered by word of mouth: where the Apostle (as then very litle of the new testamēt being writen, and as then therefore the whole Apostolicke doctrine therein not being expressed) saith, Hold fast brethrē, the documēts deliuered you, whither by word, or by our Epistle. But you are the lesse to be blamed & the more to be borne withall, for this your wil­ful thus abusing your reader, because the making or marring of your church and Religion, stādeth vpon vnwriten verities (or rather forgeries) which you call the Apostolicke or the holy churches tra­ditions. For there are few or none of those points of Religiō, where­in we differ from you, and striue w ^t you about; but your owne great champions haue confessed, haue their ground from hence, and not from the scriptures. As any man, that will take the paines to reade them, may see, in Peter Soto against Brentius, in the 5. cap. of Cani­sius catechisme, & in the 5. booke & 100. c. of Lindans panoply, where they reckon vp almost all the points in controuersie betwixt them & vs in Religion, and when they haue done, plainely cōfesse the ground thereof to be but tradition. And therefore to countenance this onely bulwarke of your church & Religion, at least w ^t those that either for lacke of leasure or learning cānot examine your quotations, it is not your fault here alone, but the cōmon fault of you all, where you finde any mention in fathers of tradition, though it be neuer so euident that thereby they meane nothing, beside that which also hath war­rant from the word writen, to alleadge that place streight to coun­tenance your vnwritē traditiōs. To preuēt you therfore hereafter of thus abusing the simple, I would wish thē & all others to mark, how flatly against your vnwritē & vnwarāted traditiōs by y ^e writē word, the fathers w ^t one consent haue writē, for y ^e absolute sufficiēcy of y ^e scriptures. Besides y ^t, w ^c you heard out of Irenaeus & Tertulliā, to this purpose, Irenaeus saieth further, in his fifth book, we must run to the Church, & be brought vp in her bosō, & nourished with the scriptures of god. And Tert: against Hermog. writeth, Let Hermogenes shew, that it is writen: if it be not writē, let him fear that wo, that is [Page 80] threatned or appointed to the adders, or takers awaie. As for O­rigen, we haue heard him tel vs before, that our senses and decla­rations without the witnesse of the scriptures, haue no credit in his. 1. Hom. vpon Ierem. And great and worthy Athanasius saieth, The holy scriptures giuen by diuine inspiration are suf­ficient to shew the trueth, against Idol: Hillarie saieth, it is wel, that we are content with those things that are writen, in his third booke of the Trinity. Cyrill vpon Iohn in his 12. booke and 68. cap. graunteth indeede, that all things that Christ did are not wri­ten, but hee saieth, those things are writen, which the writers thought sufficient both for maners and doctrine. Chrysostome writing vpon the 2. to Timothie. Homil. 9. saieth, If there be anie thing needefull, either to learne or to bee ignorant of, we shall learne it in the Scriptures: and in the commentary v­pon Matth. commonly also fathered vpon Chrysostome, wee read these golden words, They that be in Christianity, let them flee to the Scriptures, because they can haue no other proofe of Christi­anity, but by the Scriptures. To this end read also Chrysostome v­pon the 2 to the Thes. Hom. 3. Basil also very sharpely writeth, that it is a most euident argument of infidelity, and a most certaine signe of pride, if any man, either doe reiect any thing of that which is writen; or bring any thing not writen, seeing the Lord saieth, My sheepe heare my voice, and they follow not the voice of a strā ­ger: in his treatise of true and godly faith. Where also he noteth, that Paul Galat. 3. by an example taken from men, most vehemently forbiddeth, that any thing be put out of the scriptures of God, or (which God forbid, saith he) be added thereunto. And therefore he in Moral: Reg. 26. saieth further, Whatsoeuer we say or doe, it must be confirmed by the testimony of the Scriptures. Where likewise in his 80 rule he gathereth, that seeing faith commeth by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, without doubt what­soeuer is without the holy scripture, seeing it is not of faith, must needes be sinne: and therefore he addeth in that rule, let vs stand to the arbitriment of the scriptures, and with whom doctrine is founde consonant thereunto, let the sentence of all trueth bee adiudged of their sides. Hierome vpon Agge. cap. 1. saieth, those thinges which of their owne heades they deuise, as though they came by Apostolique tradition, without the authority and testi­monie of the holy Scripture, the sword of God striketh: who also [Page 81] vpon Math. cap. 23. saieth, that which hath not authority frō the scriptures, as easily is despised, as approued. And contra Heluidi­um he saieth, we beleeue it, because we reade it: and we beleeue it not, because we reade it not. August: against Cresconins the Grammarian in his 2. booke, writeth, That there is an Ecclesia­sticall canon ordained, whereunto belong the bookes of the Prophets and Apostles: by which bookes we iudge of all other writings, both of the faithfull, and of the Infidels: out of whom already wee haue heard diuerse plaine testimonies to this purpose, especially, that against Petilian in his 3. booke and 6. cap. set downe in the ende of the confutation of the 3. chap: Damascen is as plaine as any of these, in his 1 booke of right faith, cap. 1. Cuncta quae tradit a sunt &c. All thinges (saieth hee) which are deliuered vs by the Prophets, Apostles, and Euangelists, we embrace, wee ac­knowledge & reuerence, beyond those, seeking no further. For all things concerning faith and maners, he confesseth are plainelie conteined in the scriptures; de doct. Christ: lib. 2. cap. 9. Infinite such places might be cited, out of the ancient fathers (for they are full of them) whereby it sufficiently appeareth, that this was the v­niforme and generall iudgement and opinion of them, of the suffici­ency of the scriptures. If therefore in deede and trueth you made any reckoning of their generall consēt (as often times you will pre­tend) you would yeelde vnto them in this point, and so spare much labour, that you bestowe to get credit to your traditions vnwri­ten. Which if you would once be brought vnto, we should quickly by the sole and sufficient authority of the scriptures, haue a faire hand of you. Which you espying (whatsoeuer otherwise you would seeme to account of the fathers, to bleare the eies of the simple) in this they shall keepe their iudgement to themselues, for you like it not. So that this, and such your like dealing with them, caused one once to tell you, that the fathers are vnto you, as counters in the handes of him that casteth an account, according to whose will and pleasure, sometimes one and the selfesame counter stan­deth for an ob: that stoode immediately before for a pound or more. So w ^t you, when it pleaseth you, an ancient fathers testimony is of great weight, and when it pleaseth you againe, 20. of their te­stimonies are nothing. Howbeit, I hope, the indifferent reader by these testimonies doeth & will perceiue, that you wonderfully seeke to abuse Gods people, when yet you would perswade them at anie [Page 82] time, that the ancient fathers are fauourers, and patrons of your vnwriten traditions. And I trust, this may serue to make it suffici­ently appeare, that in the iudgement of these ancient fathers, your Andradius may be ashamed, to write as he hath scripto suo aedito tempore Tridentini cōcilii. That the greatest part of Catholicke Religion is left vnto the traditions of the church not writen: and that your Lyndan was extreame mad, or very drunke, when he wrote, It is most extreame madnes to thinke, that the whole and entire body of Euangelicall doctrine, is to be searched out of the Apostolique letters writen with inke, & out of the litle booke of the new testament. Panopl: lib. 1. cap. 22. But thus to make vn­writen traditions, sometime equall & sometime superiour in autho­rity to the canonical scripture, & that vpō this ground, that al trueth is not sufficiētly taught therein, you haue learned of the Encratites, Manichees, and of the Montanists, Valentinians, and others, as it appeares in them, that wrote against them.

And yet (O good God) what a stir now of late this Andradius, Lyndan & other such your great champions haue made, & what cost they haue bestowed, to drawe men from that estimation, that these fathers had of the authority and sufficiencie of the canonicall scrip­tures, in making large treatises and discourses to shew, that the au­thority therof depends of the testimony and authority of the church that they are not sufficient, no not halfe sufficient for the direction of the church, either for Religion or conuersation; and that they are obscure & hard to be vnderstoode, & all vpon this occasion, that will they, nil they, they are driuen to perceaue, that their opinions where­in we differ from them, cannot any longer bee defended by the scrip­tures, for al their sophistrie & cunning; and that therefore they see they must maintaine the credit of thē by the authority of the church & her vnwriten traditions, which they may say to be what they lift, or that else they must be driuen to throw vs the bucklers, and to run out of the field. But you doe fouly deceiue your selues, if you thinke in this great light, that men espy not, that this is a shamefull shift, and which argueth that your cause is euen giuing vp the ghost, that you cā hold out no longer, vnles it be, by preferring the authority of the church the wife, before Christ the husband; & by giuing her your commission to sit as iudge ouer her husbands word, & to adde there unto, and take therefrom; how & what seemeth good vnto her. And your fault herein is the more intollerable, because by the church you [Page 83] vnderstand alwaies your popish Synagogue that now is. For euen children, may see, that you are very farre driuen, when there is no other remedy, but you must thus open your mouthes, and pre­pare your pens, to disgrace his writen word (which all mē know to be his word indeed without question) for the gracing & countenan­cing in this sort of that, w ^c though you call his worde, you are neuer able to proue to be so. And for this who seeth not that we may iustly say of you, as Tertull: Apolog. 5. saied of the heathen in his time. A­pud vos de humano arbitratu pensitatur diuinitas, nisi homini Deus placuerit, Deus non erit; homo iā Deo propitius esse debe­bit, that is, with you the godhead is esteemed of, as man shall thinke good; vnles God please man, he shall not be God, man now must be good to God. Howsoeuer you are ashamed, thus grosly w ^t these pro­phane pagans to speake, yet it is euident in that you still say & write, that the writen word of God is inferiour in authority to the church, & hath the canonical credit from thence, & that the sence thereof is & must be, whatsoeuer your Bishop of Rome for the time being doeth define & determine so to be, relying stil vpon vnwriten traditions, & bearing men in hand, that they are as well the word of God as the canonical scriptures, as you doe, al mē whō your enchantmēts haue not bewitched & made blind, may see, that in effect you are as grosse, as they of whom these words were truely writen. This once we knowe to be his word, which wee finde set downe in the Canonicall scriptures, & we are sure this was writen by the direction of Gods Spirit, for the information of the Church. And we cannot be ig­norant; but that this Spirit of God foresawe, what dangerous he­retiques there would bee, which (if they were not preuented by lea­uing the word of God fully in writing) vnder the pretence of vn­writen traditions, would bring in damnable heresies. And therefore seeing it is euident vnto vs, that he in these writings, begā to leaue instruction vnto vs, to settle vs in the certaine trueth, & we know he could go thorow with it, because he is God & the fountain & authour of all wisedome & trueth; & are sure that he was willing, because he perfectly loued the church, & by Christs promise, by the ministry of y ^e Apostles was to leade it into al trueth: we must needes thinke it flat blasphemy, to think, y ^t the writē word of God is any way vnsufficiēt for the full direction of the Church in all matters. And therefore howsoeuer you please your Sects in this deuise of yours, in feigh­ting thus for the traditions of the Church, thinke not to the contra­rie, [Page 84] but any man of meane iudgement will discrie both your v [...] tie and impiety therein, by making this reason in his owne minde vnto himselfe; The spirit of God, in the writers of the Scriptures, sawe it good and necessary, to leaue the worde of God for the full direction of the Church in all matters, writen: by that is done and writen, it is cleare hee tooke it in hand; and to take it in hand, and not to perfect it, is to leaue the Church without a perfect touchstone, to trie all doctrines by, and argueth that it was either because hee could not, or would not perfect it: whereof the one, robbeth him of his almighty power, and infinite knowledge; the other of the perfection of loue and faithfulnesse towards the church [...] therefore most certainely in the writen worde, there is left a full and perfect direction for the Church: and consequently those vn­writen traditions, that some striue for, are superfluous. Thus you haue your answere to this Chapter.

The VI. Chapter.

IN this 6. Chapter, you cite three places though some of them wrōg quoted out of Augustine, whereby indeed it appeareth, that as Irenaeus did obiect succession, euen so did he, to confute the here­tiques of his time: that taught things contrary to the scriptures; but as I haue saied vnto you, concerning Irenaeus, so doe I concerning him. You must remēber, that Augustine liued & wrote within 400. yeares after Christ: vnto whose time the Bishops & pastours whose succession he produceth, had continued at least, sound in the funda­mentall pointes of Christian Religion: from which you & your pre­decessours fell away long ago, & therefore that which he might here­in safely and to good purpose doe, you cannot doe without perill, & to an ill ende. Againe you must be told, that as Irenaeus was not, so neither was he in thus doing a Prophet, to shew that to the worldes ende, it would be safe thus to doe. And lastly, I would haue both you and your reader to remember, that it is not bare personal succession, that Augustine here maketh such reckoning of, but that whē it was ioyned also with succession of trueth of doctrine, as it was in his time with them, of whose successiō he speaketh, and is not now with you, and them, of whose succession you brag so much Which three things considered, whatsoeuer things further by you, or any of your fellowes are alleadged to this purpose out of Tertulliā, Cyprian, or Epiphanius (which you might haue as well alleadged, as Irenaeus or Augustine) be answered. For they all of them liued within 500. yeares after Christ, when as yet the state of the church stood in good tearmes, in comparison that yours doeth: and they all spoke of suc­cession of persons, succeeding also one another in the Apostolicke trueth, and they spake but for their owne times: they prophecied not that so it would be alwaies. And yet thus it is your fashiō, to beguile the simple, that whatsoeuer you reade 1000. yeares ago spoken in commendation of the Church of Rome, that then was the Catho­licke church, or Catholicke faith, y ^t you would beare them in hand, is spoken of your Romish church and Religion now, when as yours [Page 86] compared with those times, hath no similitude with the Church of Christ then, in a great number of weighty points. But for the bet­ter satisfying of the reader, indeede S. August: (what account so­euer either in these places here recited by you, or else where hee see­meth to make of personall succession, or of any such outward thing in the church) made more account of sole trueth, taught only by the canonical Scriptures; then of all other things besides. For euen in in his 165. epistle, which is the epistle (as it should seeme) which you meant, though you quote the 365. which is more by an hundred & one then there are in all: after, he saieth, we presume not so much of these, as of the scriptures. And in the second place, by you here ci­ted out of him (which ignorātly you say he calleth Epistola funda­mēti, wheras he calleth none of his epistles so, but writes against an epistle of the Manichees which they so called, one book) in the later ende of the fourth Chapter whereof, after hee had reckoned vp the thinges which did hold him in the bosome of the Catholicke church, and might likewise hold any beleeuer therein, though trueth as yet did not most manifestly shew her selfe, he addeth by & by, but w ^t you (speaking to the Manichees) sola personat veritatis pollicitatio &c. onely promise of trueth rings; which truely if it bee shewed to bee on your side, so manifest, that it cannot be called into doubt, praeponenda est omnibus illis rebus, quibus in Catholicâ teneor, that is, is to bee preferred before all those thinges, whereby other­wise I am held in the Catholicke Church. The third place like­wise, which you alleadge here out of Augustine (as you haue quo­ted it) serueth onely to bewray either your grosse ignorance or neg­ligence. For I finde he wrote 2. bookes against the aduersarie of the lawe and the Prophets, but none in all his tomes can I finde fathered vpon him, writen, as you say, against the aduersarie of the olde and new lawe: and if you meant the former, there being two bookes of that title, and euery one consisting of many Chapters, why speake you thereof as though he had writen but one, and name not the Chapter: when you tell vs where to finde the place, you shall be more particulerly answered thereunto. In the meane time, you see in Augustines iudgement in the two other places, y ^t the trueth taught in the canonical scriptures, is to be preferred before all other motiues to keepe a man in the true Catholique Church: contrarie whereunto I am sure hee neither teacheth where you meane, nor any where else. You should therefore in his opinion farre better be­stowe [Page 87] your time then you doe, if you would bestow it in prouing by the scriptures, that you & your Church were stable in this trueth: especially seeing trueth it selfe, euen here hath enforced you to con­fesse, that that stablenes is atteined vnto, by the knowledge and in­telligence of the scriptures. But you adde, y ^t these scriptures thē must be vnderstoode according to the traditions of the church, and the suc­cession of the Apostles and Bishops. If by the church you did vnder­stande (as you should) the true and pure church of Christ, and by her traditions and Bishops, such as were sound, that is, such as are truely iustifiable by the canonicall scriptures, as the ancient fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian & Augustine, with others of those, and former times were woont to vnderstād them, as I haue shewed be­fore, when to stop the mouthes of heretiques they did appeale to thē; then wee would most willingly ioyne w ^t you that issue, by y ^e scrip­tures so vnderstoode, to trie whether you or we haue attained to the stablenes of trueth. But vnderstāding therby, as you doe, your Ro­mish church for these last 500. or 600. yeares, & her traditions & Bi­shops: we say and sure we are, we are able to proue it, y ^t so far of is it, that the scriptures are to be vnderstoode according to thē, that there is no readier way to misunderstand them, and to make them to haue a mutable and flexible sence, now one way now another, then to make them (they being so contrary as they be to the ancient & sound traditions of Christs church, which alwaies were consonant (if not the very same) to y ^t is taught in the word writen; & the Bishops you meane, being likewise so different from them, that were in the pri­matiue church, and oftē also so varying amōgst themselues, as they are in the interpreting of them) to be the rules of right vnderstan­ding of thē. Finally if you had any forhead or conscience, you would be ashamed so to abuse your poore simple reader as you do, in going about to make him beleeue: that because Augustine could or did say that the church had continued in it, frō the Apostles times, through the succession of Bishops, to his: that therefore hee saied it had so to ours, there being aboue 1000. yeares difference.

The VII. Chapter.

WHither onely your succession doeth suffice to ouerthrow all our Religion, or any part of it (though you here confident­ly say it is, and suppose that to be the cause, why we reiect it) I refer to y ^e iudgement of the reader, by that which hitherto hath beene saied by you, and confuted by me concerning the same. Whereby also, I doubt not, but euery indifferent reader may perceiue, that we haue and doe still yeelde other causes of our reiection of it, and not this at all. Whereas you call our Religion here heresie, that you haue learned of the corrupt Orator Tertullus, Act. 24. But as he tear­meth poore Paul there, a captaine of the Sect, or heresie of the Na­zarites, and the high Priest and elders saied, it was euen so: yet hee was not ashamed of the Gospell of Christ, which they so tearmed, but stoutly saied before Felix to their faces, that according to that way which they counted heresie, he worshipped the God of his [Page 90] fathers, beleeuing all that was writē in the law & the Prophets: so, though you giue vs neuer so many nicknames, and tearme our Religion neuer so oft new, and an heresie, and haue your high Priest of Rome and your elders to bear you out in so doing, we ne­uer a whit the more mislike of our Religion, as long as wee are able in trueth to say with Saint Paul (which our consciences wit­nesse, comfortably we may) that therein we doe but beleeue, that which is taught vs in the canonicall Scriptures. Indeede not Cal­uin only, but euery one of vs, when we haue to doe with you, in this question of your succession, we tell you your reason drawen frō your succession, is of no force, seeing the Greekes (whom you account heretiques) may vse that argument, as well as you. But to preuent this our obiection against your argument of succession, you say, They haue not succession and continuance of doctrine, the which ought euer to be ioyned to the continuāce of pastors, to shew the true recognisance of the Catholique Religion. We are glad to see & heare, that euidence & force of trueth hath wrong frō you this kinde of honest & true replie to our obiection: yet we thanke you not for it at all. For ful gladly (if our obiections had not driuen you to it perforce) would you haue run on w ^c bare succession of Bi­shops & pastours, without any mention of this. Well, howsoeuer you haue beene drawen to confesse thus much, thereupon it doeth most euidently followe, that if there be as little continuance & lesse too in the Apostolicke faith, and doctrine in your succession, as there is a­mongst y ^e Greekes; then by your owne confession, your succession is as weake a recognisance of the Catholique Religion, as theirs. And therefore the case thus standing, you had neede to haue bestowed lesse paines to proue your personall succession, and more to haue proued this succession and continuance of the true Catholicke doctrine: for the other w ^tout this, you see is nothing. What a preposterous course is this then, that you, haue takē, to take such leasure to bestow pains on that, which when you haue gotten is nothing, & to find no leasure to bestow any paines on this, which if you could haue proued, your aduersaries would haue stoode w ^t you no longer? Enter yet into this controuersie, when you will, & I dare vndertake, if you will be tried in this case, by the canonicall scriptures (which as I haue shewed, you must of necessity) it shall easily be proued, that (notwithstanding all you can say against the Greekes) your popish Religion consisteth of more heresies, and is a greater Apostasie from the ancient Catho­lique, [Page 91] Apostolique faith, then theirs. The greatest thing you charge thē withall is, their denying of the proceeding of the holy ghost from y ^e Father & the Sonne: which indeede, if they denied in that sence y ^t is obiected against them by you, doubtles therin they were heretiques. But it should seeme, y ^t they refuse only that word, as not vnderstood of thē, & added (as they say) without the consent of the whole church to the creede, of feare onely, least by admitting y ^e word, they should thereby be enforced to cōfesse, y ^t he came not of one beginning, but of two beginnings: in the meane time vsing other words, expressing in effect y ^e same thing. And if it be thus (as in the last session of the Flo­rētine councell it should seeme to be, & els where) thē in that respect, their cause is not so ill, as you would make it. But be it (though you only say both, & proue neither of thē against thē) y ^t they held it in the worst sence now stil, & that also (as you say) in certaine other smal­ler things, they hold otherwise, then was held by Chrysostom, Cy­rill, Basil, & Athanasius: yet I say, & will stād vnto it, y ^t as dāgerous heresies, & mo in nūber be held of your own cōpany, against the truth of Christs person & office, thē they hold in all: & in far more & greater points of weight, are you gone frō the ancient fathers, y ^t haue beene in the latin church, w ^tin the first 600. yeares, thē they haue done frō theirs. And therefore in the meane time, whiles you will ioyne this issue w ^t vs, & vntil you haue disproued this my assertiō, by y ^e same reason you reiect their succession, will we perseuere in reiecting yours.

Now whereas you secondly imagine, that we labour to weakē & ouerthrow the force of your argument taken from succession, by lai­ [...]ng out the lewde liues & negligence in doing of their duties in ma­ny of those pastours & Bishops, of whose succession you boast: true it is, that prouoked by your too too great brags of your personall suc­cession, & by your immoderate railing against some of our pastours and ministers, whom yet you cannot staine, but with false and mali­ciously deuised tales, sometimes some of vs haue beene occasioned, to cast your owne dunge into your faces. And we being able, as wee are, euen out of your owne stories, so iustly to lay such a number of most notorious thinges to the charge of verie many of your grea­test Prelates, and the matter being notorious, that fewe or none of your Popes and Archprelates euer take it vpon them, by preaching to feede Gods people (which is the principall duety of a Bishop) we thinke still, that that which we say and obiect against you in this be­halfe, may iustly cause you to be ashamed of such fathers, & so to cease [Page 90] [...] [Page 91] [...] [Page 90] [...] [Page 91] [...] [Page 29] both your bragge of succeeding them, & your railing against vs. To disproue the force of this our allegation, you dispute the matter, as though we went about to proue that the succession of trueth hath ceased in the Church, because we thus obiect against the persons of many of your predecessours: whereas we most constantly holde & beleeue, that it hath alwaies continued, and that (though you grow ten times worse, then any that hath beene before you) it shall stil, vn­to the worldes ende. But withall we tell you, it hath beene conti­nued by others, and not by those wicked and negligent pastours and predecessours of yours, that we speake against. For as their liues were deuilish, so was their doctrine Antichristian, as yours their childrens is. Too too foolish therefore is it that you write, that wee doe no lesse offende God in laying forth the liues of sundry of your Popes, thinking thereby to ouerthrow the succession of the catholique Ecclesiasticall faith; then if one should go about to ouerthrow the promise of Christ to the Patriarches, because of the bad liues of diuerse of their successours. For we holde, that the Succession of the Catholique faith, hath continued, and will to ve­rify that promise of Christ. Matthew. 16. though neuer so many of your popes go to the deuil. Neither did we euer in laying forth their most filthy liues, thinke thereby to ouerthrow the Succession of faith: for we neuer tooke them to haue any society or coniunction with it, since they became such. But you still (according to your old woont) taking it for giuen, which shal neuer be offred you, that their personall succession, and the catholique trueth went alwaies to­gither, which we doe most earnestly deny, imagined that wee could not speake against the one, but that therein also, we sought to ouer­throw the other: when as we are perswaded, that of al other persons vnder heauen, your Popes for this long time haue beene Sathans most forcible meanes, to ouerthrow both the Apostolique trueth, and Catholique Church. Wherefore you see, you might wel haue spared your paynes in the greatest part of this Chapter: and so let any, that hath witte, iudge, whither it be not great folly for any man to be so simple, as to seeke to be the childe of such fathers, as neither had ho­nestie, nor any soundnesse of religion, as many of your Popes, for a­ny thing that you haue yet saied to the contrary, haue beene, whose children yet (how bad soeuer) you would haue men to be.

The VIII. Chapter.

THat which is further alleadged in this Chapter to proue, that Scribes and Pharisies must be heard and obeyed, sitting in Moises chaire, notwithstanding their ill liues, doeth nothing at all serue to proue, that your lewd Popes were to be heard and obeyed. For to sit in Moises chaire, is not (as you imagine) to succeed him in place or office, but in teaching the trueth, as he did; and so your wic­ked Popes, that we speake against, neuer sate in Moises chaire, nor in the Chaire of any Apostle, or Apostolique man: but in the Chaire & seate (in respect of their doctrine) of the whore of Babylō. But by that you afterwards remember of Caiphas & Balaams prophecies, it should seeme you were of opinion, that to preach and to holde the trueth, is inseperable from your Popes Chaire and office: and that therefore it may not be imagined, but that, how lewd soeuer they were, they could not but prophecy, & teach the trueth, because these in the places by you mentioned (notwithstanding they were lewde men) did. Indeed very fitly might your Popes these many yeares be cōpared vnto these two, they resemble the one so fitly, in crucifying Christ againe in his mēbers: and y ^e other, in seeking to curse the peo­ple of God for filthy lucre. But that vpon these particuler facts of theirs it should follow (as therupon you would seeme to infer) that least the Harmony of the misticall body of Christ should be bro­kē, God alwaies hath guided y ^e mouthes of your Popes so, that they could not erre in iudgement, I see no reason at al. For out of particuler facts rare & vncertaine, you cōclude a general and constant rule. Doeth it folow, thinke you, Pilates wife learned by her dreame, that Christ was innocēt: therfore womēs dreams are alwaies true? Da­niel a young childe found out the vnrighteous iudgement of the iudges: therefore young children alwaies shall be able to doe the like? Or to cōe to your own exāples, doth it follow, that because Cai­phas, & Balaā, prophecied right, therfore neither they themselues at other times could erre, nor any of that office? The Scripture testi­fieth y ^e cōtrary. For y ^e same Caiphas iudicially pronoūced our saui­our to be a blasphemer, Mat. 26. & Paul. Act. 23. chargeth Ananias, [Page 95] sitting there iudicially as hie priest (as he had iust cause) to giue iudgmēt cōtrary to y ^e law, in cōmāding him to be smittē. And howsoeuer Balaā the false prophet, prophecied there wel, it is euident by y ^e text, that it was sore against his will, and that it came to passe by Gods especial power, in guiding & bridling his tongue. And yet it appea­reth after, that the same Balaā by his wicked counsaile was cause of that trespasse cōcerning Peor. Nūb. 31. and you may read. 1. King. 22. that 400. false prophets prophecied vntruly to Ahab. I doubt not but God, when it pleaseth him, can cause your Popes, as he caused these (how wicked soeuer) to speake the trueth. For Iudas, after he had betrayed his master, yet before he hanged himselfe, iustified his master: and the Deuils thēselues oftentimes in the Gospel acknow­ledge Christ aright to be the son of God: but thereupon it followeth not, because he can doe it, that therefore he wil do it, & alwaies hath: nay rather that which is prophesied 2. Thess. 2. is verified in your Popes, because they receiued not the loue of the trueth, there­fore God sent thē strong delusiōs, that they should beleeue lies: for according to this faith, they haue spoken.

O what horrible & intollerable blasphemy did your hart cōceiue, & your pen (to your perpetual infamy) vtter, when vpon occasion of Caiphas prophecy, vttered by him, either not woting what he saied, or rather (as Cyril in his 8. booke vpō Iohn, Chap. 3. noteth) hauing a malitious purpose thereby to persuade the Iews, that it was ex­pedient to put Christ to death, least the whole nation should bee destroied by the Romans: you doe set downe these words, that Christ did confirme his pontificate with the gifte of prophecy, with the which hee was as fully inspired, as Dauid, Esay, or any of the rest? O what iniury in these wordes haue you done to those holy prophets, and to the Spirit of God in them, as thus to match them with this cursed hell-hounde? Wee must holde, that they were indued with the Spirit in such measure, as that in their writings and sayings wee must be sure, they did not erre, or els the ground of our faith (which is their writinges) is shaken: whereas this wretch euen the same yeare (as I haue shewed you) pronounced Christ to bee a blasphemer: and therefore most deuilishly erred. And indeede hee was wholy de­stitute of the Spirit of God, not onely then, but euen in this al­so: for (as I noted before out of Cyrill) he, in vttering of those words, had a deuilish meaning and intent, though God by his secret [Page 69] power so ordered his speech, as that his wordes might also cary this sence, that it was expedient that Christ should die for the saluati­on of man, as there also the same Cyrill obserueth. And therefore for this he is no more to be saied, to haue had the Spirit of trueth to direct him, then you may say, the deuils and Iudas had, that I spoke of before. Why then doeth S. Iohn vpon these wordes of his giue this note, that he was high Priest that yeare? because it pleased God so to tēper his wordes (vnware to him) that whereas he spake to hasten the death of our sauiour, his word sounded, that the peo­ple should vtterly perish without the death of Christ: which was most true, but not his meaning. By this monstrous comparison of yours, we may learne, that it is no marueile that you that durst make this beastly comparison, dare compare your pastours and Bi­shops (how wicked soeuer both for life, and iudgement in Religion) w ^c the ancient true pastours of Christs Church. Yet hereby you haue taught vs to trust your lofty and swelling comparisons, the worse as long as we liue. You striue with your owne shadow in labou­ring to proue, that the effect or fruite of the ministry of the word and sacraments, dependeth not vpon the life of the minister. For it is a thing that we holde, teach, and preach as much as you. You doe therfore but abuse your reader, in going about to make him beleeue that we reiect your Bishops onely for their lewde liues: whereas the thing especially that we condemne both you and them for, is your Antichristian doctrine. It is well, that when you haue saied what you can for your line of Popes, yet the consideration of the oft interruptiōs of their succession by schismes, and otherwise, you are glad in the ende to giue vs this note, that when you talke of suc­cession of Bishops and pastours, you meane not onely them, but all other Bishops and pastours of your Church, in whom the suc­cession hath beene continued, whensoeuer it was interrupted in the other. For hereby in effect you doe acknowledge, that you meane not, nor thinke it wisedome, to leane too much to the successiō of them, least they let your building fall. Wherein I preferre you yet before Stapleton, in that herein the trueth of the manifold inter­ruptions of their succession seemeth to haue preuailed more with you, then with him. For he writing against Doctor Fulke of this matter of succession, though hee saieth hee will not holde succession in the same places, and sees to haue continued generally, yet in this particuler line of Popes onely, hee thinketh that safely [Page 97] he may. You are also to be commended for acknowledging dissen­tions to haue beene betwixt your Popes, and Antipopes themselues, and in leauing them without defēce for their lewd liues, am­bition, and negligence, euen to answere for themselues. For indeede as it cannot be denied, but that these thinges most monstrously haue beene found in very many of them, so you could not haue had any ho­nesty in smothing of their faults. Yet you go some thing to far in say­ing, that their dissentiōs were not preiudiciall to the vnity of faith, held before. For how could it be, that one part of the world ioyning with the Pope, the rest with his Antipope, or Antipopes (it being an article now of your Catholique faith, Boniface 8. de maioritate & obed. Cap. 1. vnder paine of damnation to be beleeued, that al soules must submit themselues to your Pope, as to the Supreame head of the Church) but that these for many yeares togither banning & cursing each others faction, thereby the vnity of faith was not onlie troubled, but maruellously broken.

The IX. Chapter.

NOw perswading your selfe, that you haue yeelded vs a suffici­ent account of your ministrie, when as onely you haue counte­nanced it with a shew of personall succession, and a bare bragge without any proofe at all of succession also in the Apostolique trueth (as it may appeare by that which hath beene sayed) you call vs to a reckoning for ours, and will vs to shew, that God is the authour of it, or else to giue you leaue to say, it commeth from his aduersary. We answere you, that our calling is of God; first, because orderly, according to the order of the Church, wherein wee liue, wee are by them that are deputed by the Church for that busines, tried and examined, and then with imposition of handes, and speciall prayer vnto God, fitte for that purpose, admitted and ordained ministers of his worde, and Sacramentes. Se­condly, because our office of the ministery it selfe is the same that Christ gaue vnto his Church, vnder the names of pastours and Doctours, whose office and properties are set downe and descri­bed. Actes. 20. 2. Corinthians. 4. 1. Timothy. 3. Titus. 1. 1. Pe­ter. 5. And thirdly, because we are able to proue by the writen word, that we feede Gods people committed vnto vs with that one­ly foode, which God hath allowed for his children, and minister the Sacraments according to Christes institution. Lastly, God himselfe hath sealed & ratified our ministery to be of him, in the effec­tual vocatiō & conuersiō of many thereby. Let vs now therfore heare [Page 98] [...] [Page 99] [...] [Page 100] what you can say, either to weaken this our assertion, that our cal­ling is of God, or any of these reasons, that we vse to proue the same by. First in Tertullians words de Praescrip. aduersus haereticos, you bid vs shew the beginning of our Churches, and reckon vp the suc­cession of bishops down to vs from the beginning &c. you haue heard that the same Tertullian in the very same place, yea euen in the words immediately following yours, addeth, Be it that heretiques deuise thus to doe, for what is not lawfull for them, being once fallen into blasphemy? But though they shal deuise so (sayeth he) they shall gaine nothing. For their doctrine compared with the Apostolique doctrine, by the diuersity and contrariety thereof, will pronounce that their Churches haue neither Apostle, nor A­postolique man for the authour thereof. Whereof when he had giuen a reason, he addeth, that those Churches, which cānot shew any Apostle, or Apostolique man to be the founder thereof, in that they were founded long after, as many are yet, in eâdem fi­de conspirantes non minus Apostolicae de putantur pro consan­guinitate doctrinae: that is, they are no lesse to be reputed for Apo­stolique agreeing with them in the same faith, euen for the affinitie therof. You thought it good to stop before you came to these words. For these words indeede take away all the force of y ^e obiectiō groū ­ded vpon the former, in that hereby it is euident, that howsoeuer Tertullian in his time could shew the originall of the Catholique Church, by deducing it, and the doctrine therein professed, euen from the Apostles to his time; yet hee thought it was possible for here­tiques to make shew of the like succession of persons; but secondly and especially, because thereby it is most cleare, that to proue a Church to be Apostolick, it is not necessary for it alwaies to be able, to deduce such a line of personal succession down from the Apostles, but it is sufficient to be able to make it appeare, that the doctrine thereof agreeth with the doctrine of the Apostles. Which vnles we be able to doe by the Scriptures (whereby we most cartainly may know, what their doctrine was) let not our Churches be accounted Apostolique. But if this we be able to doe (which we doubt not of) and yours compared and conferred with the Apostolique doctrine therein expressed, shall proue both diuers and contrary; then for all your fiction of succession, we say vnto you in Tertullians worde, that so your Churches shall be proued to be founded neither by Apostle, nor Apostolique man. For as the Apostles taught not contraries a­mongst [Page 101] thēselues, so neither did the Apostolique men (saieth he) vn­lesse it were they, that departed from the Apostles: and ours shall proue themselues (though they were not able to deduce their Suc­cession from the Apostles) by their affinity of doctrine, with that of the Apostles, to be Apostolique; and so to haue their originall and be­ginning from Sion: and so also in the end it will fall out, that Ter­tullian spoke rather against such as you are, thē against vs. And thus you see Tertullian hath sufficiently answered himselfe, and al­so, hath giuen vs weapons against you, & to defend our selues with­all. You gaine euen as little by your similitude taken from te­nants, who to proue their title good, must shew their Land-lordes, how by succession they came to their landes. For if all Land-lords should thrust all their tenants from their possessions, which are not able to deduce the descent of their tenimēts frō one to one, euen frō the first that held it, & purchased it; the 10 tenant in the world should not long quietly enioy his owne. Yet you for your parts (if your bare bragge were a proofe) are such tenāts to the inheritance of y ^e church of Christ, and the Catholique trueth, that you haue not onely proued your title thereunto to be good, by shewing by al lineal succession, how you came to it from Christ, & his Apostles; but thereby also you haue quite ouerthrown our claime. This is easily saied, & wel brag­ged of you, but it is more, then either you can or meane to proue. O yes, saie you, we can, as it were, going vp vpon the ladder of Iacob mount from step to step, vntil in the top we come to those that first taught the Catholique faith in Tholossa, Paris, and Guien­na, as to S. Saturim, Denice, Martiall, and Gratian, and to the rest of the Saints. It may be these were Saints, you speake of (and yet you haue not shewed vs that) yea, it may be also you can frō age to age, euen frō that time to ours, now, name vs the persons, that haue succeeded one another, from those men you speake of: but you shal ne­uer be able to proue, that all these persons, which haue succeeded, haue continued in the sound Apostolique faith, and so haue deriued it down frō the first to you that be the last: which vnles you proue, this climing vpō this ladder you talke of, wil doe you smal pleasure. But you are so confidently perswaded, that the religion, that you are in possession of now, is the very same, that was taught the Church of Christ in the beginning, that you denounce him anathema, be hee man or angell, that preacheth against it. Yet this is no proofe, that it is the very same. For you may be deceiued: and if God would [Page 102] giue you grace to read, and rightly to vnderstand the Scriptures, sure I am, that euen in thus saying, you would finde, that you haue as far, as your authority reacheth, cursed and excommunicated your own selues, & your whole Church. So far of are we (though it please you stil to cal our religion a new Gospel) from being afraid to ioine w ^t you in anathematizing them, that preach any other Gospell, then Christ and his Apostles preached at the first, that withal our hearts we say Amen thereunto. And therefore for all your supposed new­nes of our religion, we wish with all our hearts, according to Iohns counsell 1. Epist. 2. that that might abide which wee haue heard from the beginning We thinke Tertullian saieth most truely, that cōmeth from the Lord, & is true, that is first deliuered; & that is strange and false, which is brought in after. De praescrip. aduersus haereticos. Wherfore we say also most willingly with him in an o­ther place, in his 4 booke against Marcion: Id est verius, quod est prius: &c. That is truer, that is former: that is former, that is from the beginning: and that is from the beginning, which is from the A­postles. But then we conclude with him, De praescriptione aduer­sus haereticos; Vndè autem extranei & inimici Apostolis hae­retici, nisi ex diuersitate doctrinae &c. How are strangers and enemies to the Apostles knowen, but by the diuersitie of doc­trine, which euery one of his owne minde, hath brough forth and receiued against the Apostles: therefore let deprauation of Scrip­tures, and their exposition be accounted to bee, where the diuersi­tie of doctrine is founde: hitherto Tertullian, and wee with him; and therefore doe not charge vs any more with newnesse, nor make your bragges anie more (to deceiue the simple) of an­tiquity, vnlesse by the Scriptures (wherein the simpliest knowe the Apostolique doctrine is contained indeede) you can proue your doctrin to agree with theirs, and ours to disagree. For you may not thinke, that you can cause them, that haue any witte or discretion at al left them, to beleeue that your doctrine is the same, y ^t was taught at the first by the Apostles, because you can say so, or because you can tel them, their father, grandfather, and great grandfather tooke it so: as long as they see, you are loath to come to the triall with the learned, whither it be so, or no, by Gods writen word. Euen here­in thundering out your Anathema (though you would seeme there­in stout and resolute in your religion) yet if your words be wel marked, it may euidently be perceiued, that like a dastard you shunne the [Page 103] trial of your doctrine by the writen word. For you say, If any body come to teach vs any other doctrine, then that which hath beene taught vs at the beginning, I do not say, writen in booke (no, take heed o [...] y ^t but printed in our harts, let him be Anathema &c. wher­by you bewray your minde, namely to be this, that when it shal come in trial, what that religiō is, that was preached at the beginning, you would not haue the Canonical books of the old and new Testament to determine the matter, but that which was then writen in mens hearts, whereby you meane your vnwriten traditions. But I pray you, how shal we know what was writen in mens hearts, by the mi­nistry of the Apostles better, or more safely; then by that which they wrote? Especially seing (as Irenaeus hath tolde vs) that which they preached at the first, after by the wil of God, they committed vnto writing, to be the foūdation, & piller of our faith: in his 3 booke Chap. 1. As for your vnwriten word (to speake most moderately) you knowe the credit thereof is suspected: and certaine it is, it must agree with the word writen: for God is one and selfesame both in writing and speaking: or els worthily may it not be suspected onely, but flatly also reiected, as a false and counterfait word: which but that you know it doeth not, you would without any such correc­tion or explanation of your meaning haue saied simply, y ^t you would haue him held Anathema, that preacheth any other doctrine, thē that w ^c is writen in the books of the scripture. But your owne conscience telling you, y ^t yours was another doctrin, then had warrāt fro thēce before the curse should drop out of your pen, you thought it wisdome (least in your own knowledge you should haue cursed you selues) to tel vs that you directed your sentence, not against those, that teach a­nother doctrine, then those bookes wil warrāt (for of such you allow well enough, or else you should disallowe your selues) but against those that teach another doctrine from that which was writen in our harts: so leauing to your selues liberty, to make the poore people beleeue, that that was whatsoeuer you would deuise.

O this is too too grosse & paltry dealing in matters y ^t so much con­cerne y ^e souls of mē, as this doth, especially in this so great light, that shineth now euery where amongst vs. As for your liues, & the liues of your pastors and great bishops (though they be such as worthily you may be ashamed of) yet if they had continued in the profession of the trueth, therein we would haue held (for al the other) communion w ^t them. But seing their liues haue bene such a long time, as there were [Page 104] neuer worse in Sodom, nor any where els (witnes your own stories Benno Cardin: Platina, Sabellicus, Abbas Vsperg: and others) but especially their doctrine hath bene directly contrary in a multitude of most material points of Christian religion, to the doctrine taught vs in the Scripture (as I shew in diuers places of this booke) wee haue (as we are counselled Apocal. 18.) seperated our selues frō you and them, least by holding society with you in these your sinnes, we should in the iustice of God haue beene driuen also in the end to bee partakers with you in your plagues. And therefore to conclude this chapter, though you bragge, that you haue two things to quiet your consciences withal, that you beleeue a doctrine, that your pastours & the vniuersal Church haue taught you 1500. years; and that their ill liues cannot hurt you: yet in deede and trueth you haue neither of both: for your ill liues being ioyned with ill doctrine hath bereaued you of both: & so you haue had nether the vniuersal Church of Christ, but a particuler Synagogue of your own: nor any sound or good pastour either for life or religion, these 600, or 700 yeares to teach you your faith.

The X. Chapter.

IN that by the Scriptures we are able to iustifie our doctrine, and therfore diuerse times haue called vpon you to come to that trial, [Page 106] and yet cannot by any means bring you vnto it, & that we are sure, that that doctrine therein warranted, hath alwaies by God by the meanes he hath appointed for that purpose, beene preserued and con­tinued in his Church. You returning now againe to take accounts of vs, how we haue followed the flocke of Christs sheep that wēt before vs, & fed by the tents of his shepheards, are answered. And yet for your better and more plaine satisfying, who hath taught vs the way that we follow, & who were the Doctours, that were ou [...] first tutors, we answere you, that Christ, his Apostles, & Euāgelists in the new Testament were our first tutors, & since them in the prin­cipal points of our religion, the aucient Fathers, whose names and monumēts are knowen vnto the Church, that liued for 1000. years after Christ, & those that I named vnto you before in my answer to your 4 Chapter. But particulerly you would know of vs, who hath taught vs to deny the reall presence of Christs body in the Sacra­ment of the altar? Here I suppose, you meane by real presence that real presence, which is in this case now taught, and receiued in your Church, vnder the formes of bread and wine, to the mouthes of al re­ceiuers, be they faithful or faithlesse: for otherwise none of vs doe de­ny a true and most certaine presence of Christ to the faith of the right receiuer. This thē being your meaning, we do not onely (as you suppose) answere you, that we haue learned of Christ & his Apostles to deny it, but also of al y ^e anciēt writers of credit, & accoūt in y ^e Church for 700, or 800, years togither, & since we haue bene cōtinued in the same by Bertrā, and others before named, and their followers, as we haue made it most euident in many bookes writē to that purpose, & namely of late in a great booke called Orthodoxus cōsēsus, the true catholick cōsent of y ^e holy Scriptures & ancient Church, of y ^e trueth of y ^e words of the Lords supper, and of al the cōtrouersie thereabout, printed at Tygure 1578: which booke al y ^e swarme of you wil neuer be soūdly able to answere & cōfute as long as you liue. And therfore al the rest of this Chapter is needles, wherein you suppose, y ^t betwixt Christ and his Apostles, and vs, there is none y ^t we cā produce of our iudgemēt, or otherwise against you. But you take vpō you to proue, y ^t we cut of thē al, that haue bene betweene thē & vs, because Caluin hath writē (hādling this matter of the sacrament) that he did find, that they of old time had chāged the fashiō of the administratiō therof otherwise, thē Christs institutiō would beare &c. wheru [...]ō your cōclusion followeth not, for diuers causes. For an argumēt frō [Page 107] one to al holdeth not: as Caluin hath done so; ergo it is all out opi­on, & we al do so. For though we accoūt of him as of a rare & singuler minister of the Lord, yet wee doe not binde our selues to doe and say whatsoeuer he did, and saied. For we know him to haue beene a man subiect to error and infirmity for al his gifts: neither wil you be cō ­tented, y ^t such an argument should hold alwaies drawn frō any one of your greatest, & most famous learned writers, to presse al y ^e rest. And a second reason of y ^e weaknes of your argumēt is, that there is more in your cōclusion, then is in y ^e antecedent giuen you by him. For you would conclude (for those are your words, to the proofe whereof you cite Caluin) y ^t we condēne & cut of al the Christiās, that haue bene & are betwixt Christ, his Apostles, and vs: wheras Caluin speaketh not of al, but of some of olde time. The 3 reason Caluin himselfe giueth you, in y ^e euē in the words set downe by you, he sheweth plainly, that though in thē that he spake of, he noted some aberration frō the sim­plicity of Christs institution, yet he did not therfore cut thē of frō the Church, nor cōdēne thē. What? are you such a cutter, y ^t you straight cut of al those frō cōmuniō w ^t you, in whō you cā iustly finde any fault or errour in opinion, or practise of life? Surely then you must cut of most of your best frends. That which we can foundly proue to be a fault in brethren, either ancient or of later time, we may safely note, tel them of, and labour to reforme; & yet as long as they ioine togi­ther with vs in one God, faith, and Baptisme; otherwise, we can, and ought to holde peace & Christian communion w ^t them: or els where cā there at any time be any true concord or peace kept in the church? For some differences of opinions, & vsages, there haue alwaies yet beene, and wil be betwixt one particuler Church and another, and betwixt some members of the true church, or other. You needed not therfore (I warrant you) one whit haue beene afraide, that Caluin & his fellowes were so scrupulous, that they would not ioine in fellow ship w ^t some such as he speaketh of there: and yet y ^e letteth not, but y ^t he should coūsel his readers, to prefer Christs own simple institution before the vsage of them, or any other differing from it.

The XI. Chapter.

