AS touching the first part, whereas they laye to my charge that I labour to op­presse and tread vnder foot the holy ghospell and worde of God, hauing before professed the same, &c. To this I aunswere plainely that herein they deale very vn­courteously with me, and do iniuriously slaunder me. And I am very sure they haue not one iote to proue this their saying by. But to remoue this their vaine, and forged opinion with sure and vndoubted reason, I would gladly knowe of them what is that they call the holy ghospell and worde of God. Here if they awnswer me that the worde of God is no other thin­ge, then the holy scripture, commonly called the Bi­ble, that is, the olde and newe Testament, thē againe I awnswer thē they do most iniuriously slaunder me. For they are neuer able to proue that euer I reiected or persecuted any one litle peace or parcell of the ghospell or of the lawe. But I embrace and reueren­ce al the holy Bible, the lawe, and the ghospel: and ta­ke it for no lesse thē the very worde of Gods mouth. Yea and I graunte, that sooner heauē and earth shal perish then any one iote of that worde. Mar. 13. Which I dare saie not [Page 33] only for my owne part, but in the name of all Ca­tholike Christians: The Ca­tholikes haue the vvorde of God no lesse then the ptote­stants. which hitherto euen from the Apostles time allmost these thousand six hundred yeares without any intermission haue read in chur­ches, songe alwaies in publick seruice of the Masse, and taught openly in pulpits, and haue also in the common breuiaries and portyses of the Romane vse comprised almost the whole corps of the Bible: and that in such ordre, that the priestes are bounde we­kely to reade ouer the whole Psalter, and yearely for lessons allmost all the ghospell and epistles, and pro­phets, as the most auncient custom practised so ma­ny hundred yeares past, of the Canonicall howres, the Prime, the Third, the Sixt, the Ninth howres, Euen­song, and Complin doth well declare. which disposi­tion and ordre of times, Actor. 3. was off the Apostles them selues (as it may appeare in the Actes and other whe­re) so well and diligently appointed, that to euery da­ye for the howres of our lordes passion, psalmes, les­sons and ghospells do correspond, with a reuerent and deuoute remēbraunce of Christes benefits. whe­reby the church from the beginning vnto our time through out the whole worlde, would testifie and teache vnto vs, that all holy scripture ought to be construed and grounded on the passion of our Sa­uiour Iesus Christ, as in the true corner stone for the saluation of our soules, as hereafter we shall in his due place by the scripture most plainely proue. It is therefore a wonderfull slaunder that these men saye of the Catholikes. That hitherto the ghospell and [Page] the worde of God hath ben bannished from the church, A lovvdlie of the Lutherās against the Ca­tholike churche. kept in hucker mucker, and at the length vnder the pope to haue ben vtterly extinguished: but now is reuoked vnto light: therefore those that embrace this newe ghospell, to be worthely called men of the ghospell, but that we which folow our swete parents and forefathers with the whole Ca­tholike church, keping and maintaining the olde Apostolicall doctrine must be called wicked papi­stes.

But here, Note vvel. he that hath eyes to see, let him open them, and he that hath any regard of his saluation, let him here take hede. for this is that suttell deceit of these protestants, and the mist wherewith they dimme the eyes of the simple people, making them beleue that they only professe the worde of God. And yet these newe preachers and masters knowe very well them selues the contrary: as Luther him selfe in his booke against the Anabaptistes and the Zuinglians witnesseth, saying that among the pa­pistes, that is, in the churche of Rome, the holy ghospell aud all holy scripture with al the bookes, sentences, wordes and prickes thereof hath remai­ned in continuall succession of time, vncorrupted whole and perfite. whiche maketh me more to mar­uaill, what wicked and malitious sprit moued these protestants, to terme them selues only ghospellers and [Page 34] professours of Gods worde, calling the Catholikes papistes, and enemies of the worde of God: seing that bothe nowe and in all ages, we reade the ghos­pell in our churches, we preache the worde of God in our pulpits, and interpret it to the people: we ex­presse it by outward ceremonies, rites, and gestures, such as we haue receaued of our forefathers, euen from the primitiue church and the Apostles time. And this Luther knewe him selfe well inough. But why dissembled he it then? forsothe to deceaue and entrappe the easier the simple people in to his pretē ­ded religion. For Luther and all his ministers knowe very wel that in the ghospel and worde of God two In the vvorde of God tvvo thinges are to be consi­dered. thinges are to be considered. First that the text be sownd and not corrupted: then that the same text be expounded Catholikely and not heretically. For as S. Bernard saieth, looke with what sprit the scriptures were writen, Ad fratres de monte Dei. with the same must they be read and vnder­standed. Seing then the text by the instinct of the ho­ly ghost hath ben geuen vs true and perfit, the vn­derstanding also and interpretation thereof, coming of the holy ghost must be true and perfit: so that one shall be as true, and of as much force as the other. It is not inough therefore to reade holy scripture perfit­ly, but to vnderstande it well also. Aduers. Luciferianos. For (as S. Hierom sayeth) The scriptures consist not in reading but in vnder­standing. All this Luther was not ignorant of. But to depraue and corrupt the right interpretation of holy scripture, and to bring in place his owne hereticall and forged expositions, he maketh no mencion off [Page] the text, but crieth still the worde of God, calling the dreames of his braine, pure and holy scripture. For if ye aske of the Lutherans when they preache that God cōstraineth men to do euill, Lutherus inassertio. Melāchthō in Paulū ad Rom. Caluinus i [...]institut. that God was the cause of Iudas his reprobation and obstinat desperation, that good workes are hurtefull to saluation, and such like matters, what maner of doctrine that is, they will incontinently awnswer you, that This is the pure ghospell, the sincere worde of God, and holy scripture it selfe. But then if ye go farder, and desire them to showe yow these very wordes and propositions in holy scripture, there they hush. Yet will they tell you, that the wordes in dede them sel­ues be not in the Bible, but the meaning of them is there. To the which if ye replie agayn, and vrge them farder it will soone appere, that the controuersie be­twene the protestants and vs, is not of holy scripture it self, but of the true vnderstanding of the same. And so S. Hilary hauing to do with heretikes in his time pronounced. Lib. 2. de Trinitate. Heresie, sayth he, is in the vnderstāding not in the scripture. And truly all heretikes neuer cried o­ther thing thē the holy scripture, the worde of God: and we that are Catholikes also haue holy scripture allwaies in our mouth.

Nowe then a man may maruaill and aske, howe cometh it to passe that the Lutherans and the Ca­tholikes, the protestants and the papistes striue and contend so one with an other, where as yet bothe ha­ue [Page 35] the ghospell, bothe loue and embrace it, bothe cle­aue vnto it, and bothe are ready to spende their good and their life for it? Here I beseche the, Christian re­ader marke and perceaue well: Note vvel that this is not the cō ­trouersie, whether the Catholikes or the Lutherans VVhat is al the cō ­trouersy betvvene the catholikes and the prote­stants. haue the worde of God, but which of them, doth truly, rightely, and sincerely expounde that worde off God. For this is the Lutherans common saying: The papistes vnderstand not the Bible, but we ha­ue founde the right interpretation thereof and the kaye of all truthe. And to set a good coulour vppon this holy protestation they saye farder. That all bis­shops, prelats, priestes and Monkes be all without lerning, all incōtinent, all of euill life, geauen to co­uetousnes, to pleasure, and to the bely. But they thē selues, that is, the Lutherans be learned, chaste, so­bre, liberall, deuowte, and of perfit life, and such as haue done great miracles and yet do. Neither are these impudēt heretikes ashamed of these lowde lies, although all the worlde well knoweth it is nothing so: while they see Churches, Remēbre the state of germany of Scotland and the late spoyle in Fraū ce. hospitalls, religious houses of all sorte, colledges, and bishoprickes, of the­se men partly cleane ouerthrowen, partly rifled, all ta­ken into their handes, and conuerted into palaces, ar­mories, barnes, cole houses, shops of Marchaundrise, yea and in some places, in to stables. The mi­racles of the nevve ghospell. These lo be the miracles of this new ghospell abundantly practised all this fourty yeares. As for other miracles, not one [Page] of these new ghospellers was euer able so much as to cure a lame colte, or a halting biche. so farre is it, that these mē could euer cast out deuils, heale the lame, cu­re the blinde, restore the deafe, or raise vp the dead. all which miracles many holy fathers of the olde ghos­pell (as I may so speake) which these men call Papistes haue wrought from time to time in Christ his chur­che, as right approued histories do manifestly declare.

Now as for the good and perfit life of these men, and excellent lerning, all the worlde seeth it. An ol­de sorte of heretikes called Donatistes obiected in times past to S. Augustin the very same argumēt, say­ing that their church only was vpright, holy, pure and lerned. But the Catholike churche was nothing so. And therefore the doctrine of the Donatistes was vndoubtedly soūde and perfit, but that of the Catho­likes false and vntrue. But what awnswered thē here S. Augustin? In lib. de vnitate ec­clesiae. The argument (saieth he) that proueth mens doctrine by their life is false. But let vs suppose that the­se holy protestants passed al the vniuersall Catholike church of Christ sens the time of the Apostles, bothe in godlines of life, and excellency of lerning. Which I thinke in good sothe they wil not al together affir­me, But if it were so, it wil not yet thereuppon ensue, that only the Lutherans vnderstande holy scripture, and the Catholikes neuer vnderstoode it. Differēce betvvene life and doctrine. For if the right intelligence of holy Scripture be only to be sought amonge such, as will stoutely affirme of them selues to passe all the rest of men, in vprightnes of li­fe and excellency of lerning, then in very dede must [Page 36] we nedes leaue this great treasure of the right mea­ning of holy scripture vnto heretikes. For in all ages heretikes allwaies craked of their great lerning and perfit life: as the ecclesiasticall histories well declare of the Arrians, the Man [...]ches, Luther in parua Confessione cō ­tra Zuin­glianos. the Pelagians and such li­ke. And what other thinge dothe Luther in many of his workes, especially in his booke against the pope, Then call the olde Catholike writers and holy fa­thers, fooles, asses, Libr. quod Papatus supra infer­nū exstru­ctus sit. rude and vnlerned, babes of the pope, hermaphrodites, and such like. Neither con­temneth he only the Catholikes, Libr. cōtrae coelestes prophetas. but euen his owne cōpanions and felow heretikes also as Zuinglius, Oe­colampadius, and other of that batche. The pri­de of Lu­ther. Yea this mā fa­ther of all this bessed broode of protestāts, so highely extolleth him selfe, In sua Apologia cōtrae postremam Lutheri cō fessionem. so presumptuousely dispiseth all the worlde, like an other Lucifer, that the protestants them selues of Zurich write plainely, that now no more the holy ghost, but the spirit of pride and pre­sumptuousnes speaketh in M. Luther. Illiricus also and his companions crake they not likewise of their vertu, and great lerning? especially Illiricus, how boa­steth he that he was perfitly sene in Aristotle, and had writen maruailouse much vppon him? But what doth holy scripture speake to these proude boasters? S. Peter saieth. God resisteth the proude, 1. Pet. 5. and geueth grace to the make and humble. And the prophet saieth of god. Psal. 103. Thou arte he which poorest out the fountaines in the lowe vallies. not in the toppes of hilles. Againe in an other place. Euery vallie shall be exalted, Esaiae. 40 and euery highe hill shall be [Page] plucked downe. It is therefore a great vanitie of them to iudge and pronounce so proudely of thē selues, seing that the Apostle of such men saieth. Rom. 1. Saying them selues to be wise they haue proued fooles, and their foolish hart hath ben darkned.