As though you had most substātially proued by Caluins words, that we cut of all Christians betwixt the Apostles and vs, in this Chapter you vrge the metaphor of a body, whereunto vsually the church of Christ is compared: whereupon you gather, that as there is an orderly connexion and situation of members in a body, so there must be in the church; and that therefore our church must needes be a monstrous mishapen thing, in ioyning the Christians of these later daies, with the Apostles, without any betwixt, and fos [...] ­ating, as it were, the feete of the body hard to the eares, without any other members betwixt the one and the other. And thus hauing framed this mery conceit in your owne heade, you call vpon your [Page 109] frendes to laugh at it with you, and so you proceede in telling vs, that whiles we take this course, we fly without wings, and climbe without a ladder, and despise the counsell of Salomon: which af­ter your maner you interpret that we should reckon by succession the pastours, that haue succeeded in continuance of one kinde of do­ctrine, the which (you say) you haue shewed you haue done. To what purpose now is all this, seeing in trueth neither we doe thus cut of all Christians betwixt them and vs, neither haue you shewed any such succession of pastours downe from them to you, continuing in your doctrine. Truely to no other purpose can they serue, but to expresse your owne ridiculous vanity. Howbeit, because you called in the former Chapter for the names of those, that haue caught vs to deny your real presence in the sacrament, and vpon a conceit in your owne fansie, that you haue posed vs, you haue growen to bee thus full of these swelling wordes of vanity, and because I feare, neither you, nor many of your disciples, will vouchsafe to peruse those books that I sent you vnto, for answere in that point, & yet haue hope, that for your sake some of you may chaūce vouchsafe to reade this: I will not sticke with you, particulerly to satisfie your request a little fur­ther. First therefore vnderstand, that we haue learned to deny your kinde of reall presence of Christ himselfe, the institutour of this Sa­crament, because he hath flatly and vehemently affirmed without exception, Iohn. 6.54. that whosoeuer eateth his flesh, & drinketh his bloud hath eternall life. Whereas by the meanes of your doc­trine it followeth (because all that receiue this sacrament haue not faith, but manie lacke it) that it shall bee eaten of manie that shalbe neuer the better by it, but the worse. We haue also further learned it of him, in that in the same Chapter, speaking of the eating of his body, & drinking of his bloud, he drew his hearers from a grosse con­ceit of eating & drinking him by their bodily mouthes, by vsing of the word beleeueth in stead of eateth and drinketh, ver. 40.47. and cap. 7.38. by mentioning vnto them his ascention, Iohn. 6.62. & latt­ly by saying vnto thē, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speake vnto you, are spirit & life: ver. 63. This finally we haue learned of him, saying, If any shall say vnto you, Lo here is Christ, there is Christ, beleeue it not. Math. 24.23. & by his continuing at the table, when he first instituted and ministred it vnto his Apostles, without alteration either of his place, or forme. Mat. 26. Mar. 12. Luke. 22.1. Cor. 11. The Apostles & euā ­gelists [Page 110] haue also taught vs to deny it, in y ^t they teach vs, that he visi­bly ascēded into heauen, & that he shall so also come againe, whē he cōmeth frō thence &c. Act. 1.11. especially seeing his comming to iudgement is called his secōd comming, Heb, 9.28. and vntil the restitutiō of all things, it is saied by Peter, the heauēs must cōtaine him. Act. 3.21. The Euāgelists in laying downe vnto vs the story of his natiuity, life & death, so prouing vnto vs, y ^t he was & is a true and perfect mā, encourage vs also (least we should with the Marcionites, & other heretiques denie the trueth of his māhood) cōtantly to [...]y your reall presēce; for y ^e maintenance whereof, you are driuē to fansy a nūber of things quite contrary to y ^e nature & trueth of his māhood. And lastly, in that reciting y ^e words of the institution, they tel vs, that Christ commanded that to be done in remēbrance of him, Luke. 22.19. 1. Cor. 11.24. & there Paul saith ( v. 26.) As often as ye shall eate this bread, & drink this cup, ye shew the lords death till he cōe: w ^c words plainly argu, y ^t though y ^e sacramēt be both rightly ministres [...] receiued, yet it inferreth not any such real presēce, as you ther imag [...].

Now betwixt them & vs we finde infinite places, in writers of all ages, that teach vs still to denie your reall presence: but amongst ma­ny, marke these for example. Tertulliā in his 4. booke against Marciō interpreteth these words. Hoc est corpus meum, thus, that is to say, This is a figure of my body. Augustine against Adamātus y ^e Mani­chee, c. 12. writeth, that christ doubted not to say, This is my body, whē he gaue a signe of his body: & vpō y ^e 3. Ps. he saieth, that Christ admitted Iudas to a bāquet, where he cōmēded a figure of his body to his disciples: & vpō y ^e 98. Ps. he saith, yee shal not eat this body that yee see, neither shall yee drinke that bloud, which they shall shed that crucify me: I haue cōmended vnto you a certaine sacra­ment, it being spiritually vnderstoode will giue you life. In his 3. booke therfore of Christian doctrine he writeth thus, This saying of Christ, Except yee eate the flesh of the son of mā &c. seemeth to cōmand an heinous thing, & a wicked: therefore it is a figure, cō ­māding vs to be partakers of Christs passiō, keeping in our minds to our great profit & cōfort, that his flesh was crucified & woūded for vs. c. 16. he saith, It is a miserable slauery of the soule to take the signes for the things signified, in y ^e same booke, c. 5. And therefore in his 23. epistle, he telleth vs, that the similitude betwixt the signe & the thing signified is the cause, why the one beareth the name of the other in sacramēts: & in his 57. questiō vpō Leuitic. he giueth vs this rule, The thing that signifieth, is wōt to bear the name of the [Page 111] thing which it signifieth; as Paul said, The rock was Christ, & not, it signified Christ, but euē as it had bene indeed, which neuerthe­les was not Christ by substāce, but by signification. So that his v­sual doctrine is, to teach vs in this sacrament, to seeke christ in heauē by faith, & thereby to make him present, w ^c otherwise is absent, as you may read in his 50. tract vpon Iohn, & els where very often. And w ^t Augustine y ^e rest of the fathers consent in this matter, & therefore nothing is more cōmō w ^t them, then to call the outward part in this sa­crament a signe, figure, similitude, resemblance, or representatiō, as it appeareth in these places. Chrysostom in his 83. Homil: vpon Mat. Hierom in his 2. booke against Iouiniā, Ambr. in his 4. booke of y ^e sacraments, c. 5. Basil in his lyturgy: Ephr: in his 4. booke against the impugners of Christs manhood by humane reason. And Origen vpō Leuit: hom: 7. teacheth vs, that the letter of those words, Except yee eat the flesh of the son of mā &c. killeth: & therefore he teacheth vs there spiritually to vnderstand them. Who vpon these wordes of Christ gathereth, that no wicked man can eate the flesh of christ, vpon Mat. c. 15. as for y ^e other part, he granteth the wicked may eat, & that when it hath beene eatē, in the end it is auoided into the place of ease­ment, Hom: 15. vpon Mat. Athanasius noteth, y ^e christ made mention of his ascension. Iohn 6. to w ^tdraw thē from corporall & fleshly vnder­stāding of his words; vpon these words, whosoeuer speaketh a word against the son &c. But Chrys. goeth plainly to work & saith in his 11. Hom: vpon Mat. that the very body of christ himselfe is not in the holy vessels, but the mistery & sacrament thereof is therin conteined. And therefore in his 46. Hom. vpon Iohn, sheweth vs, y ^e christ saying the flesh profiteth nothing Iohn 6. therby warned vs to take heede of carnall and fleshly vnderstanding of his words: which is to vnder­stand them (saieth he) simply: and in his 4. Homil: vpon the 4. to the Corinth: he telleth vs, that the body of Christ is the carion, where the Eagles will bee: he nameth eagles (saieth he) to shew, that who so will approch to his body, must mount aloft & haue no dealing with the earth, nor be drawē downward, but must euermore fly vp &c. For this is a table of Eagles (saieth he) that fly on high, & not of Iaies, that creepe beneath. Christ tooke bread which cōforteth mās hart, that he might represēt therby his body & bloud, saith Hier. vpō y ^e 26. of Mat. As thou hast in baptism receued the similitude of death so likewise dost thou in this sacramēt drīk the similitude of christs bloud, saieth Ambrose in his 4 booke, & 4, c. of the sacraments. Ci­prian de vnctione chrismatis, writeth thus, Christ in his last supper [Page 112] gaue vnto his Apostles bread & wine, which he called his body & bloud but on the Crosse hee gaue his very body to be wounded with the hands of the souldiers, that the Apostles might declare vnto the world, how & in what maner, the bread may be the flesh & bloud of Christ. And the maner straight way he declareth thus, that those things, which do signifie, & those things which be sig­nified by thē, may be both called by one name. Fulgētius in his booke to King Thrasimund hath these words, This cup or chalice is the new Testamēt, that is to say, doth signifie the new Testa­ment. Theodoret in his first Dialogue most plainely writeth, that Christ honoured the signes and representatiōs, which are seene, with the name of his body and bloud, not changing their na­tures, but adding grace to nature: and yet more plainely in the 2. Dialogue he writeth thus: the mystical signes after sanctification go not from their nature: for they tary in their former substance, figure, and forme. Yea euen Gelasius a Pope, about the yeare 500. against Eutiches, is as plaine, saying, in the Eucharist the substāce and nature of bread and wine cease not. For the image and simi­litude of the body and bloud is celebrated in those mysteries. And Bertram in his treatise of this matter, writen in the time of Carolus Caluus laboureth by many proofes & testimonies to shew, that bread and wine remaine still, and that we are here to followe Christ in a figure and mistery. And Bede vpon Luke. 22. saith, be­cause bread doeth comfort mans heart, and wine doeth make good bloud in his body: therefore the bread is mystically com­pared to Christs body, and the wine to Christs bloud. The like saying hath Haymo in his 5. booke De sermonum proprietate. E­missenus de consecrat. Dist. 2. cap. Quia corpus; compareth the conuersion in the Sacrament to the conuersion in a man regenera­ted, which we all know is in quality, and not in substance. There are two Epistles yet extant in the Saxon tongue, made by one Alfricke in King Etheldreds time; about the yeare of the Lord 996, being then (as some write) Bishop of Canterbury, wherein he teacheth the bread and wine to be no otherwise the body and bloud of Christ, then manna, and the water of the rocke was Christ: who also translated 80 sermons out of latin into the Saxon tongue, whereof 24. were appointed to be read for homilies: and in that which was to be read on Easter day, there is much direct matter against Transub­stantiation, and your reall presence. And since these times you know [Page 113] well inough wee haue had many from time to time (yea, mo thē you well like of) that haue beene as flat and direct against your kinde of reall presence, as we are now. This Master Foxes booke of Actes and Monuments hath made euident to all the world. And it is famously knowen, that before your Lateran Councel, vnder Inno­cent the 3. in the yeare 1215. it was not decreed to bee as you now hold. It appeareth also by the last session of the councell of Flo­rence (which is not much aboue 140. yeares ago) that the Greeke Church vntill then stoode against your doctrine of transubstantia­tion, which is the ground of your reall presence. And Tonstall (though otherwise a great man on your side) yet in his booke of this sacrament, saieth, perhaps it had beene better to leaue euery man that would be curious concerning this matter, of the maner how Christ is present, to his owne coniecture; as by his confession, be­fore the councel of Lateran, it was left at libertie. And Iohn Duns, a frend of yours, vpon the 4. booke of the sentences saieth, that the wordes might haue beene expounded more plainely, then by Transubstantiation, if it had pleased the Church. Gabriel Biell another great doctour, vpon the canon of the masse in his 40. reading plainely confesseth, that it is not expressed in the canon of the Bi­ble, how the body of Christ is there, whither by Trāsubstantiatiō or Consubstantiation. Euen so your great Bishop Iohn Fisher writing against Luthers booke of the captiuity of Babylō, is enfor­ced to confesse, that he findeth not in Mathew, nor any where els in the scripture, any thing to proue, that there is thereby the reall pre­sence of Christ in your masse: nor that whensoeuer a Priest shall go about that matter, hee maketh the bread & wine the body and bloud of Christ: and so concludeth, that he thinketh, that euery man vn­derstandeth, that the certaintie of that matter dependeth not so much of the Gospell, as it doeth vpon the vse, tradition and cu­stome of the Church. These testimonies forasmuch as directly they are against your literall exposition of Christs words, your new deuise of transubstantiation, the onely piller and buttresse of your real presence, and against your grosse and carnal eating of him with the bodily mouthes of all receiuers good and bad, they may not bee denied to bee forcible against your reall presence. For the cause thereof denied and taken away, the effect must cease: and if the consequent thereof, which is eating of Christes precious bodie with the filthy mouthes of vnbeleeuers bee absurd, the [Page 114] antecedent thereof must also bee absurde.

Howbeit, because you shall not say, that we are vnwilling to yeelde you thorowly an account, why we deny your reall presence; vnderstand you yet further, we are mooued so to doe, because your doctrine of trāsubstantiation (the onely vpholder thereof) and the doctrine it selfe (as you holde it) bringeth in, without all reason, such an interpretation and construction of the wordes of the instruction of this Sacrament, as taketh away the analogie betweene the signes, and the thinges whereof they are signes, ouerthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, in anihilating or otherwise abandoning the outward part; which scripture, and al antiquity necessarily re­quire to continue, to the constitution of a Sacrament: as bring­eth in many monstrous absurdities and needelesse miracles, con­trary both to the true faith of Christes manhoode, and good maners; abhorring, both by nature and expresse warrant of the scripture, from eating and drinking of mans flesh and bloud couered or vncouered: and as lastly inferreth an eating, & drinking of Christ by the mouthes of the wicked and vnbeleeuers, as wel as of beleeuers. Which eating of Christ with the bodily mouth, neither standeth with the doctrine of the word (which teacheth no such bodily commition of our bo [...]ies w ^t Christs, & therefore (seeing the sacraments are but confirmations of that which is taught in the word) cannot, or may not be taught here­in) nor yet w ^t the nature of the couenāt & communion w ^t christ, which is spirituall, & belongeth only to the faithful, & therefore only m [...]st be offered, sealed & ratified in this sacrament to them. And yet for al [...]s, I would not haue you to imagine, y ^t we deny al kinde of reall presēce in this sacrament of Christs body & bloud. For we doe most constātly teach w ^t the ancient fathers, that in this sacrament though by means thereof there be a change in name, vse, honour, and estimation in the outward elements; yet they remaine stil to be fed on w ^t y ^e mouth of the body, and that when by occasion of that which is done by the outward elements, the communicāt calleth thankfully to remembrāce christs death, and beleeueth that his body was as certainly broken for him [...] his bloud shed, as there he seeth the bread brokē, wine poured out, and both deliuered vnto him; & that thereby his ful & perfect saluatiō was absolutely wrought: thē by this mouth of his soule, faith, he as certainly, though after a spiritual, & vnspeakeable maner, feedeth vpō christs very broken body, & bloudshed, & groweth through the working of the spirit to a cōmunion therw ^t, as by the mouth of his body he feedeth vpō [Page 115] the outward elements, & so by the force of nature hath them vnited w ^t his nature. And marueil not, that faith can & doth make y ^e body brokē and bloud shed of Christ (which was now done 1500. yeares ago) yet liuely & truly present. For it can make things spoken & taught in the word (though done neuer so long ago) & things absent to be present. And therefore whē Paul wrote to the Galat: though christ long before had beene crucified, and was ascended, yet by the meanes of the word & sacraments on the one side ministred amongst thē, and of their faith on the other side, he saith, that Christ was euē crucified amōgst thē. Gal. 3. wherein (as Chrysostom noteth vpō that place) his meaning was, to shew the strēgth of faith, which is able to see things though far away, & that by the eies of faith, Christs death was more clearly & perfectly seene, then it was of many, that were present at it, & saw all that was done. You seeme in this your doctrine, and for the defence thereof, to be great aduancers of Gods omnipotencie. But in Christes time, I pray you tell me, whither they that beleeued that Christ could fulfill their desire though absent; or they that thought, he must be locally present, or els it would not be, had the greater faith in his omnipotencie? I am sure you will say, the faith of the former was the stronger, and that they therein shewed themselues better perswaded of Christes almightinesse, then the later, for the euidence of the matter will enforce you to confesse thus much. Then to applie this to this present matter, the thing, that both you and wee desire, is, truely to bee fedde with the bodie and bloud of Christ to e­ternall life: whither then doe wee or you indeede beleeue his omni­potencie better: we, that say and beleeue, that he can and doeth feede vs herewith, and vnite vs and himselfe together in the vse of this sa­crament, hee tarrying still in heauen according to the Scriptures; or you, that imagine, that hee cannot doe it, vnlesse hee creepe into your mouthes, vnder the formes of bread and wine? Nay, whatsoeuer you talke of his omnipotencie, this argueth, that your faith is too too weake therein, in that you must haue such a reall presence of him, as you imagine, or else you thinke it will not serue your turne. You will graunt, that distance of place betwixt heade and feet, betwixt man and wife, father and sonne breaketh not, nor hindreth the vnion, that nature hath made betweene them: what weaknes of faith then were it, to thinke, that Christ our head, our husbād, our father must be locally conioined with vs, or els the vnion be­twixt him and vs cannot be perfected? Assure your selues, if beeing [Page 116] at this table, you will secke him by faith, where hee is in heauen, and not, as you doe, in the formes of bread and wine (whereunto on­ly your owne fansie hath tied him) by your faith you shall so reach, and apprehend him, and hee by his spirit will so embrace you, that there was neuer head more surely by vienes, sinewes, arteries and other helps of nature tied vnto the inferiour parts, nor husband to wife, nor father to sonne more fast and surely linked and knit, by the bonds of naturall vnion, then he will vnite himselfe vnto you. For the defence of your reall presence, and for the auoiding of many ab­surdities concerning Christs manhoode, that thereby you are fallen into, you talke much of the state of Christes glorified body. But a­las, doe you not see, that whatsoeuer you talke thereof, is quite be­sides the purpose? For this is not a Sacrament of his glorified bodie, but of his crucified bodie: not of the coniunction of his bo­die and bloud, but of the separation of the one from the other: and therefore Christ in the institution, called not bread and wine simply his bodie and bloud, but his bodie broken and bloud shed, and gaue the bread a sacrament of the one, and the wine, a part from the bread, a Sacrament of the other. Whereupon it is euident, that here we haue to doe with his passible body, with his bodie broken, & his bloud shed vpon the crosse, and not with the state of his glorified and impassible body; and therefore vnlesse the state of his passible body dying vpon the crosse, will stand with your reall presence, it hath no place here. For by the very wordes of the institution (which you would seeme otherwhiles most carefully and literally to vrge) it is the body broken and the bloud shed, that must here be really present: which otherwise then by faith, how can it be? seeing it is so lōg since his body was brokē, and bloud shed; and since it hath not beene really at any time iterated, nor can be, for he died once for all, and so, that since he is not to die any more, as the scripture teacheth, Rom. 6. Which if you and your fellows would seriously marke, the naked and bare words of the institution, would driue you from your kinde of reall presence (which cannot be of the body broken, and bloudshed of Christ now) to embrace our reall presence thereof, thorow faith and effectuall remembrance, that they were once so vsed to our re­demption, which is possible and effectuall vnto saluation. Thus much to answere your demande concerning this matter.

The XII. Chapter

SEeing you know and confesse y ^t we allow & reteine in our vocatiō this ceremony of impositiō of hāds, what needed you to haue made so much adoe therabout? But hauing iustified y ^e vse therof by Caluins testimony, and otherwise, you demand of whom Caluin Zuinglius & Oecolāpadius had this impositiō of hāds? I answer, y ^t not only these, but many other, whō god first stirred vp in these later daies to detect Antichrist, & so to bring him to consūption, of whom y ^e rest y ^t haue fol­lowed in that course haue descended, & had theirs, had y ^e same vocatiō & successiō, wherof you your selues brag. For most of thē were priests (as you cal thē) ordred by your selues, & doctours of diuinity allowed in their times by the vniuersities, wherin they were brought vp. But y ^e same vocation, w ^c you abused, our mē haue laboured to vse well & to y ^e vaine successiō of persons, wherw ^t you decked yourselues, they haue added the successiō of true doctrine, w ^t you had corrupted. So y ^t what good soeuer was in your vocatiō, ours had it also, & besides, since they haue had confirmatiō of their ministry amongst thēselues, and by the consent & approbation of y ^e people amongst whō they haue ministred.

The XIII. Chapter.

YOU boldly adde vnto Cyprians wordes, these words, without any impositiō of hāds, for neither where the other words of his w ^t you recite are, nor yet any where in that epistle doeth he once men­tion y ^e ceremony of imposition of hāds. Neither can Cyprians saying against Nouatianus (whom you cal wrongfully and ignorantly No­uatus) truly be applied either to Caluin or Zuinglius, seing they had [Page 120] (as I haue read) the ordinary calling & vocation of the times, wherin they liued euen from your selues. For as for Caluin, his father got him a prebend or benefice in a Cathedrall church, and a curateship in a towne hard by, of a Bishop of yours, where he was borne, w ^c would not haue beene giuen him, vnles he had beene within orders, I think. And Zwinglius, it is wel knowē, was a Canō in the cathedral church of Zurich, 2. or 3. years there liuing & preaching, before he was ours. And so I read the other preached also in his cure, before he was ours: whereby it should seeme, y ^t the one had imposition of hands to holy or­ders (as you terme them) of some Bishop of France, and the other of some Bishop likewise of Germany. Now after, when as by force of the trueth, they grew to be of our Religion, & so came out of Babylon to vs, they both were according to the order of those churches where they serued, called orderly to the ministry of the Gospell, where also they both succeeded others, that went before them. Neither of which could Nouatianus truely alleadge for himselfe, and therefore Ci­prian saith, that he was neither in the church nor Bishop. But seeing we account our church so ancient, as that when we are asked, when our Religion began, we will say, it hath beene euen from Adā, & also that euer since it hath endured, and continued; you say, it is not likely that it hath at any time beene altogether destitute of ministers. For though God did afflict the Israelites for their sinnes with the capti­uity of Babylon, yet he did neuer leaue them without cōfort of good doctours, as Daniel, Ezechiel, Abdias, and others: & therefore seing we haue nothing to do w ^t yours, we either haue, or should haue sought them out, & haue taken imposition of hands of them, which if we haue done, you wish vs to tell you their names, when and where they flori­shed. To answer you indeede for the substance of our Religion, we say it is the same w ^t God himselfe first taught Adā in paradise. For first, he was taught to serue God, not according to his owne will, but ac­cording to the law that God gaue him. Secondly, he being found a trāsgressour of that holy will of God, after he was brought to see his sin, & the danger thereof, he is sent for recouery by Gods promise, only to y ^e promised seede: and then is he taught, how to liue in his vocation: wherein lieth the sum of that Religion, w ^c wee now teach and preach. For first, we teach men, how to serue God according to his owne re­uealed wil, & not according to their owne fansie, as you doe. Second­ly, finding men many waies to decline from this rule, wee labour to make them see their sins, and the danger thereof, which whē we haue [Page 121] done, we send thē only to Iesus Christ for help and comfort. In both w ^t you also offend; first, whiles you keepe men frō seeing y ^e multitude and grieuousnes of their sinnes, by extenuating the power of original sin, by making mā beleeue, y ^t the fulfilling of the law is now possible vnto him, that many sins of their owne nature, for their littlenes are veniall: and that the first motions of sinne arising from the corrupti­on of our owne hearts not consented vnto are no sin: and then you go from this most ancient order of God, in that you send men for their recouerie not only to Iesus Christ, but to their owne freewill, me­rits and satisfaction, & to a nūber of thinges very trifling and ridicu­lous: by vse and doing whereof, you would perswade them, they shall purchase to themselues remission of their sinnes. In the 3. point also, we follow the patterne of our heauenly father, calling vpon euery man according to his calling, to get his liuing in an honest vo­cation, with the sweate of his browes; and shewing woman, that in lawfull wedlocke (if by nature or otherwise she haue not the gift of continencie) though to her paine & sorrow, she is for the encreasing of Gods kingdome, and the common weale, wherein shee liueth, to conceaue, and beare children; whereas you drawe both the one and the other herefrom, into Hermitages, Cloisters, and Nunries, there to liue an idle life, out of all vocation profitable to the Church, or common weale. And we are perswaded, that this Religion, and consequently a Church to holde and embrace it hath euer since vnto these daies continued. And we graunt you also, that though God for the sinnes of his people doe afflict his Church diuers times, and that grieuously; as he did the Isralites with the 70. yeares captiuity: yet then he doeth not leaue them without teachers to comfort them, and therefore in all ages and times doe constantly beleeue in one place or other, that this our Religiō and Church hath had some such. Yet you must take this w ^t you, that in such times of the afflictiō of the Church the ordinary state of the ministrie thereof hath often failed. For you haue heard Azariah the prophet tel king Asa, in respect of such times as were before his time, that Israell a long season had beene with­out the true God, without prophet to teach, and without lawe, 2. Chron. 15. And in the 3 of Hosea you may reade prophecied, that the children of Israell shall remaine many daies without a King, without a Prince, without an offring, without an image, without an Ephod, and without Teraphim: by which wordes, the Prophet plainely foresheweth, an interruption should be of their outward or­dinary [Page 122] visible ministry. And euen in respect of the time that you mē ­tion, it appeareth in the 2. of the Im [...]ntat. that the like was ful­filled in the Church, in respect of that time of their captiuity in Ba­bylon. For there Ieremie lamenting the state of the Church then, saieth, The Lord hath caused the feastes and Sabbothes to be for­gotten in Sion, and hath despised in the indignation of his wrath, the King and the Priests, the Lord hath forsaken his altar, & hath abhorred his sanctuary. And when those prophecies of the florishing of Antichrist: 2. Thes. 2. and Reuel: 17. and that of the Churches be­ing driued into the wildernes, and there remaining for a time, Reuel. 12. should be fulfilled, who seeth not, that it is no strange thing, but a thing plainly foreshewed, should be, y ^t neither the church herselfe nor her teachers should be very visible and apparent. And therefore spea­king of those times, when indeede those prophesies were verified, as you doe, you doe our church and her ministers great & double wrong: first, in thus chasing thē into the wildernes, there to saue themselues from your fury: and then, yet in exacting at our handes the names of them, whom God by thus hiding of them, preserued to continue his church. And yet (as I haue shewed you before cap. 4.) in the mercie of God, whē your Antichristiā Synagogue florished most, in Bohemia, & other places, y ^e Christians called Waldēses, were many, and has di­uers assemblies, schools, churches and ministers. Why thē (say you) haue you not, or do you not, run to thē, that by thē you may haue your ministers ordeined or confirmed, & if you haue, tell vs their names, that did it. I answere you, we haue thought it needles, seeing (as I haue shewed) otherwise both our former & later ministers, nearer home had both ordinatiō, & confirmation, that well enough serued their turnes. Besides, I am sure you cānot be ignorāt, but it hath ben an ordinary thing w ^t God, whē the ordinary ministers of y ^e church, & consequently y ^e outward face & coūtenance thereof hath bene corrup­ted, & gon frō y truth, & waies of the lord, to raise extraordinarily pro­phets and others to seeke & procure y ^e reformatiō thereof, as it appea­reth by raising vp from time to time Prophets amongst y ^e Israelites, in y ^e ruins and corruptions of his church, who should haue had wrong offred, if they should not haue bene receiued as the Lords ministers, vntill either they could get ordinary admission of the Prelates then, to reform whose corruptions they were sēt, or vntil they could shew y ^e names of some other prophets, that had ordinarily succeeded others, & also ordeined them. Which is y ^e very case of the Lords faithful ministers, [Page 123] whom he hath vsed first in any nation without the ordinary cal­ling of the daies immediatly going before, to detect & lay opē y ^e horri­ble corruptiōs thrust vpon the Church by the papacy. For they foūd, that the word of God was concealed & hid frō the people, & y ^t insteede thereof, they were fed w ^t the inuentions and traditions of men; y the honour y ^t was due to God alone was turned vnto mē & vnto images; y ^t y ^e bloud of Christ was ineffect trodē vnderfoot, in y ^t so many by waies were sought to atteine to heauē by, besides Christ: y ^t the sacrament of his body & bloud was turned into grosse Idolatry, & the vse quite per­uerted. To be short, they found al the holy scripture prophaned & poi­soned w ^c the Popes glosses, & false interpretatiōs. These things ther­fore being thus, & the lord reueling vnto thē his truth, because y ^e time was come, that Antichrist must be detected, y ^e lord gaue vnto thē the spirit of courage and boldnes, first to notifie these corruptions to the Prelates of your church, and to craue at their hāds the reformation thereof: but finding that that would not be, because sathā will not be against himselfe. Ma. 12. what were they to do els, but according to y ^t y ^e God gaue thē, and the places they had in vniuersities & in y ^e church, to proceede to call the people yet frō those errors to the truth. When fire shal take hold of a city, or the enimy scale the wal in the night, if y ^e least burgesse shall giue an alarū, yea if it be but a strāger (the watch­mā sleeping y ^t should giue warning) no mā would stād trifling in de­manding by what title he did it, but streight he will run to the water and to y ^e wals, and laie to his hands to preuēt the mischiefe, & thanke him y ^t gaue the warning. And yet whē y ^e mē, we speake of, giue notice of a greater danger, though it be as necessary to listen vnto them, & to be warned by them, as the saluation of mens soules is: yet they cānot finde this wisdome and thankfulnes in men. It should seeme by your standing thus precisely vpon the necessity of visible succession, & ordi­nary impositiō of hāds in thē, y ^e god shal send to teach men, or els they may not be heard: y ^t either you haue not red, or els y ^t you greatly dissē ­ble your knowlege, that God hath vsed y ^e ministry of diuers persōs, y ^t haue wanted those, to cōuert nations, to lay the foūdatiō of churches, & to doe very much good. For Ruffinus in his Eccl. Hist. 1. booke, and c. 10. & Theodoret in his 1. book, c. 23. report, that a captiue maiden did first kindle y ^e light of y ^e Gospell amongst the Iberiās: who being y ^e meanes first to cōuert the Queene, the Queene cōuerted the King, & he w ^tout any orders (as you call them) taught his people y ^e Christian faith & so begā the church there. It is also writē by Ruff. lib. 1 ^•. c. 9. by Theodoret, in the 22. c. of his saied booke, by Nicep in his 8. book, c. [Page 124] 35, that AEdesius and Frumentius brought thither being [...]yes, by Meropius a philosoper, and there taken and preserued aliue when he and the rest of his company were slain, growing after into good cre­dit and authority there, were the first means of the sowing of y ^e seede of the Gospell amongst the Barbarians in the further India, to the profession and exercises whereof, especially Frumentius, and that not onely after that by Athanasius he was ordained there bishop, but before euer by any he was ordeined either minister or bishop, was a notable & effectuall meanes both to excite marchantes that came thither, and to drawe the people of that countrey it selfe. More­ouer Eusebius in his ecclesiastical history reporteth, in his sixte booke and 19. Chapter, that Origen taught publikely before he had ordination, certaine bishops being present: which when Demetrius Alexandrinus obiected as a fault, to Alexander bishop of Hierusa­lem, and to Theoclistus bishop of Caesarea, they defended them­selues by alleadging diuers such famous examples, as namely of E­uelpis, Paulinus and Theodorus, which in like sort had preached without the ordinary ordination. Yea, read Nicephorus 2 booke and 25. Chapter, and he will tell you, that vnder Constantius, Antonie the heremite taught at Alexandria, and that vnder Valens at Antioch Aphraatis Flauianus & Iulianus being then but monkes (who in those dayes were not reckoned amongst Clarkes at all, for vnto Gregories time they were not accounted Clarkes) did pub­lickely preach and confute heretiques. And yet these examples I alleadge not, that I would be authour to anie, when an ordinarie calling may be had, to despise that, and to take vpon them that func­tion of the Ministrie without that lawfull ordinary calling: for that were to disturbe the peace of the Church, and to open a gap to much disorder and inconuenience: but to this end, to make it appear, that the Church of God in former ancient times, hath not so precise­ly and curiously stood vpon these points, of visible succession and or­dination, for the iustifying of ones preaching the Gospel at al times, and in all places, as you doe. For (doubtles) there haue beene times and yet may be, as after that great apostasie spoken of 2. Thes. 2. & in other great ruines of the Church, when it hath and may please the Lord to call men extraordinarily to this worke, without either im­mediate, locall or personall succession going before; who (as long as they preach but the trueth, and otherwise the times be so corrupt, that of them that haue authority ordinarily to call men to that busi­nes, [Page 125] such rather should be shut out generally, then let into the mini­strie) are to be receiued, heard, and listened vnto, as such whom the Lord of his mercy hath extraordinarily called himselfe.

The XIIII. Chapter.

HOw you haue answered Caluin, and proued your vocation to be of God, by that which now the reader hath heard both parts say, let him iudge. Our answere to the like demande I haue giuē you Chap. 9. when you first called for it. But hauing demanded this now againe of vs, insteed of pursuing your demād (as one that had streight forgotten what you saied) you are in hand againe with our saying to your charge, your popes & bishops il liues, w ^t twise or thrise you were in hād w ^tal before, where you haue your ful answer. Herein (you say) in railing you giue vs the preeminēce: but you do so, but in words; for indeed & trueth (as al your late books, fraught w ^t nothing more, then this kinde of Rhetoricke, to bring the seruants of God vniustly into hatred, doe proue) none cā go beyond you herein. And as for that which we say of your Popes & bishops, your own storie-writers, and manifest experience doe iustifie to be true, & therfore cānot iustly be coūted railing. But you find fault w ^t vs, that hauing writē the lewd liues of your bishops & Popes on the one side of the leafe, we set not down on the other side in the meane time the succession of those good ones, that we had. This law you nether haue, nor cā alwaies obserue your selfe. For though you haue had many good Popes & bishops, yet a great while your good ones haue bene as hard to finde as cole-black swans. And yet you please your selfe, and your frends, that take plea­sure in your giving, & scoffing, in asking vs, when your Popes beha­ued thēselues il at Rome, who were the holy doctors at Geneua, & whē your doctors preached against God, vnder what signe our ministers lodged? al this kind of Rhetorick of yours is groūded vpō a false principle, namely, that the Church and ministers thereof haue bene, & alwaies must be so visible, as that in al times demonstration may be made thereof, cōtrary to these often alleadged prophecies, 2. Thess. 2. Reu. 12. & 17. And the thing that deceiueth you, & nourish­eth in you this errour is, that you expoūd the places of scripture, w ^c are vttered concerning the continuāce & spiritual beauty of y ^e church of the elect, the true heauenly Hierusalē & spouse of Christ: as spokē of the cōtinuance of particuler Churches, or of the outward order & state of the Church militant onely: and that you either wilfully, or o­therwise cannot distinguish, betwixt the being and continuing of the [Page 127] Church and her pastors, and the maner of their being and cōtinuing; and so you construe those places, that proue her being, and their con­tinuing, as though therupō followed your maner of visible and appa­rent being also, as though there were no being or continuing of the Church: but in your maner. Whereas in Israel in Ahabs time, you haue heard, both the Church and ministers therof ther continued, in that, euen in that kingdōe Obadiah had hid 100 prophets, and God had reserued vnto himselfe 7000. that had not bowed their knees to Baal, & yet not in your maner. For Eliah was not able to make such demonstration thereof, who they were, and where they were, as you require of vs, for he thought himselfe alone. 1. King. 18. & 19.

O but you, very like a diuine, proue out of Mat. 10. & Ro. 10. be­cause Christ hath saied, him that denieth me before mē, wil I deny before my heauenly father: and Paul requireth aswel confession w ^t the mouth to saluation, as beleife with the hart to iustification; that therefore they could not be faithful beleeuers, because they did hide themselues. As though euery one were a denier of Christ, that hideth himselfe frō the fury of the persecutour? Or as though none confesse with their mouth to saluation, that so hide themselues? What think you then of the 100 prophetes before named? And of Eliah himselfe, who (as it appeareth in those places) hid themselues from Ahab and Iesebels furie? Haue you forgotten, that the same Christ saieth in the same Chap: to his Apostles, If they persecute you in one City, flie to another? And that the same Paul himselfe did sundry times by hi­ding himselfe from the hands of his persecutours, saue his life? As you may read Act. 17. and elswhere. Who though he were assured in a vision by reuelation from God, that with safety of life hee should come to testifie of Christ and his Gospel at Rome, yet refused not al good and lawful means to haue himselfe conueied away, and so to escape the hands of his bloudy persecutors, the Iewes; which had solemnly boūd thēselues w ^t an oath, that they would neither eat nor drinke, til they had killed him. Act. 23.11.12. Your diuinity is not so simple, I thinke, but that you vnderstand, that as long as a Chri­stian carieth that minde and purpose, that wheresoeuer he is, he will be ready boldly to yeeld a sound confession of his faith, and therefore when he is called thereunto, and iustly occasioned, is ready to per­fourme that purpose of his, and doeth it indeed; that man cannot bee saied to deny Christ, or not to confesse him with his mouth, though by flying and hiding himselfe, as long as he may lawfully, he [Page 128] seeke to keepe himselfe for the further good of Gods Church, out of the handes of his persecutours. And therefore you were much to blame by thus wresting of these places of Scriptures to seeke to a­buse your Reader.

But our Religion (you say) was not found out then, and Caluins great grandfather had not once dreamed of his Religi­on: and therefore no maruell, though they could not be found, that were the ministers of our Church and Religion: and no maruell, that they that are not light headed, send vs to preach in new found landes &c. This in effect you haue often saied, and (if that will serue) you will not sticke with vs to say it in euerie Chapter. But this being indeede the question, whereupon the de­terminatiō of the whole controuersie betwixt you and vs dependeth, namely, whither our Religion bee not the true ancient Religion, taught by Christ and his Apostles: for you to passe it ouer thus with bare words, and neuer to go about soundly to proue, that it is not, is but too too childish and ridiculous. Well may you in your owne con­ceite, and in the opinion of the simple silly reader, seeme herein to haue done a great act, but in the iudgement of any of meane witte & capa­city, howsoeuer you may bee counted a wordy man, yet you shall ne­uer be accounted a worthie champion, to fight in this greatest que­stion, onely with bare wordes.

The XV. Chapter.

WHat argument you speake of, it is hard to tell seeing as yet (for any thing that I cā perceiue) you vttered nothing since you entered into this matter, to call vs to an account of our vo­cation, worthie the name of an argument. Indeed that which lose­ly you haue vttered here and there against it, of the necessity of suc­cession of persons, and of imposition of handes (as you imagine) we must say indeede, take place in an ordinary calling, and not alwaies in an extraordinary. But by your speach it should seeme, you had relation to some thing, which you took to be an argument, set downe in the last Chapter before this; where in effect you haue saied no­thing, but onely in your scoffing maner found fault with vs, because in setting downe the ill liues of your prelates, on the one side of the leafe, we set not downe on the other side the good liues thē of our own: which how it should seeme to containe an argument, either a­gainst ordinary, or extraordinary vocation, I see not. For neither they that are called the one way or the other; are alwaies bound to obserue that order. But to let your pitiful logicke go, and to passe ouer your scoffing in calling vs Gods Commissaries not worthy an answere, let vs see, if you haue hit of any better argument here to [Page 131] proue our ministers not to haue beene extraordinarily by God stir­red, vp to correct the superstitious liues, and doctrine of the papistes Idolaters (as you saie, we tearme thē) then as yet you haue brought to disproue their ordinary calling. If we would come to plead this matter with you (you say) you would aide your selues herein against vs with a Syllogisme of Christ, Iohn. 8. which is this. Hee that is of God doeth obey the word of God: but you doe not obey the word of God, therefore ye are not of God. You suppose that we will denie your minor, and therefore in that God commaundeth Matthew. 22. to giue vnto Cesar, that which is Cesars, and vn­to God that which is Gods: and our ministers doe neither of these, but the contrary, in deteyning Geneua from the Duke of Sa­uoy, and in being the causes of the stirres in France, and spoi­ling your bishops and Priests of their liuings, you thinke that pro­ueth so against them, that the conclusion must needs follow. Doe you thinke in earnest, that whosoeuer can be proued in anie one thing to disobey God, streight thereupon it followeth, that his commission or calling is not of God? What man euer was there either ordinarilie or extraordinarilie called to anie office (except the man Christ Iesus) but in some one thing or other, at one time or other, one waie or other hee did not obey God? Seeing that all men are sinners, and there is not one that can truely say, his heart and handes haue alwaies beene free from sinne, and trans­gression of the law of God. Take Christes words in this sence, and so none, no not hee amongst you, that is fullest of his workes of Supererogation shall euer escape this conclusion. If you had viewed the text, you should haue perceiued, that Christ vseth that speach against the Scribes and Pharises, who blasphemed the doctrine of the Messias, and would abide neither to heare, nor to obey it, and not generallie against all that in anie thing are found at anie time disobedient to God of ignorance, or infirmitie. And yet though he had ment so, and it were graunted, that euery man in that hee offendeth, or sinneth, is not therein of God: yet thereu­pon it followeth not, that the same man therefore cannot be a man, that hath his cōmission or calling of God. Dauid was not of God, in that he committed adultery with Bershebah, and murdered Vrias, yet euen then hee had a commission of God, and a calling to bee King ouer his people. And therefore though you could proue these thinges to be true that you charge our ministers withal, and though [Page 132] also it were graunted, that therein they haue done ill: yet thereupon necessarily it doeth not follow, that therefore they were not extraor­dinarily stirred vp by God, to correct your sins, and abhominations, For Iehu, whom God vndoubtedly stirred vp to chastise the house of Ahab, and to correct the Idolatrous priestes of Baal, euen with an extraordinarie zeale 2. King. 9. & 10. yet he departed not from the sins of Ieroboam, the son of Nebat, which made Israell to sinne, as there it appeareth. Againe, it is strange that you should lay these as faults, yea as such faults to our ministers charge, as that therefore they cannot be sent of God, when as not onely it is a receiued, taught & printed doctrine amongst you in the 5. Chapter of D. Allines defence of catholiques, but also such as hath from time to time beene, and yet is most monstrously practised euen amongst your Popes (which pretend to haue the best, highest, and largest commission from God of all other ministers) not onely that they may de­teine dukedomes from the right owners, but also depose Princes, and Emperours, translate their kingdomes and crownes to whom they please, and make warre against them both by forreiners, and their owne subiects, for the aduancement of their religion, when and how it pleaseth them. For this your doctrine and practise con­sidered, if your argument for the causes by you alleadged (supposing that they were true) haue any force against our ministers, it hath ten times asmuch force against yours, whose chiefest meane of late to establish and continue your kingdome, hath beene (as the stories of all countries for this 600. or 700. yeares at the least doe make it most manifest) by force and subtlety to bend and frame Kings and their kingdomes, either to be at your deuotion, or els to make a spoile of them, and their kingdomes for your selues and your frends. If therefore there had beene either shame or common discretion in you, you would neuer haue vsed this argument against vs, which maketh more strongly against your selues.

But in deed and trueth, the things, that you ground your argu­ment vpō against vs, are partly vntrue, and partly maliciously wrested onely against our ministers. For neuer shall any of you be able to proue, that our ministers either are the authours of any wronge to the Duke of Sauoy, or that either they or their followers were the cause of the ciuil warres and troubles in France. If the Duke of Sauoy haue any such right to Geneua, as you pretend, and that it be withholden from him, it beeing a ciuil quarrell betwixt him and the [Page 331] states ciuil of those parts, why should it be layed to the charge of the ministers, who you cannot proue haue had any intermedling there­in? And as for the troubles in France, it appeareth by the sto­ries thereof, that they haue proceeded first from your owne side, and that the doings of the protestant Princes there, haue often­tymes beene iustified, euen by the Kings owne edictes, and pro­clamations to haue beene done in all loialty: and that their warres haue beene but defensiue against the oppressions offered them (contrary both to the ancient lawes, and present edictes of the Land) by certayne ambitious persons, and not offensiue either to the Kings person, or dignity. And as for your Bishops and Priestes (of whose being driuen from their lyuings by our men, you complayne so much) in some sorte I confesse, thorow their occasi­on indeed, they haue beene dispossessed thereof, but that seditiously or tumultuously, by force they haue beene driuen there from by them, we vtterly deny. For in most places, they haue beene dispossessed thereof by mature deliberation, and consideration of the badnes of their titles thereunto, in solemne and lawfull assemblyes of the e­states of the countries, by the lawfull authority of the same estats: as namely here with vs, in Englād, in Scotland, and in other king­domes, where the Gospell is receiued and established by publique authority: and by the same authority orderly our men (whose right thereunto in those assemblyes and Parliamentes haue beene founde to be the better) haue beene put into possession thereof. And in other places, your Bishops and Priestes, as not able to stand in the presence of the light of the Gospell, when, will they, nill they, they sawe it would take place in their territories, forsooke their places, and left them to those that had more right thereunto, as for example, they did in Geneua, when the Gospell was first esta­blished there. And no marueile, though vpon the bare preaching of Gods trueth, and the entertainment thereof, many of your proude Bishops, and superstitious Priestes can stand no lōger in their pla­ces. For when the Arke of God came in presence, Dagon could stād no longer, though his frends set him vp againe neuer so often; yea the more they stroue, to haue him stand, the more dangerous fall got he, as you may read, 1. Sam. 5. And it cannot be le [...]ted, but Christes saying will take place, and be verified one time or other, Euery plant, that my heauenly father hath not planted, shall be pluck­ed vp by the rootes, Matth. 15.13. whereupon it commeth indeed, [Page 134] that the proude prelates, of your Antichristian Hierarchie, hauing gottē vnto themselues titles and offices, through the ambitious and fond deuise of mens heads, which God neuer allowed to be for his house, must needes (when God meaneth to reforme his house, and to establish his owne orders therein) auaunte their roomes, and leaue their liuinges, for the Lordes true officers, and allowed seruantes indeede. Blame therefore the badnesse of your foundation and title, for leesing of your liuings, and nothing else.

You bid vs shew our euidence, that our right to them is better then yours, out of the ancient doctours. In the meane tyme you apply Tertullians wordes, in his booke of Prescription a­gainst heretiques against vs, and that of Paul, How shall they preach, vnlesse they bee sent? Romans. 10. I answere you: not onely out of the ancient doctours, but out of the Canonicall Scriptures also, our ministers long ago haue made euident de­monstration vnto the Princes and estates, that haue driuen you out of possession, and put them in, that their title to your liuings was good, and yours starke naught; in that thereby they proued vnto them, their religion to be ancient, sound, and Apostolique, and yours to be but of a later Antichristian stampe: though you (accor­ding to your maner) say we cannot deny, but that your religion was planted throughout Christendome 1000. yeares, before wee were borne: which you shall neuer be able to proue true: for wee most con­stantly deny, both that antiquity, and vniuersality of it. And when­soeuer you will, wee are ready againe by the same Scriptures, and Doctours, to proue our right by the same argument to bee good and sound, and yours to be of no force: come to the triall of it, when, and as oft as you will. And therefore, seeing it is a thing most euident, that the reason why either you or we should pretend a­nie right to these, or any other liuinges of the Church, is, that we feede the Church with wholesome and sounde doctrine; wee hauing oft proued ours so to be, by the grounds aforesaied, and you being neuer able to doe the like for yours, both Pauls saying, and Tertullians must rather take place against you, then vs. For I trust you will confesse, that there Paul accounteth none sent of God to preach, but those that preach the truth; and questionles Ter­tullian vseth those words of his (as by the wordes themselues, as they are set downe by you, it is euident) not against those, that were [Page 135] able to proue their doctrine sounde by the Apostles writings, but against fantasticall heretiques, such as had taught, and did teach doctrine dissonant from the Scriptures, deuised vpon their owne heades. Against whom he being to prescribe, both by the Scriptures, and by the sounde testimony of those, that succeeded the Apostles vntill his tyme, he might lawfully and to good pur­pose say, what are yee, and from whence doe you come &c. And truely, when any man shall enter into a consideration of the state of the Church in Tertullians tyme, both in respect of doctrine and gouernment: and on the one side weigh the simplici­ty of the pastours and teachers then, and the agreement that their doctrine had with the writen word, and then therewith on the o­ther side, compareth the more then princely prelacy and Hierar­chie, that hath beene these many yeares, and yet is in yours, ioy­ned with doctrine not only manifoldly differing, but in a number of points, directly contrarying the word writen: hee shall be en­forced to thinke, that if Tertullian were aliue againe, and sawe notwithstanding how confidently you ruffle, as though all were yours, and no man had any right to any thing, but your selues; he would more vehemently vse these words here recited by you, a­gainst your prelates, then euer he did against Marcion, Apelles, or any other heretique in his time.

But you are so liberall vnto vs, as to tell vs, that though wee had commission from God, yet he would haue called it backe, euen for our noble actes and deedes, in driuing you out of possession, and taking possession, though of our own, before the sentence of the iudge was giuen. Which you proue by a law of Theodosius and Arcades Emperours of Rome, made to forbid men, vnder paine of leesing their right, not to seeke to recouer possession of their own, by violence & force. Wherunto I an­swere you, that graunt vs so much (which of right you must) and for all your tale and penall Statute of Theodosius and Arcades, we shall be to good for you. For first, what other Iudges sentence were wee to expect, but theirs, that we had on our side alrea­die? Secondly, there hath beene no such tumultuous, or disor­derly violence vsed by vs (as I haue shewed before) as their lawe forbiddeth, to recouer our owne from you: and then you must vnderstand, that these Emperours prescribe their lawe, to bridle men, and not to binde God from recouering his inheritance to [Page 136] the vse of his seruants, from the hands of Antichristian vsurpers, e­uen by force and violence, if otherwise they will not yeeld. To proue therefore, that God would haue called in our commission, though he had graunted it, rather then hee would haue suffred vs to execute it, in violent driuing you out of possession, to recouer our owne right, you had neede to haue vsed a stronger reason, then taken from the edict of Emperours. If these thinges had beene well cōsidered before of you, you might haue spared your iest, where­with you conclude this Chapter well enough, and so rather haue staied your pipes your selfe, then in such sorte, as you haue, blow­en so ioyfully in token of triumph, before any likelihoode of victory. The vanity and falshoode of your bragge, for the continuance of your religion aboue one thousand yeares, before we were borne, not onely throughout France, but also throughout all Christendome, I haue fully and at large discouered in the later ende of the preface, & in my answer to your 4.16. & 39. ca. & therfore in this place I haue saied no more then I haue, referring the reader for a full answere thereūto both here, and wheresoeuer else it is repeated by you, vnto these places. And though S. Augustine say, as you write, that liber­ty and licence of conscience to doe euil, is the death of the soule: yet that toucheth vs nothing at al, for doing what we may, by lawfull & ordinary means, to dispossesse your Antichristiā prelats of the places of gouernment ouer Christs Church, and of the maintenance due to his true & faithful pastors. For so to deale, is but orderly to recouer Gods inheritance out of the hands of his enemies, & to possesse them thereof, to whom it is due, and therefore in so doing, there is neither liberty nor licence to doe euil practised. But rather you, in crauing the restoring of you thereunto, and quiet continuance therein still, craue both liberty & licence, without controlement to go on in sacri­legious enioying that, which at no hand appertaines to such as you be.

The XVI. Chapter.

NOT we, but your Romish Iesuites and seminary Priests, are the sowers of that seede of sedition, that you speake of; neither is it we, but they and such like of your side, which when they haue so done, alleadge onely for their defence, their ardent and Apostolique zeale and affection to winne soules. This, in England and Ire­land these late yeares, hath notoriously and very often beene found true in these, and questionlesse other kingdomes, where the Gos­pell is preached and established, haue and doe finde the like. For they go vp and downe secretly, vnder the pretence of reconciling men and women, into the bosom of their mother Church, to a­lienate their heartes from their naturall soueraigne, to the obe­dience of a forraine potentate, and so prepare them against the time when opportunity shal best serue, to procure the death or de­position of their lawfull Prince. And that thus without anie of­fence to God they maie doe, they perswade themselues by vertue of the Popes bull, in that therein they bee absolued from their al­leageance vnto their home supreme magistrate, and are thereby al­so taught, that in furthering either his depriuation or death, they shal doe honourable, acceptable and meritorious seruice to the mother church of Rome. These thinges (I say) haue of late yeares too too often here in England, in open places of iudgement beene ma­nifestly proued against your Iesuites and Popish Priestes, and therefore as traitours a number of them and their followers, haue beene most worthely executed. Which thinges being so euident as they are, great shame is it, that yet you should not blush to charge vs with these thinges, whereof yours are most famously guilty, and whereof truely you cannot conuict any of ours. You tell vs wee should haue praied to the Lorde of the haruest, to thrust forth more labourers thereinto (as Christ hath commanded vs Math. 9. and not as you quote it Math. 15.) and that in the meane time we should haue reformed our selues, and not haue taken vpon vs without some expresse commaundement from God, a matter of such impor­tance, [Page 141] as the reformation of your estate is. According to this coun­sell of Christ, wee haue praied to the Lorde of the haruest, and he, in his mercy towardes his Church, hath heard our prayers, and wee hope will euery day more and more, to the full ouerthrowe of yours, and perfect consummation of ours. But that in the meane time, they, whose eies God hath opened to see the Babylonish confusion of yours, should there haue staied (as you would haue had them) vntill they had a further commission from God then already they had (for so you must needes meane by that further commission or expresse commaundement, that you would haue had them first to haue had) you can neuer proue. For they, whose ministrie it pleased God to vse to detect your Antichristian do­ings according to his worde 2. Thessal. 2. in these later daies were such, as namely, Wickliffe, Iohn Hus, and Luther, that had not onely the ordinary calling of those times to feede Gods peo­ple as pastours and doctours, but also they were such as God had blessed with rare and extraordinary giftes of knowledge and zeale, and therefore if they seeing the abhominations of your Synagogue, and the grosse blindenesse and errours that you still laboured to holde Gods people in, had contented themselues one­ly with praying vnto God for the redresse therof, & with reforming of thēselues, & had not saied their hands & shoulders to the work, vsing the talents that God had bestowed vpon them, to his best aduan­tage, without a further new and expresse commaundement, then they had alreadie receiued in the writen word, should not they with the vnprofitable seruant Math. 25. haue had their wages? They tooke not in hand to doe as they did (as you would make your Reader beleeue) onely vnder the colour of zeale, without expresse warrant from God their Lorde and master For beside their zeale and knowledge, by their callinges in that they were famous do­ctours and pastours in their times, they were bound by Gods expresse worde Esay 58.1. Ezech. 33.6. & 7. and in sundrie o­ther places to doe, as they did. But to bring vs and our mini­sters into hatred, in this Chapter you labour to perswade your rea­der, that as of burning zeale they haue in many places dispossessed your Bishops and Priestes of their places, so as Gods Lieute­nants, and as men voide of all partiality (for thus tauntingly it pleaseth you to write) they wil proceede against ciuill magistrates, both higher and lower in like maner, because many of them haue [Page 142] beene and be (as you say) as ill liuers and rather worse, then your Popish Prelates haue beene. Which to bee an vnlawfull thing and the cause of all confusion and horrible disorder, you bestowe a great deale of needelesse paines to proue, for it is a thing that wee teach and vrge in earnest, and you (your practise to the contrary beeing so vsuall as it is considered) onely in iest, and for a fashion teach it. But indeede this is the way, which the ma­licious and ancient enemies of Gods Church haue alwaies vsed, to disgrace the true seruants of God by, with the Kings and Princes of the world, and therefore you doe well in that you are nothing behinde them, in malice & enmity against Gods people, in that you studie also to be like them in this. Wee reade (you know) after the returne of Gods people out of their captiuitie in Babylon, when they beganne once to build and to go forward, either with Gods house in Hierusalem, or the walles of that Ci­ty, alwaies this was one of the practises of their enemies to la­bour their discredit, to the hinderance of their worke, to accuse them to the Persian Kings, to intende therein sedition and rebel­lion against them. Ezr. 4. Nehem. 6. And it appeares Iohn 19. it was the principallest meanes, whereby the high Priest and the Iewes prouoked Pilate, to giue sentence against our Sauiour, that they tolde him, that he was not Caesars frend, if he deliuered him, thereby insinuating (though in trueth hee had both payed tribute vnto Caesar, and had taught others both by example and word publickly, to yeelde vnto Caesar whatsoeuer was due vnto him Math. 16. & 22. and they of all other did most repine at Caesars iurisdiction ouer them and their cuntrey) that hee was one whose doings and doctrine tended to the supplāting of Caesar. In like maner Act. 17. & 24. wee finde it one of the vsuall meanes, that the vnbeleeuing Iewes and other lewde people (then when none in their hearts regarded Caesar and his authoritie lesse) vsed to discredit the Apostles and their doctrine, to accuse them to be seditious and such as cared not for Caesars decrees. Nei­ther did this practise die, when the common weale of the Iewes ceased, for it appeares in Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 1. and in Tertullians Apology in sundry places, that there was nothing more common in the primatiue Church, then to lay to the charge of the Christians, that they conspired amongst themselues against the state of y ^e com­mon weale, and the ciuill and supreme magistrates thereof. And [Page 143] therefore we can the more patiently abide this your dealing with vs, in that herein we see we are no otherwise dealt withall by you, then Gods people, Christ his Apostles, and other his faithfull ser­uants haue beene dealt withall in ancient time, by your predeces­sours. But the Lordes name be praised for it, howsoeuer it hath pleased you, in thus charging vs to intende the deposition and dis­placing of ciuill magistrates, to conforme your selues to the an­cient enemies of Gods people, our doings in those places where our Religion hath beene longest settled, doeth euidently in the eies of the world acquite vs hereof. For in such places who see­eth not, that the ciuill magistrates togither with it haue alwaies, and yet doe honourably and quietly enioy their places and digni­ties? Yea this wee dare bee bolde to say, that the Christian Kings, Princes and magistrates, that haue giuen best entertain­ment vnto it, finde by most manifest experience, that both it and the professours therof, haue better established them in their thrones, and more aduanced them in their dignities, then euer they were or could be by yours. For now they are absolute Kings and Prin­ces according to their right, where as yours made thē to hold their kingdomes, as the Popes vassals, and so but at the curtesie and de­uotion of a forrainer, and of an intollerable proud and vnsatiable v­surping Prelate: and now their treasure is kept at home to the strengthening greatly of their kingdomes and dominions, which by your Romish Religiō & gouernment, was woont a 1000. waies most insatiably in infinit quantity yearly, to the wonderfull weak­ning thereof, to be conueied to Rome. And whereas then by meanes of your auricular confession, the secrets of euery Prince where that was vsed, was often to the great peril of their states made knowen, to many & vndiscreet blabs & by them & their means to their forreine head the Pope, and so he was thereby alwaies the better inabled for the furtherance of his owne deuises, to preuent & crosse theirs: by the banishing of that Romish stratageme Princes coūsels & secrets, are kept at home in secret as they should, to the great good of thē & their cuntries. And lastly, by our Religion, according to the examples of Dauid, Salomō, Asa, Iehosaphat, Ezechias, Iosiah, Constātine & Theodosius, they are in possession of their full authority, to cōmāde for Religiō & in matters ecclesiastical, aswel their subiects of the clergy as the rest; whereas by your Religion they were supreme gouer­ners vnder God for matters ciuil only, & had their cleargy so exēpted [Page 144] from them and their iurisdiction, that howsoeuer they had their bo­dies in their kingdomes to enioy the promotions thereof, they had neither their bodies nor soules in further subiection, then would stand with the pleasure and profit of the forraine potentate the Pope. By meanes whereof, Anselme, Stephē Lanckton, Thomas Becket and sundry other proude prelates of this land, haue so stucke to the Pope, against their soueraigne kings at home here in Eng­land, that in comparison of the Pope, they haue set their King at naught, to the wonderfull trouble and disquiet of the whole land, as notoriously appeares in our Cronicles. Which things conside­red, I thinke you may long tell Princes, that you and your religion is frendly to them, and that we and ours is hurtful vnto them, before any of them, that be wise, beleeue you. Truely I cannot but wonder at your grosse hypocrisie in this Chapter, in that you are so earnest and busie, not onely to proue it vnlawful and mōstrous, how bad so­euer they that be in authority be, to refuse to yeelde duety & submis­sion vnto them, but also to lay to our charge, that we haue an intenti­on, to place and displace ciuill magistrates at our pleasure. For I cannot perswade my selfe, that your skill in diuinity was so small, but you were resolued for all this, that the obedience and sub­iection taught in these places here quoted by you, or any where else in the scriptures, is not so infinite and absolute, as that thereby sub­iects are bound to doe whatsoeuer by higher powers, be it good or bad, they are commanded to doe. For how could it be possible, that a man of your place should forget the vsual limitation, in the Lord, or that you should not remember that God must be obeied before man. Neither yet can I thinke, that you were ignorant, but that the very same thing which here you charge vs with, as with a grieuous fault, hath bene and yet is openly practised, and taught publickly, to be ve­ry lawfull in your Church of Rome. Hereof I am sure D. Allen, a great man of your side, in his 5 Chapter of his defence of English catholicks, reckōs vp in a great brauery and bragge, sundry Kings and Emperours by force deposed by the Pope. And indeed it ap­pears most euidently in sundry Chronicles, that at their pleasure, a long time they haue most shamefully misused Christian Princes & potentates of the world. For though they were and are beholden to the Christian Roman Emperours, for their first aduancement, from the state of poore persecuted bishops, to the state of patriarches in these westerne parts, yet in processe of tyme, when the seat of the em­pire [Page 145] was remooued to Constantinople, & these westerne parts were gouerned by an exarch at Rauenna, they through the help of certaine Kings of the Lombards and others, in tokē of thankefulnesse to the ancient Emperours of Rome, quite extinguished their Empire and authority in these west parts. And in the ende, not contented with that, which they had incroched by the ruine of the Empire, through the helpe of the Goths, Vandals, Lombards & others (seeking there­by their further aduācement) Pope Zachary, about the yeare 743. found the meanes to cause Childericke then King of France, to bee deposed, and he set vp Pipine in his roome, whom he & his successour Stephen the 2. aduanced to the Empire, and therefore this Pipine, Charles the great and Lodouicke his sonne (which three immediat­ly succeeded one another, in the new Empire, thus translated vnto them by the Pope) to gratify the Pope for the same, they brought the Lombards and others, that before beganne to be somewhat to sausie with the Popes, vnder, and bestowed vpon his see, as Blondus & Vo­lateran note, very many rich and great Ilands, cities, countries, shires, townes and prouinces, whereby he was mightely aduanced. Yet for all these great benefits receaued by the line of Pipine, when his successours began not to be pliable enough (as they thought) to their becke, in making warre against the Princes of Italy, which be­gan to pinch them for their wrong-gotten goods, Gregorie the fifth about the yeare 1002. practiseth with the Germans, to bring the Empire to them, from the line of France, and so Otho was set vp Emperour. But when these German Emperours began to abridge them of their wil, and to resist their tyrannicall oppressions, then they laboured & practised by all meanes, to hamper them also: in so much that certaine it is, that Gregorie the 7. excommunicated Henry the 4. or as some write 3. about the year 1078. & gaue his empire to Ro­dolph, who missing of it & being slain, the Emperour yet to be recō ­ciled with the Pope, waited 3. daies & 3. nights in the winter, with his wife and child at the gates of Canossus, and within the suburbes thereof, barefoote & barelegged, before he could come to the speech of the Pope, when he had obteined that, then he was faine to kisse his foote, and to yeelde vp his crowne into his hands, & to take it againe vpon such conditions, as it pleased him to prescribe, and yet his successour Pascalis raged against the same Emperour againe, & set vp his owne naturall sonne Henry, to depriue his father of his Em­pire. Who when he had got it, yet he was in the ende accursed and [Page 146] excommunicated by that Romish see, as his father had beene, and not preuailing sufficiently that way, the Saxons at last were set vp to warre against him and depose him. And thus they hauing hampe­red these two Hēries, vnto Frederick Barbarossa came, which was about the yeare 1155. they did what they listed, who beganne some­what againe to abridge them of their vsurped supremacy, and so did his sons sonne Frederick the 2. but in the ende Alexander the third, brought the necke of the first vnder his feete in S. Marks church in Venice, and Pope Adrian controlde him from holding his wrong stirrop, & excommunicated him for being so saucy, as to set his name in writing before his; and the other was miserably vexed, by Hono­rius the 3. Gregory the 9. and Innocent the 4. For the first of these interdicted him, the second excommunicated him twise, & raised the Venetians against him; and the third did in the end spoile him of his Empire, caused him to be poisoned, and at length strangled by one Māfredus. Innocent the 3. in the minority of Frederick the second, and before he was chosen Emperour, dealt in like sort with Philip and Otho the 4. placing them and displacing them at his pleasure. Frederick the seconds sonne called Conrade, and the next of his line also called Conradine were amongst thē miserably abused: for the first of them was soone dispatched, they stirring vp against him the Lātgraue of Turing, who droue him into his kingdome of Naples, where he died of poisō giuē him, as some write; & the other claiming but the kingdome of Naples, after his death the matter was so han­dled (they stirring vp Charles the French Kinges brother against him) that both he & Frederick, Duke of Austria, were takē, impriso­ned & in the end beheaded. Hēry the 6. Frederick the firsts son, Pope Celestine the 3. crowned at Rome, but in such sort, that w ^t his foote he put the croune vpon his head, & therewith he spurned it of againe. And the like y ^t happened to Frederick had almost befallē Philip the Frēch king, by Pope Boniface the 8. who because he could not haue whatsoeuer commodities he demaunded out of France, by his bull denoūced sentence of deposition against the saied King Philip, and gaue the title thereof to one Albertus king of the Romans: [...]t for all the roaring of that bull, Philip kept his place still. Alexāder the 3. that trode vpon Frederick the firsts necke at Venice, euen here in England so farre abused King Henry the 2. about Thomas Beckets death, that he caused him to go for penaunce barefoote in winter, with bleeding feete to his tombe. And Innocent the third [Page 147] caused King Iohn his sonne, after that 7. yeares he had resisted their supremacy & tyranny, by the meanes of his excommunicatiōs, indicements of his land, and encouraging of his subiects against him, to surrender his croune to the hands of his Legat Pandelphus, and so he continued fiue daies, before hee receiued it againe, and then was glad to take it in farme of him for a rent by indenture. Infinit be the villanies, that haue bene offered & done by that see to Emperours and Kings. For did not Gregory the 7. to the great iniury of the Empire, set vp Robert Wisard, and made him King of Sicilia and Duke of Capua? Did not Pope Vrbane the second put downe Hugo an Earle in Italy, discharging his subiects from their oath and obedience vnto him? Did not Pope Clement the fift, most despitefully cause Franciscus Dandalus, the Venetiā embassadour, suing but for absolution of Venice from the Popes curse, to lie a long time first tied by the neck in a chaine vnder his table, like a dogge, before he would harken to his request. Furthermore Ge­lasius the second, brought the noble captaine Cintius so vnder, that he was glad lying prostrate before him, to kisse his feete, and by the yeare 1237, the Pope Gregorie the 9. had so cursed king Hen­ry the 3: king here of Englād, that he was glad (to currie fauour w ^t him) to receiue a Legat of his, called Cardinal Otho, meeting him at y ^e sea side, & that in most lowly maner, bowing downe his head in low curtesie towards his knees. And though he yeelded wonderfull sub­mission to the next Pope Innocent the 4. yet he tooke of one Dauid Prince of Northwales 500. marks by the yeare, to set him against y ^e King of England, & exempted him & his welshmen, from their fealty which they had sworne vnto him before. Most intolerable were the exactiōs & cōmodities, that one way & other the Popes for thēselues & their frends, had out of Englād in Henry the 2. king Iohns & Hēry the thirds time: they exceeded oftē (as it appeareth in y ^e stories) the anciēt reuenues of the crowne, & wonderfully empouerished y ^e land, & yet whē these kings (though in neuer so hūble maner) at any time, neuer so litle sought to stay these pillages & oppressiōs of the lād, the Popes raged most extreamly against thē: & did thē what despite they could, vntill they had their will. Yea so intolerable hath beene their pride & insolēcy against kings & Emperors, y ^t they haue brought thē to lead their horses by y ^e bridle, & to waite on thē on foot like lackies, they riding like high & mighty princes ouer thē, & they haue made thē faine to please thē withal, to hold thē water & to serue at their table. [Page 148] And though their power bee not as it hath beene, yet [...] [...] ­lice and will, to trample Princes vnder their feete, is as [...] as euer it was, and therefore not onely haue Pius 5. and Gregory the 13. by their cursed buls, roared against our gratious soueraigne La­dy Queene Elizabeth that now is, thereby labouring her depositi­on, but also both secretely and openly, a number of waies they and their fauourits haue gone about both by opē hostility and priuy con­spiracies, to bring that their wicked purpose to passe, yea though it were, by the shedding of her innocent bloud. And so far are they of yet in this great light to be ashamed of murdring treacherously Chri­stian Princes, whom otherwise they cannot frame to their fancies, that of very late yeares, by a most wicked varlet, whom they had per­suaded, that therein he should doe a meritorious deede, they so dispat­ched the noble Prince of Orenge; and since by the like persuasions, haue sought by one Parrie and others to effect the like against our soueraigne; whom the Lorde for his Christes sake so long preserue, that she may see either the happy conuersion, or effectuall confusion of all her enemies. Now these thinges considered, and they beeing most true (as from point to point, they are testified by your owne Cronicles) if there had beene any shame in you, you would neuer haue gone about as you haue, to charge vs with your surmised intention to displace ciuill magistrates. Whereas you would seeme to streng­then this your malicious accusation, in that we haue displaced some of your Popish Bishops, Priestes, Monkes, and Friers, and refuse obedience and submission to your Popes: you must vnderstand that herein you commit two great and foule faults; the first is, that you stretch the places here quoted by you, which teach indeed only obedi­ence and submission to ciuill magistrates, and to lawfull ecclesiasti­call persons, in the Lorde, as though therein and thereby God had aswell tied and bound al persons, to obedience and subiection, to your vnlawfull and Antichristian Prelates and cleargie, yea and that in such strict maner, as though it were vnlawfull how bad and wic­ked soeuer they and their commandemēts be, either to refuse to obey them, or to speake any hard word against them: your second fault is, that you take it, that there is no difference to be put betwixt your ec­clesiasticall Prelacies, and the higher powers, that the scriptures in these places teach obedience and submission vnto: whereas indeede there is as great differēce, as there is betwixt heauen and earth, and the ordinances of God and the vnlawfull deuises of man, betwixt the [Page 149] higher powers there spoken for, & the higher powers that you plead so much for. For the higher powers there spokē for, be such as though sometimes for iust causes knowen vnto God, they light in the hands of wicked and profane persons, yet of themselues are the lawfull or­dināces of God, whereas the authority of your Popes & of other your Romish Prelates, whom we haue displaced, and refuse to submit our selues vnto, is vtterly vnlawful, and not onely without warrant from the lord in his word, but directly contrary to the same. For whereas Rom. 12. & Ephesiās 4. the spirit of God hath reckoned vp all the ec­clesiastical officers, which Christ the master of the house hath appoin­ted, for the ful and perfect ordering therof, none of these of yours, whō we haue displaced and refuse to obey, are once remembred, & besides both contrary to Christ our sauiours expresse cōmandement, & Peters also Luk. 22.1. Pet. 5. they take vpon them, as tyrannially as euer did any Princes of the nations, Lordship ouer Gods inheritance, & ther­fore by their proceedings we finding them to be very antichristian, both S. Pauls prophesie, that Antichrist shall be consumed by the spi­rit of Gods mouth 2. Thess. 2. and that flat commandement giuen vs from heauen Apoc. 18. to come out from Babylon, & to seperate our selues from her, doe assure vs, that lawfully wee may speake against them and their enormities, and not only refuse submission vnto them, but also to doe what we can to roote out such plants, which our hea­uenly father neuer plāted, out of the earth. Wherefore fondly doe you go about to teach, out of the Prophet Ieremy, that as the Iewes were taught submission and obedience to Nabuchadnezzar, so we should learne thereby, to chamber our tongues against your Pope and other Prelates, & also quietly to submit our selues vnto them. For though he were a wicked tyrant, yet his authority it selfe was lawfull, and y ^e ordinance of God; and he came vnto his authority ouer the Iewes, by force of armes & conquest, which is an ordinary way, that God vseth to inuest Kings and Emperours, with such ciuill authority ouer na­tions and cuntries by, whereas the very authority it selfe of your Popes and other Prelates (howsouer you cōfidently, and yet vntruly aduouch that S. Paul Rom. 13. is to bee vnderstoode, aswell to haue spoken that which he there speaketh of them, as of Kings & other law­full magistracies & offices) is as I haue proued vtterly vnlawful, and the meanes whereby they haue come thereunto, hath beene shameles wresting of the scriptures, fraud, deceit, treachery & maine force, w ^c all are abhominable steps, for cleargy mē to attaine vnto their offices [Page 150] by: neither would we, if we had liued vnder the persecuting Empe­rours of Rome, or vnder Nabuchadnezzar (as you here insinuate) haue refused to yeelde so far obedience and submission vnto them, in all quietnes, as we might, not disobeying the Lorde to obey them; and further, neither the Iewes vnder the one, nor the Christians vn­der the other, were bound: which obedience and submission to your Popes & Prelates will not serue your turne, for you would haue it yeelded vnto them without limitation, for otherwise they should not be obeyed, wherein you would fainest haue thē obeyed. And therefore in your Canon law dist. 40. cap. Sipapa: it is enacted, that though your Popes should deale neuer so lewdly, both in respect of them­selues, and in carying others by heaps vnto hell, yet none must be so presumptuous, as to aske them, why they doe so. Howbeit for the more full satisfying the Reader, and clearing our selues of this your slanderous accusation, of intending the displacing of ciuill magi­strates, for their wicked liues, this further is the common and re­ceaued doctrine amongst vs, concerning that point: that though Christian subiects may not disobey God, to obey their wicked com­mandements, yet they are rather patiently to suffer the penalties that they shal inflict vpon them, for their chusing rather to obey God then them, then to vse or to consent to the vsing of any forcible meanes to depose them. And this our practise hath plentifully made to appeare, to bee the common and receaued opinion in this case amongst vs. But whereas you would haue vs so humble and meeke (by abusing and wresting Christes counsell giuen vs Mat. 11.) as that we should obey Pilate, Annas and Caiphas, euen to the suffering of death, without once opening our lippes, to speake anie word of disgrace against them: I see the onely marke you shoote at is, that we should obey your Popes & Prelates in whatsoeuer they commande vs, or else that we should suffer them, without once mu­ting against them, to make what hauocke of vs they list. For though you would seeme to plead for our obedience & submission to the ciuill magistrates, yet plainely you bewray, that so your Popes and Pre­lates might get this submission at our hands, you haue the thing you shoote at and care for. But to returne to your perswasion of vs to be meeke and humble &c. tell me in good earnest, did Christ at any time obey any of them you speake of, in any thing that was ill? and was there not a necessity in regard of our redēption to suffer those things which he suffered, and as he suffered them at their hands? what ma­keth [Page 151] this then, either to binde vs to obey the wicked & vngodly pro­ceedings of your Popes and Prelates, wherein onely we refuse to listen vnto them, or needelesly to suffer those thinges at your hand, which lawfully we may auoide? And I trust you are perswaded, that Christ himselfe that willed others to learne of him to be hūble and meeke, that he neuer forgat that lesson himselfe. And yet if you reade Mat. 23. and Iohn the 8. you shall finde, that he comprising the high Priestes themselues within the compasse of his speech, aswell as other his inferiour malitious enemies, calleth them hypocrits, children of the Deuill &c. And the Prophets though they were not to learne of you, how to behaue them selues to higher powers, yet they did vse often very sharpe and bitter speeches, against the Princes and other rulers of their times; an example whereof you haue Esay. 1.10. in these wordes. Heare the word of the Lord O Princes of Sodom: hearken to the law of our God, O people of Gomorrah. But Paul you will say Act. 23. hauing called a wic­ked high Priest, that contrary to law tyrannously had commanded him to be smitten, painted wall, being admonished thereof, corrects himselfe, remēbring that it is writē, thou shalt not raile or speake ill of the Prince, Ex. 22. saying I knew not that he was the high Priest. Indeede one of the high Priests clawbacks, who are alwaies ready to iustify their master, how vniustly soeuer he deale, and to controle Gods seruāts for saying neuer so litle amisse of thē, though therunto they be neuer so iustly prouoked, gaue him a check therefore, where­vpon it seemeth that Paul vpon the reason aforesaied excused him­selfe, but indeede he did it in such sort, as that in trueth he giue, him a greater blow, though somewhat more couertly, then he had done before, in plainly shewing that, (that dealing of his considered) he knew him not to be the high Priest. But if this notwith­standing, you thinke still, that Paul would not giue any harde speech to such a Prelate, and iustifie it when he had done, con­sider a little what reckoning you make of Saint Peter, and then call to remembrance, what is writen Gal. 2. and you shall finde it cleare, that not onely he rebuked Peter openly at Antioch, but that also he iustifies that his owne doing therein, saying, that he did so be­cause he went not with the right foote to the Gospell. And learne by these places not to be so dainty ouer your Popes and Prelates hereafter, but y ^t if they doe lewdly, think it may well stand with that meekenes & humility, that Christ hath taught vs, that they be plainly [Page 152] as they deserue, tolde of their doings by vs. It is one thing to rafle of them, that be in lawful authority, and to backbite and depraue them; and another thing it is, by way of instruction, admonitiō and repre­hensiō, by plaine, iust and true tearms, to let them see their faults, so it be done in time and place conuenient, & in maner beseeming such an action. This later might the Iewes doe to Nabuchadnezzar notwithstanding Ieremies words, and y ^e Christians vnder the hea­then Emperours to them, and yet both keep within duety and loial­ty, but the former is that which is vnlawful to bee vsed against any, how bad soeuer he be, that is in place of lawfull magistracy or office. Finally, whereas you yet thinke scorne, that your Pope should bee worse then Nabuchadnezzar: and that therefore the Iewes might haue had far more iust exceptions against him, to free them frō their obedience and submission to him, then we haue to free vs from sub­iection to your Popes, in trueth, therein you are very much de­ceiued. For first, his authority, as a King ouer them, was a power in it selfe lawful, though abused by him; and yours (as I haue shew­ed) is flatly vnlawfull: and the Iewes were commanded subiecti­on vnto him; and we are commanded (as I haue saied) Reuel. 18. to forsake all communion with your Popish Antichristian king­dome. Your Popes for lewdnes of life, for manifold Idolatries, and blasphemies in Religion, and for want of right title to the dignity and office which they claime, doubtlesse will thorowly match him, & by how much their knowledge, in respect of the meanes they haue which he lackt, should be more then his: by so much these things in them, make them more intolerable, then the same could make him. And therefore these thinges considered, the obedience and submissi­on which the Iews were enioyned to yeeld to Nabuchadnezzar, in­ferreth not the like to be due to your Popes and other your Romish Prelates.

The XVII. Chapter.