But nowe touching the integrite of life and ver­tuous behauiour of the Lutherans, I would be lothe to reporte thereof my selfe. Surely I see Luther to doute very much thereof. For in his great postill vp­pon the ghospell of the first Sonday in Aduent, he crieth out and complaineth. That by his ghospell men were become farre worse then they were be­fore A notable testimo­nie of Luther of the life of his scho­lers. vnder the Pope. For wickednes and vice had so farre growen in his ghospellers that they semed allmost become deuills. And truly this is a sure to­ken of false prophets. For Of thornes who gathered gra­pes or of brambles who gathered figges at any time? Math. 7. Luc. 6. For loo­ke what the tre is, such is the frute. such master such scho­ler, such doctrine such liuing.

Now where as they againe obiect vnto vs the euill and disordinat life of the prelats of the church and of the clergy, as that they be gloutons, dronckards, am­bitious, horehunters, and so forthe, I will not here presently defend them, that are such. It is surely much to be lamented, that the life and behauiour off the reuerēt priesthood awnswereth not to their god­ly and highe profession: but is very scandalouse to the worlde, euen in such places as the church is by he­retikes corrupted and persecuted. Notwithstanding I [Page 37] doubt not although in many of the clergy it be foun­de true that the Lutherans saye of thē touching euil life, yet there are a great numbre of vertuous and lerned bishops and priestes, of deuowte and perfit reli­gious men, such as amonge the Lutherans were har­de to find. But it were better in this case and more se­mely for Christen charite, that eche part looked in his owne wallet, Math. 7. and first Tooke out the beame of their owne eyes, for so shall they see better to take out the mote off their neighbours eie, 2. Timo. 2. And herein whatsoeuer the iudge­ment of man saie, God knoweth who are his, and who are in dede vertuous or contrary. Wherefore our faith and belefe must not be pinned to the life of the cler­gie or preachers. Againe repetaūce of the most vvicked may be soden and se­cret. For by this reason we are not sure of the due administration of any Sacrament, neither can we truste any preacher of the worde of God, seing that we are not able to iudge whether the priest or the preacher be a mā of vpright life or otherwise. But our Sauiour Iesus Christ to take awaie this doubt, and to assure vnto vs the verite of his Sacraments duly administred by the clergy thereunto chosen, A perfit rule to discerne fal se prea­chers. and the preaching of his holy worde by their mouthe, he hath left vnto vs a sure and certain rule to knowe the false preachers and prophets from the true, and to di­scerne the doctrine from the person that teacheth. And this rule hathe thre parts.

The firste is when the doctrine is good in it selfe, but the life of the teacher is euill and fauty. The se­cōd, whē the life of the teacher is good and vertuous, but his doctrine false and vitious. The thirde is to [Page] knowe howe the doctrine may be tried by the life off the teacher, and howe the life of the teacher may be tried by his doctrine.

As for the first part, Christ geueth vs a very good lesson what to do, The first part. whē the doctrine is good and the life is naught, saying The scribes and pharises sitt in the Chai­re of Moises. Matth. 23. What soeuer they shal saie vnto you, kepe it and do it: But do not according to their doings. By the which wordes of our Lorde, we see that the lerner ought not so much to regard the life of the teacher as the doctrine. For it may be that his doctrine be sownde and good, wose life is euill. For although that as well in the former ages, as now a daies we finde many of right good lerning, whiche haue preached and taught the worde of God sincerly, yet some of such liue not accordingly. Neither is there at this daie any point wherein the people more grudgeth against the clergy then that many of thē leade their life cleane cōtrary and repugnant to their owne Canons and constitu­tions. For many of them can tell a trim tale in the pulpit, exhorte the people very demeurely to a sobre and perfit life, but will not ones moue a foote to liue well them selues. And now (alas) it is to true that our lorde sayeth by the prophet of his church. Esaiae. 5. I haue lon­ge looked that my vineyarde shuld haue brought forth gra­pes, but lo it hath brought forthe brambles, and a litle after. Wo be vnto you which rise vp early to folow dronknes, and to drinke vntell the euening, that they be set on fire with wi­ne. In your companies are harpes and lutes, tabrets and pi­pes, but ye regard not the worke of the lorde. Can this be [Page 38] denied? it is, alas, to true. But what then? is this their liuing accompted vertuous? is this Catholike? No Catholike nor Christen man wil saie so. The doctri­ne of our religion vtterly forbiddeth these thinges and the Catholike church condemneth them. Nei­ther cā al this preiudicat in any point to the doctrine of the Catholike church. For (as our Sauiour saied) Do all that they shall saie vnto you, Math. 23. but do not as they do. and againe. First cast out the beame of thy owne eye, Matth. 7. and then thou shalt see to cast out the mote of thy brothers eye. And in an other place. Ioan. 8. Who so euer of you be without sin­ne let him cast the first stone against her. Agayne. Galat. 6. Rom. 2. We must carye one an other his burden that we may be all saued. We must not rashely iudge other, least we be iudged to.

The second part now is cleane contrary to this: The scōd part of the ruie. as when men of good and sobre behauiour preache fal­se and hereticall doctrine: of these our Sauiour geueth vs warning, in these wordes. Matth. 7. Take ye hede of false pro­phets which come vnto you in shepes clothing, but are with­in rauening wolues. Did not the Picards clothe them 1 selues trimly in shepe skinnes? Hereti­kes of greate vertu in apparē ce. for they suffer not a­monge them selues any vsurers, dronkards, aduoute­rers, theues or any such haynous offenders. The A­nabaptistes also haue they not (thinke you) faire shee­pes 2 cotes? They weare no weapon, to pretend patience: they haue nothing of their owne, but all in com­mon to auide couetousnes. They eate their bread in the sweate of their browes. they labour truly: they praye much. The Maniches, what cotes had they? 3 shepelike I warrant yow. They neuer eate flesh to [Page] chasten their body they dranke no wine, abstained 4 from frutes, &c. The Encratitae likewise abstained vtterly from wine to folow their bookes the better. 5 The Cathari, (so called as men of pure life) abhorred all pleasures and pastimes of this worlde, neuer con­tended with other. Can any man denie but that the­se were gaye frutes, and ioly shepe skinnes? There­fore iff doctrine and religion were to be tried by the apparence of vertu and holynes, who can condemne these men for heretikes? truly no man. And why? bi­cause their frutes are good. And therefore it semeth thetre can not be euill. We see the simple shepe skin­ne, we see no lookes nor tokens of the wolfe. Of the outwarde shewe therefore of good life, doctrine can not be tried.

But then a man may here aske. What meaneth Christ when he saieth, Matthae. 7. by their frutes ye shall kno­we them. For if false prophets must be knowen by their frutes, how can I mislike the Anabaptistes, the Waldenses, The third part of the rule. Hovve to knovve doctrine by the frutes. and such other, whose life and behauiour can not be reprehended? yet their doctrine is and se­meth detestable. What shall I here do? for so the now the third part of this rule shall instruct you, how you may trie the doctrine by the frutes and how the fru­tes by the doctrine. Wherein you must first diligently marke that the doctrine is not tried by the only fru­tes, but so that the doctrine and the frutes be all alike and correspondent. For vndoubtedly where the do­ctrine is like the frute, and the frute like the doctrine, one must nedes trie the other. Whereupon our lorde [Page 39] hath geuen a yery good note and rule, in S. Matthew teaching after this sort. Matth. 12. Other make the tree good and his frute good, or make the tree euill and his frute euill, For by the frute the tree is knowen. And by this rule Christ re­asoneth against the vnbeleuing Iewes, when he sa­ieth If ye wil not beleue me, yet beleue my workes. Ioan. 10. and why so? bicause the workes and doings of Christ did agre very well with his doctrine, and the doctrine with his workes. So was the life and the doctrine allwaies agreable of the prophets, the Apostles, the Martirs, and all other holy men. Whereof it will well be con­cluded that seing their life was holy, vertuous, and perfit, their doctrine also was sounde, good and ho­lesome. And why may we so conclude in them? bi­cause euen as they preached and taught so they liued: and what they taught other to do, they did them sel­ues: and againe as they did so they taught. Therefore of them it is well saide. Math. 7. Of their frutes ye shal knowe them For their frutes being good in dede, the tre could not be euill.

The like reason is of euill doctrine and wicked li­fe: The fru­tes of the Lutherās doctrine. for one foloweth allwaies the other. It is the do­ctrine of Luther. In libro. de Matrimo­nio Tom. 6 That a man can no more refraine from satisfising the filthy lust of the flesh, then from spetting. Of this tie what frutes proceded? For so the these: that bicause to liue chast is an vnpos­sible thing, then no man, no woman must liue chast or single. But if occasion serue not to mary, they may lawfully seke after baudes and hoores. Which is now [Page] a common thing in Germany: and hath proceded of this doctrine of Luther. Luther teacheth that if the husband can not do his dutie to his wife, she may in this maner speake vnto him. You see good hus­band that you can not do your dutie vnto me. Luther in the 6. to­me libello de matrimo. Let me with your good leaue mary priuely with your brother or next kinsman, so that allwaies yet you beare the name of my husband, lest your goods come into other mens handes: &cae. To this request of the woman (saieth Luther) the man ought to accorde and prouide: or els she ought to go priuely from him. Is not this (thinke you) a blessed graffe? but what buddes trowe ye brought it forthe? Truly these that now the brother may ma­ry his brothers wife, he yet liuing, as Herod did, Marc. 6. as it is much now practised amonge the Lutherans Agai­ne that one woman may haue many husbandes, and one man many wiues, as the Turkes vse: and as we see in germany, not only in the cite of Mounster, but in many other places also openly practised. And do not these frutes agree well and iust with the do­ctrine?

In Luthers doctrine we reade: If the wife wil not, In the 6. tome of his vvor­kes prin­ted in the yeare 1553 let the mayde come. Out of the which wholeso­me tree this goodly frute is spronge, that nothing is more common now amonge the Lutherans then wanton baudery and aduoutery, so much that the Lutherans them selues are ashamed of it, and affir­me [Page 40] that it was neuer so badde vnder the pope.

Againe this is the doctrine of Luther. Lib. de christiana libertate. Fasting is but mans inuention: Christen libertie abideth not any fastinges or difference of meate. Of this noble tree hathe growen the excellent frute of banketing, ryot and drocknes a hundred folde more in our time then euer before in Germanie.

Luther teacheth there is no magistrat can force Christians to obedience, Contra du [...] Caesaris mā data. that it is not lawefull to fight against the Turkes. And what were the bran­ches of this stock? First the rebellion of the commons vnder Munzerus, then the ciuill warres of the Swi­cers, the enormous vsurping of the Anabaptistes in Moūster and many such like, which I had rather pas­se ouer by silence: Remēbre the late rebellion in Fraunce. speaking nothing of sundry priuat conspiracies against publick magistrates.

The doctrine of Luther is, In Captiuitate Babi­lonica. That Christendom ought not to be gouuerned by ciuill lawes and ordi­naunces, that no Prince, no nor angel of heauen ha­the authoritie or power to make any lawe against Christen men. Lacked this tre his frutes? no surely: For hereby all iustice hathe quailed: and that either by preuy corruption, or open and violent oppression. beside that amonge the nobles of this secte, that is accompted most right which can best be maintained by force of armes. Lnther [...]s in 3. ca. ad Gal. & Illyricani mul [...]is lib.

An other lesson of Luthers schole was. That the [Page] loue of God and our neighbour, repentaunce also for sinne, were not necessary to saluation but (as the Illyricans do write) bothe these and other good dedes were very pernicious to saluation. And what frute proceded of this tre? for sothe that men of the Lutherans ghospell were of a farre more enor­mous life, Aboue in the 36. le­afe. as Luther him selfe withnesseth, then the when they were vnder the pope.