YOu proceede, charging vs to haue begon reformation by force, but as yet you haue not proued it. Vpō the beginning thereof, in these later daies, or not long after, wee graunt some stirres did arise in Germanie, France and other places, but therein it hath fallen out no otherwise with the renuing and reuiuing the Gos­pell of Christ, then it fell out with the Apostles when they be­ganne first to preach it. For we reade Act. 17.19. that then stirres and tumults there were vsually raysed vp, by the enemies thereof to hinder the course thereof. And as long as it is not to bee lookt for, but that alwaies it will haue some enemies, what else can be hoped for, but when it springeth & beginneth to florish there wil be some stirres and contentions betwixt, the frendes and [Page 155] enemies thereof? But as the Apostles when for these stirs sake they were charged to be seditious persons, might truely cleare them selues, in that not they, nor the professours of the Gos­pell were at anie time the authours thereof, but rather the ene­mies thereof: so may wee in this same case also doe. For ei­ther they haue begun of your selues, who haue thought by force to stoppe the course of the Gospell, or if any haue begon by others, as some did in Germanie by the Anabaptistes, our men haue beene the forwardest, by their writings and otherwise, to condemne their doings therein. And yet though it should haue fallen out, or it may bee proued that in some one place or other there haue beene since this late detection of Popish enormities, some dis­orderly tumults, and in the same some vnlawfull force vsed, wherewith some indiscreete persons of our side, may iustly bee charged, as long as it is a thing which we neither like, allow, nor iustify in them, what reason is there, that that should be ob­iected as matter of sufficient disgrace to all the rest of vs, and to our Religion also? Is it impossible for such thinges, to fall out sometimes amongst them that professe Gods trueth, euen in well ordered common weales? Then truely of al men in the world, the men of your profession will bee proued to haue least acquain­tance with Gods trueth. For neuer were there more broiles, hoate contentions and force more vsed to compasse your wils, then haue beene amongst you: euery seuerall order of Religious men, euery abbey, euery Cathedrall Church (if the stories were searched) ministers vnto vs infinite demonstration, that there hath nothing beene more vsuall amongst you. O the lamentable and most sauage cruell dealing that hath beene vsed with great ap­probation by men of your side, to bring the poore Indians by force in subiection vnto you. And what extreame force and crueltie hath beene vsed of late yeares, to subdue the poore Christians of Cabriers Merindoll, and other places thereabout, and to roote out the professours of the Gospell, and their fauourers in France? I am perswaded y ^t the Turks neuer vsed more faithles, tyrannical and monstrous dealings, then the stories and the euidence of the thing, declares you haue vsed against these. And therefore it being so vsuall a thing with you, as it is, to promote your Religion by force, of all men you are the vnfittest to charge others with that, as with a fault, which you account so laudable in your selues. And [Page 156] yet as though you had saied so much against vs for this, as that thereupon it must needs appeare to euery man, that we haue neither reason of our saying or doing, you further charge vs, that herein (in seeking namely the reformation of your Church) we haue taken v­pon vs, cōtrary to all laws both diuine and humane, being also a par­ty, to be our owne iudge; wherein you say vntruely of vs, for we al­waies haue beene contented, to submit both our sayings and doings, to the iudgement of the Lord himselfe, speaking vnto vs in the wri­ten word, and by the same we haue had our sayings and doings of­ten examined, and tried to be sound and lawfull in nationall and pro­uinciall Synodes, before we haue attempted the reformation you speake of. And secondly, herein you charge vs as you did before, with that which you your selues are openly guilty of. For though your Pope be the speciall party accused by vs, yet in all matters in que­stion betwixt you and vs, you wil haue him to be the supreme iudge, and so the questiō being betwixt you & vs, whither you be the church or we, and whither you hold the trueth or we, no other triall will you admit, but that we must be iudged by him, whither it be so or no. Wherein you deale, as if the felon at the bar, should refuse all other triall, but to be tried by the principall in that felony, whither he be guilty or no. Now wheras yet in this our dealing, you would resem­ble vs to him, that gaue Christ a blow &c. Your errour is manifold, & therein it seemeth either your negligence was much, or that your wits were benūmed. For where the story you allude vnto is. Ioh. 18. it is quoted in your booke Iohn. 15. & neither doe you hit of Christs words, in rehearsing the answere to him that smote him, nor yet is there any reason or similitude made to appeare, betwixt our dealing in seeking to reform your Church, & that fellow. Christs answer was this, if I haue euill spoken, beare witnesse if the euill, but if I haue well spoken, why smitest thou me? And you set downe his answere thus, if we haue done il, proue it before the iudge, seeing that you are our accusers: & as for the resemblance betwixt him that smote Christ and vs, you shew not wherein it is, neither can I gesse where­in you ment it. But indeed your dealing with vs considered, he cari­eth a liuely resemblance of a number of you, whose property it is, to bring vs for our holy profession before your high priest, and his chap­laines, and then if we chance to answere boldly for our own defence as Christ did (though neuer so directly to the purpose) to checke vs, and strike vs, as he did our sauiour, for your great prelates may not [Page 157] so be answered. But perhaps you wil say, that the words that you set downe, containe your answere to vs, when we checke you for your doings: why then set you them downe, as the answere made by Christ to him that smote him? And if the words be taken as your answere to vs (meaning therein such a iudge, as either the Pope or one of his sworne men) that we should be drawen before such iudges by your owne law here alleaged, is against reason, for they can be no competent iudges, because they themselues are principall parties. Our accusation of you we are alwaies ready to proue, before the Lord of heauen and earth, and before any other indifferent iudges, by such deponents and witnesses, as will not bee corrupted either by you or vs, namely by the prophets and Apostles speaking with­out all partiality, in the Canonical scriptures. Exemption from this iudgement we neuer sought nor will, and if your religion flye this kinde of triall and iudgement, God hath giuen vs power euen thereby to iudge, that you are such as ought to be driuen from possession of such a corrupt religion, that dare not shew the face in this court of iudgment, because then it knoweth, it should bee foyled. But yet to holde your Clyents in some lyking of your reli­gion, you once againe confidently bragge, that it is of one thousand fiue hundred yeares continuance and vpwards, and therefore you re­quire vs that would disswade you therefrom, to shew our commis­sion sealed and confirmed, as so great a matter doeth require, and as Moses his was, by miracles: which in this case to be as necessary for vs, as it was for him, you striue to proue in the rest of this Chap­ter, and that otherwise you are not to beleeue vs. Wherefore be­cause all this you require at our handes, and thinke you may doe it stil only vpon this supposition, that your religion is thus ancient, as you bragge. First, let vs consider of that point, and then proceede to the rest which you infer thereupon. Herein, that which I haue wri­ten already both in the later ende of the preface and in my answere to your 4 Chapter, doeth sufficiētly discouer the shameles follie and vanity of this your brag: howbeit because I perceiue what you lacke in trueth in this matter, your purpose is to make vp with the setting a stout countenance vpon it: once againe, I will take the paines to strip your Church and religiō of this visard of antiquity, which done for al your lewd brags, I doubt not, but that both the one and the o­ther shal be found a yoūgling & a new vpstart in comparison of that, which you pretend. First therfore, to begin withal, in that the greeke [Page 158] Churches (which quite brake of communion with you, in the time of Gregory the 9, in the yeare 1230, which is now not aboue 360. yeares ago) haue not yet allowed the masse, to be a propitiatory sa­crifice for the quicke and dead, do minister no priuate masses either in the Church or else where, reserue not after the ministration of this sacrament any part thereof, nor deny the ministring thereof vnder both kindes to any communicant: in that also they neuer yet coulde be brought, to allow of the supremacy of your Pope, nor of your doc­trines of transubstantiation, extreame vnction, purgatory & of for­bidding their ministers the vse of lawful mariage (in w ^c points now a great part of your religion consists) euen thereby it may be percei­ued, that none of these points, as they are now taught by you, were receiued for catholicke 360. years ago. For if when they brake of cō ­munion from you, these had then beene so accoūted and taken, doubt­les they had then bene acquainted with these, and so by al likelihood, had held them, as they doe other things which w ^t you they had lear­ned before, vnto this day. I am not ignorant that not long af­ter in Gregory the tenthes tyme, in a councell at Lyons, and after that agayne, in the Florentine councell, labour was made to bring them to cōmunion & vnion with you againe, and that in the first, Mi­chael Paleologus (so the better to compasse helpe to keepe his kingdome, which with brutish murder he had got) and some other of his frends, assented vnto a decree to that end; and that in the other likewise, Iohannes Paleologus Emperour of Constātinople, and the patriarch there, with some other greeke bishops, amongst whom was Bessarion, assented, in some sort to your Popes title and your doctrin of purgatory. But withal, good reader, I must tel thee, that I finde, the consenting of the first, was so misliked of the rest of the bishops of Grecia, when they came home, y ^t the stories report, that e­uen therefore they held them, that so assented, alwaies after, as per­sons cut of from the communion of their Church, and when they di­ed, denyed them the honour of buriall. And that likewise the same stories report, not onely that in the later by no meanes they coulde be brought to allow of transubstantiation, though there they were vrged much thereunto, but that for their yeelding in the other they were so resisted, when they came at home by one Marcus the bishop of Ephesus, and other bishops, that they were brought to recant and to declare merely voide al that they had done there: yea moreouer it is recorded in an anciēt register, of y ^e church of Herford, y ^t in 29. articles [Page 159] there also set down, the greek Church differeth quite from your Romā church. And therfore hereby it should seeme, that these points of popery which it hath not yet receiued, were either not at all, or at least not vniuersally receaued, before the foresaied breach, and that therfore these haue not 400 years continuāce on their backs, which comes far short of your account of 1500. years. Further euident and apparent proofes there are to make it vtterly without all question, that both these & many other points of the Roman religion, that now is, are far yoūger then your reckoning. For before the coūcel of Cō ­stance in the yeare 1414. we finde not the ministering the cōmuniō in both kinds publickly forbid to the cōmon cōmunicāt. And in the councel of Basil it was permitted againe in the year 1431. to y ^e Bo­hemiās to receiue vnder both kinds, & so there, from that day to this, many haue vsed to doe. Certaine it is (as it appeares in the first Epi­stle of Cypriā) that in his time, w ^t was 260. years after christ, it was by him accounted absurd to deny the cup to any communicant, & de consecratione dist. 2. it is recorded, that Gelasius who was a bishop of Rome about the yeare 500, made a flat decree to binde al men to receiue in both kinds, saying Either let him, that receiueth receiue both or neither, because the diuision of one mistery cannot bee without sacrilege, and yet now your Popes & their councels, which you hold cannot erre, condēne it for a cursed heresie, to holde it to be needful, that this sacrament should be receiued of al communicants in both kinds. And it appeares in the same distinction, Cap. peracta; That Pope Calixt (in the yeare 223) made a flat lawe contrary to your receiued vse now, of your priests receuing al alone. For there he decrees that cōsecratiō being done, al that wil not be shut frō the church should cōmunicate; for so (saith he) the apostles taught & the fashiō thē of the Romā church was. How is it thē, that your Roman Church that now is, contrary to this ancient decree, thus grounded both vpon the authority of the Apostles, & the practise then of that church, in this point now practiseth the quite contrary? Trā ­substantiation the very life of your masse, your owne doctor Tonstal in his book of y ^e sacramēt, & diuers other of your frēds as I haue shewed before Cap. 11. cōfesse was not enacted & decreed for a catholicke truth amōgst your selues, before Innocēt y ^e 3 time, 1215 in the Late­rā coūcel, which was after the greeke church was gone from you, & so it was rather the decree of a particuler assembly, then of the Catholique Church, and therefore no marueile though the Greekes [Page 160] reiect this your councel and decree. Your owne schoole-men, Ca­nonists and Croniclers, as Durand, Albertus, Gabriel Biel, Inno­centius, Vrspergensis and others, shew from point to point and frō peece to peece, who inuented & deuised your masse, withall the cere­monies thereof, as also Polidor in his 5. booke and 9. Chapter of the inuentours of things, and Platina in the liues of the Popes, and namely, in the life of Pope Sixtus the first. It was so long a lick­ing before it came to the shape it now hath, and was patched toge­ther, as it appeares in these and other your owne writers, by so ma­ny Popes so long distant one from an other in time, that it would require a good pretty long treatise, to set downe the seuerall shreds and morselles thereof, with the authours and deuisers of them. Which things considered, it is the likest a beggers cloake, consi­sting of an infinite sort of patches, at sundry times and of sundry co­lours sowed and cobled together, that can be. The masse now v­sed in your church, commonly called S. Gregories masse was first receaued and established in the time of Pope Adrian 780. years af­ter Christ (at the least, for others accoūt it more) as witnesseth Du­rand, Nauclere, & Iacobus de voragine in the life of Gregorie the first, for before that, S. Ambrose Lyturgie was much in vse. And the last of these authours reports, that when with much a do, Adri­an had got it to bee decreede in a councell, that S. Gregories masse should be vniuersally vsed, and Charles the Emperour had laboured both by faire and foule meanes, to cause the same decree to bee exe­cuted, and yet many would hardly be drawen from the vse of Saint Ambroses, one Eugenius seing this stir about it, gaue the Pope this graue aduise, that the bookes of both the Lyturgies should be layed vpon the altar of S. Peter, and that the Church dores should care­fully be shut and sealed with the signets of sundry Bishops, and that then they should giue themselues all that night to earnest prayer, that God by some euident signe, might shew which of thē he would haue to be vsed: whose counsell being in euery point followed, in the next morning, when they went into the church, they found (as saieth the story) onely S. Ambrose booke opened and lying vpon the al­tar, and the leaues of the other scattered all ouer the church, where­vpon Adrian the Pope, like a profound interpreter of visions, ga­thers that it was the Lords meaning thereby to shew, that S. Am­broses Lyturgy might well be vsed vpon his owne altar at Millan, but the other should be vsed generally ouer all churches, and thus [Page 161] the credit of Saint Gregories masse was first established. Howbeit before transubstantiation came in, which was not, as I haue sayed, before the yeare 1215, it was nothing the minion that it hath beene since. And yet euen then, it was not growen to her highest credit, for about fiue yeares after it was, ere that adoration or eleuation of the host was decreed, for then first Honorius the 3 enacted that; and the hosts holiday, commonly called Corpus Christi day, was not made before Pope Vrbans tyme, in the year 1260. as witnesseth Polydor in his 6 booke and 8 Chapter of the inuentours of things. Whereu­pon it may euidētly appeare, that the masse as it is now, is but a ve­ry youngling, and one of her father the Popes youngest daughters. And as for latin seruice her cōpanion, it was first brought into Eng­land, by one Theodorus sent hither by Pope Vitellian, about the yeare 657. And to proceede to other pointes of Popery (as it is well knowen) it is an other most principall point of your religion, to at­tribute vnto the Pope that vniuersal supremacy ouer al bishops and ouer the whole Church of Christ, that you doe, for you haue made it an article vnder payne of damnation to be receiued, that there is no saluation, but vnder his obedience and within his communion, as it is set downe by Boniface the 8, in his extrauagant de maioritate & obedientiâ. And yet in the 6 Canon of the Nicene councell, hol­den about the yeare 330. (as some count) it appeares, that then the Roman bishop had his bounds and limits prescribed him, aswell as the other patriarches. And the generall councell of Calcedon, and the 6. generall councell, held at Constantinople, determined Can. 36. that the bishop of that see should haue equall priueledges with the bishop of old Rome, 680 yeares after Christ. And appeales to Rome were forbidden, vnder paine of excommunication, in the coū ­cel of Mileuitan. Cap. 22. and of Africke Cap. 92. Further yet your owne proper and late councels of Constance and Basil, haue not long ago greatly curtolled the supremacy, that now the Pope cha­length, for they haue decreed, that the authority of a general coun­cel is so farre aboue him, that thereby he may be condemned and de­posed. And though now according to your Canon Dist. 40. cap. si pa­pa, your popes wil be lawles, & may not by any be controled, though be lead people headlong by heaps to hel, as it is there set downe: yet I read that in Pope Symachus tyme, about the yeare 500. after Christ, that many bishops did accuse him then to Theodoricus king of the Gothes, because he took vpon him to be [...], that is, one [Page 162] whose wil should be a law. And in the coūcel of Carthage the th [...], there was a decree made Cap. 26. against sundry ambitious [...] chalenged euen then, as it should seeme, to be due vnto the bishop [...] of Rome, as that they should not be called Prince of Priestes, [...] priest, but bishops of the first see. And howsoeuer now Ho [...]ius, Be­larmine and others, reckon the title of ecumenicall or vniuersall bi­shop amongst the due and iust titles of the Pope, yet it is flatly set downe, as a thing vnlawful, and is forbid in the 99. distinct [...], [...] by the iudgment of Pelagius, bishop of Rome in the yeare 58 [...] by Gregory the first his successor. And it is wel known, that Grego­ry very directly and often condēned this title both in Iohn bishop of Cōstātinople, and in al other bishops, himselfe and the bishops of y ^e see of Rome not excepted, as it is euident, in his 4 book of Epistles, Epi. 30, 38.88. & in his 9 book, Ep. 45. Your set daies of fasting you learned of Mōtanus; & your placing so necessary a point of fasting in abstinēce frō flesh, of the Manichees; as it appears in Aug. 74. Epist. wherein you are as deepe as either they or any other heretickes euer were, witnes your owne Dur. li. 6. c. de ieiuniis. For he there giueth this as a reason, why in fasting flesh is rather abstained from then fish, because al flesh was accursed, and not al fish in the daies of Noe. And compare Augustines description of the Manichees fasts with yours, in his 2 book de moribus Manicheorū Cap. 13. and you shal finde thē marueilous like. Further what holines soeuer you imagin to be in your forbidding your cleargy mariage, and how ancient soe­uer you would perswade the simple and ignorant; that that order is, any man may see that reads Augustines foresaied 74 Epistle, & his 18 Chapter of his second booke de moribus Manicheorum, as the Manichees & Tatimists learned to condemne mariage, as they did of the Ethnicks (as Clemens Alexandrinus thinketh they did Stro­mat. 3) so you haue learned this your kind of forbidding your cleargy (as you cal them) marriage of them. For there it appears, that they allowed it amongst their ordinary hearers, & forbad it onely to those that studied perfection, and were the chosen ones to the ministery a­mongst them, euē as you do. But whatsoeuer either you or they say, or haue sayed to the contrary, for the iustifying of this your antichri­stian deuise, as it is most cleare to any that readeth but the old testament, that mariage was as allowable to the Lords priests then, and as honourable accounted both of God and good men, so [...] lesse clearly doeth it appeare in the new 1. Cor. 9. & 1. Tim. 3. that the [Page 163] lyke opinion was retained both of the honorablenes and lawfulnesse thereof, for Apostles, Euangelists, and al other ministers of the Lord, insomuch that Paul in the first of these places (howsoeuer you pa­pists seeking to hide his playne meaning, disorder his words & read a woman, a sister; for a sister, a wife) sheweth not onely, how the bre­thren of the Lord and Cephas caried their Christian wiues vp and down w ^t thē, but that also it was lawful for them so to due, & to take maintenance where they preached, for themselues & theirs, & that he & Barnabas if they listed might lawfully euen doe so also. Insomuch that S. Paul. 1. Tim. 4, doeth flatly aduouch the denial or forbidding therof, not only as the Manichees & some other heretikes haue forbiddē it, as a filthy & vnlawful estate in it selfe (w ^t yet if your own report be true) was Siritius opinion dist. 82, & is stil Gregory Martins, dis­cou. ca. 11.) but euen as the wisest of you, defend now the denying of it to your cleargy, vnder the pretēce of more holines in abstaining ther frō, for a plaine doctrine of deuils. For especially he speaketh of thē there, that should in the later daies doe so, in hypocrisie. And therfore the better altogither to preserue mē frō this vanity & impiety, he pronoūces mariage to be honourable & the mariage bed, to be vndefiled, He. 13. And therfore Ignatius in his Epist. to the Philadelphiās saith flatly, y ^t to say the cōtrary cōmeth of the diuel, & vpō this groūd Dio­nysius Corinthiacus labours to perswade Pynitus the bishop of the Gnosiās (as we read Eus. l. 4. ca. 22.) that he did not impose an vnne­cessary & too heauy a burdē of single life vpō the brethrē, yea euē your own Gratian could not dissemble or deny, but that 300. years after Christ, y ^e coūcel of Gāgra pronoūced him accursed y ^e would or should more refuse y ^e ministry of one that is maried, thē of one vnmaried, & y ^e also there is an anciēt Canō fathered vpō y ^e Apostles to y ^e same end dist. 28. Indeed it should seem y ^t in Clemēt Alexādrinꝰ time w ^c was about 200 year after Christ, y ^t there were some y ^t thē begā to vrge y ^e single life of y ^e ministers, but he cals such proud braggers & such as God wil resist, shewing thē by many exāples, reasōs & places of scripture y ^e lawfulnes both of y ^e mariage of such & of y ^e vse therof, & y ^t y ^e denying it thē, was the plain doctrin of deuils spoken against by Paul 1. Tim. 4. Stro. 3. yet it was attempted againe, as we read it was oftē before that particulerly, so in the first councell of Nice generally, to bee established, that men once entred into the ministery, might neither marry, nor yet accompany with their wyues maried before: but there also it was so withstoode by one Paplinutius, that they [Page 164] gaue ouer that their attēpt. And consequently, by that [...] [...] ­cel, that which (as some write) was decreed before in the [...] councels of Elybert and Arles to the contrary, was so repea [...] [...] weakned, that thence forth it was thereby left free vnto ministers to accompany with their lawfull wiues, as to other men. [...] the sixt general councel held at Constantinople, whatsoeuer had a­ny where before that beene attempted to the contrary, which was 680. yeares after Christ, we finde restraint of their mariage so con­demned, that there it is decreed, that it should be lawful for them to marrie, and to enioy the company of their wiues, and that whoso­euer would go about to debar them thereof, should be deposed. And in making of this decree, the fathers in that councell assembled, doe say, y ^t therein they haue followed the Apostles sincere Canons, and the constitutions of holy men (howsoeuer Epiphanius lib. 2. tom. 1. contrary to all trueth of the story, writeth, that where such are ad­mitted, the sincere Canons be not kept) and indeed this decree stands in force, & euer since vnto this day hath bene obserued in al y ^e Churches vnder the patriarches of Constantinople, Hierusalem, Alexandria, Antioch & vnder Presbyter Iohannes in AEthiopia, which are of far larger compasse, then euer was the Roman Church in these westerne partes. Indeed it seemeth by an Epistle write [...] [...]s some think, by one Hulderick; as others suppose, by one Volusianus, vnto Pope Nicolas, to disswade him from restraining the cleargy of lawfull mariage, that Gregory and some others before him (as, if we may beleeue the popish reporters, Siricius) in the Roman see had beene busie in making decrees, to restraine them, but yet that Gre­gory vpon the finding on a time of 6000 infantes heades, in certaine ponds, repented thereof and reuoked the same, saying, it is better they should marry, thē to giue such occasiō of murder; it should seeme that the Epistle was writen rather to Nicolas the second, thē to Nicolas the first, about the yeare 867. for then they beganne to be somewhat busie about the restraining of them. Howbeit they were so resisted herein, that before Pope Hildebrands tyme, about the yeare 1070, or rather Pope Calixts time, in the year 1120, this re­straint of theirs tooke no great place. For Aventinus in historia Boiorum lib. 5. speaking of a coūcell of Hildebrand, saieth, that in that time priests opēly had wiues, and begat children as other Chri­stiās, as appeareth, saieth he, by sundry instruments, wherein their wiues are specified as witnesses, and that called, honesto vocabulo [Page 165] presbyterissae, that is, by an honest name eldrisses. And the 9 Canon of the 2. coūsell of Turon held in the tyme of Pope Pelagius the first as witnesseth Caranza, and the 14 as writeth Surius tom. 2. conc. And Henry Hūtington in his 7 booke writeth that Anselme arch­bishop of Canterbury in his time which was about the yeare 1106. forbad the priests of England mariage (as he saieth) not forbid them before: whereupon as he noteth within short time such grieuous cō ­plaints were brought vnto him of their Sodomitry, that he was enforced to make a law against that sin: yet in the making of these lawes he dealt so fauorably, that whereas to liue in mariage with a lawfull wife was punished with depriuation, one conuict of Sodomitry was onely to be accursed with their ordinary excommunication, vntill he repented & got absolution, which was easie enough to come by. And thus in the iudgement of God most iustly, they forsaking like Hypo­crites the natural and lawful vse of mariage, they were giuen ouer (as Paul speaketh of the reprobate gentiles Rom. 1.) to their owne filthy affections, in that there was nothing more common then filthy fornication & adultery amongst them, or that in their cloysters, they hauing left the natural vse of the woman, one of them lusted towards another, and man with man wrought filthines, and so, as he there sai­eth, receiued in themselues such recompence of their errour as was meet. These things considered, no maruel, though your gloser vpon the 84 distinction be inforced to confesse that olim & tempore prae­terito, that is, that in ancient and former times they were maried: For by these testimonies and by that also which is set downe in that distinction it sufficiently appeares, that your fashion herein is but of late deuised and publickly receiued amongst your own selues. Your doctrine also of free wil, howsoeuer it was then fauoured of the Pe­lagian heretiques, yet it appears, that it was in S. Augustines time asmuch misliked of him, & of the tru church of Christ, as it is now of vs. For he saieth, what is there so much presumed of the power of nature, it is woūded, maimed, vexed & lost, it stāds need of true confession, & not of a false defence, de natura & gratia Cap. 53. Further, if you wil take pains to read him, de gratia & libero arbi­tro ca. 17. de dogmatibus ecclesiae cap 32. de bono perseuerantiae ca. 6. and in his 11. sermon de verbis apostoli, you shal finde him most directly to teach, that of our own selues there is nothing but sin, and that to doe wel, & wil wel, cōmeth wholy of God, which he of his free grace workes in vs, and that neuer any of vs, did more plainely con­fute [Page 164] [...] [Page 165] [...] [Page 166] and oppugne your doctrine herein, then he doth. And you know, that he lyued 400. yeares after Christ and more. In lyke sort your doctrine of iustyficatiō, in part by mans owne merits and satisfacti­ons, howsoeuer of ancient tyme the scribes and pharises troubled the Apostolicke Churches with the lyke doctrine, yet was it a doc­trine abhorred of y ^e Church of Christ, as blasphemous against y ^e om­nisufficient merits, & satisfaction of Christ Iesus, our Lord & saui­our, & ours of iustification freely and fully, soly and wholy by fayth onely in Christ allowed and receiued, as sound trueth, and doctrine in that poynt, not onely in the Apostles tymes (as it appears Ro. 3. Gal. 2. & 5.) but also for many 100. years after, euen vnto very late dayes. For proofe wherof let any man read Origē vpon the 3. & 6. of the Romās, Ambrose vpon the 3 of the Romās also. Hierom in his booke against the Pelagiās, vpon the 4 to the Romās, & vpon the first and 2. to the Gala. Aug. de fide & operibus ca. 22. vpon the 88 Psa. and in his 22 Chap. of his Manuell: and Hilary in his 8 Canon v­pon Mathew. See also Basils 51. hom. de humilitate, Paulinus 58. Epistle to Saint August. amongst Augustines Epistles; Chryso­stome vpon the third to the Romans; Theodoret vpon the same Chapter; Gregory Nazianzens twenty two oration, and Ruffinus his exposition of the Creed: & you shal not onely finde al these fathers in al these places, as flatly to teach free & ful iustificatiō & saluatiō, to cōe by faith in Christ alone, w ^tout our works at al cōcurring, as any helping cause therunto, as any of vs now doe: but also further, I can & doe assure you, that who so wil vouchsafe to take the paines, to read Bernards 23, 61 and 62 Sermons of the Canticles, & his Sermon the 15 of the Psalme, Qui habitat, and his seuenty seuen Epistle, he shal finde, that he (though he were aboue 1100 years after Christ) was of the same minde. For in these places he plainly confesses, that he for his saluation rested onely vpon the merits of Christ, and not vpon his owne at all, counting mans merite to bee nothing else, but to trust onely in Christ and in Gods mercy, withall plain­ly testifiyng, that he hoped to haue his, solâ fide, by faith onely in Christ Iesus. Yea your owne Thomas Aquine confessed with vs, that we are iustified by fayth instrumentally, and that no vertue in­herent in vs, can be of the forme or essence of our iustificatiō. Rom. 4 Ephesians. 2, and in sundry other places of his commentaries vpon Pauls Epistles. And Sadolet, vpon the Epistle to the Romans ac­knowledged (doubtles forced therunto by the power of this trueth) [Page 167] that Abraham attulit tantùm fidem, non sua opera, that Abraham brought onely faith, & not his owne works; & againe he saieth, quā ­tum quisque affert de suâ iustitiâ, tantum detrahit de diuinâ bene­ficentiâ, that is, how much (in this respect) a man bringeth of his owne righteousnesse, so much he pulleth from Gods bountifulnesse. How far likewise the strength of this trueth conquered your great Champion Piggius, with griefe Ruard Tapper, and others of your side haue noted, & writē against him for it. For in the controuersie of iustificatiō, fol. 61. he in playn tearms with vs cōfesses, si formaliter & propriè loquamur, nec fide nec charitate nostrâ iustificamur'sed vnâ Dei in Christo iustitiâ, vnâ Christi nobis cōmunicatâ iustitia: y ^t is, if we speak formally & properly, we are iustified neither by faith nor by our charity, but by the only righteousnes of God in Christ: by the onely righteousnes of Christ cōmunicated vnto vs. And hauing w ^t vs before in y ^e controuersie, proued & confessed fol. 46. y al men, euen the most righteous, if they should be iudged of God, or esteemed according to their own righteousnes, by merit and desert, they were to be accursed and condemned, not onely for the imperfection of our best righteousnes, but also for playne vnrighteousnes to be foūd in y ^e best: he proceeds & concluds fol. 47. that our righteousnes & hope of saluatiō w ^t God, cōsisteth in the free forgiuenes of our sins in Christ, & in that the perfect righteousnes of Christ is imputed vnto vs, ha­uing cōmuniō w ^t him. And to make his meaning more plain, that he meaneth not by the righteousnes of God or Christ, any inherēt righ­teousnes of ours, wrought in vs that beleeue, by y ^e spirit of Christ, as our late Iesuites doe, but y ^e righteousnes that was & is inherent in Christ: he saieth, y ^t y ^e righteousnes of Christ, wherof he would be vn­derstood in this case to speak, is his obediēce whereby he fulfilled his fathers wil in al things, and he expounds or declares the nature of y ^e faith, wherof the Apostle speaketh, Rom. 3. saying, We are iustified freely by his grace, by the redemptiō that is in Christ Iesus, whō he hath appointed to be our attonement maker by his bloud: to bee fiduciā & cōfidentiā in sanguine eius, fol. 48. to be a trust and confidence in his bloud, thereby alone to be saued: so stil aduouching fol. 49. his onely righteousnes imputed vnto vs, to be y ^e whereby we shal stand & be accoūted righteous before God, and him therefore to be vnicū & solidū, y ^e alone & soūd foūdatiō of our saluation. To con­clude therefore this poynt, I say with Iunilius Aphricanus (who liued Anno. 440.) lib. 3. [...], si quis in Christū crediderit [Page 168] remissis peccatis, potest per solam fidem seruari, that is, if any be­leeue in Christ, his sinnes being forgiuen him, he may by fayth alone be saued: and w ^t Augustine vpon the 31. Psalm. si vis esse alienus a gratia, iacta merita tua: if thou wilt be voide of grace, thē boast of thy merits. Your doctrine of auricular confessiō, of praying to Saints, & for the dead, I haue at large in my answere to your thirty seuen Chapter, shewed to be but new doctrines, and of far later stampe then you pretend, and in like maner elsewhere I haue shewed di­uers other points of your religion to be, in this aunswere of mine. And I thinke you are not ignoraunt, that that worthy bishop, bi­shop Iewel, here in England, bishop of Salisbury, hath most cōfident­ly protested, that for 600. years after Christ, you haue no sound groūd for 25. articles (whereof the most of them, are about your masse, whereof you glory most) which protestation or chalenge of his, he hath hitherto defended, sufficiently against all your obiections to the contrary. And therefore whatsoeuer you bragge to the contrary, so much of your religion, as we count it popish for, is and will proue (when you haue done what you can) but as the tares Math. 13 that were by Sathan subtly and secretly sowen in the Lords field, long after the good seed was sowen. And yet we labouring onely ac­cording to our callinges, and that knowledge that God hath giuen vs of his trueth out of his written word, to call you from this newe found pretended religion of yours, to the ancient and true catholicke faith, which we haue learned out of the scriptures, and of alsound antiquity: you not onely burst out into this vaine and monstrously false brags, of the antiquity of yours, and nouelty of ours, but also knowing in your own consciences, that your folly therein wil soone be descried, you cal then for miracles to confirme and warrant this our commission by, which you would faine proue, to be as necessarie for vs in this case, as it was for Moses in his time, thereby to con­firme his. Wherunto I say as vpon the like occasion, S. Augustine said in his time, de ciuitate Dei l. 22. c. 8. Whosoeuer yet seeketh after miracles, that so he may beleeue, he himselfe is a mōstrous miracle, who the world beleeuing, yet beleeues not. For if our doctrine be the same, that the Apostles taught (as we are alwaies ready, and by GODS grace able to proue it to be, by the vndoubted woord of God) then their miracles are so many seales of this our doctrine, and so it beeing thereby sufficiently con­firmed already by miracles, needles is it to require any further con­firmation [Page 169] thereof now, by new miracles againe. But you seeme to take it for granted, that we stand either very much, or altogither vp­on the extraordinarines of our vocation, and therfore supposing that such a vocation must alwaies be confirmed by miracles, you call for them the rather, thus earnestly at our hands. Concerning which point, I haue tolde you already, y ^t though in such ruins of the church, as you had brought it vnto, it bee no strange thing with God to stir vp men extraordinarily, to seeke the reformation thereof, as he did many of the Prophets: yet neither the first ministers, which in these later daies, he hath vsed to this end amongst vs, nor those that he hath vsed since, to go on with that which the others began, rely onely vpon an extraordinary calling, for as I haue shewed, both the one and the other, haue had outward ordinary calling. Besides you must vnderstand, that a man may haue an extraordinary calling, as had Nahū, Abdia, & diuers other of the prophets, who yet you can­not shew, euer wrought any miracles to confirme their calling with­al. And to vse Chrysostomes words, which he vsed against such as you, in that commentary vpon Matth. Hom. 47. which you father vpon him, what miracle wrought Iohn Baptist, which instructed so many and great Cities? For the Euangelist saieth he wrought none Iohn. 10. And yet who therefore may lawfully say, that he had no lawfull vocation or good commission. Againe you know by that which is writen Deut. 13. & 2. Thes. 2. and elswhere: that false pro­phets, yea Antichrist himselfe, may and shal seeke to seduce men, and to draw men from God by miracles, & therefore there God forwar­neth his people thereof, that if notwithstanding they suffer them­selues, the rather to be peruerted thereby, they may be voide of al ex­cuse. Wherefore, seeing there haue bene sundry true prophets extra­ordinarily called, that yet haue wrought no miracles, and also many false prophets, that haue wrought them, and may doe agayne; to what purpose should you thus call for miracles, as though they straight might lawfully be refused, that worke them not, and they safely alwayes followed, that doe them? Howsoeuer you seeme to pretend, that if we should worke miracles you would beleeue vs, yet certayne it is, that if we should worke neuer so many, you would as little for all that beleeue vs, as the blinde and superstitious Iewes beleeued Christ and his Apostles, for all the myracles wrought by them: but this is onely a shift of yours, as long as you may, to dazell the eyes of the simple. For questionles if myracles would serue the [Page 170] turne, beside sundry miracles indeede which the stories doe testifie, haue beene wrought by God, in the protection and propagation of the religiō, which we now professe, euē this is a miracle of miracles, that Luther, lyuing in such a time as he did, should doe as he did, & to so great effect w ^tout miracle, & yet in the end, maugre al his enemies, which were many & mighty, to die quietly, as he did, in his bed. So y ^t al these things considered, it appeareth (I hope) sufficiētly to the in­different reader, that you haue no such aduantage against vs for mi­racles, and you pretend. But because your obiectiō in this behalfe is so egerly prosecuted by you, I wil not refuse to follow you frō step to step & to yeeld you a more particuler āswer, to whatsoeuer you haue sayed in this matter. First therefore, whereas you would insinuate to your reader, that we doe wrong, in comparing the misery that the poor people were in, vnder your Popes, to the misery that the people of Israel were in, in Aegipt, vnder Pharao; & their deliuerāce frō the Romish yoke, to the deliuerāce of that people, frō the bōdage of Ae­gypt: we graūt you, we make that comparison sometimes, & we are sure, that therein there is offred no wrong at al vnto you. For both in vniuersality, continuannce of time, and extremity both to soule & bodie, the slauery vnder your proud antichristian Popes, hath excee­ded theirs, vnder Pharao in Aegypt: and consequently, the deliue­rance of the people from that of yours, must needes (beeing as it is both more spiritual and general, then that of theirs was) much ex­ceed y ^t of theirs. But that therefore, it is as necessary that wee should anew work miracles, to confirme our vocation, to doe this; as it was for Moses to confirme his calling, to doe the other thereby: therin you are both deceiued & seeke also to deceiue others. For Moses by God was shewed, that he should so confirme his, and so are not we that we shal or ought so to confirme ours, and his calling thereunto was not onely extraordinary, whereas ours in great part at least (as I haue shewed) hath bene to this ordinary, but also the thing it selfe and the means to bring it to passe, both in the eies of Pharao & al others, were strange & miraculous, wheras in this our case in delyuering mē frō your antichristiā seruitude, & bringing thē to the liberty & freedome purchased for thē, by the bloud of Christ, by the preaching of y ^e worde of God sincerely, & ministring his sacraments accordingly, both are wōted & ordinary. For what is more ordinary w ^t God, then to bring mē frō error to trueth, & y ^t by these means in his church? The thing y ^t Moses was sent to doe was a new & strange thing: for a man of his [Page 171] quality w ^tout force of war & weapons to deliuer so great & gainful a people out of y ^e hands of such an hard hearted tyrāt, it is wōderful, & therfore it was likewise necessary, that y ^e means that he should effect that by, especially should be miracles. Finally there was no certai­ner way for Moses, hauing to deal w ^t such an one as he had, thē to ap­proue his calling by miracles, wheras ours in this, is far more sub­stātiallie iustified by the scriptures, frō whēce our doctrine hath warrāt, y ^t hath wrought this effect, then it could haue by miracles. For as whē the law was first published w ^t al y ^e ceremonies therof, it was needful, because thē it was new, that Moses credit y ^e publisher ther­of, & y ^e law it selfe, should be cōfirmed by miracle, but whē in y ^e raigne of Iosiah, Hilkiah y ^e priest foūd y ^e booke of the law, w ^c had lien hid be­fore a long time, & so did but reuiue or renue the same law, that was before sufficiently confirmed by miracles, he wrought no miracles, neither was there any called for, or looked for at his hāds, for it was needles. Euē so, whē the ceasing of the ceremonial seruice of the law was to end, & the new priesthood of Christ to come in place thereof, & so withal that then first it should be notified both to Iew and gentile who was and is the very person of the Messias, & what new gouern­ment & sacraments he would haue in his house, it was necessary that miracles should be wrought, to confirme the ministry of thē, y ^t should teach these new & strange thinges first vnto the world: but now these things hauing bene already then sufficiently cōfirmed by miracles, we comming in these later daies of the world, and not taking vpon vs, to preach any other doctrine then the former, and so onely renuing and reuiuing the knowledge of that, which by the ig­noraunce and wickednes of former times, had lyen in great part hid, no more at our hands ought miracles to be looked for. In­deede if it could be proued but once, that we labour to set abroach a new doctrine (as you often in wordes charge vs) that neuer was be­fore sufficiently confirmed by miracles, or if the maner that we vsed to reuiue it by, were any other, but the ancient ordinary way that God hath alwaies allowed in his Church, there were yet some colour of reason, why they should bee thus called for at our handes. But seeing wee stand vpon that point, and haue alwaies done, that our religion is the very same, and no other that Christ and his Apostles taught, which by them in their times was confirmed by miracles, and the maner of our dealing to spread the same againe, is but the ordinary ministerie of the worde [Page 172] and sacraments, by them left for the same purpose vnto the church, there is no reason at all, in matching vs, thus as you doe, with Mo­ses, and in requiring miracles of vs, as of him. And vntill you can proue by the scriptures, that the doctrine that we preach is false, which you neuer shall be able to doe, the three places which you cite out of Ieremie 14.27. & 29. vttered by him, to admonish the people in his time, to take heede of suffering of themselues to be seduced, with the false and lying Prophets, that were in those daies, make nothing at all against vs, nor yet appertaine to the matter in hand: which was to proue, that seeing we worke no miracles, therefore our commission cannot be good, in taking vpon vs to reforme you. For in these places (euē by the words as they are set down by your selfe) it most euidently appeares, that he warned the people to take heede onely of such Prophets, as prophecied falsly in the name of God, ha­uing no vocation from him, and labouring to seduce the people by false visions, naughty diuinations, southsayings and their owne dreames: whereas we haue ordinary vocation from God preach no­thing but trueth warranted by his word, and neuer vse, but alwaies abhor the vse, of all these meanes, that they vsed to seduce the peo­ple by. But herein most certaine it is, that the Lord most plainely forewarneth his people of such as you be. For you be they indeede, that were neuer sent of Christ, but of Antichrist, and that preach false doctrine, as doeth appeare not only by the dissenting, but by the con­trariety of your doctrine, in a number of points from the vndoubted word of God (as I haue noted in sundrie places in this my answere to you) and then whom neuer any false Prophets in the world, more relied vpon false visions, diuinations, southsayings & fond dreames; for indeede they are the best & most vsuall pillers, & grounds of your Popish doctrine. For what is more common with you, then to the ende these may haue place, to complaine, and by long rhetoricall dis­courses, to make what shew you can, of the obscurity, vnsufficiency and vncertainty of the word writen; that so with some colour, you may shew the triall of your doctrine, by that touchstone, and all be­cause, in your owne consciences you know, that it cannot be iustifi­ed thereby. And then, when thus you haue satisfied your selues in weakning, what you may, the credit of the scriptures, to prepare a way for your selues to fly from them: then you breake out into com­mendation of the word vnwriten, traditions, and liuely practise of the church, that so by that window, you may thrust in and out to the [Page 173] Church, whatsoeuer pleaseth you, be it neuer so fond a visiō, diuina­tion or dreame of your owne drowsy heads. But yet once againe, for lacke of miracles howsoeuer the case stand, whither we be sent of God or no, for your refusing to yeeld vnto vs, you thinke you may pleade simplicity, and ignorance, for your excuse, as Abimelech did Gen. 20. especially (you say) seeing you are willed not to beleeue eue­ry spirit, and seeing you reade, that the Angell of darknes, will some­time trāsforme himselfe into the shape of an Angell of light &c. But withall, you must remember, that you are willed to search the scrip­tures Iohn 5. & so, to trie the spirits, whither they be of God or no 1. Ioh. 4. For they are able to make the mā of God wise to saluatiō, & thorowly to furnish him, to all good workes. 2. Tim. 3. which if you did as you ought, thereby you shall be driuen to perceaue, that not only our calling is of God, but that also we teach the trueth ac­cording to the same, and that therefore, notwithstanding we worke no miracles; yet your ignorance cannot be simple ignorance, as A­bimelechs was, but either wilfull, or of an idle peeuish negligence, and therefore such as cannot excuse you, in refusing to beleeue vs. And as it is writen, that sathan will so transforme himselfe, as you write, and that we should take heede what way we take, for there is a way that seemeth good, and yet leadeth to destruction: so you must remember that still, the due consideration of the writen word, is the meanes to preserue vs frō the dāger of both. For thereby Christ hath taught vs to withstand him Mat. 4. euen when he would seeme to fortify his temptations with the word writen it selfe; & whereby else shall a young man learne, to frame his waies aright, but by taking heede thereunto according to the same. Psal 119. you must also re­member, that it is writē, Wo to him that calleth good euil, Esa. 5. & striue to enter in at the streite gate Luk, 13. Al this notwithstan­ding, in your opinion we are like to a false merchant, pretending to be the Princes seruant, in his masters name demāding mony of his debtters, hauing neither his hād nor seale to warrāt his demād: and all this you say, & would perswade to be true, because we worke no miracles, as the Apostles did. I deny your argument, for we haue our Lord & masters hand and seale in his writen word, in that therby our doctrin is taught, & as it appears, therby is sealed both by miracles & w ^t the pretious bloud of our lord & sauiour: yea but say you, if yee be the Apostles successours, in preaching this doctrine, why doe ye not confirme your doctrine with signes and wonders, and say with [Page 174] the Apostle Paul 2. Corinth. 12. the signes of our Apostleship haue beene accomplished amongst you, with signes and miracles? Hereunto I answere, that then it was necessarie for them so to doe, and yet now it is not likewise for vs, because then for the newnesse and strangenes of diuerse things incident to their ministrie, mira­cles for the first confirmation thereof, for a time were necessary, whereas now, we taking vpon vs only to preach the same doctrine, as we doe, it being then thereby sufficiently confirmed, it is needles now to confirme it againe thereby.

The XVIII. Chapter.

INdeede euen as you suppose, in this case, we further aunswere you, as the Iewes were answered by Christ, telling you that you are an adulterous and peruerse generation, in thus demaunding signes to confirme a doctrine, already of ancient time sufficiently confirmed. But this answere (you say) cannot be iustly made to you, because neither we are faithful messengers from God as Christ was, nor you so hard harted as these Iewes were. Trueth it is, we dare not compare in faithfulnes with Christ, for such comparison were odious, but with S. Paul we protest, that in seruing the God of our fathers, according to that Religion which you count heresie, beleeuing all that is writen in the law & the Prophets, we haue al­waies endeuoured to keepe a good conscience both before God and mā Act. 24. and as for you, we see no cause to the contrary, but that you may both for malice against the trueth, and hard hartednes, be compared with the Iewes. For though we worke no miracles, and they then had seene Christ to worke many, yet our doctrine beeing the same that he taught and no other (as we are alwaies ready and willing to proue it to be by the scriptures) it hath beene confirmed not only by all the miracles that then Christ had wrought, but also by all them that since were wrought by him or his Apostles, to con­firme the same: and therefore you yet refusing to beleeue it, shew as great hardnes of hart, as they did & rather more. Indeed if we took vpon vs, either any callings not warrāted by the Lord in his word, or to preach any doctrine which we could not warrant by the cano­nicall scriptures, you might with some reason call for some mi­racles of vs: but seeing you cā proue neither of these against vs, you [Page 178] may with more reason giue ouer this obiection, then to pursue it a­ny further. Indeede we are not ashamed to confesse, that these are two principall reasons, which are here remēbred by you, wherby we proue our Religiō to be the true & ancient Catholicke faith, taught by the Apostles, and euer since continued in Christes true Church: namely first, for that by the Canonicall scriptures, we can proue it to be the same that they preached, seeing it cānot be denied, but their preaching and writing agreed; and secondly, because our Religion in all points agreeth with the ancient groundes of the Catechisme, the ten cōmandemēts, the articles of the faith, the Lords praier &c. And for these causes indeede, we most confidently say and aduouch, that you doe vs extreame wrong, the trueth & soundnes of these two reasons notwithstanding, either to call our Church or Religiō new, or thus to call for miracles to confirme it now, as though it had ne­uer beene confirmed thereby before. But in all this, with you we say nothing to the purpose: yet with the indifferent Reader (I hope) it is to good and great purpose, seeing hereby we labour to proue, that our church and Religion is not new, and but of 40. yeares continu­ance, as here most vntruly you charge it: but olde & ancient, because it agreeth in euery point with the principles of the ancient Chri­stian Catechisme. All you say to confute this argument of ours, is, that we haue learned our Catechisme of you, & otherwise we should not or could not haue come by it. Whereunto I answere, that if wee had had no better Catechisers then you, we had yet beene but badly Catechised: and this further you may be sure of, your credit was by your long and manifold lewd dealing so crackt w ^t vs, if we had not found these parts of the Catechisme, either flatly expressed or suffi­ciently confirmed, and grounded in the Canonicall scriptures, v­pon your credit we had not receiued them: besides, as I haue plenti­fully shewed in the 4. Chapter, we haue had in all ages, from Christ downe to our owne, very manie of our owne Religion, that haue continued, and from hand to hand deliuered vnto vs, these partes of the Catechisme, more soundly and faithfully then you haue done, so that, if you had neuer beene, we should farre better and sooner haue learned these things. But in the most wise prouidence of God, these were in some sort also continued amongst you, that so you might be the more without excuse, in that, notwithstanding the light that migh haue shined vnto you thereby, you yet chused rather to walke in grosse and palpable darknesse, then in the light thereof. And therefore [Page 179] sathan the Prince of darknesse, in your Synagogues, through the helpe of his vicar generall your Pope, and his Chaplaines, neuer ceased vntill by one blinde and hellish perswasion or other (whatsoeuer Paul had taught to the contrarie 1 Corint. 14.) he brought to passe, not onely, that all your Lyturgie and seruice should bee in Latin, and rather lying legends permitted to be read, in the Churches publickly in the mother tongue, then the Scriptures of God: but also that these portions of the Catechisme should, either not bee learned at all, or else onely in the Latin and vnknowen tongue, which he knew was all one in effect. O­therwise then thus, by your good wils (how little soeuer we had vn­derstoode the latin tongue) wee should not, nor could not bee suffe­red to learne them, and therefore this learning being altogether w ^t ­out edification, neither is there any cause why you should brag y ^t we haue learned our Catechismes of you, nor why we should accoūt our selues any thing in your debte for the same. Further to make it yet more appeare, how little beholden we are to you, for teaching vs the Catechisme, let vs but a little consider euen your most diligent Ca­techising of men in these three partes thereof, here named by you, the ten commandements, the creede, and the Lordes prayer. First, concerning the ten commandements, in steede of one God, which there we are commanded to haue, you in teaching vs to worshippe Saints, Angels, your breaden God, and your Pope, as you doe, haue taught vs to worship so many more Gods then one; and secondly, y ^t your images and idols might stād to the enritching of your cleargy w ^t the idolatrous offrings vnto thē, it was and is a common trick w ^t you, in setting down the commandements in your Catechismes and elsewhere, to leaue the second commandement quite out, which is directly both against the making and worshipping of them, and yet least you should of euery one be spied, in finding them but 9. you de­uide the tenth into two. And as for the other 2. cōmandements of the first table, by your ordinary & most cōmon practise, the people were taught (whatsoeuer is there to the cōtrary) that it very well becom­meth them of your schoole, vsually to sweare by a number of things that are no Gods, and to season all their common talke, with oathes of all sortes: and to turne the day which should bee kept holy to the Lorde, to a daie of the greatest vanitie and impiety of al the daies of the weeke. And to proceede to the second table, neuer did the Iewes more make the 5. commandement of none effect, for loue of [Page 180] their Corban, then you haue done to maintaine your infinit orders of monks, friers & nuns, in all contempt and neglect of duety to their parēts, if once you could entise them into those cloisters. How preti­ous soeuer bloud be, yet so small a matter hath it bene with you, that your Synagogue is drunke with the bloud of Gods saints, and eue­ry varlet is not only easily dispensed withall with you, but also of­ten much commended if hee can, though neuer so traiterously embrue his hāds, for the furtherance of your kingdome in the bloud of subiect or Prince, brother, or of whō soeuer else. And as for adul­terie or fornication, yea for sinnes against nature not to be named, your great Catechisers neuer haue seemed to make reckoning of; in that notwithstanding they know, that these haue followed in such infinite measure vpon their inforced single life, in euerie corner, that y ^e stench thereof hath long ago reached vp vnto heauen to pul downe Gods fearce vengeance against you, yet rather then they would let go this tricke of hypocrisie, they are contented that this [...]ench increase stil. Your infinite and open sacriledges, in building & foun­ding your cloisters and Prelacies, in sp [...]ing the seuerall parishes of their ordinarie maintenance for their ministers, & other your in­numerable & vnsatiable pillings & polings of Gods Church: your decree and practise in not keeping any faith with those whom you coūt heretiques, and your ordinary doctrine, that bare concupiscence, [...]s no sinne, shew, what Catechisers you are for the rest. And whereas in the creede, we be taught indeede to beleeue onely in the Trinitie, in that you vsually teach vs to trust, yea in the matter of saluation, to a number of things besides, and to praie vnto saints and Angels, it being plainly taught vs in the word that beside God, there is not sauiour Esa. 43. and that Christs name is the onely name of saluati­on Act. 4. and that none are to be called vpon, in whom we beleeue, not) Rom. 10. you teach vs to beleeue in many thinges and persons besides the Trinity, & so to be apostataes from our creede & forme of baptism. And besides, whiles you teach vs this doctrine of inuocatiō of saints and Angels, cōtrary both to the beginning and ende of the Lords praier: you also teach vs to pray vnto them, to whō we may neither begin nor ende our praier, as thereby we are taught. And therefore you dealing with vs in these pointes and diuerse others, being so grosse as it is, and was (if we had had no better warrant to receiue these partes of the Catechisme, then your worde) we should haue had small courage, to haue receiued them as from you. But [Page 181] Caluin, Beza, and other of our famous ministers in the teeth, with hauing their education and maintenance at their bookes first with you, comparing them in that now they set themselues against your corruptions vnto Camels, w ^t reward their masters for their good keeping, with yerking and biting. Whereas in trueth (if you had grace to see it) they could no way shew themselues more thankefull vnto you for the same; then by carefull and diligent labouring your conuersion, and reformation, as they haue done. S. Paul (you know) was brought vp at the feete of Gamaliel, a notable Pharisee, & was himselfe at the first by profession a Pharisee, and so had his educatiō and maintenance at the first, amongst such: what then? will you re­semble him to your yerking Camels, because after, when it pleased God to open his eies, and to conuert him to Christ, hee preached and wrote against the errours of the Pharises, & laboured their re­formation? why should you then euen for imitating of S. Paul, thus vnmanerly compare these men, or any other, whom it shall please God to stirre vp in like maner to seeke your good.

Still you call our Religiō new deuises, & now further you adde, that though it haue beene in times past, yet it was buried in the very depth of hell, & we haue raised it vp againe, & giuen it new colours. All this cannot make vs ashamed of the Gospell of Christ, which we know to be the power of God to saluatiō, to euery one that beleeueth, to the Iewe first, & also to the Greciā: Rom. 1.16. For these are but bare words, how spitefull & malitious soeuer, and we know that when it was preached by Christ himselfe, and his A­postles, it had as hard sentence oft giuen of it, by the superstitious and blind Scribes and Pharises; and yet for all that, it mightily preuailed then, and so doeth and will now. Yet it is well, y ^t in some sorte now you will confesse, it hath beene before: for very confidētly before in your 4. chapter you set downe, that none of vs cā deny, but y ^e Luther 1517. began it first: but as you did well in this, and spoke truely, so in adding, that it was yet buried &c. you speake not onely malitiously and blasphemously, as one day (though I feare to late) you shall be driuē to see; but also vntruely. For you cannot be igno­rant, but as it was before Luthers time professed and taught by Pe­trus Valdus, Iohn Wickliffe, & Iohn Hus; so therein they had their followers, in Bohemia, Calabria, Angronia & diuers other places, and that in great nūbers euen vnto Luthers time, and lōg after. And as for colours, we vse none to countenance this trueth, but y ^e natiue [Page 182] & naturall colours, which y ^e scriptures allow it: for we thinke it most sincerely preached, when it is most simply set forth onely in these co­lours: other colours we leaue to you, to decke vp the garish whore of Babylō withall. At last (so earnest a procter, or crier are you for mira­cles) y ^t you are contented to ioine w ^t vs vpon this point, y ^t though our doctrine were not new, but very old, yet we must & ought to confirme it by miracles, And this you labour to proue, because y ^e doctrine that Moses & the Apostles were sent to preach, was not new, but old, & yet they were furnished w ^t power to worke miracles, to cōfirme that old & ancient doctrine. For Moses wrought his miracles (you say) espe­cially to this ende, y ^e Gods name might be knowen ouer all y ^e earth, that is to say, y ^t men should know, y ^t he is God: & the Apostles (as you say) at their first preaching, preached not Iesus Christ vnto y ^e Gētils, but that there was but one God: which by a number of testimonies you labour to proue was no new doctrin to the heathen & Painims; but a thing, which by the light of nature left in them, and by the view of Gods works, many of them atteined vnto, & all might in such sort, as that they are without excuse, for that they worshipped not God, as God. This is (I confesse) directly to the matter, and some shew these things cary (I graunt) of proofe of that, which you toke in hande thereby to proue. But if we examine well those things, and weigh the weight of this argument, wee shall finde small, or rather no force at all therein, to proue indeede the thing intended thereby. For though God saie Exod. 9. not 19. (as your quotation is) that for this cause hee had set Pharaoh vp, to shew his power in him, and to declare his name throughout the whole world (as in working of all miracles at all times, that is an especiall ende that the Lord hath.) And though that bee no newe doctrine, that hee is God, and but one, and that both Moses and the Apostles taught this: yet this proueth not, but that otherwise both Moses and they had newe and strange matters giuen them in commission, for confirmation and effecting whereof, it was necessarie for them to worke miracles. For Mo­ses especially was called, and appointed by God (as it appeareth Exod. 3.4. and 5. Chapters) to this ende, to signifie vnto Pharaoh, that it was the pleasure of God, that he should dismisse his people. Which because the Lord had purposed (notwithstanding the harde heart of Pharaoh) to bring to passe, therefore Moses was by his direction to worke the miracles, hee wrought. So that the next ende of working of them, was to confirme this his newe and [Page 183] strange message to Pharaoh, and to cause it to take place, though therein the Lord had another further ende, namely thereby to get himselfe a name for euer. So in like maner, though the Apostles preached the God that made heauen & earth, to be the only true God (as it appeareth they did, Act. 14. & 17.) which was no new doctrine indeede in it selfe considered, yet it appeareth in the same places, that it was newe there. For in the one place, they worshipped Iu­piter and Mercurie for Gods; and in the other, an vnknowen God. And besides it is euident, that not onely their office was extraordi­narie, in that immediately they had their calling frō God, and their charge without limitation: but also y ^t within y ^e compasse of their cō ­mission they had to doe many new and strāge things; namely, to call the Gentils to y ^e fellowship of the Church, to preach the abrogation of Moses ceremonies, to administer new sacramēts, to ordeine new officers in the Church, as Euangelists, pastours, and doctours, and especially, to preach Iesus Christ to be the person of the Messias, god and man, the onely and sole Sauiour of the world: for which things sake, it was needfull for them to worke miracles, howsoeuer it was needeles in respect of the other old doctrine concerning the one true God. And therefore to make it appeare, that their miracles were wrought especially for y ^e confirmation of this point, that Iesus was the Christ, & the person of the Messias, alwaies they worke their mi­racles in his name, whereas wee doe not preach some one point of olde doctrine onely, but altogether from point to point our doctrine is olde, and hath beene sufficiently by Christ and his Apostles alrea­dy confirmed by miracles: neither haue we any newe, but the olde ordinary offices of pastours and doctours to publish it: and in­deede, wee take vpon vs no newe or strange thing, but labour as nigh, as possibly we can, to conforme our selues euerie waie to the patterne shewed vs of ancient time, by Christ and his Apo­stles. Wherefore, vnlesse as you haue shewed, that Moses and the Apostles taught this one olde lesson, that there is but one God, and y ^t he is he y ^t made heauen & earth: so ye could haue shewed also y ^t they wrought al their miracles to confirme that, & that otherwise besides y ^t they had no new & strange things to doe & teach, for confirmation whereof, miracles were needeful, & therefore done by thē, this y ^t you say of thē is nothing to binde vs to worke miracles, doing nothing, or teaching nothing otherwise then was done and taught 1500. yeares ago and more, by Christ and his Apostles: and so you might [Page 184] haue spared all that you haue saied, or can say, to proue, that this is an old, and no new doctrine, that there is a God, & that he is but one.

The XIX. Chapter.

YOur proofes in this Chapter, out of Lactantius and Octaui­us, that the doctrine of one God is olde and ancient, in that they induce the olde learned Philosophers as witnesses thereof: and that which you alleadge to the same ende, spoken by S. Paul Act. 17. and not (as your quotation is) Act. 12. might well inough haue beene o­mitted. For as it is a thing not in question, so also (as you may per­ceiue, by that which I haue saied in mine answere to your former Chapter) it proueth not the thing you intend: for that both Moses and the Apostles had other matters in their commission, that were new and strange, for confirmation whereof they wrought their mi­racles, and not for this purpose only. But foreseeing, that we would in some part answere (as I haue shewed) that the doctrine of Iesus to be the person of the Messias, yet was new, in respect whereof it was necessarie for them, to approue their doctrine by miracles: you would proue, that that was not new neither, and so your meaning is, y ^t the oldnes of our doctrine cānot proue miracles to be vnnecessa­ry. But let vs heare, how you proue this. In this Chapter you proue it, by the testimony of the nine Sibils, especially of Sibilla Erithrea, the rather for Augustines testimony of her, in his 1. booke of the citty of God, c. 23. though indeede there be no mention at al of her in that place: who (you say) did speake as plainely & fully of his comming, birth, miracles, death, & comming to iudgement, as any of the Pro­phets: out of Lactantius 1. booke, & 15. c. of diuine institutions: & out of Nicephorus, by the oracle y ^t Apollo gaue of him to the gentiles, & namely to Augustus Cesar: which profes though they were granted to be of sufficient force, to proue that the gentiles had thereby some knowledge of the cōming, maner of cōming, & office of such a Mes­sias, yet they proue not, but that it was notwithstāding a thing newe and not vnderstoode to most of thē: neither doe they at all proue, but that still the doctrine concerning the particuler person of that Mes­sias, namely that Iesus the sonne of the virgin Mary, whom the Iewes crucified, was he, & no other, was a new doctrine both to Iew and gentile, and therefore in that respect, it was necessary for the A­postles [Page 186] (for all these thinges) to confirme that by miracle: whereas now amongst vs, that beare any waie the name of Christians, that doctrine is not newe, neither anie thing else that wee preach, but to those to whom the ancient do­ctrine taught in the Scriptures is newe, and therefore as yet there remaineth cause sufficient, why the Apostles should worke miracles, and not wee. This also I cannot but tell you of, that howsoeuer the Sybilles are reported to haue prophe­cied of Christ, your comparison is verie odious, when you saie, they did it as fully, and as plainelie as anie of the Pro­phets: and that you wrong Augustine too too much, in ma­king your Reader beleeue, that hee either in the place quo­ted by you, or anie where else ioyneth with you in that ma­laperte comparison. But these comparisons of yours ar­gue the profanenesse of the spirite, that directeth your pennes.

The XX. Chapter.

I haue shewed you my reason in the former Chapter, why you must stay (for all your premises) from the conclusion, that you beginne withall in this. For howsoeuer some few of them, thē heard in some sort, that such a Messias either should come or was come, yet the particuler person, who that same was, was first preached by the Angel Gabriel, & secondly by Zacharie and Elizabeth his wyfe ( Luke. 1.) before he was borne: then by the Angels to the shepheards the day of his birth, after by Simeon and Anna, Iohn Baptist, the Apostles of Christ, and the rest, as it followeth set downe in the story: Luke. 2. &c. But you say yet further, that though their doctrine concerning Iesus Christ the Messias was vnknowen to the Gentiles, yet it was not so to the Iewes, for the Apostles preached nothing, but that which had warrant from the law and the prophets, as you proue (I graunt) wel out of the 1. to the Rom. and 10. of the Acts: conferring those places with the 53. of Esay (though wrong quoted by you) and out of the prophecy of Daniel. I graunt, they preached nothing, that ought to haue beene new vnto them, forasmuch as euery thing that they preached, had ground in the olde Testament, but yet (as you after seeme to confesse) it was growen new not onely to the Gē ­tiles, but also to the Iewes, in that they were misse-led in the vnder­standing of the prophecies, that went before of him, both concerning his person and office, through their ignorance, corrupt glosses, & in­terpretations, that by false teachers were made thereof. Insomuch, that when the Messias came and executed his office (though indeed [Page 189] all the ancient prophecies were yea & Amen in him, and most plainly in respect of euery circumstance verified) yet they could not be per­swaded, either that he was such a one in person, or office, as he was, and therefore then once it was necessary by all other good meanes & miracles also, to confirme the doctrine concerning him, which was thorowly done by Christ and his Apostles in their tymes. Now whereas hereupon you would inferre, that seeing wee match you with the superstitious Iewes, and Idolatrous Painims, and our selues take vpon vs Succession to the Apostles, and to the true catholique and Apostolique Church, and to reforme you of your errours, as they did theirs; therefore we preaching that anci­ent doctrine of God, and of his Christ, that they did: we now also should confirme our doctrine & commission by miracles, as they did. Beside many other, there are two principal things, that let you from this conclusion. The first is, that howsoeuer other things were old, y they taught of God, & the Messias, yet this was new, who was the very person of the Messias. Wherin if they had erred (though o­therwise they had rightly vnderstood the generall doctrine both of his person, and office) it had bene most dangerous for thē: and there­fore that doctrine especially is vrged by thē; as for example you may see in Peters sermon to Cornelius, Act. 10. And for the confirmati­on of that doctrin, they work al their miracles, not generally in the name of the Messias, but particulerly in the name of Iesus Christ of Nazareth, as it appeareth Act. 3.6. &c. Which thing in respect of you, we haue not, for that is a thing agreed on betwixt vs. Another stop to your conclusion is, seing that doctrine hath bene once suffici­ently confirmed by miracles, by Christ and his Apostles, y ^t we teach, and you haue the same doctrine and miracles set downe in the new Testament, whereunto you seeme to giue credit, as wel as we: it is thenceforth needles for the ministers thereof, howsoeuer they meete w ^t people, that for Idolatry & superstitious errours match the Gen­tiles, & the Iewes in the Apostles times: to vse any other proofe, thē from those records of the scripture, which ought now to be accoūted sufficient, & therefore now the calling for miracles to be out of time. To reason therfore as you doe, It was necessary for the Apostles in their time to worke miracles: Ergo it is necessary also now for vs, though our doctrine be the same; is besides and without reason. And yet for al this, we recant no whit for comparing you to the supersti­tious Iewes, and Idolatrous heathen. For if either be worse then o­ther, [Page 190] we thinke it is like to proue your selues, in that hauing far bet­ter meanes, and more knowledge of God, and his Christ, then they had, yet you multiply your Idolatries and superstitious conceites far beyond them. And euen for this, that notwithstanding your better meanes to keepe you in the waies of God, and your more knowledge, then they had, when Christ and his Apostles came first vnto them to preach this Gospel; you match them in grosse Idola­trie, and in multitude of superstitions, and false opinions; is it, that God, vouchsafing the better to conuert them, to worke mi­racles then; thinketh it fit to answere you now, as the rich glutton was enforced in the like case; ye haue Moses and the Prophets; yea & also the books of the New Testament; and if you will not be­leeue them, you would not beleeue, though one should rise from death againe; or what miracle soeuer els were wrought. But wher as you suppose, that the cause why the Apostles wrought miracles, was the blinde Idolatry of the heathen, & superstitions of the Iews onely; and not any newnes of any part of their doctrine; you are much deceiued, as you may perceiue by that which I haue saied. A­gaine, if you would perswade, that their doctrine was in no point new, because in the doctrine of one God, and in the doctrine of the Messias, in some points it was not, or ought not to haue bene so, your logicke is flender. For in other points it might be new, as I haue tolde you, and so in respect thereof, though not of the other, miracles were necessary. But this your obiectiō of lacke of miracles, pleaseth you so well, that you cannot haue done with it; let vs therfore heare, what further you can say, touching this matter.

The XXI. Chapter.

IN this Chapter, to your purpose the onely thing you bring vs, is, the counsell that Luther gaue to the towne of Millehouse, for the triall of Muncer the Anabaptist, which you send vs, by your quo­tation, to seeke for, in the 8. booke of Sleidon; and there it is not, but in the 5. but this is your happe with most of your quotations. His counsell was, that they should will him to proue his calling to be of God by some miracle; because it is common with God, to de­clare his will by some miracle, when he will haue the common custome and order broken. Proue that we either in our doctrine or gouernment of our church doe breake the common custome and order taught in the church for these, in the writen word, as Mun­cer did, and then follow Luthers counsell and spare not. It eui­dently appeareth in that booke, that Muncer was a monstrous fantasticall Anabaptist, and that in Luthers iudgement he taught not onely many absurde thinges, contrary to the word: but that al­so peruerting all good order, and pollicie of Church, and common weale: he meant nothing more, then force, theeuerie, and other such villanie: and yet pretended for his defence, extraordinary cal­ling and reuelations; and therefore no maruel, though Luther gaue this counsell, for the sifting of such a wretch. In trueth the new­nes of your doctrine considered, in comparison of that taught in the word, and the strangenesse of the order of your Church, from that of Christes, in the primatiue time thereof; leade vs rather more iust­ly to followe this counsell of Luther against you, then any thing in vs can truely moue you to vrge it, against vs. Which if we should doe, certainely either should we finde you as voide of miracles, as [Page 193] you finde vs; or at least you would be driuen to alleadge such mon­strous, vaine, and lying miracles, as that now I thinke you your selues would be ashamed to tell. Indeede the time hath beene, when you would bragge of the miracles set downe in your Legends (a­mongst which S. Dunstans catching the Deuil by the nose in the shape of a woman, with a paire of tonges, and such like, good store are reckoned vp) and when we were told great wōders of the bloud of Hales, which proued in the ende, the bloud of a ducke; and of great miracles done in this place, or that place, by the images of this Saint, and that: but this was in the night of deepe and black darkenes of ignorāce. For now that the sunne of the Gos­pel shineth abroad, we heare little noise of your apparitions and visi­ons, and other such antichristian miracles, that there was so great talke of before. It seemeth now that either your spirits are coniured into a dead sleepe, or that you haue lost your old gift of working mi­racles. Belike yet in that you make thus much of this counsel of Lu­ther; when they came from you so readily, and your Church had such a dexterity, and was so fruitful in bringing of thēforth; it was because God would haue the world to vnderstand, that indeed you were setting abroach a new doctrine; and a fashion of Gouernment, which neither agreed with the ancient and customable doctrine of his Church, nor yet with the olde order of the same; and that therfore you thought it needfull by such meanes, to confirme your commissi­on in so doing. Wherfore, make as much of this counsell of Luther, as you wil, it wil proue in the end to touch you more, then vs. You cite also a saying of Caluin in his 3. Chapter of his Harmonie vpon Luke, but to what purpose? For who of vs euer either in word or deed contraried that speach or doctrine of his? that is the thing that we obiect against you, that of your own heads ye haue deuised a nū ­ber of offices, and orders in your Churches, that God neuer gaue al­lowance vnto: and besides that you haue set vp a number of pointes of doctrine, forged but in the shop of mans vaine braine, not onely not agreing to the word writen, but diuersly and wonderfully disa­greeing. And as for vs, we stand vpon that point with you, that wee neither take office in hand, without sufficiēt calling thereunto from God, nor teach things, that we haue not good warrant for from his writē word. In the rest of the Chapter, there is nothing but scoffing at Luther and Sleydan, ioyned with malitious slaundering of the one to haue bred, not onely Coralstadius, Zuinglius, and Oecolam­padius [Page 194] (whereof he needed not to be ashamed if it were so) but also Muncer the Anabaptist; and the other to be a partiall Cronicler: which are things easie for you to speake, but impossible for you to proue: and therefore therein vntil you bring further proofe, you are worthy no further answere. And therefore, as yet for any thing you haue saied, you were best follow our counsell, and receiue the Gospel which we preach vnto you; least the dust we shake off of our feete a­gainst you, proue a witnesse against you in earnest, at the day of iudgement.

The XXVIII. Chapter.

ONce againe you obiect vnto vs, the contentiō betwixt the Lu­therans and Caluinists: which (you say) is cause sufficient, not onely to make you stay from yeelding your consent to either of vs, though otherwise you were willing to forsake your Religiō, which wrongfully you call Catholique: but also so troubleth the conscien­ces of them that reade the bookes writen on both sides, that they are led one while on the one side, anone againe on the other, & so in y ^e end they cannot tell of what Religion to be For whose sakes, though o­therwise (as you say) we giue absolute sentence, that the Catholique church hath erred, euē frō the Apostles times to this present, in pray­ing to God for the soules in purgatory, you thinke yet we should ap­point some third place or other to receiue their soules, vntill it were determined, w ^t of these belong to God, and which to the deuill. And then you conclude this Chapter, with a solemne praier to God, to o­pen the peoples eies to see both our errours, & their own sinnes, least for them thorowe these varieties of opinions amongst vs, they bee drawen to heathenisme by Gods permission. This contention in the later ende of your former Chapter you wonderfully amplifie, tel­ling vs of great battels, railing processes, and horrible excommuni­cations, [Page 250] that haue passed about this matter of the sacramēt, on both sides: and yet there, in another booke, which you haue made (you say) of the sacrament: you signifie vnto vs, that you haue bestowed more cost to amplify this matter. Against this & such like out-cries of these men about this matter (gentle Reader) thou art to arme and strēg­then thy selfe, with that which I haue set downe in the fourth Chap­ter concerning this matter: whereby I haue made euident demon­stration vnto thee, that it is no new thing amongst the famous tea­chers in the Church, and true members thereof, to haue as great & hoat contentions, as euer there hath beene amongst vs in this. And if that which I haue saied there were not sufficiēt, I could now fur­ther shew you, that not only there is as great a cōtrouersie now and hath beene a long time amongst themselues, the nature of their Re­ligion considered, as any they can charge vs with: namely this, whi­ther their Pope or generall Councels haue the greater and higher authority, but also I might easily againe say, and say truely (as they themselues know well enough) that in ancient times in the Churches of Christ, there were such lamentable and grie­uous contentions betweene Paulinus and Flauianus, Lucifer and Eusebius, the Meletians and Eustathians, all yet other­wise being for and in the substantialest pointes of Religion sound Christians, as that with great trouble to the Church, they shunned one anothers communion, and that for verie many yeares togither, as you may reade in Epiphanius libro. 1. Tom. 2. in Theodoret lib. 1. cap. 8. &c. in Socrates libro. 2. cap. 33. & 34. and in Zozomen libro. 2. cap. 17. & 18. And wee reade histor: tripart: libro. 1. cap. 12. that Epiphanius and Chrysostome were at such hoate contention and enmity (and yet they were famous Christians and Bishops both) that departing one from the other, the one spitefully saied to the other, thou shalt ne­uer die Bishop, and the other saied to him as vncharitably, nei­ther shalt thou get home to thy Bishopricke aliue: both which their imprecations or predictions, as the storie shewes, came e­uen so to passe. For Chrysostome died banished, and the o­ther before he got home to Cyprus. If you would see what con­trouersie there was betwixt Cyprian, Cornelius and Stepha­nus Bishops of Rome, reade Augustine contra Donatistas libro. 5. cap. 23. & 25. and Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 3. & 4. And who is so ignorant, that the Church stories and ancient writers, mi­nisters [Page 251] vnto vs but too too great store, in all ages of controuer­sies, and those also too hoatly followed euen amongst Christi­ans, of great name and fame in their times. And therefore what vaine thing is it either for you, or any of your fellowes in this sort still to amplifie this one controuersie about the Sa­crament amongst vs, as though it were sufficient cause of all, or of any of these thinges, which you inferre thereupon against vs. Had there beene any wisedome in them that liued in these ancient times, when these contentions were that I haue spoken of here and elsewhere, thereupon to haue gathered either all, or any of these thinges? Nay, it is euident, that if thereupon they had either stoode a loofe from the trueth, growen Neuters or Atheists, that they had beene without excuse before God. For seeing to know the trueth, and to be settled in it, is a thing so ne­cessary as it is, the more difficult it is made by such meanes to finde it out, the more thereby they that are the Lordes, and haue anie grace, are prouoked to labour, and search to finde it, and to settle themselues the stronglier in it. And therefore see­ing such offences haue beene, and alwaies in some measure are like to bee for the exercising of the Church, and triall of Gods chil­dren▪ you and such as you, that by such discourses, as this, leade the people to gather such lessons thereupon, as to suspende their iudgement till all partes be agreed, or now to bee caried this way, now that way, as long as the contention lasteth, seeme to be disposed, to teach the people to learne how to bee Athe­istes. If you minded to haue them settled in Religion, and pre­serued from neutralitie, the mother of Atheisme, it were your partes to ioyne with vs (especially in these great diuersities of opi­nions about Religion, that be now a daies in the world) to per­swade them most diligently to search the Scripture, and there­by to trie all spirits, and their opinions, whither they be of God or no: yea euen so much the more, for these varieties sake, that so they might finde the trueth, and be settled in it. For they may not fainte, or giue ouer thus doing for this: for necessary it is that these should come: these haue beene, and will be for the triall, who they be indeede, that thirst after the trueth, and will cleaue vnto it. But in taking this contrary way, whatsoeuer you say, not wee, but you leade men, and that with a strong hand to Atheisme. And so much the more folly you shew, in making these collections of yours [Page 252] of these controuersies amongst vs, seeing amongst your selues i [...] were an easie matter, to put you in remembrance of a number as hoat and feircely followed contentions, as this yet euer was amōgst vs. Some thing to make this appeare, I haue noted Chapter the 4. but seeing you haue neuer done with this obiection, the better to make your vanity therin appeare, let the reader further vnderstand, that your Popes themselues amongst themselues one against ano­ther, haue further proceeded in malitious contention, then euer the Lutherans, or Protestāts did. For (as Platina writeth) when Pope long after him (for Boniface the 6. his immediate successour was Pope but 25. daies) caried such hatred towards him and his pro­ceedings, that he caused his decrees to be abrogated, and (as other Historiographers write of him) he caused him to be taken out of his graue, and solemnly to be in a councel disgraded: which when he had done, therewith not content, he cut of his two fingers, that he vsed to consecrate withall, and cast them into the riuer Tibris. But Roma­nus the first succeeding him, ratified againe Formosus doings, and abrogated and disanulled all Stephens proceedings against him. Whose course Theodorus the 2, and especially Iohn the 10 follow­ed, in iustifying, and condemning Stephens doinges against him in another councel at Rauenna, consisting of seuenty foure bishops. Howbeit Sergius the 3. the 4 Pope after, taketh Stephens part a­gainst Formosus, and that so hoatly, as that once againe, though he were the ninth Pope from Formosus, he causeth his body to be ta­ken vp out of his graue, disgradeth him againe, beheadeth him, cut­teth of the 3 fingers that were left him of his right hand, and threw his body, and the peeces thereof despitefully into Tyber. About the yeare 1354 (as Godfridus de Fontanis writeth) there grew and burst out marueilous hoate contentions betwixt the Friers of Do­minicke and Francis in Fraunce, about their priuiledges, and the prelates of France and the Schollers of Paris: insomuch that there were publicke and bitter Sermons made by one against another, & the one side excommunicated another. And Matth. Paris. reporteth, that there was by the prelates of France, and the doctours of Paris, nine erronious conclusions (which by his report were of matters of great weight in religion) laied to the charge of the Gray-friers, for the which they excommunicated them, and for which there was hoat stirre on both sides. About the yeare 1470. there was a notorious [Page 253] contention also betwixt the Dominicke friers, and the Minorites, the one side following Scotus, and the other Aquinas, whither Ma­ry was conceiued in originall sinne or no: the Minorites, with Sco­tus, holding the negatiue; and the other, with Aquinas, the affirma­tiue: which in the yeare 1509 grew so great, that it troubled and de­uided al these Westerne partes of the world, notwithstanding that Pope Sixtus the 4, had giuen out his bull in the yeare 1576. on the Minorites side. Insomuch that some of the Dominicke friers were burned at Berne, for their deuises to maintaine their faction, as witnesseth both Pencer, and Munster. And who knoweth not of the 24. great schismes (at least) which haue bene in the Romish Church? during which times (some of them lasting verie long) their Church was torne into so many factions, as there were Popes and anti­popes. Amongst which factions and their heads, there grewe some­times warres indeed, and when they were quietest, railing processes and excommunications one of them against the other in most bitter maner (as the stories of those times doe testifie) were vsual amongst them. But what should I rūne any further into this matter? Seeing it is a thing most certaine, and whereof no man can be ignorant, that hath taken any paine in reading Stories, that the Church of Rome for all her brag of vnitie, these late yeares hath beene so ful of hoate and fierie contentions, as that neuer a country, neuer an order, neuer a Cloister or Church amongst them, but it hath had most tumul­tuous contentions, at one time or other, both within themselues, and with others. And therefore, if this contention amongst vs be cause sufficient of such conclusions, and dangerous consequents, as you set downe in this chapter, what my all these bee, which we know haue bene amongst you, and of like, whereunto we know, your Church is yet ful? And that more is, certain it is, that howsoeuer cō ­fidently you write, that there haue bene excommunications betwixt the Caluinists and the Lutherans, one against another about this matter (though with griefe we must confesse, that it may be, that both partes haue exceeded their bounds but to far) you make here a greater shew of it, thē there is iust cause. For whatsoeuer certaine of the Lutherans (as you tearme them) haue done in excommunica­ting the other, yet I thinke you can neuer proue, that Caluin, or any of his iudgement in this point, haue proceeded to far against any of them. But if they had, why should this seeme so straunge a thing vn­to you. For you know, I am sure, that Victor once bishop of Rome [Page 254] did excommunicate certaine bishops in his time of the east Church, because they would not ioyne with him and the west Church in the time of obseruing Easter. And that Stephanus another bishop of Rome went as far against Cyprian for his opinion of rebaptizing, you cannot be ignorant. Againe you know, that there are but few of the Lutherans, that pursue this controuersie so hoately (the greater part being contented to deale in it more brotherly, and quietly) and that the hoatest of them also haue beene so thorowly answered to all their obiections, as that there beginneth to be greater hope of vnity herein ere it be long, then you well like of, or then shal come to passe indeed if you can let it. But alas (though it hath bene far more, es­pecially of the one side, then any waie can be iustified) yet what hath bene their bitternes and heat, of either side, at any time to be compa­red, with the bannings and cursings, fightings and brawlings, murderings, manglings, and all barbarous extremities, that the maliti­ous and spiteful heart of man can deuise, that haue beene amongst your most holy fathers, the Popes of Rome themselues, and their fa­uourers & followers at sundry times, and for many yeares togither. Howsoeuer, as long as both parts agree in the fundamental pointes of Christiā religion, and in y ^e other most necessary and fruitful docu­ments concerning this sacrament (as clearely appeareth by a booke lately set forth of the Harmony of our confessions) and the contro­uersie lieth onely about the maner of the reall presence, and eating with the mouth, which mouth-eating (as all sides confesse) may bee, and yet without fruit to the receiuer, the benefit indeed arising by his presence onely to the faith of the communicant: the matter is not of so great moment, & weight, as that either you should neede to make such a doe about, or that the maintainers therof should neede to striue so eagerly for. Which (I hope) God will in his good time reueale vnto them, and so make them to giue ouer their con­tention, and to grow into vnity in this matter with their brethren. I cannot but tell you yet before I end this Chapter, that you verie greatly belie vs, when you write; that we haue giuen absolute sen­tence, that the catholique Church hath erred euen from the Apostles times vnto this present, in praying to God for the soules of those that are dead, constituted in a third place called Purgatorie. For both your deuyses of Purgatorie, and of praying to God for the re­leife of soules there, wee saie, and constantly defend to bee but popish deuises, founde out and grounded but vpon humane reason, [Page 255] dreames and fond visions, and apparitions, and neither taught by the Apostles, nor any true pastour of the Church of Christ, for three hundred yeares at least after Christ. Tertullian was the first, and that in a booke writen by him when hee was a Monta­nist, that makes any mention towardes the allowance of prayer for the dead. And vntill the Florentine councell, the greeke Church could not be brought to ioine with you, in this doctrine of yours as you knowe well inough. And therefore it had beene more for your credit and honestie, to haue spared this your merrie conceit, and pleasant deuise of wishing vs, though wee refuse your Pur­gatory, to prouide a thirde place for them, whom our conten­tions make constant on neither side. For either (if you had beene wise) you would haue vttered that your conceit with more trueth in your first entrance into it, or els you would haue let it alone for altogither.

The XXIX. Chapter.

WHat you haue gained by all you haue hitherto writen, to disproue either our vocatiō or Religion (for all your great bragge here in the beginning of this Chapter) by weighing togither your obiections and my answers, now let the indifferent Reader iudge, vnto whom I doubt not (your bragge notwithstanding) it shall and will well appeare, that both may be builded vpon y ^e rocke, for any thing you haue yet saied. The onely new thing, that you set downe in this Chapter, is this, that the former variety amongst thē that alleadge scripture considered, you allow well, that one should listen to meane men, alleadging scripture, though not very aptlie, to reforme maners withall. But when they are alleadged to teach faith, then it is meete, that the Catholique man trust none, but the best, and those alleadging them according to the general Councels; and all ancient doctours. And therefore you write, that the Catho­lique must take heede of singular interpretations, that he must follow the sentence helde & taught by the ancient Catholique Church, & not suffer himselfe to be perswaded from that faith, that all his ancetours did euer holde, the Catholique Church hath euer helde, the Scriptures, generall Councels, and all the [Page 257] anciēt doctours doe teach. In which case, if one should take vpō him to be wiser then all these, you would haue him (according to the prouerbe) accounted a foole, that thinketh himselfe onely wise, and all others fooles, because in reason it is more likely, that one should erre, then al these &c. Be it that al this were very true, what haue you woonne hereby against vs? For neither shall you e­uer be able to proue (as we haue often tolde you) that your religion is that ancient Catholique religion, nor your Church to be the anci­ent catholique Church, nor that your Church hath either the Scrip­tures, general councels, or fathers, as you herein take it for gran­ted, on your side. For in trueth you haue none of these on your sides: but the onely grounds of your religion are your owne priuate and singular interpretations, & traditions of men, without warrant ei­ther from the Scriptures indeed soundly vnderstood, or from gene­rall Councels, or ancient fathers, that are worthy to bee of credit in Gods Church. For (as we haue made appeare in infinite discourses against you) al these are farre more strong on our side, then with you. And therfore you rather are the fooles, that seeme wiser, thē all these in your owne conceit, and so labour to draw vs from the ancient ca­tholique faith and Christs true Church, by your corrupt glosses, & al­legations of these, & by your vaine & vncertaine traditions of mortal men. Wherof let the reader take for a tast these few proofes, amōgst infinite others vsed by vs. The Scripture with vs teacheth iustifi­cation freely by faith in Christ without workes: Rom. 3.24.25. E­phes. 2.8.9. and you condēne thē as heretiques, y ^t teach so. The scrip­tures with vs teach, that Christs offering himselfe once for al, hath made perfect all them that are sanctified. Heb. 10.14. and you cō ­trarily teach, that they must be perfected by the iteration of his sa­crifice in your masse, & by a number of other things done by them­selues, and others for them. The Scriptures with vs teach, that Christ is ascended into heauen, Coloss. 3.1. Act. 1.9. &c. and that the heauens must containe him, vntill the restitution of al things, Act. 3.21. and you contrarily wil haue him, as oft as you consecrate, to come downe, to hide himselfe vnder the formes of bread and wine. The scriptures with vs say, concerning the cup in the Sacrament, to all Christians rightly prepared, Drinke yee all of this, Matth. 26.22. and you say, it is heresie to holde, that the lay people must drinke thereof. To proceed a little further, the same Scripture in the 2. Commandement Exod. 20.4. forbiddeth (as we doe) both the ma­king [Page 258] and worshipping of Images, to represent God the father, the sonne, or the holy Ghost withal; and you allow both these. The scrip­tures prefer (as we doe) the speaking of fiue words in the Church that may bee vnderstoode, before ten thousand in a tongue not vnderstoode: 1. Cor. 14.19. and your Church (as it appeareth in ha­uing all your seruice in lat in) preferreth fiue words spoken there i [...] an vnknowen tongue before ten thousand, spoken in the vulgar tongue of the people to their edification. Lastly, the Scriptures (as we doe) account mariage honourable among al men in al estates, and the mariage bed vndefiled: Heb. 13.4. insomuch, that they ad­uouch the forbidding of it (though vnder pretence of holines) to bee a doctrine of Deuils. 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. & yet you condemne it in your priestes, as a filthie life. In like maner is there a plaine contrariety betwixt your religion, and the decrees of ancient and general coun­cels. In my answere to your 17. Chapter, I haue shewed you alrea­dy, that the ancient, famous, first general Councel of Nice, in the 6. Canon thereof, is directly against that preheminence that now you giue to the Bishop of Rome, ouer all Churches. There also you haue heard the councell of Gangra pronounce you accursed, for your doc­trine against the mariage of ministers. I haue also shewed you be­fore, that the 6. generall councell holden at Constantinople in the 36. Decree, hath flatly determined against the principall article of your religion, your Popes supremacy, in determining that the Bi­shop there should haue equal priuiledges, with your Pope or Bishop of Rome. The councels also of Constance and Basil against your receiued opinion now, preferred the authority of a generall Councel before the authority of your Pope. And certaine it is, that in the time of Charles the great, there was a councel called at Franckeforde, whereat the Bishops of France, Germany & Italie were assembled, about the year (as Regin writeth in his 2 booke) 794, where the ma­king and worshipping of Images, allowed of by the false Synode of the Greekes (as he tearmeth it) was condemned. And Hickma [...]e Archbishop of Rheames, writing against another bishop of that [...] ( Chap. 20.) somewhat about these times, calleth this a general coū ­cel, called by the wil & cōmādemēt of the Pope, & Emperor Charles; & witnesseth, that not onely there the false Synode of the Greeks, y ^t made for Images was confuted & reiected, but also a great booke made thereof then sent to Rome. As for fathers, and anciēt doctors, I haue plentifully shewed to be against you already for the sufficien­cy [Page 259] & authority of the Scriptures, Chap. 3. & 5. against your real pre­sence, Chap. 11. & against your doctrine of Iustificatiō, & other points of your religion, Chap. 16. And it were as easie a matter to shew thē so to be against you, & w ^t vs, in almost al the rest of the pointes in con­trouersie betwixt vs. At least this most confidently I doe aduouch, that for 600. yeares you shall neuer proue them al nor halfe to be on your side, in the third part of the questions betwixt you and vs: and therfore you doe but too shamefully deceiue the simple people in this case, with a shew & bragge of that, w ^t you are of al other furthest frō.

The XXX. Chapter.

THe drift of this Chapter is to proue, that Christ did not onely warrāt his vocatiō & doctrine by the testimonies of the Scrip­tures, but also by miracles: which I grant you proue sufficiently. Wherupon you would cōclude, that we accoūting you as hard of be­leife, as euer were the Iewes, therefore we should proue our calling and religion vnto you by both: whereas (if it be true, that you say) we can doe neither, and so are to bee sent packing like coggers onely of the Scriptures. Whither the Scriptures giue testimony vnto our [Page 261] religion or no. I referre to the reader to iudge by that which I haue writen already, & by that we haue writen from time to time in our bookes made in the defence of our religion. And concerning our vo­cation and calling, I trust, I haue sufficiently confirmed that, by thē also, in that I haue shewed our calling to be conformable to the cal­ling of true Pastors in the Apostles time. But if further you require a more speciall testimony from thence of our comming by our cal­ling, I sende you now to 2. Thess. 2.8. and Reuel. 14.6. &c. where it is prophecied, that God would towards the later end send his messē ­gers againe to consume Antichrist, and by preaching the euerlasting Gospel, to ouerthrow Babylon. And as touching miracles, you haue bene answered sufficiently already: but that you complaine not, that we refuse to answere you, as long as you can obiect any thing: to this now alleadged I say, that you must vnderstand, that it was ne­cessary for Christ, to confirme his calling by miracles, because it is true (as you alleage out of Esay) y ^t it was prophecied, that the Messias should worke miracles, when he came: & so also it was ne­cessary once to establish and confirme the particular doctrine of his person, the ceasing of the ceremonies of Moses law, and other such new & strange things, as the comming of the Messias brought with it, both to Iew and Gentile: which reasons you cannot shew, why we should work miracles now, to confirme our vocation or religion by to you. For neither was it prophecied, that the ministers of Christ should bring Antichrist to consumption, or the whore of Babylon to her fall, by working of miracles, but (as you haue heard) by the spirit of Gods mouth, breathing in his euerlasting gospell: the force whereof, in our ministry, you perceiue daily to be such, that it is euē a miracle and wonder vnto you, to see in how short time it hath pre­uailed, and preuaileth still against your kingdome, doe you what you can to let it: neither neede those things so notably once confirmed by Christ and his Apostles (which are the onely things that wee teach) to be for your sakes confirmed againe, though you be neuer so harde hearted. The word writē, and the miracles therin recorded already, must serue the turne, to conuert you to our religion therein taught, and thereby sufficiently ratified, or else (gibe at it howsoeuer here) you shall one day, to your smart (I feare) find your selues to be with­out all excuse.

One tricke of your learning yet I maie not forget, which you haue in the beginning of this Chapter; which is this, that allead­ging [Page 262] this saying of Christ, Search the Scriptures, for they are they that testifie of mee, you note, that he saied not, they are iudges, but they bearewitnes of me, which you tell vs, are two different things. This was by the way to giue vs a blow, that would haue no other Iudge, but the word of God. And to what end, would you haue the Scriptures, but to stād at the barre, as witnesses? Truely y ^t your Pope, and your Church might sit on the bench, as iudges, to giue sē ­tence, as it pleased them, whatsoeuer the witnesses depose. But what little reason there is therein, nay, what blasphemy that sauou­reth of, you & euery mā may learne by the certaine & infallible trueth alwaies witnessed vnto vs by the one, & of the manifold errors, iudg­ed and practised by the other. It is worthy the marking, to see how still it grieueth you, that the Scriptures, or certaine word of God should sit aboue your Popes & you, to check & controle your doings: and how faine you would bring them vnder, to bee iudged & ouerru­led by you. But to answere this your obiectiō, you must be put in re­membrance, that there is not such a difference betwixt a iudge, and a witnes, but one & selfesame man may be both a witnes & a iudge: & y ^t if there be such a force in this word witnes, here to driue the Scrip­tures to the barre to stand but amongst witnesses, there is as great, force in the word Iudge, in another place to bring them to the bēch againe, to sit as iudge. Remember your selfe therfore, that the same Christ, that saied here, that the Scripture beare witnes of him, sayed ( Ioh. 12.48.) to such as you are, He that refuseth me & receiueth not my words, hath one that iudgeth him, the word that I haue spoken shal iudge him at the last day. And neuer disdaine you, that the scriptures, that bare witnes to Christ, sit as iudges ouer you and your doings: if you doe, y ^e wil not serue your turne. For Christ hath tolde you, what you shal trust to, if you wil not stand to their iudge­ment here, you shall one day (wil you, nil you) be iudged by them to your smart elsewhere. Wherefore howsoeuer in the end of your for­mer Chap. you coūt him a foole & to be reiected, that counselleth you to leaue that which you take to be the catholicke faith, confirmed by the ancient Doctors, & general councels: if he bring scripture indeed on his side, you wil proue most foole, if you beleeue him not. This your Gerson saw, & therfore he hath writen, that there is more cre­dit to be giuen to one man learned in the Scriptures, and hauing thēof his side, then either to the Popes sentēce, or to the decrees of a general councel. And your Abbot Panormitā ad Canonē, [Page 263] Titulo, de Electionibus hath the like saying. But indeed whiles we labour to draw you from your errors, to ioine with vs in our religi­on, we doe not perswade you from that, but to that indeed, which our ancestors, whom we may safely follow, the Patriarches, Prophets, Christ, & his Apostles hath taught vs: and which the true Church of Christ hath by her sound and faithful pastors, & lawful Synods, and councels euer since vnto this day taught vs. This wee are sure is true. For we finde our selues able by the Scriptures, the sound mo­numents of antiquity, & the Cronicles of al times, & ages to proue, and iustifie it to be so, against al gaine-sayers. And therfore I would wish you, for fear of the sentēce of this Iudge, the scriptures (though you labour neuer so much to bereaue thē of that office of a Iudge a­mongst you) that neither lacke of miracles working by vs, nor the glorious dombe shewes of catholique faith, Catholique Church, an­cient fathers, and councels &c. hold you any longer frō ioining hands with vs. For to pretend all these neuer so much, wil no more excuse you from falling vnder the sentence of this Iudge, then the like did your predecessors, the hie priests, Scribes and Pharisees in Christs time: who by reason of such falsely pretended arguments, kept thē ­selues backe from yeelding vnto the same religion then preached by Christ and his Apostles, to their vtter destruction. The Lord of his infinite mercies, open your eies in time, and giue you once grace in simplicity of heart, to search for the trueth of religion in his writen word, and to leaue deceiuing of your selues & others, with these soun­ding and swelling words of vanitie Amen. Your childish and grosse ouersight & ignorance by the way shewed about Daniels 70. weekes in this Chapter is most pitifull. For whereas he speakes but of 70, you say he did speake of 72, & those you count to containe lesse yeares by 4. then they doe, and contrary to al trueth of story, & the expresse wordes of the Angel, Chapter 9. set downe by the Prophet, you ap­point them their beginning before the Captiuity, wheras they must of necessitie beginne after.

The XXXI. Chapter.

YOu neede not to tell vs, that Augustine and Chrysostome haue taught, that it is not the death, but the cause, that maketh a martyr. For we know that to be a most certaine trueth, and the ge­nerall doctrine of all good writers both olde and new: and therefore you might haue spared your paines bestowed in the proofe of this. And therefore most willingly wee acknowledge (as Christ hath taught vs) that onely they are blessed martyrs, that suffer for righteousnes sake. Mat. 5. and none to be martyrs, howe patientlie soeuer they seeme to suffer their deathes, that by for an il cause, either in life or doctrine. And yet we are not ignorant, that many haue died in lewde, and for lewd opinions, who yet haue seemed to die willingly and cherefully: and therefore wee deny not, but that it may be true, that some such wicked women of that beastlie heresie of the Adamites, were put to death in Zischaes time, in Bohemia, & died, as you write: and that it is possible, that such filthy heretiques, as Seruetus was, may shewe themselues stout in dying. But what is all this to proue, that our martyrs haue broken the vnion of the Catholique Church, or that they died as heretiques for here­sie? Before you can say any thing to the purpose, either to proue them no true martyrs, or to blemish their patience, you should haue proued, that their cause and religion, for which they died, was not the sound Christian trueth and faith: but that you wil neuer bee able to doe. And therefore both al this, and what els you haue noted (though falsely, for there is no such thing, in either of these two places) out of Augustine contra Epistolam Petiliani, of the Do­natistes forwardnesse to die, and out of Cyprians first booke of E­pistles, falleth downe to the ground as needles besides the questiō. For whatsoeuer they there spake, they spake it of heretickes, & ther­fore it hath no force against vs, vntil you can proue vs so; in allead­ging Cypriās testimony by the way of parēthesis, you say, we know of what Church hee spake, when hee sayed, the heretiques that hee wrote of, could not bee saued, because they separa­ted themselues from the Church, the house of peace. Indeed wee knowe, that hee ment not your Church, which is a bloudie house, a house of warre, & cōtentiō: a house of error, & superstitiō, but the Church of Christ that was in his time, to w ^t yours is not [Page 267] so like, as a drunken man is to a sober & discreet man: or a whore vn­to an honest matrone: for there is likelihood in substāce, though not in quality, & yours is vnlike to the Church then in both. Zischa you cal a martial minister of the Heborites, or Hussites: you would say, or (at least I am sure) you should say, a noble martiall Captaine: for minister he was none of them, whom their malitious enimies nicke­named Thaborites, or Hussites: for so they were called, & not as you call them. At your pleasure you call Michael Seruet, Caluins dearling, but you cānot proue, that he was euer in any such accoūt w ^t Caluin, why you should tearme him so. But yet if he had beene so, thorow his cunning in dissembling his heresie for a time, the more commendation was it to Caluin, that when he proued an obstinate heretique, hee was so earnest and zealous in the cause of his God, that all former affection set a part, he furthered his due pu­nishment, as he did. And for al your speech, of his willingnes to die at Geneua, and great patience in dying, I cannot read, but that he shunned death there, as much as he could, keeping or holding still his heresie, and that thousands haue died on the gallowes for murder, felonie, and treason, with as great shew of courage and patience, as he. But to let these things passe, and to returne againe to your principall drifte in this, which was (as you shewe in the beginning of it) to proue, that neither our vocation, nor religion could get any credit by the inuincible patience of our holy martyrs; what hath bene saied as yet to proue this? Your onely argument hitherto hath beene this, The cause, that a man dyeth for, must bee good: and hee must bee no here­tique: many heretiques haue dyed with great shew of pati­ence: Ergo &c. This argument is starke naught: for al these things in your antecedent may be graunted, and yet of al them togi­ther your conclusion followeth not. These thinges which are not at al in question you haue proued; but this that indeed should haue giuē life to your argument, that ours died in, and for an ill cause, & were heretiques (which is indeede the thing onely in question) like a wise man (because you could not proue it) you let alone. But therfore you shall be contented (for al your miserable crauing of it to bee granted you) to be denied both it and your conclusion, which, without it you can neuer come vnto. You will therefore proue (as you make your reader beleeue) that our Martyrs were such, as died in an ill cause as heretiques, and therefore went to hel. But what be your proofes? [Page 268] Ioachim Westphalus a Lutheran, in a worke of his (but it seemeth either you could not, or would not tel vs in what worke, for some po­litique reason you had doubtles) mocked at Caluin, for vaūting (but where he made this vaunt, or where we may finde it, you tel vs not) that within fiue yeares aboue an hundred had died for the religion of Geneua, prouing vnto him, that seeing there had beene far moe of the Anabaptistes put to death in lesse space, and that the Deuill had his Martyrs: his religion was no whit confirmed or countenan­ced by his Martyrs: but they might for all his bragge, be in the vauntgard of the Deuils martyrs. What a miserable argument is this? A contentious man in the heat of his contention saied thus to disgrace his aduersary and his side, therefore therupon it shall fol­low, that it was well and truely saied of him. I thinke you will grāt me, that Epiphanius and Chrysostome were good men both, yet in heat of contention one against another, Epiphanius burst out into such choler, as he saied, that he hoped the other should neuer die bishop: to whō Chrysostōe answered as angerly again, that he tru­sted the other should neuer returne aliue into his own cuntrey of Cypres: & infinite be the examples, whereby we may see, that men o­therwise haue in heate of contention marueylously ouershot them­selues one against another. And therefore God forbid, that vpon eue­ry speach of disgrace vttered in such a case by one against another, should by and by a firme argument be gathered, that it is euen so, as the one hath saied of the other.

But you will say, you stād not so much vpō his speach against Cal­uins Martyrs, as vpō that, that there were mo of the Anabaptists, that had died in a shorter space, then he talked of, and that other­wise, the deuil hath had his martyrs, which we cānot deny. Here­upon indeed it followeth, that an argument drawen to iustifie an o­pinion, and the followers of it, from the bare death, and shew of pati­ence of them that hold it, is not good: but so did neuer any of vs rea­son. For first we labour to proue, the cause good, and that done, then in the patience of such, as haue died in so good cause, togither w ^t the cause, we take comfort. And yet in trueth, we are sure, we may speak it to the glory of God, there were neuer either so many, or any, that so patiently died for any other opinion, or opinions whatsoeuer, as first and last died for the testimony of our religion. For we account all them ours, that haue from the beginning died for the glorious cause of the Gospell of Iesus Christ, and in that we are able by the [Page 269] Scriptures, to proue our religion to be the same, we are sure, we are not deceiued in our account. In the conclusion of this Chapter, to shew your selfe to bee not onely one that dare write any thing how grosse a lie soeuer it be, but as malitious in your iudgement, as e­uer was any. First, you set downe, not onely, that the Anabaptists condemne thē that die in Luther, & Caluins religion to hell (which is likely inough, because they were franticke heretiques, & haue de­nied the foundation) but also the Lutherans and Caluinists will & doe giue that iudgement one of another: and yet I am sure, you are not able truely to say, that euer any of Caluins iudgement saied, or wrote so. Secondly, though your owne iudgement be short, yet so it is set downe, that you shew that you beleeue that all the three sorts go thither? And such care & compassion your catholique heart had of it, whē you had done, that you iest at it, accounting your selues fooles, if you should stay their passage thither. For if we were al gone for company, you thinke you should be at quiet (you say) & hel would be so full, that the deuil would long for no more companie. Is this your popish diuinity, to make sport at the damnation of men? And hold you this for a principle, that it is folly to stay men from run­ning togither to hel? Indeed it may be. For I haue read, that it is a rule amongst you, that, if your Pope lead headlong with him multitudes by heapes to hell, yet no man may be so hardie, as to say vnto him, why doest thou so? Distinct. 40. Cap. Si Papa: But howsoeuer you account this diuinity, certaine I am, you wil finde it, that in no two things more, the deuils shew themselues deuils, then in these, In laughing and reioicing in the damnation of the soules of men; and in letting them go freely for company to hell, without stoppage, as many as will. Truely, truely, God must take from you this profane and deuilish spirit of yours, and giue you grace to re­pent of it, or els you may be sure, how many soeuer die and go to hel before you, hell wil long for you, and you shal finde place, and roome inough there, I warrant you.

The XXXII. Chapter.

HEre againe (as in the former Chapter) you labour to discre­dit Caluin, Beza, and others onely with the testimony of He­shusius an vtter enemy of theirs, about the quarrel of the cōtrouer­sie of the Sacrament, whom heat of contention, and a desire there­fore to disgrace his aduersaries, rather then iust cause, led thus to write. For what reason had he there to ioyne Zuenfeldius with Caluin and Beza, with whom they helde no more communion and fellowshippe, then hee himselfe, and Corolstadius, who was a doctour in Wittenberge in Luthers time, and an associate to him in disputatiō against Ecchius, he might with more reason haue ioyned with Luther himselfe, and his partners, then with these. And how­soeuer the intemperate heate of contention emboldened Heshusius, to giue Caluin the lie, most certaine yet it is, that Melancthon a great frende of Luthers, whom Heshusius cannot deny was an ad­herent of Luther, accounted of Caluin, as of a good brother. For in an Epistle which he wrote to him, he calleth him Charissim [...]. fratrem, most deare brother (it is the 187. Epistle in the booke of Caluins Epistles.) And I am perswaded, that what Caluin wrote, [Page 271] he was able to iustify in this behalfe, how rudely soeuer angry Heshusius gaue him the lie. This obiection of our disagreement hath beene oft enough vrged and answered alreadie. It seemeth, that you haue great penurie of arguments against vs, when this must come in thus often, especially seeing (as I haue shewed) grea­ter contentions haue beene amongst your selues. In which ca­ses would you haue thought a mā should haue dealt wel with you, if the bitter speeches of the one side, had alwaies beene taken as sufficient argumentes to disgrace the other? Or would you haue liked, that thereupon a man should inferre (as you doe) that you a­greed no better, then dogges, and cattes? and that therefore you so differing amongst your selues came not both from one master, God, who vseth not to sende contrary messengers: this had beene an harde conclusion against a number of you in the time of your schismes betwixt your Popes, and Antipopes; and in the times of the contentiōs of your Friers with your other Prelates, and al­so amongst themselues; whereof I haue put you in remembrance before, Chapter twenty eight. And yet if you will needes meate this measure vnto vs, vpon occasion of this one controuersie a­bout the maner of Christs reall presence, you must bee contented, that vpon moe and greater contentions, amongst you, wee sende you home as good measure againe. As for your conclusion, that it is not the paine, but the cause, that maketh a true martyr, wee graunted it you at the first: but where to make way, to bring it in here againe you insinuate, not onely that the Donatists, Ada­mites, Seruetus, and the Anabaptistes (of whom you haue spoken in your former Chapter) haue died to confirme their false Religion (which we graunt you) but that these also, that you spake of last, Lutherans and Zuenfeldians haue done so likewise; therein your fault is double. For first in so saying you tearme the Religion, for the which they whom you call Caluinists and Lutherans died, false, which you shall neuer be able to proue so to be: and secondly in so say­ing you would seeme, to make your Reader beleeue, that amongst those, whom you call Lutherans, some haue died euen for the confir­mation of their singular opinion, wherein they differ from their bre­thren, whom you call Caluinists; and that so some haue died for the confirmation of Zuenfeldius vanities, which is more also, then you can proue, I am fully perswaded.

The XXXIII. Chapter.

IN this Chapter you saie, that some of vs haue gone about to iu­stifie, that our vocation is of God, by the holines of life found a­mongst vs, because Christ hath saied, The tree is knowen by his fruit: and the good tree bringeth forth good fruite. Mat. 7.17. Howsoeuer thus you would perswade your reader, that wee are driuen to vse these kinde of arguments, taken from the shew of pati­ence in our Martyrs, and the goodnes of the liues of the professors of our religion, the trueth is, though sometime the goodnes of their cause considered, we take comfort in their patience, and the reforma­tion that our religion hath wrought in many remembred, in some sort we reioice therof also, yet neuer did we build the credit of our vocation or religion vpon either of these. For we know, there may be & hath bene great shew of patiēce in such as haue died for heresie: and that religion is not to be iudged either by the badnes or shew of goodnes in the liues of them that professe it. For both amongst the professours of sound Religion, we know there hath alwaies beene, are, and will be some lewd liuers: and also amongst those of a false Religion, thorow the force of hypocrisy and superstition, there hath beene found, and may be still, a marueilous great outward shew of holines and piety. And therefore doe we alwaies teach our hearers, & readers, to learne to discerne the true Religion from the false, by searching the Scriptures, and not by viewe of these thinges which therein may deceiue them. Wherefore you might very well haue eased both your reader, & your selfe of all the paines you haue taken about this matter in these foure next Chapters. Howbeit, seing you could aforde so much needeles paines, to disgrace what you could, the profession of the trueth, I will bee contented to take so much paines, as to weigh what you haue saied, and giue you such answere, as you deserue, for the maintenance of the credit thereof. In this Chapter first you would proue, by conference of this foresaied rule of Christ, with this saying Luke 6. Out of the abundance of the [Page 274] heart the mouth speaketh, that it is no more generall thē that. For after out of Math. 15. and other places you haue shewed, that not­withstanding that saying of Christ, man oftentimes speaketh other­wise, then it is in his heart: you conclude, euen so is it many times, naturally the fruite is good, when the tree is naught, as in the good liues of many heathen philosophers: and contrarily, the trees may bee good, as grafte vpon the true Catholique Religion, and yet the fruites degenerate from the stocke. Be it graunted, that Christs meaning was no more generally to be taken in the one, then in the other, and that it followeth thereupon, that euen as some­time a man through hypocrisie may speake well and thinke ill, so a good tree may sometimes by some occasion haue some fruite not answering the goodnesse thereof, intermingled with the good, yet you shall neuer be able to proue, but that Christes speech here is so generallie true, as that alwaies a good tree bringeth forth good fruite, and a bad tree bad fruite: as alwaies it is true, that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh at one time or other, though at sometimes also and in some thinges the mouth be bridled. For Christ doeth not deny, but that euen of a good tree there may bee founde here and there a rotten apple, a worme-ea­ten one, or otherwise not answerable to the naturall fruite of that tree. For hee knewe, what imperfections there were, and would bee alwaies founde in the best men: neither doeth hee that saied, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, saie it would alwaies be so. For he knewe, how through hypo­crisie oftentimes the abundance of filthie matter lying in the heart would bee dissembled. It is sufficient for the verifying of these two Prouerbes generallie in that sence, that Christ meant them, that the good tree naturally bringeth forth good fruit, and the bad, bad fruit: and that the abundance of the heart will make the mouth at sometimes bewray that, which lieth in the heart, let otherwise hypocrisie doe what it can. And therefore you con­clude more, then your premises will beare. For though it bee graunted you, that the one prouerbe hath some limitations as well as the other, yet it must bee onelie in maner, as I haue saied. Whereupon will neuer more followe, that an ill tree may haue sometimes naturallie good fruite growing vpon it, and a good tree, bad fruite: then it will euer be found false, that at one time or other out of the abundance of the heart euerie mouth [Page 275] will speake. And the examples, you haue set downe are both vnfitte. For neither were the workes of the heathen philo­sophers (what shewe soeuer they had outwardly of goodnes) good workes indeede, nor euer will it be graunted you of any that can di­stinguish betwixt good and euill, that a Catholique in your sence (w ^t doubtles with you is one of the Popish Religion, that now is) is a good tree? The reason of the one is, because howsoeuer the works of those philosophers had in them the matter of good workes, in the cō ­formity they had to the outward actions commanded by the law, yet they lacked the forme of good workes, in that they neither procee­ded from a right fountaine, were done to a right ende, nor in right maner: and you know, that forma dat esse rei: the forme is that, that causeth the thing to bee this or that: and that it is writen, whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, Romans. 14, and it is impossi­ble to please God without faith: Heb. 11. which faith they were without. The reasō of the other is, that your religiō being naught & Antichristian it selfe, cannot make any man or woman a good tree, but bad like it selfe: for qualis causa, talis effectus: such as the cause is, the effect will be. Wherefore for any thing you haue saied as yet, euery good tree will so bring forth good fruit, and euerie bad tree, bad fruit, as that by their fruit they maie bee discerned. And indeed (cauill you to the contrary as much as you list) this is most certaine: all the difficultie is in knowing the good and bad fruit that Christ meant of, and how alwaies to discerne the one from the o­ther. In my iudgement (and I thinke likewise in the iudgement of euerie one, that well weigheth Christes words and the circum­stances thereof) by the good fruit wee are to vnderstand pure reli­gion ioined with an holie life: by the bad fruit, a bad religion, and like life: the good tree, that beareth the former, are onely the children of God, whom he hath regenerated, and iustified indeede in Christ Iesus: the bad tree that beareth the later, are those, that remaine in their sinnes, and vnder the burdē thereof, not yet hauing had their eies truely opened, to see the trueth, nor their hearts effec­tually touched, and taught to beleeue aright in Christ. And these trees are to be discerned by sound triall and examination, which of their fruites are iustified by the writē and vndoubted word of God, and which not.

The XXXIIII. Chapter.

PArtly in the former Chapter, but more plainly in this you shew, that you vnderstand by the trees, that Christ spake of, good Reli­gion, and bad. But if you view the place, you will (at least I am sure, you should) rather thereby vnderstād, y ^e persons of men effectu­ally called (as I haue saied) or not called at all, or (at least) yet vnef­fectually called: & that sound religion is one of the principall fruits, that he meant should grow vpō the former, to discerne him from the later. For his scope was not there to teach vs, how to discerne reli­gions, but how to discerne the children of God from the children of sathan. And thus it will proue, that the sence of this prouerbe will not proue hard at all to vs to digest, but to you: who what shew soe­uer you cā make w ^t the philosophers of outward good works (wher­of you brag lustily in the later ende of this Chapter) yet you shall ne­uer be able to proue your selues good trees, because your Religion by the sound and perfect touchstone of the scriptures, wilbe proued false, and Idolatrous. This your selfe giue to be the very reason, why the philosophers were bad trees, notwithstanding that in res­pect of outward shew of holines, we may truely confesse with you, that euen their liues at the day of iudgement shall & will confound a number of Christians in name, which led Painims liues. And therefore vntill it be set out of question, that your Religion is not false, nor Idolatrous (which is impossible, as long as the Scrip­tures keepe their place) if you bragge of ten times moe outward workes, then either you doe, or can, yet your owne mouth will con­demne [Page 279] you, as yet to haue saied nothing to proue your selues good trees. And on the contrary euen by this your owne saying, if we can proue our religion to be the sound Christian faith, taught indeede by Christ and his Apostles, and therefore that neuer since, hell gates could preuaile against it (which we doubt not of, whensoeuer you will enter into this controuersie with vs) then (for all your saying here to the contrary) Christes sentence shall giue vs very good ad­uantage.