Luther and Caluin do write that God forceth mē to sinne, and all sinne committed of man is not do­ne by the permission of God, Caluinus in instituti onibus. cap. 14. In assertio nibus. art. 31. but by his propre will and operation: yea and whensoeuer men labour to do well, that then they sinne deadly. Of this tre ha­ue growen all mischef, fornication, aduoutrie, ryot, dronknes, extorsions, robberies, rebellion, periuries, deceites, lies, all contempt of honesty and vertu, pro­cliuite to all vice, beside blasphemies of Gods holy name, backbiting, slaundering, reproches, iniu­ries, and all kinde of wickednes frely and without grudge of cōscience practised. Be not these noble and faire frutes of Luthers ghospell? May not well the rule of Christ here take place? Matthaei. 7. By their frutes ye shall knowe them. Note the differēce betvvene the euil life of the Catholi­kes and the Lutherans. For looke what the tre is, such is the frute and looke what the frute is, such is thetre.

Although therefore we can not denie, but amon­ge vs Catholikes much enormite is, and much euill life, yet no man can saie that we teache and allow these vices: or that our doctrine is the cause off oure [Page 41] naughty liuing, no man I saye can charge the Catho­like doctrine to prescribe any thing against holy scri­pture, against ciuill policie, or publike magistrates as the newe forged ghospell of Luther doth. Exacting therefore the Lutherans vnto this rule of Christ, we worthely iudge them of their frutes to be false prophets and daungerous deceiuers. Note. The like they cā not do of vs, for that the euill frutes that are in vs procede of oure selues not of our doctrine, of swar­uing from the precepts and godly constitutions off our faith, not of obseruing them. But the Lutherans naughty life procedeth euen of their doctrine, as we haue in some certain pointes for example before de­clared.

Yet as touching the life of spirituall teachers and rulers, god hath prescribed to the laitie and common people a perfit and absolute rule to discerne true do­ctrine from the false, saying. The scribes and Pharises sit in the Chaire of Moyses: Matth. 3. Do as they commaunde you to do, not as they do thē selues, in the which saying of Christ, euery Christen man that regardeth his soule helth, ought diligently waie two pointes. First to know which is the lawfull chaire of Moyses, Hovve to discerne true do­ctrine frō the false. and which is not. then how the laye and common sort of people ought to beare them selues towardes the euill life of the clergy. Let vs then first speake of the first point.

Sithen the time that these newe doctrines of Lu­ther hath ben putin the peoples heads, and so many, diuers and contrary opinions hathe ben taught, that the simple and vnlerned, know not all most which [Page] waie to turne them selues, many are brouht to that point, that they reiect all religion at ones: and think oure Christen faith to be but prety policies of mens inuention or rather olde wyues tales to feare childrē, and with this imagination are become worldly Epi­cures, terming their felicite in present pleasure, as a great number do nowe in Germany. Whereof truly we haue great cause to feare (vnles these cursed he­resies be spedely extinguished) that almightie God of his dreadfull iustice, will sturre vp the Turke or some cruell tirā, to rippe vp the belies of these fleshely swi­ne and gredy gloutons, destroying also with the wic­ked (whiche God of his tender mercie forbid) the good and vertuous. But to thentent that all good and vertuous people may beware of such infidelite and wi [...]ked cogitations, despering vtterly of all reli­gion, S. Paule hathe forewarned his scholer Timo­the, and in him vs all: 2. Tim. 3. writing, All scripture inspired frō God, is profitable to teach, to improue, to amend, and to in­struct in righteousnes, that the man of God may be perfit and prepared vnto all good workes. These are not mens ima­ginations, but the very wordes of God, pronounced by the holy ghoste in the mouthe of the Apostle. And this is an expres commaundement of God, that we beleue vndoubtedly in holy scripture, that we seke our saluation therein, walking and continu­ing vprightly in the pathes of that holy write, It is not [...]ough to reade scripture with o [...]t the true vn­derstādīg of the same. 2. C [...]r. 3. not swaruing either on the right hande, either on the left. But that we maye so do, it behoueth vs not only to reade the bare and literall text of holy scripture, [Page 42] but to enquire also for the true and right vnderstan­ding of the same. For the letter killeth but the Spirit ge­ueth life. Wherefore our Lorde speaking to the Iewes, saieth, Searche the scriptures: for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life. Ioan. 5. But it is one thinge to reade, another to serche.

They are therefore much deceaued, which crie now a daies that nothing must be receiued but ho­ly scripture, that all other interpretations, being but the imaginations of man, are not to be beleued. If the protestants speake herein as they thinke, I wō ­der why the Lutherans, and the Zuinglians haue writen so many and so large interpretations vpon the olde and newe testament, and caused them to be printed abrode, yea why make they suche continuall sermons to the people, wherein they recite not all­waies expresse scripture, but talke much beside the text, adding their interpretations and expositions vnto it? commaunding also and charging the people to take those their interpretations for the very worde of God. And is not this a maruailous impudent and proude presumption of these protestant preachers?

When we on our part alleage the expositions of the holy fathers vpon holy scripture, they as if it we­re in a rage, crie out incontinently. A dāge­rous deceite of the prote­stants. The holy fa­thers were but men, the church hath erred in ma­ny pointes, the expositions of those fathers are but their imaginations and deuises, not the worde off God. And therefore we nede not geue any credit [Page] vnto them. But when they them selues preache vnto the people, the commaūde and persuade the people, that if they tender their soule health, they must vndoubtedly beleue, that which is there preached vnto them and the interpretation of holy scripture which they bring, is the pure and sincere worde of God, the ghospell it selfe. Is not this as I saied, a a maruailous impudent and proude presumption of these protestant preachers? Is it not an horrible arro­gancie to terme their owne fantasies holy scripture, their imaginations the ghospell, the meaning and sens of their owne inuention, Note. the very worde off God: condemning withall and reiecting the vnifor­me, true and receaued interpretations of all olde holy fathers and writers approued hitherto in the Church of Christ, by whom the same church hath ben from time to time gouuerned, directed, and instructed in all truthe sens the time of the Apostles, this thow­sand fiue hundred yeares and more: vnder whose do­ctrine and godly instructions, so many blessed mar­tirs, holy confessours and infinit thousands of other Christen soules haue attained to euerlasting life? Whereas contrary wise by the expositions and inter­pretations of these newe preachers, horrible schis­mes, diuers and hainous heresies, dissolute and licen­tious liuing, strifes, contentions, and rebellions, haue spronge vp and all most ouergrowen the garden off Christes church, well planted before and tended by the holy fathers, rulers thereof? what can be more impudently [Page 43] and arrogantly presumed?

Yet these newe preachers to wrappe and entrappe the people more and more in their former snare, they patche on an other dangerous deceit, vsing this guile with them. An other dāgerous deceite of the prote­stants. You must good people in dede beleue the only writen worde of god, but to the expositions of the preachers ye ought so farre to beleue, as their expositions agreeth with the writen worde, that is, that the simple and vnlerned people must iudg of their owne faith, and be able to trie whether their preachers teache false or no, whether their exposi­tions agre so iust with the worde of God, that they may be bolde to beleue them euen as the very wor­de of God. Yf this be true that the poeple must nowe iudge their preachers and teachers, then was S. Paule to blame, describing the prouidence of Christ to­ward his church to saie these wordes. Ephes. 4. Christ ascending on high, lead captiuite captiue, and gaue giftes vnto men. These giftes were vndoubtedly his holy worde. and to make it out of doubt what maner of giftes he me­aneth, it foloweth strait vppon And he hath geuen some Apostles, some prophets, and some Euangelistes. For by the­se thre sortes of men, by the prophets, the Apostles, the Euangelistes inspired of the holy ghost, holy scripture was writen. but bicause in the writen worde many mysteries lye hidden, therefore Christ left not to his church only Prophets Apostles and Euangelistes, but (as it foloweth in S. Paule) He gaue pastours and doctours, [Page] shepeards and teachers which should fede the peo­ple with the true intelligence of the holy write, and teache them the true vnderstāding of the same. Now then either the Shepeardes and teachers must instru­cte the people, and interpret holy scripture vnto thē as S. Paule prescribeth, or els the people him self must take vppon him the person of a iudge ouer his shepe­ards and teachers, as the protestants will haue it. Chose here good reader whom thou list to folow. Surely I must nedes obey and beleue the blessed Apostle whatsoeuer these men bable. Therefore I saie againe, the people ought to lerne not to teache They ought to obey those that haue charge off their soules, Heb. 13. their sheaperdes and teachers, not to iudge or instruct them in matters of religion. Contrary wise the pa­stours and teachers ougth diligently to instruct their flocke, and expounde vnto them the right meaning of holy scripture, that they may with the kaye off truthe binde and loose the sinnes of the people accordingly.

Nowe whereas in cytes Mayres and scholemasters, The stra­unge or­der of ser­uing the churche in germa­ny. in villages the gentlemen, and in the courtes of prin­ces the Chauncellers prescribe and appoint vnto the­ir parish prestes and vicars, the maner of interpreting holy scripture, the order of ministring the sacramēts, the forme of common prayer at the pleasure of euery laie magistrat and Temporall Lorde, what will beco­me of this straunge fashions, the time will ones decla­re. For nothing is so preuy, Matth. 10. but that it will ones come to light. Euery wise man may easely cast what is likely to fo­lowe, [Page 44] when euery magistrat or secular ruler vtterly vnlerned, and but of meane abilite, yet do at their ple­asure appoint ministres and put downe, prescribing what docrine they liste to the poore people, or what secte liketh them best. hereof it happeneth that if the Mayre, scholemaster or gentleman be a Suenckseldian, then the preacher of that parish must folow onely the doctrine of Suenck feldius, or if he be a Zuinglian, an Osiandrin, an Anabaptiste, an Illyrican, a Wittenber­ger, a Maiorist or of any other secte, the poore simple people must lerne the newe faith of the Maire, scho­lemaster, or gentleman: and vtterly renounce his ol­de: nor may not be so bolde as to hush to the cōtrary.

When this newe straunge order was first taken in hande, that all spirituall Magistrates, constitutions, and ordonaunces should be disannulled, Lutherus lib. de Christiana libertate some the­re were that thought it not reason that men should be forced to embrace this opinion, or that, but it shoulde be left free to euery man, to beleue what­soeuer the sprit moued him vnto, without any let to the cōtrary. The fru­tes of Lu­thers libertie. So wrote Luther in his booke De Chri­stiana libertate and in an other De capti uitate Babilo­nica in the which bookes he so embrued the hartes of men with the loue of licentious libertie, that al Chri­sten constitutions, lawes aud decrees of the church were vtterly abolished and trode vnder foote. Out of these bookes also Thomas Munzer toke occasion to lib. Contra. 2. māda. a Caesaris. & in literis ad ducem Sa­x [...]uiae. make the insurrection of the commons in Germany wherein perished more then a hundred thousand off our dere countremen, as Sleidan noteth in the fifte booke [Page] of his story. Of this licentious doctrine off Lu­ther also one Bernard Rotmā begā the heresy of the Anabaptistes, and that by these wordes of Luther. that no man could be compelled to any faith: that al Christen men are free, and taught of God him sel­fe immediatly: that there nedeth no interpretation of scripture, but it is al plaine and perspicuous. that a simple man of the countre can more readily ex­pounde and vnderstande holy scripture, then any Doctour in diuinite.