Thus hauing shewed your cunning in restraining, and collecting of this prouerbe of Christ, as I haue: now as one, that after some wresting, found it stronger for you, then you would haue thought, you graunt it to be most true, y ^e naturallie a good tree bringeth forth good fruit, & not bad at all, and a crab-tree nothing but crabs. And this you labour to proue, first, by certaine testimonies of S. Iohn, af­firming, that he that is borne of God, sinneth not, & then by other places, as Iohn. 8. Sap. 1.1. Cor. 10. you confirme that doctrine of S. Iohn: & lastly by a similitude, shewing, that as the rottennes, worm­eatennes, or any such fault in the fruite of a good tree, letteth not, but that still naturally y ^t tree may be saied to beare good fruit, because these things fall out by some accident, vnnaturall to the tree: euen so the good tree alwaies, as it is a good tree, bringeth forth naturally good fruit. Here in effect you let go, and giue ouer the for­mer restraining of Christs words, and recant that you saied before, y ^e a [...]il tree, as the philosophers, may bring forth good fruit: & a good tree, as a Catholique in Religion (by whom you meane a Papist) may bring forth ill fruits: and (will you, nill you) you are enforced to confesse, that Christes wordes are generally true, & simply there­fore alwaies verified of both good trees, and bad trees, as they are naturally considered. But yet you adde, the tree is knowen by his fruit, and faith by workes, so as then the fruit bee ripe in due season, & not otherwise. Wherein I take your meaning to be, that not eue­ry shew of fruites, nor vnripe works, but works indeede good both in matter, and maner of doing, are the fruits, whereby a good tree, & iustifying faith is discerned. You yet proceede and say, that, as a rotten and wormeaten apple hanging vpon a good tree (seeing that came not thorow the nature of the tree, but by meanes of wormes, birdes, or some other such accident) ministreth not a sufficient argu­ment, to proue that tree to be an ill tree: so the ill workes of Christi­ans ought not to staine their holy Catholique religiō. For y ^e corrup­tion [Page 280] of their fruits, commeth not from the nature of these reli­gion, which forbiddeth such fruits or workes, but from them­selues. In all this (vnderstanding not as you doe, but as you should, the holie Catholique Religion indeede, which yours will neuer proue) we ioyne with you, and allow, what you haue saied. And as you supposing your religion to be the holy Catholique reli­gion, haue thus answered the obiection, drawen from the good workes of professours of our religion, and from the bad workes of yours: so euen in the same words and maner, supposing our religiō, & not yours, to be that true & holy religiō, your obiection against vs, grounded vpon the good workes of some of yours, & lewde liues of some that yet professe ours, is also answered. For we tel you (as you seeme here to tel vs) that your works are not ripe works, such as good works should be, both in matter and maner, and therefore no argument more of the goodnes of your religion, then the Philoso­phers works were of the goodnes of theirs: & that the ill works foūd in some of our professours, ought not to steine our religiō, forasmuch as none of them are iustified, but condemned by the same. But in the vttering of these things you haue vttered diuers things, whereof it is needful to admonish both you, and your Reader. First, in exami­ning S. Iohns words, you seeme simply to vnderstand, that by being borne of God, hee meant nothing else but being baptized, as though they were both one, or (at least) so inseparably cōioined, y ^t whosoeuer were outwardly baptized, were certainely forthwith thereby in­wardly regenerated and new borne, wherein, you and al that ioyne with you therein, shew both great errour and ignorance, in the doc­trine of that sacrament. For though by that sacrament, al that haue receiued it, are sacramentally new borne, and receiued into Christs Church, and therein haue had the washing away of their sinnes, in the bloud of Christ, represented vnto them, offered vnto them, and sealed and ratified, on Gods behalfe to belong vnto them, if they inwardly also will imbrace it: yet, to confound the sacrament of regeneration and the washing away of our sinnes, with regenera­tion and remission of sinnes it selfe, or to tye the later, so vnto the former, as that of necessity, whosoeuer is partaker of the for­mer, is also partaker of the later, is against all good diuinity, Scripture, and experience. For diuinity admitteth not, a confoun­ding of the outward signe with the inward grace in a sacrament; & the scripture, & experience withall teacheth vs, y ^e Simō Magus was [Page 281] baptised; and yet no sounde diuine euer helde, that forthwith there­by he was inwardly regenerated, for by his fruites, the contrary by and by euidently appeared, Act. 8. Againe, if outwardly to be bapti­sed, were by & by to be regenerated, then al that haue beene baptised haue beene inwardly regenerated, & all that are baptised once must needs be so: which thing if it were so, why, & how cōmeth it to passe, that many neuer shew any fruites of regeneration, and die giuing plaine euidence, that they were neuer borne anew, notwithstanding they were baptised; and that there is no more hast made, to baptise Turkes, Iewes, and whomsoeuer we can come by? But it seemeth that as you holde this errour of baptisme, that to defend it withall, you are of opinion, that a man once may be truely regenerated, and so the childe of God, iustified and sanctified in the bloud of Christ, through grace, and yet afterwardes in conclusion finally may so fall awaie, that he become the childe of the Deuill, and this is the second thing that I though good to admonish you, and your reader of. For this is also a most dangerous errour, shaking al the certaine groūds of our faith, and therefore to our comforte it is plainely taught vs contrarie to this in the Scripture, that the gifts and graces of God (whereby are meant the giftes of regeneration) are without re­pentance, Rom. 11.29. and therefore whom Christ loueth once as his owne (as doubtlesse he doeth all them that are new borne once indeede) Iohn tels vs he loues to the ende, Iohn. 13.1. And Paul v­pon this ground (that he knew with whom God once went so farre, as towardes them, to shew his power, and mercy in regenerating of them, that he would neuer finallie forsake them, but perfect in thē, that good worke of his) assures the Philippians, that he that had be­gunne that good worke in them, would performe it vntill the day of Iesus Christ, cap. 1.6. And yet I doe not deny, but such maie haue their falles, and that in such sort, that to their owne sence & feeling, and in the opinions of others, they haue quite fallen from grace, and all the good gifts of regeneration; but yet if before they were not sa­cramentally onely, but really in trueth new borne, and clensed from their sinnes in Christ; the spirit and graces of God in them were but in this case, as the sunne hid from our eies by thicke cloudes, and as fire raked vp in the ashes, which God will cause to shine againe, and to growe to a fire in them, when hee in his good time hath caused the cloudes to vanish, and hath remooued the ashes. This you can holde to bee true in Peter, notwithstanding his fall, because [Page 282] Christ praied that his faith should not faile, Luk. 22. why should you not then vpon Christes praier, made generally for all his elect, that his heauenly father would keepe them, and that from euill, Ioh. 17.15. conceiue the like of all those, whō God hath once sealed indeede, with the peculiar seale of regeneration, proper onely to his elect? But it seemes you thinke you haue ground enough for this your o­pinion, in that you see many that haue seemed to stand, finally to fal; and that you finde the promisses run vpon this condition, if we per­seuere vnto the end; whereunto I answere, that in the former, you may be deceiued two waies; either in taking them to haue stood in­deede, which yet neuer came vnto it, or in condēning them as finally to haue fallen, when as it may be otherwise: and as for the second, I say, that as it is certaine, that the promisses runne vpon that con­dition, so the Lord will giue all those grace, to performe that condi­tiō, that be once thus sealed to be his. For nothing shal separate thē from the loue of God in Christ Iesus, Rom. 8. & such are kept by the power of god through faith vnto saluatiō, 1. Pe. 1.5. You must therefore thirdly be admonished, that indeede you doe misunderstād Iohn, & the other testimonies to fortifie Iohns doctrin, as dāgerously as euer did Iouiniā, Nouatus, or any other, if you take them so to be vnderstoode, as it seemeth you doe, that by these places wee are taught, that none in any actuall sinne, and hauing a minde to doe e­uill, is in that meane while, the childe of God, but of the Deuill. If this were true doctrine, seeing it is writen, that no man liueth & sinneth not, 1. King. 8. no man can say his hart is cleane, Pro. 20. but euen when we are at the best, we must needs confesse, that those good things that we would do, we do not, & those euil thīgs that we would leaue vndone, we doe, Ro. 7. & that if we say we haue no sin, we deceiue our selues, & there is no truth in vs, 1. Ioh. 1. & therfore it is certaine that ther was neuer child of God yet, but oftē times he hath had a mind to doe euill, and bene sometime in actuall sinne: I say, these thinges being most true, because both Scrip­ture and experience teach them so to be, if this doctrine of yours be true also, then so often as there is a purpose, and performance of a­ny actuall sinne, and as long as that is found in man, so often, and so long he is the childe of the Deuill, and not of God. If this be thus, if you knewe how farre actuall sinne streatcheth, and weighed with­out dissembling, how prone the best men are to fall, I am fully per­swaded there is none of you all, that a whole day togither, can haue [Page 283] assurance, that you are any other, but the children of the Deuill. For if the Lorde should straitely marke what is done amisse, and enter into iudgement with his seruants, no man could for one daies space in trueth cleare himselfe, of all actuall sinne, committed either in word, deede or thought, by omitting good things commanded, or doing ill things forbidden. If in stead of saying, in the meane while, you had only saied, therein, and in that respect he is not the childe of God; your speech might haue beene borne withall. For indeed in the new borne, though there be a new man, yet as long as they liue, they shall finde some reliques of the olde man, rema [...]ning, and so a law in their members, rebelling against the law of the spirit, Rom. 7. Gal. 5. by meanes wherof, it commeth to passe, y ^t though sinne raigne not in their mortall bodies, and they neuer commit sinne vnto death, and transgresse with the whole man, as the carnall men doe; yet in res­pect of this old man, that is left, sinne dwelleth in them, as a tyrant, and getteth them now and then, to doe him some seruice, though not w ^t the consent and liking of the new, but it striuing against the same, as it also euidently appeareth in the two foresaied Chapters Rom. 7. & Gal. 5. wherein, & in which respect, they may be saied not to be y ^e children of God, but in the meane while, in that by the inner man, these things that are done, through the tyranny of the old man, are not consented vnto, but misliked & striuen against by them; there­fore w ^t Paul they comfort thēselues, & say, now if I doe that which I wold not, it is no more I that do it, but the sin that dwelleth in me Rō. 7. & w ^t Iohn (after y ^t through y ^e beholding of this their infirmity, they haue cōfessed, y ^t if they should say they had no sin, they deceiued thēselues, & there were no truth in thē) they raise vp thēselues againe saying, if we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful & iust to forgiue vs our sin, & to clense vs from all vnrighteousnes, 1. Ioh. 1. and so remaine still, euen whiles they finde these battailes, foiles, & risings againe in themselues, the children of God. For S. Iohn is not to be vnderstood, to deny simply that the new borne sin; but to deny that they sinne vnto death, or with their full and whole power and wil, as they doe w ^c are vnregenerated. Otherwise, he were contrarie vnto himselfe, in y ^t he cōfesseth, speaking of himselfe, & such as he was, thē (as you haue heard) that if they saied they had no sin, they deceiued thēselues, & there was no trueth in thē. Neither is there any thing in any of the rest of the places, by you alleaged, that cōtrarieth this my interpretation of Iohn, or cōfirmeth yours. For mē, in the time whē [Page 284] sinne is but thus dwelling in them, & so through their infirmity, now & then (though against the wil of the spirit) dursting from them: yet euen thē retaine the spirit of God in thē, which sheweth it selfe both in procu [...]ing that it was not committed, but as it were with a piece of the wil, & in after so taking vp the trespasser for so doing, inwardly in his conscience, that he groweth to indignatiō w ^t himselfe, for yeel­ding so far, & so to a more carefulnes to take heed of sin afterwards, & to a firmer purpose & power, to excercise himselfe in good works, e­uery day dying more & more vnto sin, & liuing more & more vnto righteousnes: wherupon it commeth to passe, that such are not, no not e­uen in this time of their infirmity, answerable to the description of the wise man, wherwith he setteth them forth, that are not capable of the good spirit of God, Sap. 1. & such doe yet bring forth the works of Abrahā, in their inner man at al time, & outwardly also vpon the re­couery, from the foile of the flesh, from time to time. But sin & grace cannot dwel togither you say: & herein, you strengthen your selfe w ^t Ioh. 8, Sap. 1, Matth. 6.1. Cor. 10. it is true, sin with his head vncru­shed, in his ful power & strēgth, cānot dwel in y ^e same mā, in whō is y ^e spirit of regeneratiō, at one & the selfesame time; but (as I haue said) it may & doeth: or else, it neuer continueth a day to an end in any one mā, except the mā Christ. For al else daily offēd & sin, but yet thē sin weakened, & not in his full strength, dwelleth in the man, in respect of the flesh, y ^t is, in respect of so much of him, as is not fully brought in subiection to the spirit, & the spirit dwelleth in him euery day pre­uailing more and more, in respect of the other part which is renewed according to the wil of the spirit, and therefore called the new man. This point of diuinity though most true and certaine, by these your speeches, it seemeth, you are not acquainted w ^tall: but yet it seemeth strange, that you w ^c brag so much of the spirit, to direct your Popes, your coūcels, & Church, should (cōsidering the manifold & great sins & errors they haue fallen into) set downe this doctrine, that sin, & the spirit of God cannot dwel togither. As for your place, Wisdo. 1, it is rightly to be vnderstood of such, as are hypocrites, and dissemblers, and dwell in foolish and wilfull ignorance, for from such the spirit of discipline flyeth, but such are not the children of God, that I haue described to haue in them, both the new man, and the old, spirit & flesh, & therefore such may, as I haue saied, be capable of Gods spirit, and such may be the true seruants of God, and doe the workes of Abra­ham, and bee partakers of the table of the Lorde, as long as sinne [Page 285] raigneth not in their mortall bodies, howsoeuer sometimes it shew it selfe to dwell in them. And this you must be driuen to confesse, or else you preach the right doctrine of desperation, to your selfe and all that heare you. But to passe frō these pointes, which I thought good thus to admonish the reader and your selfe of, let vs returne to your conclusion of this Chapter, wherein, after you haue shewed vs, that to finde your Religion to be a good tree, we must not looke vpō your rotten fruit, because your Religion condemneth such fruit, but v­pon your doctours and great personages that haue died throughout the world, in your faith, and left notable monuments of hospitalls, colledges, and such like works behinde thē; you charge vs not onely that our Religion cannot shew the like, but that rather wee haue spoiled and defaced your monumēts, as your Abbies and such like, and thinke to make amēds with giuing some little now to y ^e poore. Whereunto briefly my answere is, this; all this cannot proue your Religion good, nor ours bad, vnles you can proue yours true by the scriptures, and ours false. For as bad fruits as these you charge vs withall may be founde, in them, whose Religion is good, & as good as these you bragge of, to the outward shew, may be foūd, where the Religion is false, and idolatrous euen by your owne doctrine, in the former Chapter, which answere were sufficient. Howbeit, for the more full, and particular satisfying of the commō reader, I say fur­ther, first in that you forbid vs to iudge of your Religion, by y ^e view of the rotten fruit, that we haue found in some that haue professed it, because your Religion condemus such fruit, you must not thinke much if we prescribe the same rule to you, in respect of ours: for as euident it is that our Religion condēneth sinne, yea euen to the least sinne, as euer did yours, and more too, in that we condemne the first motions arising in mans minde to sinne, though not consented vnto, to be sinne, which you deny; and in that we teach the least breach of the law, deserueth in it selfe damnation, and you doe teach there are a number veniall sinnes, euen for the littlenes thereof, and therefore to be put away euen with trifling toies, and deuises of your owne. Secondly, I say that by that, your Religion be conferred with the Religiō, that most of these great personages, and doctors you talke of died in, and both of them be tried by the scriptures, and then com­pared with ours, it wil be founde, that not halfe of them died in your faith as you imagine, yea, that the ancientest and best of them died in ours, and therefore both they, and their monuments are ours, and [Page 286] giue greater credit vnto our religion, then all the rest doe vnto yours. And euen of late daies, diuerse famous persons of our religion, haue founded Schooles, Hospitals and Colledges, as well as yours. What Duke Cassimer is, you know, and what hee hath done at Newstade and elsewhere in Germanie this way, it cannot bee vnknowen. Euen now also with vs in England, a zealous professour of our Religion, and an ancient noble Coun­seller, Sir Walter Mildemay, hath founded a noble new Col­ledge in Cambridge, called Emanuel Colledge. And since the beginning of her Maiesties raigne that now is, our gracious so­ueraigne Ladie Queene Elizabeth, notable things by her selfe and others, there hath beene done, to the erecting of Hospitals and common Schooles, and also to the maintenance, and furtherance of learning, in both the Vniuersities; insomuch, that I dare bee bolde to say, it is as much to the good of this Church, and com­mon wealth, as if an other such Vniuersity as one of these, had beene now founded, built, and endued as richly, as either of these now is. And though our Cleargy men now, be not able to builde so many Colledges as yours were, yet those things that they doe that way, though they match not yours in quantity, they yet may ouermatch yours quickely in quality. For you know in the Gos­pell, the widowes two mites, which she threw into the treasury, for the poore, of the little that shee had wel gotten, was in Christs account, a greater almes then theirs, which threw in farre grea­ter summes of their superfluities. Marke 12. And well knowen it is, that the richest and greatest of ours, are for their places, but beg­gers to them, that haue beene of like, or the same place amongst you, whereof, the reason is, not onely that they lacke a number of deuises that yours had, to encrease their gaine, but also, that they haue not your Romish consciences, which with your Popes dis­pensation, could make them wide enough to swallow vp the com­modities, not onely of as many benefices, but also Bishopricks and other offices, ciuill or ecclesiasticall, as they could possibly get. Whereof it came, that of their very superfluities, vnlesse they had beene prouder then Lucifer, and more wastfull in belly cheare, then euer was the rich glutton, some thing might well be spared, and of a number of them, so much, as might haue procured the building of many moe then they left behinde them. Hospitals and Colledges, though you would so insinuate, we haue pulled downe none, but haue [Page 287] increased the number of them. And as for your Abbies, & other [...]loi­sters of religious houses, you had for the inriching and building of them (vnder pretence of your requiting of them with your Masses, Dirges, and trentals) deuoured so many widowes houses, robbed so many heires, and fatherlesse children, spoiled so many Parishes of the ordinary maintenance for their ministers; and since, the liuers in them, were growen to such height of sinnes not to be named, as that in the iust iudgement of God, there could no lesse punishment come vpon them, then the vtter defacing and ouerthrowing of them, lest if they had beene left easie to haue beene set in their former state a­gaine, they should too easily and too quicklie haue beene shoppes and sties for the like filthinesses and abhominations againe. And yet here with vs in Englād, Cardinall Woolsey by the Popes authori­ty, pulled downe the first, and to the suppression of the rest, many of your bishops and Cleargy vnder king Henry consented: and in di­uers other places they haue beene also, by lawfull and sufficient au­thority, orderly for these causes, defaced: and doubtles though not turned to so good vses, as they might perhaps haue beene, if the wrath of God against them, for the foresaied causes, woulde haue suffered it; yet I am fully perswaded, to a better vse by farre, yea infinite degrees, then they were before. And there­fore these things considered, this rather may be counted a good worke in vs, thus to haue defaced them, and conuerted their vse, then a fault whereof wee need repent vs: And consequently vaine is your charging of vs, with seeking to make amends with giuing a trifle to the poore. This is a fault that rather toucheth your kingdome, then vs: for wee account all almes and other out­ward good workes whatsoeuer, to be vnprofitable to the doer, vn­lesse they be done with goods gotten with a good conscience; which wil ouerthrow most of the glory of the gay works that you most brag of: & you are they that care not, so your Church be inriched, if it be w ^t the farming of concubines, & dispensation for any sin, & w ^t the rentes yearly for y ^e open stewes, & y ^t w ^t y ^e which they get by whoring during their liues, so you haue it when they die. For ther was nothing more cōmō, thē for your priests to farme cōcubines, though they might not be suffred to haue lawful wiues, & experiēce hath taught, y ^t there was no sin, but ther might be marchādise made of it, in your romish court & faire: & y ^e your Popes a long time, haue takē rent for the stewes in Rome, & that yearely a good round summe, & y ^t they haue bene glad [Page 288] to take the goods of those harlots, when they died, for their Chur­ches vse, it is most notoriouslie knowen. And what hath beene more vsuall both in practise and doctrine with you, then to teach much satisfaction for sinne, and redemption of former faultes, to bee performed by almes giuing, especially, so it were to your Priestes and Clergy men, neuer caring so you might come by it, of their goods aliue or dead, whether euer it was well gotten, or no? For in trueth, this hath beene the policy, that hath brought your Clergy, to so infinite wealth, as they were of, and made all o­ther but beggers in comparison of themselues. Therefore now let them that haue any iudgement, as you wish, looke vpon the fruite of your trees, whether they bee so good or no, as you here make bragges of.

The XXXV. Chapter.

NOw in this, you craue the keies to enter by into our garden, to visite our trees, that so you maie see the fruites of our religion, hauing gotten in, in your owne pleasant conceit, after you had cast your eies about you, and looked a while vpon our trees: first, you bid vs read all the stories since Christ, and tell vs that so doing, wee shal finde, that all those sects that haue left your Romish Religion, or Church, haue done more mischiefe in one yeare, being seperated from you, then they did in an hundreth before. Now doing as you will vs, we finde indeed, great hurt hath beene done, by the ancient heretiques, for the space of six hundred yeares, that haue seperated themselues from the Roman Church that then was, but withall we finde, that our Church is farre liker that Church, then your Ro­man Church that now is, and since, what hurt soeuer hath beene done, by one or other, that haue seperated themselues frō you (though we challenge not communiō with euery one that hath so done) your owne doings we finde in stories, hath far exceeded theirs, in al kinde of impiety. Thus hauing in these general words, set a good face vpō it: as though you could say very much of the bad fruites, which you finde growing of our Religion, you beginne at the yeare 1418, with the sturs in Bohemia; laying to our charge, the murdering of seuen magistrates of Prage, by a certaine Monke, and his companions, & sundry other things done, by Iohn Zischa, and his army, in the time of those warres there; then you lay to our charge also once againe, al the troubles of late in France, preferring vs for cruelty, before the Goathes, that conquered Rome, and yet spared their Temples and those that fled thither, and this is al that you spied at this your view, saue that most vntruelie (as most clearely it appeares in Master Foxes booke of them) by the way you would seeme to haue espied, y ^t we place Iohn Hus as the first martyr of our Church. I answere therefore to that which you now obiect, that both those sturres of an­tient [Page 291] time in Bohemia, & these of late in France, began first of your selues, and so it clearely appeareth, both by the stories, and other circumstances, of these broiles. For howsoeuer you, out of your Ae­neas Siluius (a writer far more partial, then Sleidan whom you charged before w ^t that fault) report that murder of seuē Magistrates in Prage, by a Monke, to our discredit, and the rest of the sturs there, that after followed; certaine it is, that when all was laied against Iohn Hus, in the councel of Constance, that might bee deuised any way to hurt him, & his cause, and amongst other things, he was char­ged with sedition, and stur that had beene before in Prage, he openly in the face of the whole councel cleared himselfe thereof, and all his followers, and sheweth indeed, that they did arise first from a letter sent from the Colledge of Cardinals, to the king of Bohemia, requiring him, that togither with them, he would renounce & forsake his obediēce vnto Pope Gregory the 12, which he did, for the which cause, the Cleargy were against the king, & so begā the stur. And as for Zischaes wars, it appears in the stories, that the nobles of Bohe­mia, & Morauia, hauing vnder their hands and seals, to the number of 54, entreated the councel of Constance, as they had sundry times done before, for the safety of Iohn Hus, & Hierō of Prage, and yet vn­derstāding that that councel to y ^e perpetual infamy therof, proceeded contrary to the Emperours safe conduict, giuen to Hus, to burn thē both, and to make most wicked decrees there, against the kingdom of Bohemia; partly for the loue they bare vnto these two mē, and part­ly prouoked by the monstrous crueltie, shewed vpon them, by y ^e coū ­cel, to preuent the mischiefe intended further therby, against them­selues, and infinite numbers of that nation; they rose in armes, and banded themselues togither, rather to roote Papistry out of Bo­hemia, then to suffer the Gospell to bee rooted out from thence, which they saw was the intention of that councel. Euen your owne authour confesseth, that the iniuries done by this councell, to these two men (to the great dishonour of the kingdome of Bohemia) caused Zischa to doe as he did cap. 36. de historiâ Bohemicâ. So that your owne selues, and your bloudy tiranny was the cause of al the sturs there. You father also more vpon your authour, to amplifie the matter withall, then he reporteth, namelie, that they spoiled al y ^e Monasteries, Abbies, and churches of the kingdome, and that Iohn Zischa made al to passe through the edge of the sword, without spa­ [...]ing man, woman or childe; this all, is your addition, and it is [Page 292] contrary to the trueth, both of the story, and euidence of the thing. And howsoeuer the trueth were, concerning the death of those seuē magistrates that you speake of, certaine it is, that your saied author telleth of certaine men (he was ashamed belike to name how many) by the magistrates of Prage, before that, secretly and treacherously murdered, in their councel-house, not concealing, that they that were so priuily made away, were fauourers of the religion of Hus, and that they that so dispatched them were of yours, cap. 35. and 37: whereupon he saieth, that that matter comming to light, there was great sturre in the Citty: wherupon, for that and other in­tollerable iniuries before that offered them (not concealed by your owne authour, cap. 36.) it may be that some such outrage, in re­uenge thereof, was committed by some of their frends and fauou­rers, as you note out of him. Which I rather beleeue, was or might be so, because I reade in an other Historiographer, that in Zischa his time, the Consuls of Prage beeing grieued with the sturs that then were, called for Iohannes Premonstratensis, and nine of his adherents into their councel-house (as though they would haue cō ­ferred with them of the common wealth) and when so they had got them thither, that there they secretly slue them, which after being perceiued by some bloud, noted to haue come from thence into the chanels, that authour denieth not, but that thereupon there grewe such stur and tumult, that the people ouerthrew the Councel-house and diuerse other houses, and slue eleuen principall Citizens, whom they iudged the authours thereof. Whereby yet any man may see, y ^t your side gaue the first example thereof, and that they therefore are as iustly to be blamed as the other. But what maruell is it to heare, that such outrages fell out in such turbulent times, especially when they that in respect of their place, should haue giuen example onely of iust and orderly dealing, behaued them selues so tyrannically and wickedly as they then there, of your faction, did? when euer hath it beene otherwise in such times, and vpon such occasions, but that some things haue fallen out of both sides not iustifiable. Indeede I graunt it had beene farre better, that the Bohemians had takē some peaceabler course, and lamentable it was of both sides that there was such shedding of bloud, but yet when men are prouoked as they were, and can conceiue no hope of better, but rather of worse, such is the infirmity of man, that we see, it commonly falles out so. As for your ciuill warres, and the mischiefs that thereupon haue fallen [Page 293] out in France, you must meet with a very meane man, and simple reader, if notwithstanding the fresh remembrance thereof, and the stories therof writen, you can make him beleeue, that the fault ther­of is wholy ours. Nay euery man seeth, and vnderstandeth that your side are they that beganne first those troubles, that haue bur­ned, and with sword most monstrously consumed, whole congrega­tions, men, women, and children, assembled to exercise themselues, in praier, and hearing of the word, according as by your kings e­dicts, they were permitted; & that your side it was, that vnder pre­tence of an honourable mariage, betwixt the king of Nauar, and the kinges sister, drew into Paris all the protestants of name, and other­wise as many as you could, and when you had them there, most tirā ­nously and trecherously made a most bloudy massacre of them. And your friers or frends they were, that of late most villanously slew the French king. And the principals and accessaries to that most treasonable murder, are they that yet are vp in armes against his lawfull successor the king of Nauar. This and a number of such other dealings of yours, are so famouslie knowen abroad, that you come to late to buzze these things in the eares of men, that the ruins and desolation of that kingdome is to be imputed vnto vs, or that wee haue beene the men that are worse then the Goathes, and Donatists, in murdering those, that we found in your Temples. A poore simple man perhaps that reades these things in your booke, will thereupon gather that you of your side, are men that can ne­uer bee charged with any disorderly insurrections, and rebellions, and that your side altogither abhorreth cruelty and neuer practised any, For who would thinke that of all other, you would bee so ready, so especially, and vehemently to charge vs with these things, vnlesse you were the clearest men in the world in them? But vnderstand Christian reader, that this is but their policy to de­ceiue thee, for there were neuer men more iustlie and deepely to bee charged with these thinges, then these men are. For if wee looke but into the stories of our owne countrey, wee shall finde that scarce one king hath passed his raigne without rebellion, for a long time togither, and that chiefely by meanes of the Popes cursing and banning them for money matters. This, the sto­ries of Henrie the second, king Iohn, Henrie the third, Edwarde the second, Richard the second, Henrie the fourth, sixt, seuenth, and eight, and of late time, the stories of Edwarde the sixt, [Page 294] and of her Maiestie that now is, Queene Elizabeth, doe make most cleare. For in all those Princes tymes, wee reade of great troubles, and ciuill warres in this land, and that al­waies especiallie stirred vp by the Popes, and their fauourers, if they had not what they would. Sure I am they will not, nor can saie, that they that were the authours and doers herein, were of our Religion, but of theirs. The like may bee saied of other king­domes, since the time that their Religion hath florished most. And certaine it is that none were euer in these parts of the world, since they came to their height, greater troublers of Christendome, then their Popes themselues. For in Italie vnder the names of Guelphes and Gibelines, in Cicilie, Naples, and Arragon, for titles of those kingdomes, and in Germanie and France for the translating this way and that way the Empire, they haue beene the cause of most long and bloudy warres. And to passe ouer all the most sauage partes, played by these men, (that would seeme to haue their hands, so free from bloudshed, especiallie in Chur­ches) of late yeares in France in killing and murdering of Pro­testantes, as couragiouslie in Churches, as in any other places, where either by force, or subtlety they could surprise them: let them call to their remembrance what was done by a famous Cap­taine of theirs, Minerius, of late vnder pretence of a commissi­on from Frauncis, the king of France, to the poore Christians of Merindoll, and Cabriers, and the townes thereabout, and I thinke they shall bee inforced to confesse, that they are not the men, they would seeme to bee. For in that story it appeareth, that after they had by a decree, in the high court of Prouince, for the not appearance of ten men of Merindoll, adiudged that towne, houses, and trees to be made euen with the ground, and all the inhabitants thereof, men, women, and children, to bee consumed with the fire, and that after their prelates and great men, had long laboured in vaine to put this decree in execution: that in the ende, this Minerius, being president in Prouince, handled the matter so, by false informing of the king, that he obtained a most bloudy com­mission from Frauncis then king of France, through the helpe of the Cardinal of Turnon, to execute that arrest. Wherein, though his commission stretched onely to Merindoll, hee behaued himselfe so, with the assistance that quicklie he got, that in short space he vt­terly destroied Merindol, Cabriers, and other townes and villages, [Page 295] thereabouts, to the number of 22, giuing commission to his souldi­ers, to spoyle, ransacke, burne, and to destroy altogither, and to kill mā, woman, and childe, without al mercy, sparing none: which com­mission they executed, in the cruellest maner, that their filthy and bloudy hearts could deuise, rauishing both women and maidens, and putting them to all the torments, they could imagine, cutting of the paps of some, ripping open the bellies of other some, and so most ti­rannously murdering al they could get. At Cabriers, thirty men he caused to bee hewen in pieces, in a medow neare the towne, and there he tooke .40. women, and caused them to be put into a barne ful of hey, and straw, and so there to be kept in with pikes, whiles they & the barne and all were burned: and there also he sent a Captaine of his Iohn de Gay, to go with a company of ruffians to the Church; where were a great number of women & young children, & to mur­der them all, which he did, sparing neither young nor olde, and so one way and other, eight thousand, were slaine in that towne. And but for to much troubling of the reader, a number as tragicall stories as this, might bee set downe of their dealings against the poore seruants of God, in diuers and sundry other places, and namelie also not long after these thinges were done, in the countrey of Pied­mont, and thereabout: but euen this is sufficient to make any man see, especiallie this storie beeing so famous, and done of so late yeares that your forehead must needs be growen very hard, yet to obiect such things to vs, whereof you your selues haue beene most notoriouslie guiltie. You haue tolde vs before, that wee must not seeke to blemish your Religion with the bad fruites wee finde vpon you, for your Religion condemneth them: which might iustlie haue stayed you from going about to staine our Religion, with these things, especially. For sure I am that our Religion condem­neth seditiō & rebelliō, forbiddeth subiects to impeach their Princes safety, & dignity, either by word or deede, & detesteth al kinde of such barborous cruelty, and tiranny. Wheras it may bee iustly doubted, that howsoeuer your Religion, condemne some other grosse faults, that be common in men of your side, yet it liketh well of these, and such like kinde of dealings, because it is a common thing, for your great Prelates to be the chiefe furtherers thereof, and to haue such things, attempted vnder commission from your catholicke kings, & your Popes of Rome. And therefore, though that your rule weakē, yea fully answere this obiection of yours, against vs (though [Page 296] it were grāted that these things, which you obiect were true) yet it doeth not take away ours, in this respect, made against you.

The XXXVI. Chapter.

YOu would haue your reader beleeue, that we haue no further answere to your former obiection, but your example, and there­fore in this chapter you bring vs in answering onely for our defence, that you were the first, and that we learned so to doe of you: where­unto first you answere, that you know who should saie the trueth if you should say the contrary; and then supposing that our answere were true, you tel vs that our answere will not serue, because we should not haue learned, so cruelly to reuenge our selues against Gods expresse commandement of you, whom we count poore simple infidels, and superstitious idolaters. But I trust the indifferent [Page 294] [...] [Page 295] [...] [Page 296] [...] [Page 297] [...] [Page 298] reader may see by that which I haue writen, that this is not our on­ly answere, and that we answering thus, if you should say the contra­ry, he now knoweth, that it is you and no other, that therein should speake contrary to the trueth. Indeed we cōfesse, that we should not learne of you, nor of any other, cruelly to seeke to reuenge our selues, for the Lord hath forbid vs to reuenge our selues, for vengeance is his, and he wil doe vengeance. Rom. 12.19. And if any of our side, haue transgressed this rule, we cōmend it not in them; neither do we incourage other to follow any such exāple, but yet withal we tel you, and you know it to be most true, that such may be the oppression of Gods seruants, and the tiranny of their enemies, towards them, that he may as he hath done, extraordinarily stir vp some amongst them, to reuenge their quarrels, and to deliuer them out of their ene­mies hands, though such extraordinary examples, are not to bee drawen into ordinary imitation. And though there bee no rea­son why wee should learne to doe ill of you, of whom we account so euill; yet there is reason why you thinking so well of your selues, as you doe, should not teach vs, by your often ex­ample to doe that, which if we doe but once, you count an heinous of­fence in vs. You would haue the best to reforme the rest, if your request were graunted, you must amend apace, or else there will none of you be found in that degree. You are angrie with vs for speaking as wee vse to doe against your Popes, and bishops, and for that in the mean time, we giue our selues glorious titles of Apo­stles, Euangelists, Prophets &c, passing ouer the faults of our owne. Whereunto most truely I may answere, that so infinite and monstrous haue beene the sinnes and abhominations, of these your Popes and other prelates, for this long time, that it is im­possible for vs all, euer sufficiently to paint out the filthinesse of them: and as for our passing ouer in the meane time, the faultes of our owne (though indeede we neuer deny but that there are faultes amongst our owne, for they are men, and indeed for all your saying, we are the first censurers of our selues oftentimes for those faults) what reason is there that you should require at our handes, that we should neuer tell you of your faults, but that we must withal lay open our owne? When this is your fashion, we will learne to i­mitate you: and concerning titles which you say, we so gloriously set out our ministers withall, they are yet but titles, by Christ in his ex­presse word, left vnto his Church, and of them, some we cōfesse, were [Page 299] extraordinary, and but for a time, as Apostles, Prophets, and Euan­gelists, of whom onely we glory in this, that our doctrine is the same y ^t they left vs in writing, & the other titles of bishops, pastors, & doc­tors, as fit for y ^e true ministers of y ^e Gospel, we take vnto vs, & therw ^t are we content. So that you rather haue aduaunced your Clergie with glorious and vaine titles, thē we, in that of your own heads, not thinking the titles that Christ hath left vs glorious inough, you haue your Popes, Cardinals, and diuers other such strange and swelling names of pride and vanity. Yet it grieueth you, as it seemeth most, that some of vs, now and then tearme your Popes and bishoppes ra­uening & deuouring wolues; some labour therfore you bestow in am­plifying a similitude to proue them no wolues: but hirelings and bad shepheards, that many of them haue beene a great while, yea & that their sinnes haue bene the cause of our prospering and preuailing as we haue, you will not deny vs. It is wel y ^t the euidence of the trueth, and the force thereof, hath preuailed thus far with you, to cause you to graunt vs thus much: I feare me if a number of your Prelates, and Popes should come to the reading of this, you should haue smal thanke of them, for yeelding thus farre. Well, then hirelings they are, and haue beene, but too much, and too long, by your owne con­fession, & therefore as you tell them, the iudgement of God denoūced against thē, Eze. 3, & 33, is that, that they may make their accoūt of; which beeing so I cannot see how their veriest enemies should wish them to be worse: yet let vs see what reason you haue to proue, that they may not bee rightly called wolues? Your reason is, be­cause in the phrase of the Scripture you thinke there must needs be betwixt an hireling and a woulfe, spoken of therein, the same difference that is betwixt a naughty, carelesse, and a negligent shep­heard, and the woulfe that commeth in the meane time to pray of his flocke: whereupon the hireling with you, is as the sheephearde, but careles and negligent in looking to his sheepe, & the woulfe is as the heretick and false teacher, that cōmeth whiles the other is neg­ligent, & driues the sheepe from the folde, & deuours them. But you know that similitudes are not to be streatched further then they are brought in, & vsed for, that notwithstanding, seeing you your selfe cō ­fesse y ^t y ^e hereticke is the woulfe, we shal well inough maintaine our calling of your Popes and Bishops, wolues, I warrant you. For that is the thing especially that wee stood vpon with you, and we desire nothing more thē that you would come once to the sound [Page 300] triall of that point, by the Canonicall scriptures, whither you and they haue not beene most daungerous heretiques. Heresie we ac­count any opinion conceiued, helde, and stubburnly defended, con­trary to the sound grounds of diuinity set downe vnto vs, in the ca­nonicall scriptures. And your Religion to stand, & consist of a great number of such, we are alwaies most ready to proue. It is not your saying, that your Religion is ancient, and receiued and taught al­waies in the Church of God, from Christ, to this day; nor your brag­ging that we cānot deny it, as you doe here again in the later ende of this Chapter, and haue often heretofore; that will serue the turne in this case; for I haue diuerse times heretofore proued the contrarie. This is flat, euery one seeth it, you can hide it no longer, that if your Religion be so in deede, as you say, then you dare bring it vnto this touchstone of the scripture; and it wil abide it; otherwise that what­soeuer you say to countenance it, with your wordes, or with the names, and titles, of ancient fathers and doctours, that in deede and trueth, it is not as you pretend. I haue meetly well already shewed the opposition and contrariety betwixt your doctrine & that, taught in the Scriptures, cap. 29. and elsewhere: and yet were it an easie matter to lead on the reader, to a number of such grosse contrarie­ties more, betwixt the doctrine of your Popes, and Bishops, for a long time; and that which is taught there. For it teacheth that God worketh euen in the regenerat, both to will, & to performe, euen of his owne good pleasure. Phil. 2.13. and you contrariwise teach in your doctrine of free will. That teacheth vs flatly, that as there is but one God, so ther is but one mediatour betwixt God & mā, the man Christ Iesus, 1. Timot. 2. and you set vs vp a number of mediatours & aduocates, of saints and Angels besides him. There we are taught that no man can lay any other foundatiō, then that which is already laied Christ Iesus. 1. Cor. 3.11. and your church hath laied Peter for the foundation of the church. And in this scrip­ture we are taught, to worship the lord God & him only to serue Deut. 6. and namely the seruice of praier, beeing one of the high­est and diuinest pointes of seruice that wee are to yeelde vnto him, there we are taught by commandement, promisse, and example, on­ly to doe vnto him: and you come and teach vs to worship & to serue euen with diuine honour, and namely with this of praier, not onely saints & Angels, but also their reliques, shrines, and images. What should I say more? your owne consciences tell you that you haue [Page 301] nothing in the world to escape this, & 1000. more such contrarieties betwixt your doctrin and the reueiled wil of God in the scriptures, but by subtle sophistrie, fonde quiddities, and distinctions deui­sed of your owne heades, without all warrant and ground frō thēce, which in matters and questions of diuinity is intollerable. These and such like contrarieties betwixt the doctrine of your Popes and Prelates, and the trueth taught in the scriptures, we hauing oft ob­serued and tolde them of, and yet finding them most obstinatly to persist in the same, hath caused vs rather in respect of their hereti­call doctrine, to call them wolues, thē in respect of their negligence onely heretiques. And for this same cause, seeing all yours are thus infected, you wish vs in vaine to ioyne some of the best of them, with some of the best of ours, to reforme things amisse in both. For there is no hope of any good reformation at all, where any such as yours, haue any thing to doe therein. And seeing it is and hath beene so cō ­mon a thing with vs (as you cannot be ignorant, if you haue reade anie of our bookes writen against you) to denie, that you continue in the doctrine which was preached vnto you at the first, yea seeing you all know, that we count your synagogue Antichristian, for her manifold Apostasies from the ancient doctrine of Christ and his A­postles, taught first vnto the Romans, I wonder with what face or forehead, you could write as you do in the cōclusion of this Chapter, that we our selues cannot denie, if we will confesse the trueth, but that you haue continued in the doctrine that was first preached vnto you. And therefore not onely for your lewdnes of life, and negligent sheepherds, & bad sheepe, doeth your kingdome decay (as you would insinuate) but especially for this also, that in the points we striue w ^t you about, you are quite gone from the ancient sound Catholique faith and religion, first taught by Christ and his Apostles, and re­ceiued and continued many yeares in the ancient Roman church & others. The only way therefore for you is, to preuēt an vtter & vni­uersall subuersion and confusion, first to returne againe from your new Antichristian Religiō & doctrine, to the true ancient & Catho­lique faith taught in the scriptures, and thē to amend your maners according to the direction of the same.

The XXXVII. Chapter.

AT last it seemeth by your paines taken in this Chapter, you be thought your selfe, that forasmuch as hitherto onelie in bare and naked wordes, you had vaunted and bragged your Re­ligion to be the ancient Religion: that it was needefull for you euē for shame before you made a full end of your booke, to yeeld vs some reasons and grounds, or at least some shew & colour, of your so lewd and bold boasting. And therefore here now at last, to that ende you haue mustered the bare names of a few ancient fathers, very proui­dently leauing your Readers to the examining of your quotations, amōgst whom not one of an hundreth you knew, either for lacke of skill or will, leasure or bookes, could and would turne to the pla­ces in the authours themselues. You thought (belike) your credit to bee such, that they must needes beleeue that you cite thē truely and faithfully: and that because you so roundly haue huddled them togither, that therefore also out of all question they spake and wrotefully for you, in the points you alleadge them for. What smal cause there is either for you to looke thus to bee trusted, or for any to yeelde you such credit herein, wee shall see anone, when wee come to the examining of your quotations. In the [Page 304] meane time, what ment you by this, thus onely when all commeth to al, to countenance these 4, points: your Ceremonies in baptisme, confession before the sacrament, praiers to the Saints departed, and praier for the dead? Are these the greatest matters of your religion in question? Or doeth it especially depend vpon these 4, and the coū ­tenancing of these? Or was your prouision ready for no more, that but once in all your booke, you seeming to set downe the authorities whereupon you ground your religion, you would take the paines to go no further then to these 4, points? Indeed in your next Chapter you excuse your selfe and say, that you would haue gone likewise on to confirme the rest, but for being tedious to your reader. Truely he is much beholden to you, for your discreet kindnes towards him, y ^t haue not spared to be tedious vnto him in al the rest of your book, in troubling of him with such a number of proud brags, of the antiqui­ty and catholikenes of al your religion (as you haue) and with ma­ny needles and friuolous long discourses besides, and now when you came to the point indeed, which of all other was most materiall, and wherein both for his satisfaction and your owne credit, it stood you vpon most to enlarge your selfe, then thus to shift him of, with as good as nothing, bearing him yet in hand, that but for his ease, you both could and would haue saied inough. This is a common tricke amongst you, thus to cozen and abuse your simple readers, to weary them with things needles, and then to slip ouer with some such shift as this, matters most needful. Wel concerning that which either you haue saied here for these 4, points, or that which after you pretend, if you had list you could haue easily saied for the rest; this I would haue the reader diligently to note and marke, that but for two places vainely alleaged to proue your confession, that you nei­ther haue alleaged any testimony of scripture at all for the proofe of these, nor yet that you so much as say after you could or would for the rest. Which argueth that euen in your owne conscience, the best ground and countenance that your popish religion hath, either in these points, or in the rest, is but from earth, and not from heauen, from men, and not from the holy ghost. For if you had beene able with any good colour to haue coūtenāced either these points, or any of the rest, out of Gods owne booke and writen word, the reader may think that neither your zeale to your religion, nor yet your boa­sting spirit, which hitherto hath shewed it selfe ouerflowing in you, either would or could haue suffered you, thus much to the preiudice [Page 305] your whole cause, cleane to haue forgotten, so much as once to go a­bout it. But to say the trueth, seeing it is confessed by your betters, not onely that this, but the most of all the rest of the points of your Religiō, which we striue with you for, are grounded but vpon tradi­tion (as I haue shewed out of Soto against Brentius, Canisius fift Chapter of his Catechisme, and Lyndans 100. Chapter of the fifth booke of his panoply before) you are the honester man, and y ^e more a great deale to be liked, for your thus secretly confessing the same with them. Now yet by this, the Reader may plainely vnderstand, what hath indeede beene the reason, why in all your booke hitherto you haue laboured so much as you haue, to grace and countenance tradition and the exposition of the doctours, and withall haue spent so much time, in diswading the appealing to the Scriptures, for the ending of the controuersies betwixt vs. You were wise enough (it seemeth) to see where your strength lay, and from whēce would rise your bane, and therefore who can blame you for leaning, as you doe, altogither to the one, and shunning the other? But then in reason yet you should call your Religion no more diuinity, but humanity, no more Theologie but patrologie: and plainely confesse indeede from whence you haue all your figge leaues, rags and clouts, to couer your shame and nakednes. Truely these you haue (whatsoeuer in this respect you pretend) not from the right and sound Apostolique tradition (which alwaies was either expressed in Scripture, or at least cōsonant vnto it) nor from the ancient holy fathers rightly vn­derstood, and when they taught (as it was of themselues acknowled­ged to be their duties) with sound warrant from the scriptures (as I haue sundry times shewed already) but onely from forged, or cor­rupt tradition, and from the fathers either misunderstood, or erring as men. So that vnwriten verities or rather forgeries, sentences of fathers mistaken, or their verie errours whereof they would haue beene ashamed, if they had had the meanes to helpe them to see them that you haue; are the groundes, pillers, and bewties of your church and Religion. And this we are alwaies ready to iustifie against you before the whole world, by sound and inuincible proofe out of the vn doubted word of God (interpreted according to the same rules of interpreting it, that the holy and ancient fathers themselues haue followed, in confuting all heretiques in their times by, and which they haue likewise commended to others alwaies to be obserued) and out of the vndoubted writings of the ancientest and best fathers [Page 306] them selues. Wee are therefore verie well content to liue and die in that Church and Religion, which we are sure we are able thus to iustifie, and we enuy not you, but rather heartely la­ment and pittie you, that yours hath no better grounde then it hath.

But to let these thinges passe, and to proceede to the scanning and examining of that which you haue set downe in this Chapter; you beginne with an arrogant and false bragge, that all ancient doctours, Greeke and Latin since the Apostles times, and all the Christiās of y ^e foure quarters of the world, that were in those daies, made their promises and vowes &c. as you doe now. You are won­derfull generall (Master Albine) and your words are very confi­dent and swelling; shal we thinke that you are a mā of that learning and reading, y ^t you speake all this vpon your owne knowledge? why then hauing such a cloud of witnesses, & such an army royall, alleage you so few of them? nine or ten be the most whose names you haue brought vs in al this Chapter, and these you haue brought forth v­pon the stage dumbe, or tongue-tied, if we wil here them speake, we must take the paines to attend vpon them, by your direction, at an other time, and surely in other places then you haue pointed vs, we must heare a good sort of these speake for you, or else we shal neuer finde them willing, to yeelde either you or your cause, any one word good or bad. As for vowes and promises, which you make to God, vnlesse thereby you meane onely such vowes and promises, as both you and we make in our baptisme, to renounce the Diuell and al his works &c. for then you haue not so much as named vs one father, Greeke or Latin, nor yet any one Christian of any of the foure quar­ters of the world, you speake of. And indeede you haue amongst you, such rash, foolish, vndiscreete, and superstitious vowes and pro­mises a number, for the which you could not, nor cannot truely al­leadge any ancient and holy father or Christian indeede, thereinto giue you any countenance. Such bee you vow of single and chast life, vniuersally amongst you tyed to holy orders, your vowes and promises to God, some of you alwaies, & some for a time, to absteine with opinion of holines and merit, from flesh and whitmeate, your vowes of pilgrimage, to cōmit idolatry at this! Saints shrine & pic­ture, or at that, and a number of like stampe; of which kinde of vows & promises, if you meane, I say first, your glory in thē is your shame, for these are but plaine wil worships, condemned by Christ Mat. 15. [Page 307] and by Paul Coloss. 2. & the very bronds & marks of such, as accor­ding to S. Pauls prophesie, in the later daies should depart frō the faith, & giue heede vnto spirits of errour and doctrine of Deuils. 1. Tim. 4. And further I say such vowes were better neuer made, thē made, & being made, they are of y ^e nature, & dangerous consequence, that the best way were first to repent of the folly and rashnes in ma­king of them, & then rather quite to giue them ouer, thē with such superstition and impiety to seeke to keepe them, as is vsed & breaks forth thereby shamefully amongst you. For it is plentifully proued, both out of scriptures and out of Ambrose in y ^e second canon of the eighth coūcel of Toledo, that oathes that cānot be performed with­out sinne are vnlawfull & not to binde. And you cannot be ignorant, that Gratian, causa 22, quest. 4, produceth many testimonies out of the fathers to the same end, and y ^e namely out of Isidor there, he hath noted & set downe this, for a good rule in such cases as these of yours be. In malis promissis rescinde fidem, in turpi voto, muta decretū, quod incautè vouisti ne facias, impia est promissio quae scelere adimpletur, that is, in euill promisses performe thē not, in a filthie vow change thy purpose, y ^e which rashly thou hast vowed doe not, it is an vngodly promise w ^c is fulfilled w ^t sin. And rather then men y ^t haue vowed & promised a single life, through the force of inward cō ­cupiscence, should burne and fal either to fornicatiō, adultery, or any other vncleannes or filthines of the flesh (w ^t were as heauē & earth & all the world knowes cōmō fruits of your priestly vow of single life) the anciēt Doctours that you brag of here so much, would haue thē to marry and to repent of their rash vow: as it is euident in Cyril in his third & 16. bookes vpon Leuiticus, in Cyprian li. 1. Epist. 11. in Epiphanius himselfe cōtra apostolicos l. 2. and in August. de bono coniugali: & de sanctâ virginitate, cap. 34.

But by the vowes and promises that you speake of, seeing you cite no fathers for any other, I will take it that you meant one­lie those y ^t you vse to make to God in Baptisme. Now thē, yet there­in vnderstand, you striue without an aduersary. For we in our bap­tisme doe as solemnly make those vowes and promises to God, to renounce the Deuill, the world & y ^e flesh w ^tall their fruits, to beleeue in God and serue him all the daies of our life, as euer any of you did, or doe. But you say further, that al these holy Doctours & Christiās you spake of, at their baptisme did vse those very ceremonies y ^t you doe, with the selfesame exorcismes, adiurations and annoyntings, [Page 308] which you doe vse in your Catholique church, which we call papi­sticall; for the proofe of the trueth whereof, you name vs certaine places out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Chrysostome, Augu­stine, Basil, and Arnobius: what are these all the ancient doctours and Christians, since the Apostles time that you speake of? Though it were graunted you, that these seuen in these places, were for your ceremonies which you vse in baptisme, yet this were farre from all that you spake of before. Thus (to beginne withall) euery bodie may see, that you are a far mightyer man in bragging, thē you dare so m [...]h as to make shew you are, in prouing all you say. But to passe by this fault, herein you haue committed a second fault worse then this first. For whereas you alleadge these fathers here, to coū ­tenance your whole pompe of ceremonies now vsed by you in Bap­tisme, there is not (you know well enough, or else you are not so cū ­ning in these places, as you would haue men thinke you are) the halfe of your ceremonies & fashions, so much as barely mentioned by them, in these places. Exorcisme, abrenuntiation, crossing, thrise dipping, and anointing, are all that I can finde any of these in any of these places to haue mentioned; but that they vsed the selfesame exorcismes, adiurations and anointings that you now vse (as you say) I finde not. Your Chrisme that you anoint withall, must haue, as you hold, balsom in it: and in them I finde onely mention of oyle and none of any balsom, & your formes of exorcising and adiuring, set downe in your seruice bookes, are not found in any of these pla­ces, nay it is well enough knowen they are of younger yeares by a faire deale. But what are these few ceremonies (the names where­of and vse whereof, in some sort they had common with you) to al the solemnity of ceremonies that you vse now? To trauell no further for the matter, let vs but take a view of your rites and ceremonies in this case, as they are set downe in your late Catechisme, by the decree of the councell of Trent, and Pius the fift Bishop of Rome, writen and published for the instructiō of your parish Priests, what and how to teach their people: and we shall finde that these places, doe not mention the one halfe of them, by farre. There first, they are deuided in three rankes or sortes, the first is of them that you by au­thority of that councell, vnder paine of being anathematized, must vse before the partie to be baptised come to the font: the second is of such as be vsed in the baptizing of him, and the third is of such as be vsed after. Of the first stampe be these: consecrating of the water, [Page 309] with the oile of misticall vnction, of Easter day and Whitsonday, that shall serue for the whole yeare after, as there shal be occasion to vse it, the staying of the party without the Church dore, vntill he ei­ther by himselfe or his Godfather for him, promise the forsaking of the seruice of Sathan, and his yeelding to enter into Gods seruice and family, and being asked what he would haue, answere be giuen, that he would haue baptisme: which being knowen, thē it is saied fur­ther, that he is to be instructed in the Cathecisme, and is to answere it by himselfe, or his godfather, which done, then in religious words and praiers, exorcisme or adiuration to expell the deuil, and to wea­ken and ouerthrow his power in him, must be vsed, a little salt must be put into his mouth, the signe of the Crosse is to be made vpon his forehead, eies, brest, shoulders, and eares, and lastly with the priests spettle, his nostrels and eares, must be anointed. Now these things thus finished, then he is admitted or brought to the font, where next follow the rites of the second order, which there are thus set downe, then is he thrise asked whither he doe abre [...]ounce the deuill &c. And thrise he or his godfather make answere abrenūtio, I doe abrenoūce; and then likewise he is asked, whither he doe beleeue the twelue ar­ticles of the Christian faith, whereunto answere is made, credo, I beleeue; and lastly, whither he will be baptized is demaunded, wher­unto answere being made, volo, I will: he is baptized in the water in the font, in the name of the father, the sonne and holy Ghost, either being dipt into the water, or by hauing water poured or sprinkled v­pon him, according to the maner and fashion of the Church in that countrey, where the party is baptized. Where is also further shew­ed, that it was the minde of that holy councel, that at the most there should be but one godfather, and one godmother, thus to answere and vndertake for the baptized, both because the order of discipline and instruction thorough a multitude of masters might be troubled, and also because it was meet so to prouide, least otherwise betwixt too many, such spirituall affinities should grow, as might hinder mariadge amongst men, too much. For as the writer of that booke further saieth, most wisely by the Church it was decreed, that there should grow such affinity not onely betwixt the baptized and bap­tizer, but also betweene the baptized and the sureties, and the baptized his true parents, that thenceforth none of them might marry togither. That also may not be forgotten, that there also it is shewed, that the naturall parentes of the party to bee [Page 310] baptized, may not so promise & answere for him, y ^t so y ^t rather it we [...] appeare, how farre this spirituall education differs frō the carnall. Belike the authour of this Catechisme, & the councell & Pope y ^t set him a worke, & cōmāded y ^e publishing of his booke, had quite forgot­tē, that S. Paul saieth to naturall parēts, yee fathers bring vp your childrē in instructiō & informatiō of the Lord Ephes. 6. ver. 4. or else they were at a flat point, they cared not whatsoeuer hee had taught. Now your Ceremonies of the lust sort (as he setteth thē out) are these, baptisme ministred & finished, the baptizeds crowne of the head is to be annointed with the holy chrisme, a white garment, or at least, a white sudariolū, that is handkerchiefe or cloth to wipe away sweat withall, is to be giuen him, a burning waxe candle is to be put into his hand, & lastly, his name must be giuē him. Now, I pray you, what are y ^e 5. things aforesaied, mentioned in these places, to such a nūber as these? And yet the Tridentine coūcel, whose mind this au­thour plainly set out, thought al these so necessary can. 13. de Sacra­mētis, that it pronoūceth him accursed, that shall cōtēne, omit, or take vpō him to alter any of these. And y ^e more is (as it is euidēt by your own doctors, Durād, Dorbel, Herolt & others) you obserue not these rites & ceremonies, w ^t the opiniō y ^t ecclesiasticall cōstitutions of such matters, ought only to be obserued w ^tal, y ^t is, in h [...]lding stilfast y ^e doctrine of Christiā liberty in your cōsciēces, & obseruing thē for decēcy, cōlines & edification, w ^tout opinion of holines, necessity & merit therin, for y ^e better maintenāce of order & peace in y ^e church, but most grosly, superstitiously, & idolatrously haue you taught mē to impute to a nūber of them, as nāely to your exorcism, annointing, & crossing such force & efficacy, as y ^t not only you haue made thē to encroch far vpō the vse & effect of baptism it self, but also you haue, & do, attribute so great, & so many spiritual graces & effects to thē, y ^t litle or nothing is left, as speciall to baptisme. Nay who is so simple, but y ^t he seeth, y ^t these & such other rites & ceremonies amōgst you (though it be neuer so euident y ^t they be but of humane deuise & inuentiō) are more care­fully vrged & obserued, thē y ^t very order that expreslie it set downe in the scriptures thēselues, about & concerning y ^e administratiō of y ^e sa­cramēts: if it were not thus, you durst not so cōtrary to y ^e doctrine & order of S. Paul 1. cor. 14. appoint & vse rather (as you do) an vnknown tongue in y ^e ministring of thē, then a lāguage y ^t the people might vn­derstād & be edified by, & so say amē w ^t vnderstāding to your praiers & thāksgiuing. Nether durst you thus to ad to y ^e lords ordināces, & accurse thē y ^t omit any of your additiōs, in the mean time, take vpō you quite cōtrary to the words of Christ, drink ye al of this, to bereaue y ^e [Page 311] cōmō people of the cup, to the sacramēt of Christs body & bloud, w ^tall by your new found tearme and doctrine of concomitance, peruerting quite the vse & end of y ^e sacrament, in making it a sacrament of y ^e life & glory of Christ, whereas by his ordinance it is a sacrament of his death and abasement for our redemption vpon the Crosse. In taking therfore bread a part, & calling it his body brokē; & afterwards wine, and tearming it his bloud shed for many to the remission of their sins, it was his purpose y ^t by the vse of this sacrament, vntill his cōming againe, his Church should set forth his death and passion, and so the separation of his body & bloud, the one frō y ^e other: & you by this your deuise, inuented for the maintenāce of your Helena transubstātiatiō, make it to serue to a quite contrary end, nāely, to teach the coniunctiō stil of his body and bloud together, and so to be a sacrament in effect to deny his death & passion. Of you therfore it may again most iustly be said, y ^t once Christ said of your right forefathers, the Scribes and Pharisees in his time, you are they y strein a gnat and swalow a ca­mel, and y ^t for your owne traditions make no reckoning of the com­mandements of God. Mat. 15. & 29. & Mar. 7. And certaine it is, that whiles you and others (of whō you haue learned al these ceremonies of yours) haue takē vpon you, thus to adde vnto Christs ordinance of baptisme, such a nūber of needles ceremonies, especially vrging thē and vsing them as you doe, al these wel [...] therupō directly follow, you seeke to make the day light of the new Testament, euen as darke as the night of the old, by your new foūd figures and types, you strongly lead mē to think y ^t the simplicity of Christs institution of this sacra­ment was not decent and sufficiently ful of maiesty, for the dignity of such a sacrament, you by the multitude and pompe of your solemne ceremonies, darken and obscure these things y ^t are essential & neces­sary thereunto indeed, you take the effects & inward graces, apper­teining to y ^e right vse of baptism, frō it, & cōmunicate thē w ^tout, other commādement or promise from God, to things but of mēs inuētion: & lastly, forcibly you thereby occasion mē to think, y ^t the integrity, & fulnes of this sacrament dependeth vpon these. Howsoeuer therfore you would seeme, from sundry places in Aug. here quoted by you, to fetch credit for them, yet these things being true which I haue saied, as they are, & they well considered, seeing in Augustines time, it is certaine, that neither there were so many, nor those that were, so superstitiouslie were then vrged or vsed, we may be sure that hee would, if he were now aliue to see and vnderstand all these thinges, most vehemently write and speake against you therein. For speaking but of the rites and ceremonies, and the maner of vsing [Page 323] of them that were in his time, hee greatly shewed his dislike then, both of the multitude and maner of pressing them vpon men: saying, Hoc nimis doleo &c. I cannot but extreamly sorrow for this, that many things, which most holesomly are commaunded in the diuine books, are lesse cared for, and all things are full of so many presump­tions, Epi. 119. And further he addeth in the same Epistle, touching the same, & quamuis ista contra fidem non sint &c. and though these things be not against faith, yet wheras the mercy of god would haue religion free, burdened with most few, and most manifest sacra­ments to be obserued, these with seruile burdens to presse it, that more tollerable is the state of the Iewes, who although they knowe not the time of their liberty, yet they are subiect to the burdens of the law, and not to humane presumptions, and therefore his opinion in the ende is flat of all such, that assoone as may bee, without all doubt, they be to be cut off, in the same Epistle also. Yea Pope Ste­phanus, as he is cited of Gratian, dist. 63. Quia sancta, speaking of humane orders aboue the election of Popes, saieth plainely, that if any of his predecessours did some things, which then might be fault­les, and after they were turned into errour and superstition (which is the cause of these your ceremonies which we mislike in you most flatly) sine tarditate antiquâ, & cum magnâ authoritate destruantur a poste [...]s, that is, without any slacknes and with great authority let them, of them that come after be destroied: which assertion of his, he doeth ground vpō y ^e example of good Ezechias, in breaking y ^e bra­sen serpēt which Moses had made &c. And whereas you, vnder your Tridentine curse, would binde all churches to the strict obseruing of all these your solemne ceremonies: you know, or at least should, that that is contrary to the ancient doctrine of Christian liberty in such things, and to the practise and experience of the primitiue Church. Annicet and Polycarp, the East Church, and the West (you know) a long time freely differed about the time of the obseruation of Ea­ster, and yet pacem (saieth Irenaeus) in vniuersâ ecclesiâ &c. that is, both parts throughout the whole church, kept and maintained chri­stian peace, Euseb. lib. 3. cap. 23. and so likewise there hee shewes, that there had beene a long time great difference, about the fast be­fore Easter, both for the time of the cōtinuance and otherwise, & yet that thereby rather in his opinion, the vnity of faith was cōmended then hindred. And of Gregories answere to Leander, touching the dipping of the baptized once or thrise (the answere being as it was & [Page 313] is reported by your owne Gratian, de consecr. dist. 4. that howsoe­uer the party was once or thrise dipped, it was to be counted bapti­sed, you might learne that there is no such necessity as you imagine, to haue generally throughout the whole church of Christ, one precise forme of rites & ceremonies to be kept, that touch lesse the substātial parts of the sacrament, then this did. That Gregory could say (to fortifie that answere of his) in vnâ fide nihil officit sanctae ecclesiae consuetudo diuersa, that is, the diuersity of custome or fashiō doeth not hurt the church, continuing in one faith. And our Cronicles doe plainely testify, that neither Eleutherius, bishop of Rome, about the yeare 180. (though king Lucius here sent vnto him for the Roman lawes to frame his people by) would binde him thereunto, nor yet the foresaied Gregory answering Augustine the Monks question, would tie him then, for the ordering of the church here, to the Cere­monies and customes of Rome. But the first sent Lucius, for his di­rection, to the lawes of God, being without exception, and not to the Romā laws, which might (he confesseth) be reproued, and the other in his answere to Augustines third demaund, how it came to passe y ^t the faith being but one, the ceremonies and customs were so diuers, as that there was one maner of masse at Rome, & an other in Frāce, wils him without respect of place, out of many churches, to chuse the best orders. And who so will reade Socrates 5. booke and the 18.19.20.21 & 22. Chapters of the same, he shall there finde not onely in a number of things diuerse fashions, rites and ceremonies, noted by him to haue bene in the churches of Christ (insomuch that in the 21. Chapter not onely he writeth, that altogither truely and in al obser­uances of godly praiers, two churches could not be found, that did fully agree amongst themselues) but also, that this notwithstāding, y ^e vnity of faith, & christiā peace was preserued & maintained amōgst them. The like may be seene in Zozomens 7. booke & 29. Chapter. Your owne Tridentine Catechiser of your parish Priests could see (as I noted before) that touching dipping the party to be baptized in water, pouring it vpon him, or sprinkling him with it (so that eue­ry one follow therein that order, that hee seeth in vse in the Church wherein hee is) it is not materiall which way be vsed, for which of them soeuer be vsed, so (saieth he) this sacrament may rightly be mi­nistred. So much the stranger is it, that both you here and he there, & your whole Tridentine councel, should so peremtorily seeke to bind all churches and persons, to the strict keeping and obseruing of [Page 314] all your foresaied rites and Ceremonies, in the ad ministring of the same.

Further cōcerning this point, I must tell you, that for your plea­sure I hauing turned to these places, which you quote for this pur­pose, as I finde, by comparing of yours with them, that they mētiō, you haue many that they speake neuer a word of in these places (as namely your consecrating of your water and Chrisme so lōg before, your dealing with the party at the church dore, your putting of salt into his mouth, your dressing his nostrels and eares withspettle, and your giuing him a waxe cādle burning into his hand) so thereby and by view of some other places in them, I plainely see, that you haue now giuen ouer the vse of some, which then were vsed, vpon the like ground that the rest were, which you would seeme to haue from them. For first Tertullian in his booke de coronâ militis (which is the second place you quote) as there he mentions thrise dipping, renouncing of the Deuill, his pompe and Angels, which you would seeme to allow and vse with him, so he saieth, that being taken from out of the water, we tast before hand the temper of milke and honie, and from the time of our baptisme, for a weeke, we absteine frō dai­ly washing, and all these doeth he ground a like, saying Harum & aliarum disciplinarum &c. that is, of these disciplines, if thou requirest the law of the scripture, thou shalt finde none, tradition shall be pretended to be the authour, custome the confirmer, and faith the obseruer; & yet you haue left these two last long ago, for any thing, that I can learne. And Augustine, an other of your authours in this case, in three of the places named by you mentiōs exufflation which you haue giuen ouer, as he doeth some other, that you retaine. And the same authour vpon the 65. Psalme shewes, that in their exor­cisme they vsed fire, because it is writē in y ^e Psalm, passing through fire and water thou shalt come to a refreshing: and in his 4. booke ad cathecumenos, de Symbolo, lib. 4. cap. 1. he saieth, that before baptisme, was vsed beside the Catechisme, exorcisme, praier and canticles: in sufflation, sackcloth, bowing of the neck & humility of the feet. And Hierom vpon the 55. of Esay, and against the Luci­ferians shewes further, that then was vsed the tasting of wine and hony. Wherefore if the doctours and fathers, mentio­ning of some of your ceremonies, binde you to thinke the vse thereof lawfull and necessarie still, why should not their autho­ritie bee of as great force for these, which you see, they ground [Page 315] aswell as they doe the other? And if their mentioning and thus grounding of these notwithstanding, you will be at liberty to leaue these, why may not we aswell be at our libertie to leaue off some of the other, that we finde most needles, and most to haue beene abused by you, to obscure and darken the simple institutiō of this sacramēt? Wil you follow the fathers as farre as you list, and leaue them when you list, and may no body but you doe so? Moreouer in looking (vpon this occasion) into the monuments of antiquity, and the writings of the ancient fathers, I must needes aduertise thee (Christian reader) that I finde great variety, in the enumeration of ceremonies a­bout this sacrament in them, and likewise great oddes betwixt the opinion and conceite, that some of the fathers shewe they had of them, from that that others, of as good credit as they, had: whereby it is euident, not only y ^t they were not vsed alike al in euery place, but in some places and times more, and in some lesse: but also that some vsed them to one ende, and some to another. So that no certaine rule either for the ceremonies themselues, or for the maner or ende of the vse of them, can be deduced from thence. Whereupon it must needes follow, that for any thing writen by the ancient fathers here­of (so that the essentiall parts and things belonging hereunto, which haue expresse warrant from the institution thereof, be obserued first, and then next according to the practise and example of the Apostles, and the times next after them, necessary instruction and explanation to and of the right vse thereof, with conuenient praiers and thankes­giuing, meete to be vsed in such an action bee vsed, and that also in due time and place, by, to & before fit persons) any Church of Christ in any kingdome by the prouinciall authority that it hath, may free­ly reiect so many of the other rites & ceremonies as it shall thinke good, and likewise reteine so many of them, as she findeth may fitly bee reteyned for order and comelinesse, without placing any opiniō of necessity, holinesse or of merit in them. And therefore, forasmuch as our Churches carefully haue taken this course in these three points, and follow the same in trueth, there is nothing, that these fa­thers that you haue named, consent vpon, about the administring of this sacrament, but we fully doe obserue the same. And here in Eng­lād especially what fault can you find? Of the 5. things your fathers mentiō we reteine & vse, though not with any superstitious intentiō (as you do) 2 of thē: the rest we haue cut of according both to S. Au­gust. aduise, & your pope Stephanus iudgement before noted, because [Page 316] the multitude before was too great for the time of the Gospel, & they were growen into grosse abuse amongst you. No essential or necessa­ry thing to bee done is omitted with vs, and wee haue besides fully inough, for the time of the new Testament wherin we liue, in which time it is more likely in such ceremonies. rites and fashions for vs to erre, rather in retaining too many, then in abolishing too many.

But because neither you shal say, nor your reader thinke, y these fathers, whose names you bring vs, to countenance al your ceremo­nies, which you vse about baptisme, are so ful & fast of your side ther­in, as you pretend: I wil vouchsafe so much further paines, as parti­culerly to examine al your quotations out of them. The first man you name is Tertullian, and in him you send vs to two places; for your a­nointing and abrenuntiation, to his booke de resurrectione carnis: and for thrise dipping, to his booke de coronâ militis. Wherin it see­meth a little you mistooke your notes: for there is no mention of ab­renūtiation that I can finde in the former place, in the later indeede there is: but you quote the former for it & not the later at all. Where­by any man may see, you tooke your quotations vpon trust, and neuer tooke the paines to turne to the places in the authours themselues, and that so it came to passe, that that which you should haue fathe­red vpon the later place (through ignorance) you haue attributed to the former. Anointing, I find mētioned in the former place (I grāt) but neither the matter nor form of your anointing, can I either find ther or in any other place, quoted by you for it. And in the other, I cō ­fesse he mētioneth thrise dipping, but to what purpose is y ^t, to iustifie your ceremonies or maner of baptizing, seeing (as I haue noted be­fore, out of your Tridētine cathechism) in this point you are so indif­ferent, whither it be ministred by dipping, powring, or sprinkling, & neuer once there prescribe, this fashiō of thrise dipping as necessary? Your second authour is Cyprian, who (you say) in the second volume of his Epistles, Epist. the twelfth doeth write, that the holy Chrisme was giuen vnto children that were baptized. Where­in your note gatherer abused you. For doubtlesse in that Epi­stle there is not one worde, either of Chrisme or anie other Ce­remonies about baptisme. Indeed in the 12, Epistle of his first book of Epistles, he speakes of anointing the baptized with oile, but holy chrisme he calleth it not. But to speake the trueth, both Tertullian and he, haue not onely in their workes sundry times mentioned Chrisme and anointing of the baptized; but they went too farre [Page 317] both in vrging the necessity thereof, and in attributing vnto it such diuine grace as they did: insomuch, that it is not without cause of the learned thought, that therin they were both the schollers of Mō ­tanus. But certaine it is, of whomsoeuer they learned thus to vrge this ceremony, to the obscuring & preiudicing of the vse and effects of baptisme, as too grossely they did, in tying rather the gift of the holy Ghost to sanctifie and regenerate to it, thē to baptisme, they ne­uer learned it other of Christ, nor of any sound Christian, nor may a­ny Christian more think himselfe bound to vrge it, and vse it as they did, because they did so, then he is bound to be a Montanist, because Tertullian was so, or to holde rebaptization of them, that before were baptized of heretiques, because Cyprian did so. Your nexte man is Origen, to whose 12. Homilie, without any further additiō, and to diuerse other places of his workes (without naming vnto vs any of these places) you send vs, for abrenuntiation and the signe of the Crosse to bee made in the baptised his forehead, wherin it was your hap, to shew as great negligence and ignorance as might bee. For Origen wrote many times 12. Homilies (as it is to be seene in his works) whereas it should seeme by your kind of quoting of him, that you thought he had done so but once, and yet in none of these 12. Homilies that he wrote, finde I these two ceremonies mentio­ned, and as for the diuerse other places in his works, that you speake of, when you shall vouchsafe to name them, your answere will bee as easily made. Next is Chrysostome, of whom you alleage two pla­ces, his 12. Homily vpon the first Epistle to the Corinthians, cap. 4. and his first Homilie vpon the first Chapter to the Ephesians, and both these onely for renuntiation. In the first whereof, there is men­tion of the signe of the Crosse made in the forehead, but not expresse­ly in Baptisme, and in the other there is mention of renuntiation in­deede, but so there is not at al in the former: wherby againe one may see, how you neuer turned to these places and read them your selfe: and besides it is euident, that either through ignorance or negli­gence, or both, you father that vpon your former noted place, which you should attribute to the later: as here, that vpon Origen, which you should haue left to Chrysostom, and so shew your errour in both. But what were all this (if you had not beene at all thus ouerseene) against vs, or for you more, then for vs; seeing both these ceremonies or rites, are reteyned and vsed amongst vs, in farre better maner then with you. Now followeth Augustine, out of whom you [Page 318] quote vs, in Psalm. 31. Aug. lib. 15. contra Iulianum Pelagianum. lib. 1. cap. 2. Item de nuptiis & concupiscentiâ. lib. 1. Cap. 20. In Iohannem tract. 33. In Canonicam Iohannis, tract. 3. & tra. 6. & de Ecclesiast. dogmatibus Cap. 31. De Symbolo lib. 1. cap. 7. & lib. 2. Cap. 11. & libro de his qui initiantur sacris, that is, ele­uen places in all, wherein yet you haue more grossely shamed your selfe, then in the former. For first of all in these eleuen pla­ces, there are but three, wherein I finde any mention of any of your ceremonies, and that is, in his first booke and second Chap­ter against Iulian, in his first booke and twentieth Chapter de nuptiis & concupiscentiâ, and in his thirty one Chapter de Ec­clesiasticis dogmatibus: and lay all these three togither, and there are mentioned onely three, that is, exorcisme, exufflation and ab­renuntiation, whereof we vse one aswell as you, namely abrenuntia­tion, and as for the other two, thereof you your selues haue but the first, and therefore why may not we aswell, giue ouer both the other, as you haue done the first of them. Secondly, you send vs indefi­nitely to his fifteene booke (as you did before to Origens twelfth homily) not telling vs what 15. booke you meane, thinking (belike) that he had neuer wrote but once 15. books of one title, wheras eue­ry one, that is acquainted with his works, know the contrary. If you say you meant his 15 booke against Iulian, then therein you shew as much ignorance: for against him, he wrote but 6. Thirdly, you fa­ther vpon Aug. two books de symbolo, & one de his qui initiantur sacris, whereas indeed in al Augustines tomes, there are no books y ^t simply & barely beare those titles, to be found. He wrote one book de fide & symbolo: & 4 de symbolo ad cathecumenos: but in no 7 nor 11 Chapters of any of these, is there any thing for your purpose, but none at al he hath writen, that in title cōmeth any thing neare the o­ther, you father vpon him. But I imagine, that if your eie-sight, or memory, had not failed you, you should and would haue quoted these not in his name, but in Ambroses. But yet then you took your mark amisse also. For he hath no bookes neither, that simply cary these titles. Indeed he hath writen fiue de fide ad Gratianum, and one de fide orthodoxâ, contra Arrianos, and a booke he hath writen, de his qui initiantur mysteriis, and fiue de sacramentis, but in no se­uenth nor eleuenth Chapters of any of his bookes de fide or sym­bolo, hath he any thing to serue your turne. Neuer man there­fore, was so abused as you (Master Albine) were (I thinke) in ta­king [Page 319] so few quotations of credit. I would therefore henceforth aduise you, vnlesse you be euen resolued vtterly to leese your credit, trust no more thus either other mens eies or fingers. Well, Basil and Arnobius are yet behinde, let vs see if you hit any rightlier of your places out of them: you cite Basils 15 and 75 Chapters de Spi­ritu Sancto, and Arnobius vpon the 27 Psalme: Neither of which you haue rightly quoted. For there are but 30 Chapters in al Basils booke de Spiritu Sancto (as Erasmus hath translated him, & caused him to bee published) and Arnobius vpon the twenty seuen Psalme, hath not at all mentioned any ceremony about baptisme, Basil in his fifteene and twenty seuen Chapters of that booke, and Arno­bius vpon the seuenty fiue Psalme, make mention of abrenuntiation, & of some other ceremonies, before mentioned by the other fathers: but yet neither these, nor all the other laied togither, that you haue named, either in the places mentioned by you, nor any where else, mention al the ceremonies which you vse, by far, though you would by your lowd bragging make your reader beleeue they doe. Thus you see, vnlesse you had beene disposed vtterly for euer to shame your selfe, you could not in so few quotations, especially not set on your margent, but in your lines as they are, the better to preuent wrong applying of them, haue beene taken with thus many grosse ouer­sightes. May not any man (worthilie thinke you) hereby iudge, that howsoeuer the names of the fathers are familiar with you, that yet you are a verie stranger in their workes indeed? Of twen­ty places, you haue alleadged aright and to the purpose, scarse fiue, and of seuen fathers (belike because you would not deale par­tiallie with them) your happe hath beene, one waie or other, to erre in quoting of euerie one of them. Surelie you are wor­thie to bee trusted vpon your bare word, without any further ex­amination of your quotations an other time, you haue dealt so faythfully and vprightlie in these. And to conclude this point withall, as though you had most rightly quoted, and that they most pregnantlie had iustified all your Ceremonies as you vse them, you confidently tell your reader, that if hee will reade these places hee shall finde, that they did vse the verie Cere­monies, that you doe vse, and wee so much myslike. Thus yet you coulde set a good face on the matter, though you could doe little else.

But in good earnest, is it your meaning, by these places to make mē [Page 320] before that none are to be accoūted rightly baptised, vnles vnto him, all these your ceremonies, which you talke of be vsed? What say you then to Christs baptisme, and the multitudes baptised by Iohn in Iorden, and after by the Apostles, sometimes in one day, in water that was next to hād? Sure I am, that none of your ceremonies that you striue for here so much, which we mislike, was vsed then to anie of them: and yet I am sure neuer were any with these ceremonies of yours, better baptized, then these were. Nay to presse you a litle fur­ther, if these ceremonies were so necessarie as you pretend, how chā ­ceth it, that aboue 600. yeares after Christ (that is long after any of the fathers you haue named to countenance them withal) we read in Bedaes story, so often mētion as we do, of so great multitudes, here in England, by famous Bishops baptised in one daie in common ri­uers? It is vnpossible that they should baptise so many in so short time as that story shewes they did, and yet vse to euery one, all the so­lemnity of ceremonies, that you here thus pleade for. It is cleare thē by that practise, that for all this, and whatsoeuer else any where, either these, or any other doctour, before that time had writen here­of, that then there was no such danger imagined to bee in omitting of these, as your Tridentine coūcell now, would make men beleeue there is.

But for a general answere to al that you, or any of your side, haue or can alleadge out of any father, either for the iustifying your kinde of vsing these your ceremonies, or any of the other three points that follow in this Chapter (as long as you are not able to warrant your doings and opiniōs therin, by the scriptures, which we are sure you shall neuer be able to doe) by the fathers leaue, though they were as pregnant for you as you pretend (which they are not neither) & that by the direction and aduise of the best of themselues, we will & may chuse, for all their writings, whither we will like any whit the bet­ter of them or no. For Hierom saieth, that all things which mē seeke out and inuent at their owne pleasure, without authority and testi­mony of the scripture (as though they were the traditions of the A­postles) the sword of God cutteth of. Vpon the first of Aggei. And Origen in his first homily vpon Hierom, confesseth, that their iudgements without witnes of the scripture were of no credit. And Hierom againe vpon the 98. Psalme writeth, that all which they spake, they were to proue by the scriptures: and vpon the 23. of Mat. he saieth plainely, that which hath not authority from the scriptures [Page 312] as easily is despised as approued. And Chrysostome vpon the 2. to Tim. Hom. 9. saieth, if there be any thing either to learne or to be ignorant of, we shall learne it in the scriptures. And as for all other authority, Hilary saieth in his 7. booke of the trinity, that it is short, darke & troublesome. And as for Augustine, he of all the rest, hath most plainely taught vs this, in his 19. Epistle to Hierom, and also in his 111. epistle to Fortunatian, where he plainely shewes, that hee gaue no further credit to any mans writings, then he found them agreeable to the scriptures: and therefore de baptismo, contra Do­natistas li. 2. cap. 3. he refuseth to be pressed either with the authori­ty of Cyprian, or any other man, or councell further, then by the ca­nonicall scriptures their iudgements are approued: and he teacheth Paulina in his 112. epistle, not to follow his authority, or to beleeue a thing because he hath said it, but to beleue the canonicall scrip­ture. We saie therefore with him lib. 1. cap. 22. de peccatorum me­ritis & remissione: let vs yeeld & cōsent vnto the holy scriptures, which can neither deceaue, nor be deceaued: & againe I require the voice of the sheepheard, read me this matter out of the Pro­phets, read it out of the Psalms, read it out of the law, read it out of the Gospel, read it out of the Apostles writings: in his book de pa­storibus c. 14. and so likewise conclude with him, I owe my consent without gainsaying onely vnto the canonicall scriptures.. cap. 61. de naturâ & gratiâ, and according to these bookes of the scrip­tures, we haue learned of him to iudge freely of all other writings. lib. 2 cap. 29. contra Cresconium. The fathers are full of such pla­ces, whereby any man may see, that by their very good leaue, we are not to be pressed to beleeue or receaue any thing, not taught in the scriptures, vpon their bare authority, and therefore these and such like places in them considered, if you would haue had their names, & the places you cite in them, to haue in sadnes, bred any sound credit to any of these foure points you alleadge them for, either should you haue warrāted them, by good proofe out of the scriptures your selfe, or haue shewed vs how they proued them consonant, at the least, to the same.

Howbeit because you shall not abuse the Reader, to make him thinke, that the fathers you name for these matters, are further of your opinion then they be indeede, as I haue not refused to examine your opinion, and the places you send vs vnto for your ceremonies, so will I, for the Christian readers sake, take the paines to deale w ^t [Page 322] you for, & in al your other 3 opinions, of confession, praier to Saints & for the dead, & w ^t it your seueral quotations, set down for the proofe of the same. To go on therefore according to my course begun: for confession before the receiuing of the sacramēt, you saie first, our sa­uiour Christ doeth teach vs, that the ecclesiasticall ministers haue authority to binde and to forgiue sins: and for proofe hereof you set in your margent Iohn. 20. & Mat. 16. I am sure here by confession, that you speake of, you meane your auricular confession, wherof your Tridentine councel taketh such care, that that in the 6, 7, and 8, Canon thereof, touching this matter, it solemnely anathematizeth al those, that hold auricular confession not to be necessary to saluation, by the law of God, saying that it is but the deuise of man. Which they there haue defined to be a secret reckoning vp vnto the priest, of al mortal sins at the least, with al their circumstances, whereof by due preme­ditation the party can haue any remembrance, whereunto they bind all persons aboue certaine yeares, of both sexes, at least once in the yeare, and that namely in lent, before their receiuing at Easter. Now this confession, your schoolmen and doctours do teach, must be made so fullie and exactly, that no sin nor circumstance thereof must be cō ­cealed, for then therby al the labour is lost, and the absolutiō frustra­ted from al the rest. Which doctrine cannot chuse, but a number of waies proue a needles and a desperate tormenting of cōsciēces. For first it laieth vpō them an ineuitable necessity, not onelie to doe, that which God neuer required at their hands, but also that, which either is simply impossible vnto thē to doe, for the multitude of their sins and circumstances thereof: or else impossible for them to doe in such maner, as that they can satisfie themselues, that they haue omitted no piece of due premeditation to call all their sins & the circūstances thereof, that they should cōfesse, to their remēbrāce, which a nūber of your owne side most deuoutly giuē to doe this in y ^e best maner, haue bene enforced to confesse. Yet this confession before the sacrament (though indeed it bee a thing that hath no ground or warrant at all in the Scriptures) but was (as both Iohannes Scotus libro 4. sententiarum Distict, 17. art. 3. and Anton: part 3. histatit. 19, doe confesse) first imposed as necessary by the Lateran councel, in Innocēt the thirds time, about the year of the Lord one thousand 2 hundred and fifteene, you here would seeme to coūtenāce by two places of scripture, co begin withal. But your betters haue thought o­therwise, of this your kinde of confession. For your glosse de paeni­tentiâ [Page 323] Distinct. 5. Cap. in principio confesses plainely, that it came in rather by some tradition, then either by authority of the olde testament or new, which tradition (he saieth) yet ought to binde the West Church to vse it, though not the Greekes & East Church which haue it not. And Beatus Rhenanus in his notes vpon Tertul­lians booke of repentance, forasmuch as hee findeth not therein anie mention hereof, not onely gathered that it was not in vse then, but also hee sheweth, that he thought it came in after & grew of the mis­like of the inconueniences of the continuance of publicke confessions made in the publicke assembly in the hearing of al the congregation vsed seuerally in the former times. And Soto cōtra Brētiū reckoneth vp both your other two points following of praying to Saints, and for the dead, & this also, amongst the things groūded but vpon the vnwriten word or tradition. You had therefore delt both more wisely and more simply & honestly, if of these and such other great Rabbins of your side, you had learned to fetch the ground of this your con­fession from any where els rather, then from the scriptures. But seeing you will seeme to haue found that ground for it there, which they could not, let vs a little consider, how f [...]ly now the places you quote, serue your turne. You meane, I am sure, both by your words and quotations, that Christs doing and saying to his Apostles set downe by Matthew & John, in the places you quote in these words: to thee (speaking namely in the first place to Peter) I wil giue the keies of the kingdōe of heauē, & whatsoeuer thou shalt binde in earth, shal be bound in heauen, & whatsoeuer thou loosest in earth shal be loosed in heauē. And in the other, he breathed vpō thē and saied, receiue yee the holy Ghost, whose sins yee remit, they are remitted, & whose sins yee retaine, they are retained. Wher­by indeed it is euident, that our Sauiour first promised to Peter in the name of al the rest, & after gaue to al his faithful Apostles, first the gift of the holy Ghost and then power and authority to vse the [...]eies of the kingdome of heauen, to binde and loose, and to remit & retaine sinnes, which power and authority they most faithfully and effectually vsed, whiles faithfully they preached saluation to the pe­nitēt beleeuer, and denoūced damnation to the impenitent vnbelee­uers, with all duety (as they saw cause) vsing the censures of the Church of admonition, rebuking, suspending and excommuni­cating, though they were neuer acquainted with your auri­cular confession. And likewise the same power is exercised by [Page 324] the Lords faithfull ministers in his church still, not by the helpe of your eare-shrist, pardons but by their faithful preaching of the will of God, sacraments ministring, and vsing of the other censures in due time and place. They haue a ministry of testification and de­claration, by the rule and light of the scriptures, thorow the shining of Gods spirit in their hearts, to assure them that rightly vnderstand them and beleeue them, of that assuredly: which God only doeth pro­perly, absolutely and principally. But you seeme in thus alleadging of these places, first, so thinke that the power and authority y ^e Christ here gaue his Apostles to binde and loose &c. inuesteth them streight with power and authority to binde euery man to make vnto them your auricular confession: whereas we neither read that any did so vnto them, nor that they for all this, euer exacted any such thing at any mans hands, that they dealt withall: and secondly, you seeme to take the power giuen them, and from thē deriued to other ministers here, to be such, that they properly and absolutely should haue power to pardon sinne. &c. which is absurd and blasphemous for you once but to imagine. For so can none forgiue sinnes, but God onely. How can you say or thinke, that a Priest properly or absolutely can ab­solue one of sinne, seeing he may not so much, as pronounce or de­clare a sinner to be pardoned of God, vnles he be contrite, penitent, and faithfull indeede. Now God onely and the party are priuy to this, whither these thinges be sound and right in the heart or no, for an hypocrite can make a shew to deceaue man withall in these (you know) vnles therfore we will thinke that we haue power to absolue him whom God yet condemneth, our pronouncing of pardon or ab­solution to those that seeme such vnto vs, must be but conditionall, if they be such in deede as they make shew for, and therefore neither is, nor can it be proper or absolute. Ambrose libro 3. de Spiritu Sancto ca. 19. by that of Iohn, proues the godhead of the holy ghost, for that he can and doeth forgiue sinnes: which were no good argu­ment, if by that place, Christ meant to giue ministers power and authority properly and absolutely to doe it, vnles it be lawful to think, that they are very Gods. But marke, I pray you, your kinde of rea­soning from these places: Christ gaue to his Apostles power and au­thority (giuing them the holy Ghost) to bind and to forgiue sins, er­go auricular confession before the sacrament thereby was enioynes: this is your argument, or else you saie nothing in all this for your selues against vs. For we deny not, but most willingly confesse, that [Page 325] by these places it is certaine, that Christ gaue vnto his true mini­sters, to whom he gaue the holy Ghost, power and authority as mini­sters to doe this. But what is this to authorize your priestes, which are no ministers of his ordinance, and to whom hee hath not giuen that spirit to doe this? Or what is this if they had authority to doe it, either to that which they take vpon them, or to enforce a ne­cessity of such auriculer confession, as you practise and pleade for?