But after that Luther espied this vntoward course of his doctrine, and that now his owne scholers Mūtzer, Rotman, Carolstadius, Zuinglius, and diuers other bette him with his owne rodde: he inuented strait a new shift, or rather succoured him selfe with the olde practise of the Catholike churche, Vide scrip­tū Philippi ad Com. Palatinum aeditum an no. 1560. Heidelber­gae. as the folowers of Melanchthon and Brentius do now a daies, who seing the people caryed away daily in to newe sectes by o­ther ghospellers leauing their former new masters, do call their felowes renagates and apostatas, com­pelling them by ecclesiasticall censure and force off pretended excommunication to returne home again. When Luther first began to write and set forthe boo­kes, his scholers murmured and saied, The incō stancy of the Lutherans. it was aga­inst the Christian liberte, that Christen men might not frely reade what bookes they listed. But nowe when the Lutherās them selues do swarue from the­ir master, and write one against an other, they runne [Page 45] to the refuge of the Catholike churche, and make in­hibitions forbidding all such bookes, as their felo­wes write against them to be read or solde: banishing out of their townes and countres with all the power they can, all such ministres and preachers as dissent from them. so it is now true amonge these heretikes that Athanasius and Tertullian wrote of the olde he­retikes of their time, In decret. Synodi Nicenae. Lib. prae­scrip. that is, what they approue to daie they reproue tomorowe. What they preache as the worde of God this yeare, they condemne as he­reticall nexte yeare: wauering like the rede with the winde, and framing their faith as occasion serueth.

Melanchthon seing that the licentious liberte plan­ted by Luther gaue occasiō of much suaruing and de­parting of one from an other amonge them selues, he put a newe cote vpon his religion: and whereas be­fore he acknowledged but two Sacraments, Baptim, and the Supper of our Lorde, Melanch­thon ac­knovvled geth iiij. sacramēts Philipp. in annot in e­pist. Pauli & in po­strema edi­ [...]one Loc. Com. nowe he addeth two more. Penaunce and holy Ordre. Penaunce he added to bring againe in order the dissolut consciences off his brethern, to set vp excommunication, and to e­rect in Wittenberg, the newe Lutheran Papacye. Holy order he added to the entent that the Masters of Wit­tenberg sending abrode their preachers, might binde them with an othe, to preache and teache no other­wise then they had lerned of their masters, as the te­nour of the othe (set forthe in the Ordonnaunce of the vniuersite of Wittenberg) declareth. Lege scho­lae VVitten bergensis ordinatio­nem. Although therefo­re the Lutheran protestants raile and inueigh with­out measure against the Pope, bicause vnder him do­ctours [Page] and other be sworne to the obedience of the Catholike church, and vniforme consent of doctri­ne in the same, yet they them selues swere and charge by othe against all reason their scholers for the main­teaunce and vpholding of their heresies, and abho­minable doctrine.

Notwithstanding these Masters of Wittenberge could not obtaine their purpose. Amsdorfius and Illy­ricus, Illyricus li. contra lu­stū meniū. two great masters of Luthers schole woulde ne­uer agree vnto them. but prouoked to the former writings of Melanchthon and Luther, wherein they plainely teache that all laye people, men and women are priestes, may minister the sacraments, may bap­tise, expounde holy scripture, teache and preache. This Illyricus lately wrote against Menius who had obiected him the saying of the prophet, Ierem. 18. that he ranne being not sent, that is, that he toke vppō him the highe vocation of a bishop, that he interpreted scripture af­ter his owne pleasure, corrected his brethen, cōdem­ned them of heresie, ruled the churche not in one place only, but through out the whole state of Luthe­rans, (whereas yet Melanchthon and the masters off Wittenberg neuer permitted him, but had decreed a­gainst him) finally that he was neuer called to the mi­nistery like a Lutheran, nor neuer ordained priest as a Catholike: but from teaching of a grammer schole, had taken vppon him the authorite of a bishop.

Thus in this bely fest kingdome of Lutherans, you may see howe soone visards be chaunged, and howe [Page 46] easie a matter it is to come a lofte. For when Menius and Maior two great masters of the Lutheran ghos­pellers obiect vnto Illyricus, that he was neuer called to the ministery, neuer appointed to the worde, nor sent to preache, and therefore he should be ashamed to plaie the bishop in the churche of Luther, and to cōdemne all other Superintendts, and Ministers that would not agree to his propre and seuerall doctrines, he awnswereth them againe, that according to the doctrine of our father Luther, Euery man was a priest, as cacthepolles, millers, barbers, Phisicians, vshers and scholemasters: especially such as profes­sed the Hebrewe grammer. But consider here I be­seche the gentle reader, how soone this wether is o­uercast. Now faire, now fowle, now clere now darke. For here as you see, while Illyricus hath to do with the masters of Wittenberg, the Scripture saieth that Euery man is a priest and fit to teache in the cōgre­gation. But a litle after, the same Illyricus hauing to do with Osiāder and his cōpaniōs in Prussia, curseth and banneth them crying and writing, that to dog­ged Phisicians (naming so the Phisicians of the prin­ce, who then were preachers of Osianders doctrine) Matters of religion and ruling of churches ought not to be committed. Illyricus li. cōtra Oūan drina iusti­luta. for that Phisicians were not called nor appointed to any such function. Be not these trim preachers and masters of the newe ghos­pell? is there not a ioly vniformite in their doctrine? [Page] Maior and Melanchthon when they fight against the Catholikes, Note the disorder of these Archeprotestants. if then you aske them what authorite they haue with their newe reformation to comptroll the whole corps of Christendom, and the church of Christ, being neuer called nor ordained of the chur­che to any such office, by and by they will awnswer you out of Luthers bookes, De Christiana libertate & de Captiuitate Babilonica that euery man is a priest, euery man hath authoritie to reade the Bible, to discerne true and false interpretation of holy scrip­ture. But euen in the same moment before they mo­ue a foote furder, you maye see them accuse and crie out at Illyricus that he being nother priest nor called to the ministerie, behaueth him selfe very seditiouse­ly in Germanie taking vppon him to comptroll the masters of Wittenberge and of Lipsia by his owne pri­uat and proper authorite.

Notwithstanding all these enormites and abur­dities ensuing of the bare text of scripture, the Luthe­rans seing them selues on euery side entrapped and coūicted, yet euer they plaie fox to the hole, and rū ­ne to this impudent shift to saie that. The next of ho­ly scripture is sufficient for all instruction and do­ctrine, that it may be vnderstanded of all men, and nede no gloses nor expositions. Is not this I beseche the good reader, a captious and suttle shift to thrust only the writen text to the people defrauding thē off the true meaning and interpretation of the text? Euē so did the Sadduces heretikes of the olde lawe before [Page 47] Christes time, as Iosephus in his Chronicles witnes­seth. So did after Christ, To cleane vnto the vvriten text only is an olde heresie the Arrians, Dimeritae, A­postolici, and many such other heretikes as it is to be senein S. Basill, Epiphanius and S. Augustin. If the text of holy write nedeth no expositiō, what meaned ou­re Sauiour, Scripture nedeth exposition. when after his resurrection, He expounded to his disciples all such scriptures as were writen of him, be­ginning with Moyses and so all the prophets? Luc. 24. What mea­ned Philippus to aske the Eunuche of the Quene of Candace sitting vppon his chariot, whether he vn­derstoode that whiche he reade in Esaie the prophet Act [...]. 8. and (after the Eunuches awnswer, saying, howe can I, if some expounde it not vnto me) to expounde him the text declaring the right interpretation and meaninge thereof? Againe what will they saie to that which the Apostle writeth That the holy ghost diuideth and di­stributeth to euery one his giftes, as it pleaseth him? so that all men haue not all giftes but euery man certaine and seuerall. 1. Cor. 12. as some the gifte of healing, other the gifte of diuers tonges and other the interpretation of tonges. Euery man is not a Phisician, diuine, or lawier, as S. Paule to the Corin­thians largely declareth, taking a comparison of the body of mā, where are many mēbres, and euery mem­bre hathe his propre and seuerall function. for what could be more absurde then if the feete would playe the handes, or the hādes do that which belongeth to the head? The like reason is to be cōsidered of functi­ons, offices and giftes in the gouuernement of Chri­sten religion. to the setting vp whereof God hath ap­pointed diuers and sundry ministeries, especially [Page] for the instructing and teaching the right vnderstan­ding of holy scripture, that we might thereby knowe his will and pleasure in all thinges without doubt or controuersie. Whiche if euery priuat and meane man without a teacher and interpreter were able to vn­derstande, to what purpose hathe the holy ghoste geuen in his churche vnto some the gifte of interpre­tation?

But what nede we spend herein many wordes? let vs reade the bookes of Moyses, the psalmes and the Prophets. see we not there a number of highe and se­cret misteries which before the coming of Christ none allmost vnderstode? And what meaned our Saui­our when he sayde vnto his disciples, Lucae. 8. It is geuen vnto you to knowe the misteries of the kingdome of God, but to the other in parables, that seing they see not and hearing they vnderstande not? What meaned our Lorde in these wordes? Truly this, that it is a speciall gifte of God to vnderstande well holy scripture: and that this gifte was especially geuen vnto the Apostles and to their disciples and successours, which should after thē beare their roume in Christes church. Againe that it was inough for the people, that (as much as is necessary for saluation) they might lerne of their pastours, prea­chers, and curates the exposition of holy scripture, by similitudes and parables agreable to their capacite. which may farther be proued by diuers places of ho­ly scripture.

But I would here gladly aske of our newe Masters when they saye that the texte of scripture is sufficient, that [Page 48] there nedeth no expositiō nor glose, why write they so ma­ny cōmentaries, such longe gloses vppon scripture, so many bookes and that without all measure? if we ne­de no exposition, then surely all the Lutherans boo­kes and writings be vtterly superfluous, vaine and to no purpose, but only crafty snares to catche the sim­ple and vnlerned withall.

But to tell you plainely what the protestāts meane by this sutle shifte to cleaue to the only writen wor­de, VVhy the protestāts crie vpon only Scripture. surely this it is: they would not haue the scriptu­re vtterly not expoūded, they meane nothing so (for that in dede nothing serueth their turne) but they would haue their expositions, their maner of expo­unding to be receaued and beleued as the very wor­de of god. But contrary wise, when they haue to do with vs, reiecting all interpretation of scripture they ring their olde songe in our eare, The worde of god is cleare, perspicuous aud plaine, it nedeth no exposition, it requireth no interpretatiō of the olde fathers or of the Churche. wherein you see what is their impudencie and contrariete: And this much haue we saide to showe that Scripture ought to be ex­pounded, that the bare text suffiseth not.