Herein it is with you, as it is in other points of your religion, you are deceaued, and after seeke to abuse and deceaue others, with the ambiguity and diuersity of acceptions of confession. For that is a common tricke with you, when you finde either in scripture or fa­ther, y ^t there is but the word mentioned, that by any stretching maie reach to your meaning, to alleadge that streight, as flat, full and pregnant for your purpose, when as indeede, if the circūstāces of the place he looked into, it is as far from countenācing your opinion as may be. So in this case, you finding in scripture some mention of confessiō of sinnes, and sundry examples of the same, and likewise in the fathers, you finding that they exhort and perswade men to con­fesse their sinnes, you by and by imagined that your auricular con­fession must needes be that, that they speake of, or at least (your learning not suffering you so to imagin) you contrary to your owne knowledge and conscience (as it seemeth) could be contented to doe what you could, to make your Reader so to thinke. Wherefore to arme him hereafter against your subtlety, or the cunning of any of your fellowes in this point, and so to giue him a triacle to preserue him from the danger of your popish poison in this case, let him know and vnderstand, that there haue beene and be, many kinds of confes­sing of sinnes spoken of, both in scriptures and fathers, and yet you neuer the nearer for yours. For Augustine, de verbis Euangelii, hom. 8. very pretily, according to his maner saieth, that confession is tither laudis or fraudis, that is, of praise or of fraude: by the former vnderstanding that kinde of confession, whereby we thankfullie ac­knowledging, what God hath beene or is vnto vs, we burst forth in­to lauding and praysing his holy name therefore, whereunto the faithfull seruants of God are oftentimes exhorted in the scriptures, as for example, Psalme 33. in these words, confesse vnto the Lord in harpe, and in a psaltery of ten strings sing vnto him. And Dan. 3. in these, confesse vnto the Lord that he is good, and that [Page 326] his mercy is for euer, which kinde of confession in our Churches we alwaies publickly vse, both before and in the receiuing of the Sa­crament, which wee teach to be a Sacrament euen to prouoke vs so to doe, for our free and full saluation purchased for vs by the death of Christ. And the other is the generall; to all kyndes and sortes of confession of sinnes, which he tearmeth frawde, because by all sinne God or man, or both, are wronged of that which is due vnto them. Otherwise some distinguish confession, into confes­sion of fayth and confession of maners: of the first whereof, sayeth Christ ( Matthew the tenth) hee that confesseth mee before men, I will confesse him before my father which is in heauen: and of this Saint Paul speaketh, saying, with the heart man beleeueth to righteousnesse, but with the mouth confession is made to sal­uation, and this is farre more playnely in vse with vs also then with you. For in all our publicke assemblies ordinarily (as it is wel knowen) according to the three auncient Creedes, in english, that all present may vnderstande vs, wee make confession of our faith. And as for the later, which is confession of our maners, there is no kinde of so confessing taught and commended vnto vs, either in the olde Testament or new, either to God or man, priuate or publicke, but wee vse it, allowe it, and exhort one an other vn­to it, in farre better sort and maner then you doe. Yea to go one step further with you, there is no kynde of so confessing our faultes, by the consent and vniforme practise of the auncient fathers appro­ued vnto vs, but therein also both before the receite of the Sacra­ment, and at other times (as occasion serueth) wee are farre before you, how short soeuer wee come of you, in allowing your auricu­lar confession, which is the onelie kinde of confession, that you plead here for. For looking first into the scriptures, and then into the ancient fathers, these are the onely kinds of so confessing agrees on, & by one consent of them, needful to be practised. First that euery one of Gods people shoulde by the due meditation dailie of his lawe, so bring all his sinnes originall and actuall, small and great, publicke and secret, to his remembrance, that in trueth hee may saie with Dauid, Psalme fiftie one, in respect of them all, in some good mea­sure, I knowe mine iniquities and my sinne is alway before mee: that so with a contrite heart, hope of Gods mercy, and purpose of amendment, hee maie confesse them vnto God, both priuately and publickely, generally and particulerly also, vpon iust occasions we [Page 327] all, with the Scriptures and fathers allow, teach and practise. For it is well knowen in respect of this kinde of confession of sins, wee teach with Salomon, prouerb. the twenty eightth, hee that hi­deth his sinnes hee shall not prosper, but he that confesseth them and forsaketh them, shall haue mercy. And therefore beside our often confessing our sinnes vnto God against our selues in priuate, in all our ordinary prayers either at home in our families, or in publicke, in our assemblies and congregations, especially before the receiuing of the sacrament, we make humble confession of all our sinnes and vnworthinesse, generally vnto God. Thus did Dauid Psalme thirty two and fifty one, thus did Daniel, Daniel the ninth, and Ezra: Ezra the ninth: yea thus did the publican Luke the eigh­teenth, they that were baptized of Iohn in Iordan, Matthew the third, and the beleeuers that we read of Actes the nineteenth, vers. eighteenth and nineteenth, confesse their sinnes before God. This we count a necessary fruit of repentance, a good meanes to humble vs in the presence of God, and a way to aduaunce both the iustice and mercy of our God. And to this, we knowe both the Scrip­tures and fathers all with one consent exhort vs, but especiallie a­mongst the fathers, Chrysostome is earnest to perswade this kinde of confession of sinnes to God, aboue all other, as it is to be seene in him, vpon the fifty Psalme, hom. 2; vpon Matthew, hom. 3; vpon Genesis hom. twenty; and vpon the twelfth of the Hebrues hom. the thirty one; and else where often in his works. As for parti­culerly confessing of our sinnes vnto God in the presence of the congregation, (as I sayed before) also, vpon iust and due oc­casion, that is vrged, taught and practised amongst vs. But then it is, but when one falleth into some such notorious and great sinne, publickely knowen to the offence of the Church, for the which hee deserueth to bee excommunicated. And this is either voluntarilie yeelded vnto, and done by the partie that hath so offended, to shew the better his repentance: or it is by au­thoritie imposed vpon such, for the terrour of others, and satisfac­tion of the congregation offended. And hereof in Scripture we haue example. For Achans sinne that so troubled the congrega­tion, once being knowen and so publicke, by Iosua hee is com­maunded to giue glorie to God, and so before Iosua and the peo­ple, hee confesseth his sinne at the appointment of Iosua: Iosua the seuenth: it seemeth likewise that the incestuous Corinth did, driuen [Page 328] thereunto by the authoritie and force of that censure that Paul and that Church layed vpon him 1. Corinthians. 5. and 2. Epist. se­cond and seuenth Chapters. And at the rebuke of Samuel the peo­ple particulerlie confessed their sinne in desiring a king. 1. Samuel and twelfth, and at the rebuke of Ezra we read also voluntarily they came, that had contrary to the law of God maried strange wiues, and publikely confessed their sinnes and amended that fault. Ezra the tenth: of such examples of particuler publicke confessing of no­torious knowen faults, the ecclesiasticall stories are full: where­of some yeelded thereunto voluntarily, who were alwaies best li­ked of, and others by order of ecclesiastical censures were brought thereunto. And for this kinde of publicke confessing of our sinnes to God also, it cannot bee denied, but herein wee are far beyond you, in conforming our selues therein far more then you, to the ancient presidenes thereof, found both in Scripture and other antiquity. Indeede I must needes confesse, that I finde in the writings of the fathers, especially in Cyprian, sermone de lapsis, in Tertullian de paenitentiâ, and in Origen vpon the thirty seuen Psalme, that they counted it a commendable thing, and an argument of greater feare of God and loue, if men would not onely thus confesse their notorious publickely knowen sins, but also their secret notorious sinnes, yea then very purposes onely to haue committed such sinnes. But withall I finde that they saw such inconueniences to arise hereof, that first they counselled such therein to be directed first, by some godly discreet minister, when they should so doe and when not: and secondly are long they were driuen to thinke it needfull, for the prouenting of some inconueniences, onely to enioyne them some publicke punish­ment, concealing the particularity of such their sinnes: and thirdly I finde, y ^e by Leo his time, this was thought to much also. For he in his seuenty eight Epistle, and as he is alleadged by Gratian de paenit. Distinct. 1. Cap. Quamuis. sheweth his flat mislyke there­of, determining it to bee farre better, that the confession bee made onely to the minister. But in the Greeke Church long before Leo his tyme (as it appeareth in Zozomen libro. 9. cap. 35. histo­riae tripart) this publishing of sinnes by publicke confession, or by enduring of some enioyned punishment publickely, was giuen ouer and one appointed in Constantinople to heare the confessions of such as came vnto him: which order also, as it there appeareth [Page 329] was by Nectarius bishop there, caused to be giuen ouer, by occasion that a noble womā confessed, that she had lyen with a Deacon there, in the Church, whiles she was doing there the things y her cōfessour had enioyned her. So that to go on, by these and other such places more in the fathers, I finde, that secret confession of sinnes to a minister indeede is ancient, and also I must needs con­fesse, I finde, the fathers often exhorting-men so to confesse their sinnes; but yet then (good Christian reader) thou must vnderstand, that it was [...]either vsed nor vrged, but in certaine cases, as when o­therwise the party could not tell how to comfort himselfe vnder the burden of his sinne, or to get out of the snares and fetters thereof. It was neither taught nor vrged then as an ordinance of God to bee kept vnder paine of damnation, as it is in the Church of Rome, nei­ther yet were they vrged to make such an exact enumeration of all their sinnes, and the circumstances thereof; as that Synagogue now teacheth. For then durst not Nectarius (as is aforesaied) haue abrogated that order, and haue thence forth left euery one whē he communicated, iudicio conscientiae suae (as Zozomen there plainely affirmes he did) neither before that could one confessour haue serued for all the Christians in that great and famous City, where I read in Iustinians time, there were sixty ministers. But this is the plaine trueth, it was vsed and exhorted vnto, as a good profitable order to be vsed so long, and so far forth: as they saw it needful, and a furtherance to vertue and godlinesse. And this is cer­taine, the fathers by Albine here cited for auricular confession, speake onely either for publicke confession, of publikly knowen notorious sinnes, before the receit of the sacrament: or else onely to perswade men, when they feele themselues sicke of sinne, and grieued with the burden thereof in conscience, then to confesse such their sinnes vnto some godly discreet minister, that hath both skill and will to comfort their distressed soules. In which case and maner wee allow and like aswell as they, that men should so doe, and it is a thing much vsed and practized amongst vs. There is lastly a confession of sinne of one brother or Christian, to an other whom he hath offended, to breed reconciliation againe betwixt the parties, taught by Christ, Matthew the fift, and eighteenth Chapters, Luke the seuenteenth and Iames the fifth: allowed both by scriptures and fathers with one consent: and this before the receit of the sacra­ment, and at all other tymes wee teach and vse as very necessa­ry. [Page 330] Other confessions then these we neither finde taught nor practized in the old Testament nor new, nor yet vrged by any of the ancient fathers you name, either in the places by you re­membred, or else where; and therefore you haue but beene abused, and now seeke by the sound of their names to abuse others, whiles you would make men beleeue, because they speake of some of these kindes of confessing of sinnes or other, in these places, that therfore they speak for your Lenten shrift, or auricular confession, which was not so much as once thought of by any of them, nor for many hundreth yeares after the latest of thē, by any other writer of credit. The question indeede betwixt you and vs then in this poynt is not, whither sinnes be to bee confessed at all before wee receiue. For yee see most willingly we confesse sundry wayes they may and ought: but this is it, whither such particuler and speciall confession of all our sinnes and the circumstances thereof, that we can possibly by due premeditation had thereof remember, in secret to a Priest, be by Gods ordinance absolutely necessarie to remission of sinnes, for all of both sexes once in the yeare at the least or no. Wee holde the negatiue, and you the affirmatiue. That sinnes haue beene, and may agayne bee in secret confessed to such as be faithfull ministers, and that the so doing some tyme, is very good and profitable, wee deny not, you see: but either to imagine such a necessity as you teach thereof, or to bynde to such a full enumeration of all at anie tyme, are the thinges wee saie which you can neuer proue, either by Scripture or father. For your owne Gratian, brings sundry authorities before that Lateran coū ­cell, when first this your opinion of the absolute necessity thereof, to saluation was aggreed vpon (as you may reade in him de pae­nitentiâ Distinct. 1.) some for the necessity, and some to the con­trary thereof, and in the end Cap. Quamuis: concludeth thus: to which of these opinions one should rather sticke, I leaue to the readers iudgement, for both partes (sayeth hee) hath astipulato­res sapientes & religiosos viros, that is, fauourers, men that are both wise and religious: and Panormitan a great Doctour of yours disputeth the matter, that your confession is not by Gods lawe but by mans. And Chrysostome that succeeded Nectarius, so liked his predecessours act, of abrogating the order of secret con­fession to the confessour, that he in his fourth sermon of Lazarus sai­eth: Caue homini dixeris peccata, ne tibi opprobret &c. that is, [Page 331] take heed that thou tell not thy sinnes to man, lest hee vpbraide thee with them, neither confesse them to thy fellowe seruaunt, that hee may publish them, but confesse them to God the Lorde: and the like he writeth hom. 31, vpon the 12 of the Hebrues, and vpon the fiftieth Psalme (as he counteth) and else where often in his workes. And as for your special and particular enumeration of all sinnes, and their circumstances that possibly can be remembred, Beatus Rhe­nanus, a frend otherwise of yours, in his notes vpon Tertullians booke of repentance, reporteth, how that euē for the vexation and tor­ment of consciences that that bread, one Geilerius a Carthusian monke, wrote a booke, which he entituled de morbo confessionis, of the sicknesse of cōfession, against the morosity & scrupulosity, brought in by Thomas and Scotus and other schoolemen: of whose minde for that point, Beatus Rhenanus sheweth himselfe to be. And how­soeuer a number of your Priests, by their fruites haue made it ap­peare, that of all other they would be loth that young women should not come to auricular confession vnto them, yet I can tell you, Basil in his no question thinketh it not very decent, that such should come alone, but rather aduiseth that the yoūger by the graue elder women should make their state knowen, that by thē they may receiue com­fort or direction what to doe: as they shall neede.

But yet, because I would be loth to omit any thing either to cause you (Master Albine) to thinke that you haue saied or alleadged any thing of weight to iustifie this your kinde of confession withall, or to cause the reader to suspect, that these fathers, whose names you haue brought vs for this purpose, in these places, say more directlie for you, then they doe: let vs particulerly examine your quotations, alwaies remembring the state of the question, as it is in this point betwixt vs. Your first man is Cyprian in his fift sermon de lapsis: wherein his purpose was to perswade them, that had ei­ther grieuously fallen from Christianity to idolatrie, or that had but a secret purpose for the safety of themselues so to doe, effectu­ally to repent thereof, in persuit of which his purpose in the ende hee commeth to that (which it seemeth you ayme at) to note it as an argument of greater fayth and better feare in such that will (though they haue but thought so to fall) yet sorrowfully and playnelie confesse the same before the Lordes Priestes, and so making exoniologesin, that is, publicke confessiō of their consciēce shew forth the burdē of their minde, seeking holesōe phisicke, though, [Page 332] for their small woundes in comparison: and therefore a little after, he there earnestly exhorteth euery such offender, in purpose or per­formance, to confesse their fault therein whiles they be here, whiles their confession and repentance may be acceptable with the Lorde. Which place serueth wel to proue, that then of such notorious faults there was vsed and lookt for publicke and sorrowfull confession. But what is this to the enumeration of all sinnes remembred in se­cret in the eare of a Priest? Sure I am, in that sermon before he came to these wordes, contrary to your doctrine and practise in this very point, he teacheth, that veniam peccatis quae in ipsum cōmissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra portauit &c. that is, he onely can giue vs pardon for our sinnes, that bore our sinnes &c. adding streight, man cannot be greater then God, neither can he being a seruant, by his indulgence, remit or forgiue that, which is grieuously cōmitted against God, least so to him that is fallē this fault come vnto his other, that he forget that it was saied lōg ago Hier. 17. cursed is that man that hath his trust in man. And therefore both immediatly and thorow that sermon, he is earnest to moue them that were fallen, to fly to God in prayer, in weeping, and mourning. Now indeede both for their better direction to turne vn­to the Lorde effectually, and for the further declaration and testifi­cation of their repentance to be vnfeyned, he would haue confession of such their falles to be made with all sorrowfulnes before the Lords Priests. Let this doctrine therefore of his onely be receaued, and your auricular confession will come short home. For if none but such y ^t haue so fallen as he there speakes of, should confesse such their falles: and that onely to that ende that he teacheth, without all opi­nion when they haue done, that any can absolue them but God, your confessours and ghostly fathers (as you tearme them) might be set a begging for any liuing they could get by hearing of confessions. The next you alleadge is Origen vpon the 37. Psalme, and in his 2. Hom. vpon Leuiticus: wherin indeede he coūselleth those that haue fallen into any greeuous sinne, though secret, yet to seeke out some discreet and skilful Phisition, to open their disease and distresse of minde vnto that according to his counsell and aduise they may doe: either in publickly confessing of them, or otherwise in repenting of them; and this is the most that can be made of any thing fated by O­rigen, in these two places: but this his coūsel may bee followed tho­rowly, and yet you come very short of prouing the necessity, by gods [Page 333] law of your auricular confession, or speciall and precise enumerati­on of all the sinnes and circumstances thereof in the eare of a Priest. The phisicke that they fought at the Priestes handes in these cases, was direction how to repent, and to recouer comfort vnder the burden of their sinnes, by the meanes of such comfortable doctrine and coūsell, that he should giue them out of the booke of God: and the thing that you seeke for at their hands is absolution, to be pronoun­ced by them vnto you for your so confessing. So that neither for matter to be confessed, nor for the ende thereof, haue you any war­rant and countenance from them. After Origē, Augustines 2. booke de visitatione infirmorum is produced, in which booke, the authour threatneth dānatiō to such as hauing sinned, shunned the iudgement of men, & yet tooke not occasion, by the consideration of Gods iudge­ment, which they could not shunne, to repent and amend: but if they iudged and amended themselues, he doeth not so. Allen will not stand to it, that those bookes were Augustines, writing of this mat­ter. And Erasmus censure therof was, that it is sermo locutulei, nec docti, nec diserti, that is, it is the speech of some pratler, neither learned nor elequent: yea hee addeth what forehead or minde had they, that thrust vpon vs, such writings vnder the name of Augu­stine. And the diuines of Louain say flatly, it was none of his, & ther­fore with farre more credit to your cause might you haue let this te­stimony alone, and neuer haue mentioned it. But whosoeuer were the authour thereof, no more can be grounded thereupon, but that be thought it good, to further the repentance of the party, that hee should confesse his sinne, that he had fallen into and offended Gods Church withal, to the minister, that by him he might be dealt with­all by correption, admonition, or consolation, as he saw good. And the edge of his speech is not simply against such as did refuse to con­fesse their sinnes to Gods ministers, but onely against such, as refu­sing so to doe, did not repent, for he saieth si ea confiteri aut emen­dare noluerint, and againe, si in malo permanserint, that is, if they will not confesse them, nor amend, and if they continue in euill. Be­sides, if the words in the place quoted by you, be well marked, it wil therby sufficiently appeare, in that there were then so many reasons that staied men (as there by that authours wordes, it seemeth there were) from cōfessing to the priests, y ^t it was not then thought, that so to confesse sinnes, was so necessary as you would now pre­tend yours to be. If it had beene either thought to be simply necessa­ry [Page 334] by Gods law, or it then had beene thought and knowen to be a set law of the Church, to confesse sinnes in secret to the ministers, why haue not you, nor yet any of your side, brought vs any anciēt doctor, y ^t euer vsed either of these reasons to perswade men vnto it. Cyril in his 12. booke vpō Ioh. cap. 56. is y ^e fourth man you cite for this pur­pose, which place if you had euer read, you should haue found him to set down this first, as a most sure principle, that only God is he, that must loose a man from his sinnes, for to whom else (saieth he) shall it be lawfull to deliuer transgressours of the law, but vnto the au­thour of the Lawe himselfe? Which position if it were receaued, there would be smal hast made to your eare shrift. But then indeede it followeth in him, how then did Christ giue this diuine power to his Apostles? Whereunto his answere is, that he gaue it them be­cause he gaue them the holy ghost, & because the holy ghost by thē forgaue sins: which he sheweth the holy ghost did, by vsing their ministry, to baptise men and to bring them to repentance, by rebu­king of sinners, and by shewing them fauour againe, as Paul dealt with the man of Corinth. So that you see his doctrine is there, that men come to haue their sins forgiuen them, by the holy ghosts vsing our ministry effectually to bring men to repentance: where to make auricular confession to men of all their sinnes is not reckoned vp as anie meanes whereby in the Apostles, or by the Apostles, the holy ghost forgaue anie their sinnes, but to preach the worde, to minister the Sacraments, and to vse the censures of the Church, in due season are noted to bee the meanes. Hee sendeth vs there, you see, to the example of Pauls dealing with the man of Corinth, of whose repentance and receauing againe into Gods Church, and so to a liuelie hope of the forgiuenesse of his sinnes wee reade, but that either Paul or anie other minister had him before them to bring him to this, by auricular confession, wee neither reade nor can beleeue, and therefore Cyril is rather quite against you, then any thing for you in this point, in that place. Now last of all, is Hierom vpon the tenth of Ecclesiastes, where all that he saieth is this, if the Serpent the Deuill priuilie bite anie and infect him (none being priuy thereunto) with the poison of sinne, if he that is strucken holde his peace and repent not, nor will confesse his wounde to his brother or master, the master that hath a tōgue to cure him, easily cannot profitte him: who of vs denie this, that hee that will neither speake and repent, nor thus by confession seeke [Page 335] for better physicke at the hands of the spirituall physitian, then he cā giue himselfe, cannot easily be profited by such a physitian? Yea that more is, we say and holde, that hee that will neither repent betwixt God and himselfe, nor yet seeke to those to shew his estate, that are appointed to teach him how to repent, is in a most fearefull case. But yet againe we say, that they, that in such secret sinnes, whereof Hierom plainely speaketh, will with Dauid acknowledge their sinne vnto God, and not hyde their iniquitie. Psalm. 32. but forsake it, they shall haue mercie, Prouerb. 28. though they neuer bewraie those their sinnes to anie Priest or minister. Nei­ther hath Hierom, nor any other of these fathers, in any of these pla­ces, saied any thing to the contrarie. What are you therefore the nea­rer, for anie thing that they haue saied, to proue the necessity of v­niuersall and speciall enumeration of all sinnes that can bee remem­bred, w ^t all the circumstances thereof, in the eare of a Priest, though otherwise neuer so well confessed to God and repented of. Yea what haue any of them spoken in any of these places, either to proue the necessity or vniuersality of your kinde of confession, which are the thinges you should haue proued by them, or else you proue nothing in question, or to the purpose? For let confession of sinnes vnto them be free, as it was in their times, and in such cases, as mē cannot otherwise so well, get ease, remedy and comfort against their sins, we are very well contented with them, to perswade men, that it is a very good and profitable way for them, in sicknesse and in health, to confesse vnto some discreete minister or ministers, what sinnes they be that so trouble them, that so aduise by them, may be ministred vnto them accordingly. And this is the vtmost that any of these places can haue, so much as any shew to helpe you vnto: which is as farre from yours, as chalke is from cheese, you hauing made it, as you haue, a matter of absolute necessity, and hauing stret­ched it to such a full speciall recitall of all, and that by all persons and sexes at an appointed time of the yeare, as you haue also. But enough of this matter, now therefore let vs go on and see, whi­ther you haue anie better holde in the fathers, for the other two pointes behinde.

The next is, praying to Saints in paradise, to helpe vs with their prayers. For the which you alleadge onelie the names of foure, Origen, Chrysostome, Augustine, and Hierom: of which there is not one indeede, that in any of his vndoubted & known [Page 336] works to be his, that so much as mentioneth praying vnto them. For whereas you here haue quoted vs three places of Origen, for this your purpose, the two later, I cannot thinke were his. As for the last out of his 8. booke of Ecclesiast. there are no such bookes fathered v­pon him, either in any of his Tomes, that I euer yet could see, nor yet attributed vnto him by Tritenhemius, who reckoneth vp al that he was acquainted withall of his. And as for that, you alleadge out of his second booke of Iob, I graunt whosoeuer was authour of those tractes, hee concludeth the second tract with a grosse po­pish prayer to Iob. But certaine it is, those tracts or bookes were neuer Origens, nor that prayer of his making or liking. My reasons are these, first, the authour thereof sheweth himselfe an Ar­rian in the first tract, Erasmus hath obserued, that these of Iob, were neuer but in latin, whereas he wrote all his in Greek: and lastly, be­cause he himselfe (if that praier were his) should be contrary to him­selfe. For against Celsus lib. 8. (which bookes are his vndoubtedly) he answering the arguments of Celsus: that it cannot offend the high God, if the inferiour Gods (whom Celsus called daemones) be­ing his frends, be worshipped with inuocation, to prouoke them to sollicite mens causes with the high God (which argument that hea­then wretch there coūtenāceth with the fashiō in Princes Courts, to sollicite the Prince, by such as are about him, euen for all the world, as you vse to doe, your praying to Saints) telleth him, that one God is to bee praied vnto in the name of Christ Iesus. And as for the Saints and Angels (saieth he) though they be Gods frends, yet one­ly God is to be pleased: and please him, and then also yee please these, pag. 760. and 774. Now in the other place, which is the first you cite, nāely out of his 3. Homily vpon the Cāticles, al that he saith, sa­uouring any whit for this your purpose, is this, that hee saieth, it is not inconuenient to say, they pray for vs: wherof likewise, cap. 13. vpon Iosua, and vpon the Epistle to the Romans he speaketh doubt­fully and stammeringly, as one not fully resolued that it was so, and therefore confidently to be aduouched and taught: which I thinke was the sowing of some seede towards this opinion of yours. But who is so simple, but he may see, that though this were granted to be an vndoubted and certaine thing, that they pray for vs, yet thereu­pon it followeth not, that we here must, or may pray vnto them? And that Origen himselfe neuer gathered so thereupon, it may appeare sufficiently by his foresaied answer to Celsus. But howsoeuer, it is [Page 337] knowen well enough, that Origen was not thought, of the ancient fathers thēselues an authour of y ^e credit, that whatsoeuer he taught or thought, ought streight to be receaued as true and sound. For it appeares plainely in Epiphanius, Tom. 2. haeresi 64. and in his epi­stle to Iohn of Hierusalē, that his opinion of him was, that he was not sound in doctrine, and Hierom ad Oceanum saieth flatly of him thus, I haue praysed Origen as an interpreter, but not as a tea­cher, his witte, not faith: and further he saieth of him, Beleeue mee that haue experience, his doctrines are poysoned, disagreeing from the scriptures, offring violence vnto them. And Eusebius out of Aegesippus lib. 3. cap. 32. noteth, that vnto those times (about which he began to florish) the Church remained a pure and vnde­filed Virgin, but then errours as though they had conspired so to doe, burst into the Church, as into an empty house, with naked and bare face and head. But yet for any thing that either you haue noted out of Origen, or that I can espy elsewhere in any of his vndoubted writings, for this matter, he can be charged no fur­ther, but for setting abroach and a foote this question, whither the Saints praied for vs or no? Whereupon shortly after, and by obser­uing that sundry miracles were done, men praying vnto God by the tombes of martyrs, it began more strongly to be thought, that the soules of such in heauen, did much with God for men here in earth, in so much that thereupon it grew to be an vse, to go vnto martyrs in prison, to request their praiers, when they were departed to God. So that by Cyprians time, which was not long after, these thinges began, for he died Anno Dom. 249. (as it appeareth in his lib. 3. epist. epist. 18. & lib. 1. epist. 1.) it was taken for so resolute a trueth of him, that they could and would remember their olde frends here, y ^t he in these places vse there exhortatiōs to the faithfull brethren a­liue, that in any ease they would remember out another, when anie of them were dead. But yet for all this, finde I not, y ^t in any of these times, or long after, any teacher allowed and of credit in Gods Church, was so bold, as therefore either to pray vnto them when they were dead, or to teach others so to doe. And yet you confi­dently here further send vs to Chrysostomes 8. homily vpon the e­pistle to the Ephesians, to Augustines to booke & cap. 21. against Faustinus (you say, but you should haue saied Faustus) and to S. Hier. against Vigilātius, there to read, prayer vnto them, by them taught and iustified. I wonder that you were not ashamed thus shamefully [Page 338] first to bee abused your selfe, and then thus to seeke to abuse your Reader. For let him reade, and reade againe and againe, all these places, and I assure him he shall not finde one worde or sillable vttered in any of them in the allowance of praying vnto them. In the first place, Chrysostome according to his maner, doeth sollace himselfe much about Paules cheine and imprisonment, but not a worde is there vttered by him of praying, either vnto Paul or to a­ny other Saint, nor yet of their praying for vs. And in Augu­stines twenty one Chapter of his twenty booke against Faustus (if you had taken the paines to reade the Chapter) you should not one­ly haue found no mention at all there of praying vnto them, but ve­ry much there set downe by him directly against your fashions in honouring of them. For there first, he flatly condemneth as idolatrous, dedicating altars vnto them, offering sacrifices vnto them, and their shrines, and worshipping of them with any di­uine honour, & sheweth that such as any of these waies honour them, are either by sound doctrine reproued, that so they maie amēd, or shūned: which are most notoriously practised by you, in de­dicating Churches and Chappels vnto them, calling them by their names, in running a pilgrimage not onelie to their reliques, but to their pictures, and there offering before thē what you thinke good, and most grossely in praying vnto them, which if it bee not a speci­all point of diuine honour, nothing can bee. And then he shew­eth what honour it is, that is to be giuen them and no other, name­ly, the honour of loue and society, as wee honour therewith, holy men here aliue (though then, therewith so much the more deuoutly, as their state is more blessed) and the keeping of their memories (to prouoke the better others to imitate them) with religious solemnity: and else where hee seemeth to like verie well that they should bee honourably both thought of and spo­ken of, that they ought decently to bee buried, and haue their tombes and sepulchers kept and preserued, and that it was lawfull thereby, to pray vnto God for such things as were lawfull, & that mē stood is neede of: and lastly, the furthest that euer he went either in this place or any where else was this, that hee thought some good came by their praiers, to such as thus honoured them, or rather GOD in them. And further then thus neuer went Hierom against Vigi­lantius. So that all this while, we cannot finde so much as praying vnto Saints, either in Origen indeede, or in Chrysost, Augustine, [Page 339] or Hierom, once mentioned in these places you quote: that they pray for vs, and that their prayers may doe vs some good, is the most wee finde in any of them: which though it were graunted you, yet thereu­pon it followeth not, that we are to pray to them, as I haue saied. For if that be a part of their duety, by God looked for at their hands, such is their state of perfection there, that we may bee sure that they neede not (as mē here subiect vnto infirmities doe) by vs to be put in remembrance of their duetie. And againe, seeing wee haue neither commaundement in Gods booke to direct vs, example to leade vs, nor promise to encourage vs to praie vnto them there, especially prayer beeing, as it is, a speciall spirituall worship, for the making whereof vnto God onely in his worde, wee haue all these three, whatsoeuer they doe or can doe for vs, wee dare not without warrant from God, yea contrary to the direction that we haue from him in this point, take this honour of praying to him alone, from him, to giue it to them. Yea wee cannot but see, these thinges considered, that if wee should, therein wee should neither honour them nor GOD aright, and that in very deede our doing so, could not be obedience to GOD, but disobedi­ence, not proceede of faith, but rather of lacke of faith in him, and so would be both a dishonour of GOD, and then also indeede wee finde, that GOD hath saied vnto vs flatly, Call vpon mee in the daie of trouble, so will I deliuer thee, and thou shalt glo­rifie mee. Psalme 50. And that hee is a Lorde so iealous of his owne glorie, that hee will not giue it to another, he hath plaine­ly taught vs, Esaie 42. And therefore seeing Christ (of whom when he should come, the very woman of Samaria had learned, that hee should teach vs all things. Iohn. 4.) teaching his Disciples to praie ( Matth. 6. and Luke 11.) hath taught them no otherwise to praie, but to him, to whom when they prayed, they might first say, Our fa­ther which art in heauen, & then concluding their praies, adde, for thine is the kingdome, the power and the glory, for euer & euer: we being sure, that without blasphemy we can neither beginne nor end our praiers thus, we dare not direct our praiers to any Saint or Angell, but onely to God. We are sure he is able both to heare our prayers, and to graunt our requestes, because hee is almighty: and that hee is willing so to doe, wee haue assurance, as long as wee aske according to his vvill: the first of Iohn and the fift, because he is mercifull and true, and faithfull in all his promises. [Page 340] And therefore we thinke it is a sure way, to run to him, and to trust to him, in all our needes and necessities. If we would haue an aduocate either of mediation or intercession vnto him, wee haue one for all, euen Iesus our Lord and sauiour. For as Paul first teacheth vs, ther is but one God, so likewise in the same verse he assureth vs, there is but one mediatour betweene God & mā, which is the mā Christ Iesus. 1. Tim. 2. and Iohn ioyning with him in his first epistle & second Chapter, pointeth him only vnto vs to be our aduocate with the father. And he being the ¹ fountaine of al grace & mercy, the ² authour and finisher of our faith, ³ the dore of the sheepfold, ⁴ the way, truth & life, his ⁵ name being the onely name wherby commeth saluation, ⁶ and he being he, but by whom (he himselfe hath tolde vs) none cōmeth vnto the father ( ¹ Iohn. 1. vers. 14. & Colos. 1.19. ² Heb. 12.2. ³ Iohn 10.7. ⁴ Iohn. 14. vers. 6. ⁵ Act. 4 12. ⁶ Iohn 14.6.) especially seeing he hath allured all that are hea­uy loaden and weary to come vnto him, Mat. 11.28. he being of that property y ^t we know he is, not to break a brokē reed, nor to quēch the smoking flax, Esa. 42. ve. 3. and yet able perfectly to saue those y ^t come vnto God by him, seeing he euer liueth to make interces­sion for them He. 7.25. We know and are sure we should doe him the greatest wrong that may be, considering also, that he hath vpon his word assured vs, that whatsoeuer we aske the father in his nāe beleeuing we shal obteine it, Mat. 21, 22. and Iohn 14.13. If wee should leaue him at all, one so able and willing euery way to serue our turn alone, to run vnto any Saint or Angel of his. And therfore as we dare make our praiers to none but vnto God, so dare we vse no other mediatour or aduocate vnto him, but onely Iesus Christ our Lord and sauiour. We are sure it sauoureth strongly of lack of faith in vs in him, if not of flat Antichristian blasphemie, once but to imagine, that any be Saint or she Saint in heauē, or Angell, wil be readier to take compassion of vs, or that we may be bolder to vse any of their intercessiōs to God, thē his. For in al things he became like vnto vs his brethren, that he might be merciful, and a faithfull high Priest in things concerning God, that he might make reconciliatiō for the sinnes of the people, for in that he suffered and was tempted, he is able to succour them y ^t are tēpted Heb. 2.17.18. For we haue not a high Priest which cannot bee touched, with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all things in like sort tempted, yet without sinne, let vs therefore go boldely vnto the throne of grace, that wee [Page 341] may receaue mercy and finde grace (through him) in time of neede, Heb. 4.15.16. And let vs take heede in this case, whiles we fol­low your example, in leauing him and running to Saints, to pray for vs, we commit not the two euills, that the prophet Ieremy char­geth the people of Israel withal, Ier. 2.12. & 13. that is, forsake the liuing fountaine a foūtaine of liuing waters, to dig vnto our selues pits, euen broken pits that will hold no water. For as thē he saieth in respect of these two faults, O yee heauens be astonied at this, & bee affraide & confounded (saieth the Lord) so worthily may we say in respect of this your folly and double sinne in this point. For though to lessen somewhat your sinne herein, you would seeme to plead onely for praying vnto the Saints in paradise to helpe you with their prayers; that nothing indeede can help you. For not one­ly for these reasons is euen that abhominable and vnlawful, but cer­taine it is, that you in your practise (as I haue shewed at large in my answere to your publishers preface) most grossely and Antichri­stianly, pray vnto the Saints themselues, thorough their merits to procure you the thinges you sue for. Yea you are gone so farre, that according to the multitude of your necessities, the varietie of occupations, and the distinctions of regions and cuntries, you haue appointed the Saints to their seuerall offices and limits, therein i­mitating the idolatrous heathē, who imagining y ^t there were many Gods, thought it good to know euery one of their offices, y ^t accor­dingly they might vse them, as August: de ciuitate Dei, lib. 4. & 22. noteth. And especially as touching the blessed Virgin Mary, vnder pretence of your loue and deuotion towards her, you haue so forgot your duety & Religion towards her son, that all the titles proper to her sonne, you haue inuested her withall, calling her Mediatris, Sal­uatris, gate of heauen, queene of heauen, and your only hope & refuge: yea you haue not stucke, calling vpon her, to cry vnto her say­ing, commaund thy sonne, vse the right of a mother, & so shewe thy selfe to haue the authority of a mother. And yet if you would confesse the trueth in this point, you both should and would acknow­ledge, that you haue learned thus to honour her & the other Saints, neither of scripture nor of any ancient father, but of cursed & condē ­ned heretiques, whatsoeuer either you here, or any of your fellows else where pretend to the contrary.

For Epiphanius writing first against certaine heretiques called Antidicomarionites lib. 3. Tom. 2. haeres. 78. and next, against o­thers [Page 342] called Colliridians, haeres. 79. of the same booke and come: he sheweth, how that these heretiques exceeded (euen as you doe) in offering vnto Mary, and in honouring and worshipping of her, a­gainst whom, he there at large inueieth bitterly, as against most vile idolaters for the same, telling them, that so to doe, was vngod­ly and wicked, and strange frō the preaching of the holy ghost, yea altogether a worke of the Deuill, and a doctrine of the vn­cleane spirit, for Mary was no God, neither was she giuen vs, sai­eth he, to be adored, though she were a most excellent & honou­rable Virgin, but (saieth he) to forewarnemen, of which kinde of too much admiring her, Christ saied vnto her, woman what haue I to doe with thee? And a little after in the latter place he saieth, Ne (que) Elias adorandus &c. y ^t is, neither is Elias to be adored or pray­ed vnto, though he liue, nor Iohn, nor Tecla, nor any other Saint. For the olde errour shall not ouerrule vs, that we leaue the li­uing God, and worship those things that are made by him. For they worshipped and adored the creature, praeter creatorem, be­sides the creator, & they became fooles Rom. 1. For if an Angell will not be adored, how much more will not she that was borne of Anna. And therefore in the ende concludeth Mariam nemo a­doret, let no man adore Mary, I say not a woman, but a man neither, For this mistery is due to God, then Angels are not ca­pable of this glorie &c. And therefore the same Epiphanius lib. 1. heres. 38. writeth against the Caians, for their inuocation of An­gels. It should seeme therefore, that Petrus Gnapheus (who was condemned for an heretique in the 5. generall Councell, was infec­ted with some of these heresies. For about the yeare of the lord 470. (as it appeareth in Nicephorus 15. booke and 28. Chapter) he was busie in deuising and vrging, how Mary should in the publicke Ly­turgie, not onely be honourably named, but also called vpon & pray­ed vnto. But if we would know the antiquity of these heretiques, and of you their schollers, Epiphanius haeres. 79. sendeth vs for the originall of their pedigree to the woman in Ieremies time, y ^t backd cakes to the Queene of heauen, and powred forth their offerings to other Gods, to prouoke the Lorde to anger; and therefore he calleth for Ieremy to charme & to stay those adorers of Mary, y ^t he wrote so against, y ^t they trouble the world no more. In deede he saieth roūdly to those idolatrous women in his time, in the person of God, Doe they prouoke me to anger, saieth the Lorde, and not thēselues to [Page 343] the cōfusion of their owne faces? And so goeth on in denouncing Gods heauy vengeance against them for the same, cap. 2. Hier. And therefore seing you are so like them in the cause hereof, take heede you be not enforced to be as like them in the punishment. You haue heard out of Origens 8. booke to Celsus, how like herein you are to that Idolater, both for the matter of your practise and do­ctrine, and for the reasons you haue to confirme the same, and that he there shewes flatly, that he thought, that that was not the waie to please God, but rather to displease him, to leaue him, and to runne to his Saints and Angels, to entreate them to bee meanes vnto him for them. And Chrysostome also, who is the se­cond man, that here you would make vs beleeue is on your side, to cleare himselfe of all such impietie, de muliere Cananea hom. 12. saieth thus. Tell me (ô woman) how thou durst beeing a sinner, goe vnto Christ? I know what I doe, saieth she (as he makes her to answer him) See the wisdome of the woman (saith he) she asketh not Iames, Peter nor Iohn. Yea in another homilie of his tom. 5. de profectu Euangelii, he further obserueth, that when the Disci­ples came and spake for her, he answered, I am not sent but to the lost sheepe of Israel; but when shee came her selfe, that then shee had her request, so thereby there labouring, and in expresse wordes in that homily, to encourage mē directly and immediately as plain­ly as we doe, to make their praiers to Christ themselues, and not by aduocates. And as for Augustine the third man you name, hee hath meetelie well alreadie cleared himselfe, euen in the verie place you quote, but to make the matter out of doubt, let vs heare him somewhat further to speak for his full purg [...]ion in this point. In his fiftie fiue Chapter de vera religione, and in his 22. booke and 10. Chapter of the cittie of God, hee plainely writeth, that to builde either temple or altar vnto Saints or An­gels (then which nothing is more common with you) is flatly vn­lawfull, and in the former of these places hee saieth, that Saints are to be honoured for imitation, but not for religion, ad­ding, that which the highest Angell vvorshippeth, that must the lowest man vvorshippe, and in the other hee saieth, that they neuer sacrificed nor builte temples to Saintes. And in the place you cyted out of him, hee saieth, vvhich of the Bishoppes saied, standing at the altar, wee offer to thee Peter, or Paul &c. where, & in his 8. booke of the citty of God, & cap. 27. he [Page 344] vtterly condemneth, as vnlawfull offering of any sacrifice to the Martyrs. And yet more directly against you in his second booke a­gainst the epistle of Parm. c. 8. he writeth thus, if Iohn should haue saied, these things wrote I vnto you, that you sinne not, & if any man sinne, yee haue me for an aduocate with God, and I wil en­treate him for your sinnes (as Parmenian in a certaine place, saith he, put the Bishop a mediatour betwixt the people & God) what good and faithfull Christian, saieth he, would haue suffered him, yea who would haue taken him for an Apostle of Christ, and not for a very Antichrist? Ambrose also vpō the first to the Romās is as flat against any mediatours betwixt God & vs, besides Christ Iesus, as any of these: yea there he doeth as directly confute your or­dinary reason, of your getting the better to God by these, as to the Prince by his Nobles, as we; telling you first, that that is vnder the pretence of humility & reuerence to the Prince, to make your selues to the perill of your saluation, guilty of high treason against him. For it is to giue that honour that is due vnto the Prince vnto his Nobles, thus to leaue the creatour, to adore the creature: and then further answering you, that your reason holdeth not from Princes Courts on earth to Gods in heauē, For they are men, saith he, & therfore to thē men must so come, because otherwise they know not whom to trust, but with God that knoweth al things, to win his fauour, Suffragatore non est opus, sed mente deuotâ, there is no neede of one to speake for vs, but of a deuout mind. And therefore he goeth on and saieth, that such as yet will adore their fellow seruants or creatures, turne the glory of God into the si­militude of men, &c. as it followeth in the text. Againe howso­euer some frende of yours, vnder the name of Athanasius, hath cau­sed one to speake in your language, saying: make intercession for me, mistresse, Ladie, Queene of heauen, yet Athanasius in­deede, to make it appeare how much he abhorred that impietie, in his orations against the Arrians, which all men know and confesse were his, first, oratione secundâ saieth, Sancti non postulant a creato aliquo &c. that is, the holie seruants of God, asked not of a creature to bee their helper, Christ therefore whose help they craue is true God: and then againe oratione tertiâ, he wri­teth thus, creatura non adorat creaturam &c. the creature adores not the creature, therfore Christ who is adored is god. These arguments of his had not beene good, neither would hee euer haue [Page 335] made them, if he had thought it lawful to honour and adore Saints as you doe, or as you would by fathering the former kinde of inuo­cation of Mary vpon him, make men beleeue he did. And indeede Paul taking it for a thing that could not be denied him, Rō. 10. that none might pray vnto any, in whom he might not beleeue, and it being most cleare, that the scriptures and all the ancient creedes grounded vpon the same, togither with the very forme of our bap­tisme, allowe vs onely to beleeue in God the father, God the sonne, and God the holy ghost, vnanswerably thereupon it must needes followe, that it is grosse idolatrie, to pray vnto any other. And so much in plaine tearmes hath Sedulius, aboue one thousand yeares ago, most flatly set downe vpon the first of the Romans, saying, A­dorare alium praeter patrem, filium & spiritum sanctum, impieta­tis crimen est, that is, to adore any, beside the father, the sonne, & the holy ghost, is an vngodly wickednes. Cyril also ad reginas de rectâ fide, &c. sendeth them that would obtaine their prayers, to God the father, in the name onely of Iesus Christ, because, solus naturâ & verè est Deus, he onely is by nature and in trueth God: & con­tra Iulianum lib. 6. he flatly saieth, the holy martyrs, neither doe we say to be Gods, neue adorare consueuimus, neither doe we vse to worship thē. Yea Remigius, who liued well nigh 900. yeares after Christ, sheweth vpon the 96. Psalme, that not onely images are not to be adored, but he saieth plainely, no nor an Angell is to be adored, because of that warning of the Angell to the con­trary in the Apocalips. To conclude, euen Hierom himselfe, your owne fourth and last man, whom I haue therefore kept to the last, because many of you thinke that hee is much of your side, a­gainst Vigilantius, writing against the saied Vigilantius to one Ripacius, cleareth himselfe to be farre frō this folly and blasphemy, that you would make him an earnest procter for. For there hee hath (to shew his iudgement in this case) writen thus, non colimus & adoramus, we worshippe not and adore, I say not the reliques of martyrs, but neither sun, moone, Angels, Archangels, Cherubin, Seraphin, nor any name that is named either in this world, or that which is to come (beside the trinity, for so he must be vnderstoode) For immediately he addeth this reason, least wee should serue the creature aboue the creatour, who is blessed for euer. We honour (saieth he) the relicks of the saints, that we may adore him whose martyrs they be. And good reason had all these fathers, thus flatly [Page 346] to set downe their mindes against you. For you know it is wri­ten, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis & illi soli seruies, that is, thou shalt adore the Lorde thy God and him onely shalt thou serue. Deut. 6. Matth. 4. and with this text Christ put the Deuill to silence, when he would haue perswaded him to fall downe and worshippe him: hee had nothing to replie against it, I praie GOD you bee not growen in this point more obstinate and peeuish to withstand the doctrine of this text, and more cunning and subtle to cauill a­gainst it, for your owne defence, then hee was. I know some of you, finding the Scriptures and fathers thus directlie to condemne adoration of the Saints (though they maintaine still all your practise of praying vnto them) yet haue not beene asha­med to write (as it appeares in the censure of Colen printed there one thousand fiue hundreth sixty) that amongst you it was ne­uer so much as heard, that the Saints are to be adored, for adora­tion is due onely to God. Whereas they could not bee igno­rant that their legends, rosaries, and other their bookes of deuo­tion, publique and priuate, are full both of the name and thing: did they not knowe that the whole psalter is turned to the Virgin Mary, and that therein it is writen venite adoremus eam, come let vs adore her? Howsoeuer they knew this or no, they could not forget their olde saying of the Crosse, beholde the woode of the Crosse whereon the saluation of the world hanged, venite adoremus, come let vs adore it. If these will not serue to make them better to remember them selues, let them reade their owne Antonin. part. 3. Tit. 12. cap. 8. and they shall finde him, in plaine wordes to tell them, that the Saints, by the Pope, by his canoni­zing of them, are set forth vnto men, not onely as an exam­ple of faith and holy life, but also abomnibus adorandi & in ne­cessitatibus inuocandi, that is, of all to be adored, and in necessities to be prayed vnto. Wherein to say (saieth he) that the Pope er­red were hereticall. But this is like your other common shifts, when you say you vse the Saints but as Mediatours of interces­sion, and not of saluation, which onely belongs to Christ; and that you: doe not giue them Latreian, but Douleian, that is, as you expound the words, not diuine honour, but an inferiour honour, not asking at their hāds that they should either giue you y ^e good things you would haue, or keepe frō you the euil, that you would not haue, the falshood and vanity whereof I haue both in my answere to the [Page 347] preface of your booke, and also somewhat in this Chapter al­ready bewrayed. For let any man read ouer & consider your praiers and practise, and he shall finde that you make them mediatours of saluation, and not onely of intercession, though that onely if you did (it being as it is, a special part of the office of Christs mediatorship, to be the very altar whereupon, and whereby we must acceptably, present these our spirituall sacrifices vnto his heauenly father, hee being, as he is, of himselfe alone thorowly both able & willing fully to execute his owne office) you could not excuse & cleare your selues, of being guilty of high treason against Christ. And he should further finde, that you giue the diuinest honour that may bee, & that you doe directly beg all things euen at their hands, that you can beg at Gods. For it is vsual with you to sing to Mary: salua eos quite glo­rificāt: saue thē that glorify thee, that succour the miserable, help the weake, refresh them that mourne: & you say to her, Mary mo­ther of grace, mother of mercy, protect vs frō the enemy, receiue vs at the hour of death: & in the psalter now turned & put forth by the deuout seruant of hers Bonauenture (as some thinke) you sticke not to vse all those speeches to her, y ^t in the psalmes are vsed to God himselfe, and therefore you blush not to say vnto her. Haue mercie vpon me O Lady, according to thy great mercy, & according to the multitude of thy mercies blot out my iniquities. But not onely thus haue you doubted about Mary, but quite contrarie to your owne wordes, when you would vse these shifts, you deale with other Saints. For you praie to Basil, that he would looke downe vpon you from aboue, & change your whole life, and you praie Athanasius to direct the holy people, & S. Cyprian to direct both your speech and life, and who so readeth your speculum exemplo­nim, your glasse of examples, he shall finde there, and in such other bookes of yours, such stories tolde of things done by this Saint and that, for such as worshipped them, as y ^t thereby it may most clearely appeare, that you haue no stay nor moderatiō at all, whatsoeuer you say, in praying to them.

Thus then thou maiest see (Christian Reader) for all M. Al­bines sending of thee to reade Origen, Chrysostome, Augustine and Hierom, for the maintenance of his praying to the Saints in Paradise, that not onely they haue quite forsaken him therein, but that also both Scripture, they and a number of ancient fathers besides, haue condemned that their praying vnto Saints, for grosse [Page 328] idolatry. The most (thou seest) that any of the fathers quoted by him for this, haue saied, that hath any soūd y ^e way, is, that they thought it was not inconuenient to thinke, that the Saints in heauen, prai­ed for the Saints aliue yet vpon the earth, and that therby they did them some good: which, as I haue shewed thee, by good reasons, proueth not, that therefore they are to be praied vnto thus of vs. But to conclude this matter, euen touching this point, I would haue thee to vnderstand, that the first brochers hereof, & they of the ancient fathers, that most seemed to bee resolued of it, yet spake thereof, but stammeringly and doubtfully. For thou hast heard Origen onely say, that he thought it was not incōuenient to think so, and vpon the second Chapter to the Romans, moouing that que­stion, whether the soules of the Saints departed, doe any thing, and labour for vs, as the Angels doe, or no? he in conclusion de­termineth, that if they doe, that yet it is amongst Gods secretes, and that it is a mystery not to be committed to paper. And Au­gustine, de curâ agendâ pro mortuis, inclines to the negatiue, and therefore to that end alleadgeth, that Esa. 63. Abraham knoweth vs not, and Israel hath forgot vs. And though Nazianzene seeme with Origen and Cyprian to think they doe pray for vs and pro­cure vs good, yet where he shewes himselfe to be most of that mind, as in his oration of Basil, and in his epitaph of his father, he vttereth it not as a resolute trueth, whereof he was sure, but aduouching it, addeth, as I think, if I be not deceaued, or if it be not too much to say so: which argueth, that he was not perswaded and resolued, that it was a plaine trueth taught in the worde, but that onelie it was thought to bee a thing probable and possible: and therefore this must needes be a weake ground to build so massy and huge a buil­ding vpon, as the popish praying to Saints cōmeth to. To conclude therefore this point, in this case notably hath Augustine saied, whē the question is of a thing most obscure, the certaine and plaine instructions of the diuine authority not helping vs to decide the matter, let mans presumption stay it selfe, doing nothing by inclining rather to the one side, then another. De pec. meritis lib. 2. cap. 36. And againe, seeing it is euidēt that they haue no ground for it in scripture (which some of the best of themselues confesse) with Augustine let vs say both of this and that which they would builde thereon, of Christ, or of his Church, or of any thing else which apperteineth to faith or life, if we, but as Paul saied, if an [Page 332] Angell from heauen should preach vnto you, beside that which yee haue receiued, in the scriptures of the law & the gos­pel, let him be accursed: contra literas Petil. lib. 3. Cap. 6. And so vpon these premisses boldly let vs conclude, and say with him, Non sit nobis religio cultus hominū mortuorū: de verâ religione cap. 55. let it bee no part of our religion to worship dead men. For as he there addeth. If they liued godly indeed, they are not now in that minde, that they would haue such honours giuen them of vs, but God they would haue vs worship.