But here riseth now agreat question and worthy to be waighed. A questiō vvhat in­terpreta­tion of scripture is to be so lovved. Seing that holy scripture must be in­terpreted, and that we see abrode many and diuers interpretations thereof, and yet in one thing there can be but one truthe, and as scripture it selfe is vndoub­tedly true, so the interpretation thereof must be vn­doubted [Page] and certain, whether of all these interpreta­tions or what maner is to be accompted the right, proper and vndoubted. As for example. No Christen man denieth but that these wordes of the last supper, Take eate, Lucae. 22. this is my body be the very wordes of God Christ him self. And what coulde be sayde more plai­nely, more distinctly, more directly then these wordes of Christ are? Vide Luthe ri Confessi onem. de Coena. yet what happened? Al the sectes and heresies that raign nowe adaies acknowlegde them for the wordes of God. No secte denieth thē. Where­upon then riseth these greate and horrible dissensi­ons? surely not whether secte hathe the worde of god, but whether of them well expoundeth it. And see howe diuersly these fewe wordes are expoun­ded. Zwinglius saith these wordes. This is my body 1 are as much to saie, This significeth and betoke­neth my body. Oecolāpadius thus expoundeth them. 2 This is the signe or token of my body. Carolstadius 3 after this sorte. Herein sitteth my body. Swenck fel­dius 4 yet after an other sorte. This is my spiritual bo­dy. 5 Luther thus. This is my naturall body in natu­rall breade. The Catholikes haue allwaies thus ex­pounded it. VVhat the vnler­ned shall do in perple­xite and variete of interpre­tations of scripture. Vnder the forme of bread, it is the true boly of oure Lorde. Nowe what shall here a simple and vn­lerned man of the countre do, hearing so diuers and contrary interpretations of so fewe wordes? Truly if he will here of his owne head confer scriptures toge­ther and serch the true meaning of these wordes in scripture and the writen text, he shall be as wise he­rein [Page 49] as these men aboue mentioned: who all by con­ference of scripture you see howe swetely they agreed vpon the truthe. But if there were any certainte in conference (as sometimes it helpeth much) yet the simple vnlerned man, by common order of witt shal neuer finde it out. For how can the vnlerned and ig­norant iudge of that, which he neuer lerned? no more truly then the showemaker is able to iudge of the gol­desmithes worke, which he was neuer practised in. And were not that showemaker to be accōpted very impudēt and vndiscret, who seing two goldesmithes contending of the fines of some piece of gold or sil­uer, would steppe in, and take vpō him to determinat the matter betwene them? much lesse ought the vn­lerned medle with or determinat matters of Diuinite, or take vpon them to expounde the meaning of the holy ghoste, seing that in worldly affaires there can no waightier matter, of more difficultie, or of greater importaunce be taken in hande. what then shal the vnlerned man do in this case? If he may cleaue to no part at all, then must he be of no church, but make him selfe a newe secte, forge him selfe a newe faith, and so at length lese all faith, and become a very pai­nim: whiche god forbid that euer any man should persuade the vnlerned. If he cleaue to any part, yet is he in greate daūger. For almightie god cōmaūdeth strait­ly by his Apostle, Tit. 3. that we auoide the heretike. Here truly the laye man ought to take good aduise. Matth. 7. & 16. For he is bo­unde him selfe to take hede of false prophets, lest be­ing blinde him selfe and not able to vnderstande ho­ly [Page] scripture, he suffer him selfe to be lead of a blinde guide, such as the heretike is. But howe can the blin­de man see whether is guide be blinde or no? Truly of him felfe he cā not see it, vnlesse he hath lerned of suche as see wel, some certain token howe to knowe it. Is there then any such tokē or signe, or where may a man seke it? verely the mercifull prouidence of al­mighte God hath not failed in this point, but hath left vnto the laie, simple, and vnlerned man a certain and vnfallible token, whereby he may (if he regarde his owne saluation) beware of all false and heretical corruption in interpreting scripture.

There is no Christē man so rude or ignorant that knoweth not perfitly his Crede, A tokē to knovve the false interpre­tion of scripture from the true. and can reherse it frō the beginning to the ending. In the which though euery article ought diligētly to be marked and borne awaye, yet in this time none more, then the article where we saye Credo sanctā Catholicā Ecclesiam. I bele­ue the holy Catholike church. For in this worde Catholike, is the very true token and marke to knowe the right interpretatiō of scripture by, for that is called Catho­like (as S. Austin teacheth) VVhat is Catholi­ke. Cotra Gau den [...]iū Donat. lib. 3. which euery where and at al times is and hath ben. Thē this worde Chatolike at­tributed to the church, is that which hath continued frō the Apostles time to our daies without any bre­ache, diuision, or intermission. For such a church did God the Father promis to his onely begotten Son, speaking by the prophet Dauid in this wise. Thou arte my Son; Psal. 2. this daie haue I begotten the: aske of me and I shall geue the nations for thine inheritaunce, and the vtmost par­tes [Page 50] of the earthe for thy possession. which place all holy fa­thers haue so expounded, that God the father hathe geuen to Christ such a church, as should be spred through out the whole worlde, not only in Suethe­lande, Denmarke or Germanie. So the Son of god taking vpon him the nature of man, after he had here in earthe purchased our saluatiō, sente abrode the ho­ly Apostles as Embassadours through out the whole world to take possession of the foresaide inheritaun­ce, charging them in this wise. Matth. 28 All power is geuen vnto me in heauen and in earthe. Go ye and teache all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and the Sō and the Holy ghoste: teaching them to kepe al those thinges, whatso­euer I haue commaunded vnto you: And beholde I am with you all waies euen to the ende of the worlde.

In this highe and waightie embassage of our Saui­our Iesus Christ two thinges are especially notised. First that his Apostles should go and preache trough out the whole worlde. Secondarely that he will tary with them vntell the end of the worlde. In whiche two pointes Lib. de vni late ecclesi. (as S. Augustin at large disputeth against the heretikes of his time) this artikle of our Crede is comprised. I beleue the Catholike churche. In the which wordes we confesse that the church of Christ must be vniuersall, and spred through out the whole worl­de, and that from the time of the Apostles forwarde it should continewe by the continuall assistaunce and presence of Christ. And in this consideration the A­postle calleth the church, 1. Tim. 3. the Piller and groūd of truthe. signifieng by the worde ground the largenes of Chri­stendome: [Page] by the worde Piller the continuall, smothe, and not interrupted succession of the Apostles and their scholers, vpon whom al truthe is builded. And this interpretatiō of the worde Catholike S. Augustin teacheth in many places against the Donatistes, especi­ally in his booke de vnitate ecclesiae. Therefore to de­nie it were to become a Donatiste and to take the par­te of those detestable heretikes. And this much of this question.

But to returne nowe to the true exposition of ho­ly scripture, euery Christen man ought not only be­leue this article of the Catholike church, but be also one of the same, and beleue what so euer it beleueth, expounde and interpret the scriptures, as it expoun­deth and interpreteth them: condemne and reproue all such thinges as it condemneth and reproueth. And what surer token or more certain marke could God geue to discerne false expositions of scripture from the true, then this article of our Crede, I beleue the holy Catholike Church? For when thre cōtrary opi­nions, thre diuers interpretations of holy scripture are brought forthe, whereof two are fresh and newe, neuer taught nor heard of before our time, the third is auncient, accustomed, and receaued of our forefa­thers, deriued euen from the Apostles time and con­tinued hitherto, what laye or vnlerned man is in this case so rude or ignorant, but (if he liste, as he pro­fesseth in his Crede, to beleue the Catholike church which is allwaies and in all places) maye easely iudge this thirde interpretation to be the right meaning [Page 51] off the holy ghoste, the other two to be false and he­reticall?

For the more declaration of this matter I will re­cite here a storie, A prety storie of false interpretation whiche I lerned being a boye, and happened at Lubek. In Lubek there dwelled a riche man, whose familie and kinred was of Turing. This man being in Lubeck at point of death and hauing no child to be his heire, bequeued his goods to certai­ne of his kinsfolkes at Turing. They shortly after this mans decease coming to Lubek bring with them a Proctour, open the will, and founde there that the widowe of the departed man beside other goods be­queued, should deliuer them a thousand and two hundred shipbordes, commonly called there Wa­genschoff. But the Proctour and heyres of Turing cauilling vppon the worde Wagenschoff required a thousand and two hundred greate pieces of artillerie: saying that in their countre the worde so signi­fied. Neither would these men of Turing be brought from their chalenge, vntell at the length the matter must be tried by iudgement. Wherein their processe being longe debated, and bothe partes heard, it was founde that the interpretation of the worde Wa­genschoff alleaged by those of Turing was a newe and straunge interpretation neuer heard of before in that countre: whereas the widowe by the consent of all the people and the whole countre proued, that of olde time the worde Wagenschoff signified no­thing els thē shipbordes which are cōmonly brought thither out of Lifland and Pole. Whereuppon the [Page] interpretation of the proctour of Turing was reiected and laughed to scorne as newe, curious, superstiti­ous, and straunge. Much more ought we that are Christians do the like in these newe and straunge expositions of Gods worde inuented by proude and presumptuous heretikes, detesting and auoidinge them as present poison. For surely such newe forged interpretatiōs ones spread abrode, 2. Tim. 2. do crepe like a can­cre and infect daily more and more, as we see nowe by experience in sundry places.

Euery man nowe a daies calleth vpon scripture: e­uery man demaundeth the expres worde of God. And what I praie you can be more expresse then that the Apostle S. Peter saieth So that ye first knowe this that no prophecie in the scripture hath any pri [...]t interpretation? 2. Petri. 1. In the which wordes it is to be noted that S. Peter will haue vs first and before al other thinges knowe this, that no prophecie in the scripture hathe any priuat interpre­tation. Therefore it must nedes be very perilous to beleue straight this or that interpretation, whatsoe­uer we here. For it is a common saying, it is euill toying with the eye, with maydenhood, and with our faith.

But many there are nowe a daies, Avvicked persuasiō of vvorl­dly care­ler men. which when they heare contrarietes in doctrine, and diuers inter­pretations of scripture, they comforte them selues ca­relesly in this sort. What nede we passe for the con­tentions of preachers, and controuersies of Diuines? Although they misse in certain pointes, and disagree in some certain articles, yet our faith and belefe is not [Page 52] brokē or empaired. We in the meane season will saie oure Pater noster, beare awaye oure Crede, and the ten commaundements, and peraduenture the catechisme of children. As for other matters, let the lerned con­tend amonge thē selues as longe as they list, we pas­se not vppon it. But alas, o mercifull God, what a vai­ne comforte and pernicious persuasion is this? For what saythe S. Iames the Apostle? Whosoeuer, saythe he shall kepe the whole lawe, Iaco. 2. and yet faile in one point, he is giltie of all. So is it in our faith, who denieth one arti­cle, denieth the whole. This vayne comfort teached first the Zwinglians. Vide Ious. Lascy cōtra episcopum Hosium, et Lutherum in vltima Cōfessione suade Coe­na Deu [...]i [...]. against the which Luther in his laste confession writen against the Sacramentaries, saieth, that faith is like to a bell, which as longe as it is whole kepeth his true sounde, but when it is anything crased or cleft, it iarreth and leseth cleane his proper tune, like as an ear then vessel as longe as it is whole and sounde is called a pot a crocke, or some like thing, but ones broken or cleft it leseth his name and is called a potsheard. Let no man therefore comforte him selfe with this vaine hope, that al­though their preachers and ministres erre in some pointes, yet are good Christians in other pointes, for that auaileth nothing. You must be saued within the arke of Noe or be drowned with out it. There is he­rein no middle waye. Therefore you must take very good hede that you be not deceaued: lest that while wantōly and negligently you harken to euery newe doctrine and forged interpretation of scripture that one or two newe preachers teache, you lese you­re soules in good earnest. Remembre rather what the [Page] prophet saieth. Euery man is a lyar. Psalm. 115 He meaneth not al men together. For I for my part, and you for youre part, and euery man a part, may lie, erre, and be de­ceaued. But all good men together, that is, the whole Catholike churche of Christ can not erre in any article of faith. Matth. 16. 1, Timo. 3. For it is builded vpon the rocke of truthe, and vpon that consideration is called the piller and grounde of al truthe. Therefore when the simple and vnlerned man heareth sundry and cōtrary expositions of holy Scripture, let him haue recours to his faith and fully determinat with him selfe (for that he is not lerned in holy scripture) not to take any other waie or folow any other guide then the article of his Crede, I beleue the holy Catholike church, persuading him selfe vndoubtedly that to be the only true interpretation of scripture, which is Catholike. That is, which together with the writen text, hath by the Apostles and their successours ben spred trough the whole worlde, and continued vniforme and vncorrupted euen to our time.

And this only rule may serue as a buckler for the vnlerned mā, A buckler for the vnlerned a­gainst nevve prea­chers. that as ofte as newe preachers set a bro­che any newe doctrine and straunge, then to thinke this with him selfe. I am a man vnlerned, I can not perceiue the drift of their disputing, I can not iudge of their cōtrouersie: But seing that my Crede teacheth me to beleue nothing, but that which is Catholike and hath allwaies ben kept and receaued in Christēdom, what shall I do to knowe whether these newe prea­chers doctrine be Catholike or no? Here this vnler­ned [Page 53] man must remembre the counsell of Moyses, say­ing. Aske of the daies that are past, which were before the, sence the daie that God created man vpon the earthe, Den. 4: and as­ke frō one side of the heauē vnto the other, and in an other place. Deut. 32. Remēbre the daies of the worlde that is past. Consider the yeares from time to time, aske thy father and he will showe the: thy elders and they well tell the. For this is the true guide of a blinde man, and ignorant, to aske and enquire, what his forefathers, what his neighbours, what the townes and countres about haue allwaies obserued and beleued, sence the time they were first traded in Christen religion, and haue so many yeares continued in. This is the faith of that cooliar: which being at point of deathe, A very good faith of a Coolyar. and tempted of the deuill what his faith was, awnswered. I beleue and die in the faith of Christes church. Being againe demaun­ded what the faith of Christ his church was, that faith, saied he, that I beleue in. Thus the deuil getting no other awnswer of the simple man, was ouerco­med and put to flight. By this faith of the cooliar e­uery vnlerned man may trie the spirits of men whe­ther they be of god or no, by this faith he may resist the deuill, iudge the true interpretation of scripture from the false, and discerne the Catholike preacher from the hereticall Minister, the true doctrine from the forged.

But to set this whole matter before your eies as it were in a glasse, A readie vvaie to trie out an heretike. take this example. Suppose there ca­me to some greate cyte fiue different and contrary preachers, as by name, Caluin a Zwinglian, Longinusa [Page] Swencfeldiā, Functius an Osiandrin, Illyricus a Lutherā, and some Catholike doctour: suppose the magistra­tes of the cite graunted these fiue euery one to pre­ache and defend openly his owne priuat doctrine. what shal the vnlerned laie mā do here, that he folowe not a blind guide and so fall bothe in to the dike? Matth. 13. surely as we haue saied before, so must he do. he shall aske first of Master Caluin whether his doctrine be the pure and very worde of god when he writeth that in the Supper of the Lorde not the true body of Christ, Caluin [...]s libr. contra Ioachimū VVestpha­lum. but only the figure of his body is there, and is geuē. Againe that originall sinne is but a naturall infir­mitie of the minde, Zuinglius lib. de bap­tismo cōtra Vrbanum Regium. Caluinus li. de praede­stinatione. not giltie of eternall dānation. Or els that God is the cause of the sinne of man, that god compelleth and forceth men to wicked­nes, blasphemies, horedome, theft, lyeng, deceites and such other. Here of Caluin awnswer that al this is the pure and cleare worde of god, let him aske him againe in what place of the Bible he readeth expres­ly these wordes: In the Supper is not the true body of Christ but the figure only: Originall sinne is but an infirmitie not giltie of eternall damnation, laste of all that men are constrained of God to sinne. To this Caluin will surely awnswer that although this his doctrine be not founde in scripture expres­ly in these wordes or termes, Theodorus Beza in defensione Caluini. yet that this sentence and meaning is there. Marke here then that the do­ctrine [Page 54] of Caluin is not the expresse worde of God, but the meaning and interpretation of it. And this lo is their first deceite. Let the laye man go yet farder with Caluin, and aske whether this his interpretation be Catholike, whether that Christen religion began with this doctrine, in Germany, Fraunce, Italy, En­gland or any other where, whether this his doctrine was preached of the Apostles and their successours, receaued and vsed in the Catholike churche, and de­riued from our forefathers to vs, through out al the­se countres. For I (maye the laye man saie) haue asked here of my elders, which denie they euer heard any such thing. I haue enquired of the cytes and countres here about, they knowe it not, but saie it is newe and very straunge vnto them. And here Caluin can not denie but that it is so ( and our men are not ashamed to sai [...] that these thousand yeares all truthe hath ben loste) therefo­re the vnlerned man may here boldly saye vnto him Well Sir if it be so, fare you well. I entend not to medle with you nor your doctrine any more. Epiph ani­us lib. 2. cō tra hereses. Tit. 3. So Athana­sius writeth to Epictetus the bisshop, that it is inough to awnswere an heretike after this sort. The Catho­like Church neuer taught this: the holy fathers neuer recea­ued this. VVherefore it is writen. Auoide the heretike man.

In the like maner shall the vnlerned and laie man behaue himselfe with the Suenck feldian, demaun­ding of him, whether this be the pure worde of God, when he teacheth. That Christ as touching his hu­main nature is not a creature, but a begotten thing [Page] conceiued and borne of the holy ghoste, Suentfel­dius lib. de dup. statu Christi & mulnis alijs tractat. and that afther the ascension of Christ in to heauen, his huma­nite was made God or rather was chaunged in to God. Againe that, the same power and operation which is in the worde of God preached, is the only begotten euerlasting Son of God. Laste of all, that all the giftes and graces of God be parcels of the diuine nature. For when Longinus the Swenckfeldian shall saie that these doctrines are the very sincere wor­de of God, the laye man maye aske of him againe where holy scripture doth clerely expresse this do­ctrine. To this Lōginus cā make no other awnswer, then that although it be not there expressed, yet it is there mente and vnderstanded. here if to the laye mā asking whether this meaning and vnderstandinge be Catholike, and planted by the Apostles or their scho­lers in Swethen and Silesia, and from thence deriued vnto our time, Longinus do awnswer ye: then must he proue in what place of Silesia and vnder what bis­shop that happened. Which being not able to do, he proueth him selfe a vaine folowe and a lyar. But if he saie, that this doctrine vntell this time was not recea­ued in Silesia, bicause our forefathers were not of ca­pacite to conceaue these high misteries, the laye man may roundely saie vnto him. Auaunt heretike, and take this f [...]r a finall awnswer. The Catholike church neuer taught this: the holy fathers neuer receaued this: Whe­refore it is writen, Auoide the heretike man.

[Page 55] After the same order also maye the laye man aske of Functius the Osiandrin, Osiāder lib de Confessi one doctri­nae suae. Hiorem. 23. & 33. when he teacheth vpon these wordes of Hieremie, God is our righteousnes, that man ought to be iust by the essentiall iustice of God: againe that Christ doth iustifie vs with his only diuinite, the humanite being excluded, and such like doctrine, which he calleth the very expresse worde of God, in what place of scripture it is read. When he awnswereth, that worde for worde it is not in scripture, but it agreeth well with the meaning of scripture, let him be asked againe, whether this his meaning agree with the Catholike expositiō of scri­pture deriued from the holy fathers and successours of the Apostles, and obserued hitherto continually in the church of Christ without contradiction. Here if Functius (his conscience forcing him) do confesse that this doctrine was of late planted in Prussia by Andreas Osiander, and although it was not vntell no­we reueled, yet according to his iudgement it agreeth very well with the worde of God and the ghospell, the laie man may geue him the finall awnswer of A­thanasius, The Catholike churche neuer taught this, the ho­ly fathers neuer receaued this. Tit. 3. Vide Amsdorsium de ha [...] propo­s [...]one. Luther. in 3. cap. ad Gal. Wherefore it is writen. Auoi­de the heretike man. The like awnswer also may be ma­de to the straunge doctrine of Illyricus the Lutheran writing, That good workes are pernicious to sal­uation: that God doth iustifie men by wordes and not by dedes. And truly this awnswer is of such for­ce, and so mete for a Christen man, that vnto all he­retikall [Page] interpretations, to all erroneous doctrine, yea though an Angel frō heauē, if it were possible, should bring any newe ghospell, it might with these wordes be awnswered. A waye false prophet, the third Elias, the fifte Euangelist. For The catholike church neuer taught this, the holy fathers neuer receaued this. Wherefore it is writen. Auoide the heretike man. Last of all the vnler­ned laye man may well also demaunde of the Ca­tholike doctour or preacher, howe he liketh the opi­nions of these newe ghospellers. whereunto he will awnswer, that he hathe perceaued these newe and straunge interpretations of holy scripture, and after longe waighing and cōsidering thē, hath founde that they are all auncient condemned heresies: See out discourse. which nowe certain braynsicke men by the instinct of the deuill raised vp againe, to the vtter destruction of the Romane empire and our dere countre of Germanie. Therefore he is readie to showe by good groundes of holy scripture, by the right and Catholike vnder­standing of Scripture, that the olde religion hitherto receaued, is grounded vppon those two pillers, and v­pon them hath ben sustained from the Apostles time vntel our daies through out the whole corps of Christendom, and maintained sounde and perfit, against al busy barking of heretikes and cruell bytes of pagan princes. And is not this most agreable bothe with re­ligion and with reason, that we should embrace and accept that interpretation of the holy Bible for the true and sincere, which in all churches, of all peo­ple and countres hath ben receaued, confessed, prea­ched, [Page 56] maintained, and sence the Apostles time hither­to continued? as by the testimonies of auncient do­ctours we are able in all pointes euidently to decla­re? Contrary wise may we not worthely esteme these newe doctrines broched so lately, proceding of olde condemned heresies, and renued by wild worldely men, to be hainous heresies and detestable deceites of the deuill?

Surely this was the chefe and principall cause why I accompted the diuers doctrine of Luther and his fe­lowes to be hereticall, VVhy the author forsoke the Lu­therant. and for such do v [...]terly forsake it and detest it: this againe is the cause why I esteme the doctrine in all Christendom (which they call the Papacy) receaued, to be the only true and whole­som doctrine, bicause this doctrine is the Catholike and vniuersally receaued interpretation of scripture, but their doctrine is only their priuat opiniō and the­ir priuat deprauatiō off holy scripture. I cōfesse I haue emploied the studie off Diuinite, and laboured mat­ters of controuersie, about these two and twenty ye­ares, not medling with any other worldely or ciuill matter in all that time: nor I can not denie but I ha­ue ben a scholer of the Lutherans, and haue so farre lerned their misteries, that within these fourten or fiften yeares the diuines of Wittēberg would allmost haue cōstrained me to be a doctour of their vniuersi­tie. Againe I haue bestowed much time that I might thoroughely and substantially be lerned in the Ca­tholike doctrine, conferring allwaies the sayings and writings of bothe partes. And allthough that I had [Page] much a do to shift my selfe out of their crafty, capti­ous, and contentious controuersies, yet as sone as by the helpe of God I attained thereunto, espieng the erroneous and hereticall doctrine of the Lutherans, and perceauing the true and sounde doctrine of the Catholikes, The duty of a con­uerted Catholi­ke. I laboured not only vtterly to ridde my stomacke of that poisonned doctrine of Luther, but also to auoide all company and familiarite of hereti­kes, that I might neither see them, nor heare of them. Which lacke of my olde acquaintaunce and maner of liuing, bothe empaired much the helthe of my body, and procured also great losse of my substaunce. And is like to do daily more and more, vnlesse God of his mercie stretch forthe his helping hande. Howbeit whatsoeuer befall of me, I am ready to lese body and life, honour and goods for the furderaunce of the auncient Catholike religion. And I wish to my dere countre of Germanie that minde also. For sure I am, whosoeuer is no Catholike, he must nedes be an he­retike. Seing therefore that holy write aduertiseth vs to flie from heresies euen as from present poison, I be seche all good men to marke wel this example which I knowe to be true, and wil here recite, to showe what it is to be ones fallen in to heresie.

A certain young man of my acquayntaunce, A notable example of the sun dry sectes in Ger­many. very well lerned and sometime preacher in Misnia, being according to the doctrine of Melanchthon and Ma­ior an Adiaphoriste, that is, of that secte of Lutherans which take good workes and constitutions of the church to be thinges indifferent, &c. departed in to [Page 57] Saxony vppon hope of some ecclesiastical liuing the­re. Being then demaunded of what religion he was, he awnswered that he was of the opinion of Philip Melanchthon and Georgius Maior. Then saieth vnto him the Illyrican Superintendent, it semeth thou arte an apostat heretike. And withall asked him whether he thought good workes to be pernicious vnto sal­uation, Whereunto this poore preacher awnswering, he beleued that they helped rather then hindered saluation, the Superintendent strait saith vnto him, Seing you are an heretike of the ghospell, you maye not abide in this cite nor countre: and therefore get you hence. With this awnswer he departed and went in to Prussia, where meting with an Osiandr in Su­perintendent, and desiring some ecclesiasticall serui­ce, he was demaunded, whether he beleued That man ought to be made iuste by the essentiall iustice of God, and whether he iudged those for heretikes which thought or taught the contrary. Whereunto awnswering that he could not so thinke, seing that Melanchthō and Illyricus interpreted the scripture o­therwise, incontinently he was thrust backe like an heretike, and commaunded to depart out of all the dominions of that countre. After this he came in to Pole, and meting with certain Caluinistes, being of thē examined, and founde that he agreed not with the Zuinglians, he was repelled also of them for an here­tike. Seing then he could not spede there, passing on furder by the waye he came to the Picardi, hoping [Page] that he might be receaued in to their secte. But when he refused to abiure all other sectes and religions and beleue onely them, he was faine to departe thence also. After which he came to a Noble man of Silesia requiring seruice, of whom being required howe he liked the doctrine of Swenck feldius, whether he bele­ued, That the externall ministerie or preaching was but superfluous, and that the internall worde or rather the power and operacion off the worde being preached were the Son of God him selfe, he awnswered that this doctrine semed vnto him an ol­de heresie confuted thouroughly of Illyricus, Me­lanchthō, Caluin and diuers other writers. Which awn­swer nothing pleasing that Noble mā, our poore Mi­nister was forced to get him packing. Seing therefo­re that he loste his labour and spent his time in vaine, he stroke ouer to Morauia where the Anabaptistes beare rule. Not that he minded to tary and abide with them, but to trie and knowe their religion. But they craftely preuēting him, asking him first of what reli­gion he was, though he went about the bush with them, thinking to coulour the matter, yet they per­ceauing that he liked not their rebaptising, he was al­so chased from thence as an heretike.

At the last after longe and wery trauail and trou­ble, this poore Minister came vnto Vienna, where he happened vpon a Catholike lerned man, vnto whom he declared his trauaill, aduersites, and diuersites off heresies that he chaunced vpon, beseching him for [Page 58] the loue of God to helpe him and instruct him, ho­we he might attaine to some sure and certaine do­ctrine, and interpretatiō off holy scripture. A necessary lesson for decei­ued protestants. Then was it tolde him, that he should folowe such doctrine and embrace such interpretation of Gods worde, as was Catholike and vniuersally receiued in all places, and at al times, casting awaie all priuat opinions and pro­pre interpretations of this secte or that secte. For it was impossible that any priuat secte could admit the Catholike exposition of scripture whiche is commō to all, or that the sectes could euer agree among them selues, eche one setting forthe his owne opinion and condemning all the rest. As it is writen in the pro­phet Ezechiel, Ezech. 13. Wo be vnto these foolish prophetes which folowe their owne sprit and see nothing. Therefore if he would be a Christen man, and in all places be taken for such, he should embrace and folowe the Catho­like vnderstanding of scripture, such as in Catholike doctours and writers we find. From the which Ca­tholike and vniforme expositiō of scripture although many in diuers countres haue failed, and departed, yet before our time, it was in all places without contra­dictiō or gainesaieng receiued and beleued, and many thousands of soules haue in that belefe ben saued. Beside that there are also yet diuers Christen Coun­tres and kingdomes, diuers natiōs and people, which acknowledg no other doctrine or interpreation of holy scripture, then the Catholike and olde accusto­med: which they haue receaued of the Apostles and their first founders of religion. Wherein if any doubt [Page] nowe a daies ariseth, or any cōtrary interpretation be brought, it is most expedient to seke of the first and most auncient teachers of Christen religion the tru­the thereof. For so Scripture willeth vs to do, and all auncient and approued doctours, as in S. Irenee a wri­ter very nie vnto the Apostles, you may see, whose wordes are these. These thinges then being so euident, we ought not to seke the truthe at other mens handes, Lib. 3. cap. 4. cōtra hereses. which we maye easely haue of the Church. A God­ly instru­ction of Ireneus. For the Apostles left vnto the church and layde vp in her as in a riche aumerie all tru­the, that whosoeuer listeth, may drawe of her the drinke of li­fe. For the Church is the gate of life, all other are theues. the­refore we must auoide them, but loue all that the Church tea­cheth vs and embrace the traditiō of truthe. For what if there were but a small matter called in controuersie, ought we not to haue recourse to the most aūciēt Churches, in the which the Apostles haue liued, and enquire of them the truthe and cer­tainte of our doubt? And what if the Apostles had not left vn­to vs scripture at all? ought we not to haue folowed the order of tradition which they deliuered vntothē, whom they left to gouuerne the Churche after them? the which order many na­tions of Barbarous people such as beleue in Christ, do folowe: hauing their saluation without paper and ynke, by the holy ghoste writen in their harte, and keping diligently their ol­de traditions. Thus farre S. Irenee. With this good les­son and information the Lutheran Minister being somewhat amended, afterward in shorte time vtterly detesting all sectes and heresies, becometh a right go­od Catholike. And surely so it happeneth, that who so ones departeth from the church, if he entre but a [Page 59] litle with other heresies, he is accompted an here­tike of the heretikes them selues. From the which our Lorde of his tender mercy preserue vs alwaies. A­men.

Our forefathers the auncient Germans were euer accompted men of grauite, constancie, and of a set­led iudgement: not light brayned, inconstant or wa­uering with euery wind as peraduenture some other countres were noted for. For lightnes in dede in men of wisedome is a greate blotte. But what can be more light or more vaine, then to beleue euery light person without any sure grounde of his doctrine? Eccle. 19. He that beleueth quickely, saith the wise man, is light of hart. These preachers and newe ghospellers that nowe a daies runne from countre to countre, be vile vaga­bondes, light and wilde persones, men of no grauite, nor whorthy of any authorite. The out­vvarde be hauiour of the Lutheran in Germany. And that their oute­warde behauiour declareth. Their bearde they let growe only vppon the vpper lippe, like the Turkes, their cotes be cut shorte at the buttokes, with large wide sleues, as the sergents or catchepolles in times past were wont to haue, and thus like frogges they leape in to the pulpit, crieng and creking there. Our Confession of Auspurg is grounded vppon the wri­tings of the Apostles and Prophets, A vaine crake of prote­stants. and hathe en­dured these thirty yeares. Beholde good Catholike reader a wonderous matter. The Confession of Aug­spurg is thirty yeares olde. Is not this a maruailous lō ­ge continaunce? and yet these felowes will not be a [Page] knowen that our Catholike religion hath conti­nued these thousand fyue hundred yeares and abo­ue twise their thirty, without breache or interrup­tion.

Nowe where they bable that their Confession is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, doth not euery secte and euery heretike crake the same? Do not the Anabaptistes crie, it is writen, in the xxvj. of Marke. He that will not beleue, shall be condemned. Euery he­retike all ageth the scripture. But children haue no faith and can not beleue, ergo they can not be saued nor ought not be baptised [...]Like wise the Zuingliās crie they not that it is writē in the vj. of Ihon. The flesh profiteth nothing? and therefore they will haue it but bread in the Sacrament? Againe the scholers of Osiander alleage they not the saying of the prophet the 23. of Ieremie. Iehouah is our iustice? Who can denie but all these allegations be the writinges of the Apostles and prophets? why thē do the Lutherās abhorre the Anabaptistes? why condē ­ne they Osiander and his felowes? why doth Luther call Zuinglius an heretike? Do not they crie that their doctrine, as well as the other crie that their Confession is grounded vpon the writings of the Apo­stles and prophets? yes they crie truly so, euen as low­de and as truly as the Lutherans. What thē lacketh in this matter? Truly not who alleageth Scripture, for that euery heretike doth, but who can proue his do­ctrine in dede not only in wordes by Scripture. For who cā abide the preacher, be he neuer so Catholike, [Page 60] that crieth only that his doctrine is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. It is not sufficient to alleage and hudle vp many places of scri­pture, which the heretikes do, as roundely as the Ca­tholikes, but you must by good reason and sure groū ­de proue that those your places be well and duly alle­aged and expounded. But by what groūde and reason may this be proued?

By thre maners of waies. First the teacher of any doctrine or preacher ought to proue and euidently declare, Hovv in­terpretation of Scripture is tried true that his doctrine or interpretation of holy Sripture is Catholike, deriued from the Apostles, re­ceaued through out whole Christendom, and con­tinued vnto our time. Secondarely that all the ordre, maner, and disposition of the church of Christ in the newe lawe was figured and shadowed by other obseruaunces and doings in the olde lawe. Thirdly that e­uery principall article of our Catholike religion hath bē confirmed with some miracle, whereby the veri­te of it hathe vnuincibly ben warranted. As for ex­ample.

Amonge vs Catholikes it is a sure and vndoubted The bo­dy of Christ vn der one kinde per fit and vvhole. point in our religion that in the blessed Sacrament of the aultar, vnder one kinde the whole and perfit body of Christe is contained as well as vnder bothe. This point we first proue by the expresse worde of God, vttered by the Apostle saying, that Christ can not be di­uided. 1. Cor. 1. Nowe that this saying of the Apostle is well applied to the one kinde of bread in the Sacrament, the common practise of Christes Catholike chur­che [Page] these many hundred yeares dothe abundantly witnesse. Againe it is proued by an euident figure of the olde lawe. For we reade in Moyses, Exodi. 16. that although some gathered more, some lesse of Manna (which vn­doubtedly as S. 2. Cor. 10. Paule witnesseth was the figure of our Lordes supper) yet he that gathered lesse, had as much as he that gathered more. So Hilarius pope of Rome decreeth, De Cōsecr. dict. 2. cap. vbi pars. saying. Where parte of the body is, there is the whole, for the like is in the body of our Lorde that was in Manna, that figured it. For not the visible quantite is to be considered in this misterie, but the spirituall efficacie and vertu of the Sacrament. Last of all this hath ben confir­med by so sundry and straūge miracles wrought from God, that who so hath any sparckle of Christen faith remaining in him, can neuer doubt, but that the bo­dy of Christ is as well vnder one kinde, as vnder bo­the. The stories of the Iewes may testifie clerely this matter, which happened in diuers places, as at Passau, Breslau, Bedurum. Vratisluia Ratispona. Regenspurg and Tekendorph in Bauaria, in the yeare of our Lorde 1337. and afterward at Berlin in the Marchise of Brandeburg in the yere 1512. In the ye­are. 1556. Vide Pon­tanum li. 5 fol. 432. and now la­tely in Pole in the dyocese of the Archebishop of Gnesna. In whiche all places it hathe ben seen, that out of the Hoste of our Lordes body, foined in with daggers by the Iewes, bloud hath gushed out, and ma­ny other miracles haue befallen. The which all sure­ly, almightie God of his mercie hath wrought for the confirmation of his churche in this article, that vnder the forme of bread is fully contained his pre­cious body and bloud, and for the conuicting also of [Page 61] the damnable heresie of the Maniches, who aboue a thousand yeares agone, affirmed that vnder the for­me of bread was the body without bloud.

This I haue brought in for an example, to show ho­we the Catholike doctours are able to proue euery ar­ticle of Catholike religiō: That is, by the Catholike, vniuersal, and receaued expositiō of holy scripture, by the figures and shadowes of the olde lawe, by the ope­ration of miracles Surely who can thus proue his do­ctrine, he may boldely saie that it is grounded vppon the writings of the Apostles and prophets.

Nowe if the Confessionistes speake as they think, when they saie their doctrine is grounded vppon the Apostles and prophets, and that they will proue it to be so in dede, let them trie their Confession and Apo­logie also by these waightes. Let them from the first article vnto the last, showe first that their doctrine is the right and Catholike exposition of Gods worde, then whether they can confirme it by any one mi­racle, last of all let them showe the maner and order of their Lutheran church to haue ben prefigured and shadowed in the olde lawe. If they can so do, I will warrant them, that all Christē people wil gladly subscribe to their articles and beleue accordinge to their doctrine. But if they are not able to perfourme this, then let them not obiect to vs their Confession or Apologie. let them suffer vs quietly and frely perseuere in our Catholike and auncient religion, and we will not let them to crie, to sweare and forsweare that the­ir Confession is grounded vpon the writings of the [Page] Apostles and prophets.

And thus much hitherto haue we spoken as tou­ching that which our Lorde saide. Vppon the chaire of Moyses sit the scribes and pharises, Matth. 13. do all thinges that they shall bidde you to do. For hitherto haue we talked howe to trie true doctrine, and howe to knowe such as sit in dede vpon the chaire of Moyses. It remaineth nowe to speake of the later part of Christes saying. But do not as they do. VVhy the protestāts bark at the euil life of the clergy. Which we must also no lesse discus­se then the former. For in this our miserable and vn­happy time bicause heretikes can not ouerthrowe by any good reason the very chaire of Moyses, the do­ctrine of the church, they take holde of the euill life of the clergy, and barke at the dissolute liuing of tho­se that sit in the chaire, making the people beleue that their doctrine is no other then their life and be­hauiour is: inferring very absurdely, that the doctrine and the life is all one and can not be diuers: which wicked opiniō hath bred much strife and caused mu­che trouble in the Christen common welth: as in the writings of the fathers we may reade treating of the heresies of the Donatistae, Encratitae, Cathari, and Apo­stolici: But we haue in holy scripture markes inoughe and that euident, to discern heresies which procede of euill doctrine, Mat. 18. Tit. 3. from the euill life, which procedeth of men. For heresie being a very plage and poison of Christen religion, S. Paule biddeth vs auoide and flie from the heretike after the first or second admonition. Bicau­se he is subuerted that is such a one, and offendeth being con­demned by his owne proper iudgemēt. And our Lorde bid­deth [Page 62] vs to accompt him for an hethen and publicane that he­areth not the church. And publicanes were a sorte of mē with whom it was not lawfull for the Iewe to kepe cōpany withall. S. Antony also that holy and famous ermite in his last wordes spoken before his death vnto his scholers, left thē these two godly and wholesome lessons, and most necessary for our time, Tvvo go­od and godly les­sons of S. Antony. as that notable bishop Athanasius writing his life reporteth. the first was. Auoide ye the venim of al schismatikes and he retikes. and folowe hardly the hatred that I bore alwaies a­gainst thē: for they are the enemies of Christ, and you knowe I neuer had softe or paisible cōmunication with them. The second lesson is this, Kepe aboue al thinges your vpright faith in Christ: and the religious traditiō of your forefathers, which you haue lerned by the reading of holy scripture and by my poore aduertismēt frō time to time. This cōmaundemēt of auoiding and shunning heretikes is not made for the lerned only, Math. 7. but also for the simple and vnlerned. Matth. 15. Which is readely proued by the sayings of our Sauiour. Take ye hede of false prophets. and againe. If the blinde leade the blinde, bothe fal into the ditche. and such other. The churche muste not beforsaken for the euill life of mē in the church. But to forsake the church and the Catholike doctrine of the same by reason of the disordinat life of priestes and other prelats, Christ not only neuer cōmaū ­ded it, but also very straitely forbad it: declaring the parable of the husband man which forbad his seruaūtes to wede out the darnell from the corne. Lest peraduenture say­the he, gathering the darnell ye plucke vp also the corne. let them therefore growe bothe together vntell the haruest time, Mat. 13. and then I will saie vnot the ripers, gather first together all [Page] the darnell and binde it vp in bundles that it may be burned, but the good corne gather in to my barne. For as it beco­meth not the seruaunte to take vppon him the cor­rection of such matters in the familie, as the master vpon some waightie consideration would haue reser­ued to him selfe, so much lesse in the church of Christ maye the laye men (whose parte it is to obey and fo­lowe, not to prescribe lawes and orders) take vppon thē the rule and dominion which appertaineth only to bishops and rulers in the church. Farder that this is the true meaning of our Sauiour in the place abo­ue alleaged, he declareth by an other similitude of the shrowde seruaunte, which saide in his harte. My Ma­ster will not come of a longe season, Mat. 24. and thereupon beginneth to strike his felowe seruauntes, eating and drinking and ma­king good chere. But the Master of that seruaunt will come (sayth Christ) in the daye that he loketh not for, and in the howre that he knoweth not, and shall cutte him of, and put his portiō with the hypocrites. there shall be weping and gna­shing of tethe: Our Sauiour hath here plainly and roundely (I trowe) warned the laie people, not only not to medle with, chasten, or correct their bishops, pastours and Curates whom Christ (as the Apostle saythe) ha­the appointed and set ouer them, Ephes. 4. but also not to trouble instructe, rule or reprehend their felowe laye folke. though nowe a daies (alas) nothing is more common then clouters, coblers, sadlers, taylers, cytezens, and men of the countre, gentlemen and noble men to ta­ke vpon them in the church of Christ the parte of Masters and rulers to interpret holy scripture, to pre­scribe [Page 63] their Curates howe and what to preache, howe to administrat sacramēts, setting them vp and downe at their pleasure, whereas they ought by the expres­se commaundement of S. Paule obey and submitt them selues vnto their curates, vicars and bishops. For thus he writeth vnto the Hebrewes. Obey them that haue the ouersight of you, and submit your selues vnto them, Hebre. 13. for they watche for your soules, euen as they that muste geue accomp­te. that they may do it with ioye and not with grief. For that is not expedient for you.

But you will saie. These papiste bishops and prie­stes be men vnlerned, incontinent, dissolute, geuen to ryot, ambition, to couetousnes, to pompe, and to all vice. If you saie this of some certain amonge the cler­gy it may be true. But if you speake of the whole cler­gy, it is very false and vntrue. For not only amōge the laye people, but amonge the clergy also (praised be God) there be right vertuous, sober, and godly men, v­pon whom the fautes of the rest can not be fathered. Yet if perhaps all these vices and abominations were found in the whole clergy and rulers of Christes flocke, notwithstanding the commaundement of Christ must remaine in his full force and effect, Matth. 13. That the dar­nell be suffred to growe. Mat. 23. that the scribes and pharises sitt in the chaire of Moyses: do as they commaunde you to do, but do not as they do thēselues. Againe. Heb. 13. Obey thē that haue the ouer­sight of you for they watche as those that must geue accompte for your soules. Matth. 7. And euery man must plucke first the beame out of his owne eye, and then take the mote out of the priestes eye, Let vs therefore, good Christian reader, suffer the [Page] church to stande and continewe in his former and most receaued course. For without doubt she is so su­rely grounded vpon the Rocke, that hell gates shall neuer be able to ouerthrowe her or preuaile against her. Math. 16. As for the life of the clergy God is their iudge. For as of virgi­nite so of priesthode man can not iudge. Yet we dis­charge not here the clergy of the Ecclesiasticall cen­sures and punishements. For as it is sayde to the laye men, Mat. 13. touching the euill life of the clergy, Let the dar­nell growe on, so is it saide to the bishops, (as S. Augu­stin declareth against the Donatistes) 1. Cor. 5. Take awaye the euill from amonge you. Wherefore we reade of that no­table Emperour Constantinus the great, at what time certain bishops offered vp certain cōplaintes to be de­termined by him, to haue awnswered in this sorte. God hath ordained you priestes in his church: Eccl. histor li. 10. ca. 2 and hath geuen you authorite to iudge vs: and therefore we are well iudged of you: but you cānot be iudged of any men. It were surely very expedient that some reformation were had, to correct and chasten the corrupted clergy according to the prescription of their owne Canons, to thentent that such offences as rise in mens hartes against the clergy and the church throughe their inordinat life, might be remedied and taken awaie. But this is not in the hands of the laite or temporall rulers, whose part it is to suffer and obey.

ANother thing that the Lutherās ob­iect vnto me, is, that they saie, it hathe ben by my meanes and counsell pro­cured that the Bible is no more reade in the vulgar tongue: especially as Luther translated it. Nowe although I remembre not that I euer saide or wrote that the laye men ought not to haue the Bible in their vulgar tongue, yet iff I had so done, Laye men are not cō maunded to reade Scripture it had ben no greate trespas. For surely I could neuer yet finde in holy scripture, that the common people ought of necessite to reade scriptu­re. But that of the reading thereof much schisme and the destruction of many soules hath proceded, daily experience teacheth vs. And holy write warneth vs, where our Sauiour thus speaketh. It is geuen to you to knowe the misterie of the kingdome of God, Luc. 8. but to the rest in parables, that seing yet they see not, and hearing they vnder­stande not. Who are these vnto whom our Lorde saith, To you it is geuen, &c? Surely the Apostles and their successours the rulers of Christes flocke. Vide Theo philactū [...] Luc. cap. 8 And who are they that should lerne by parables? surely such men, as were better not to knowe the misteries, lest misusing them they procure them selues a grea­ter [Page] damnation. Math. 7. For precious stones ought not to be cast be­fore hogges, and such of all likelihod are the laye igno­rant people. Beside our Lord in that his former sa­yeng may seme very well to haue alluded to the .xij. tribes of Israel: whiche figured the twelue Apostles, Exod. 24. Num. 11. and to the threscore and ten elders chosen out of those twelue tribes, which also did represente the threscore and twelue disciples that were beside the Apostles. These threscore and ten elders of the Iewes had only the power (as stories declare) to reade and and vnderstand the misteries of the Scripture. The he­brevv text could not be readen of the cō ­mon Ie­vves. For at that time the hebrewe text vsed of the Iewes, had no vowels in all the text but only consonants. And this maner of reading without vowels was knowen on­ly to the threscore and .x. elders: the other Iewes kne­we it not, lest peraduenture the precious misteries of that olde lawe should be cast before hogges, the rude and curious people. Vide Iose­phum, Iusti num mart. in suo pa­raenetico. I renaeum lib 3. cap. 25. Clemē. A­lex. lib. 1. Stromatū. Hilariū in 2. psal. August. de ci­uit. dei. lib. 18. cap. 42 & 43. These threscore and ten elders al­so very miraculousely translated the Hebrew Bible in to Graeke, before the coming of Christ, they only hauing the knowledge of the text. So in like wise bicause the threscore and twelue disciples were cho­sen to reade and vnderstande the misteries of holy write, vnto whom priestes haue succeded (as in the principall seas and Bishopriks in Christendom by stories we are able to showe) therof it is euident, that vnto Priestes, Pastours and Bishops (whō God hath placed to ouersee his church) the grace of the holy ghost allwaies assisteth to interpret and expounde the misteries of holy scripture by parables vnto the [Page 65] people, as farre as for them is requisit. Wherefore the vnlerned laie men maye well be admonished to re­frain from all curious and gredy reading of holy scripture. First, lest rashely and vnaduisedly they take vp­pon them the office cōmitted by God to the elders, to priestes, and bishops: wich presumptiō we see hath ben greuousely punished in the examples of King O­zias of Core, 2. Par. 26. Dathan and Abiron. Num. 16. Thē also because ex­perience of our time hath taught, howe dangerous it is that euery laie man, craftes man, labourer, or other­wise, all without discretion, should reade and exami­ne scripture at their pleasure.

The sectes of the Picardi of the Anabaptistes of the Swenckfeldians and diuers other heresies proceded off no other cause, The dan­gers pro­ceding of the laities reading Scripture then that certain vnlerned laie people toke vpon them to reade, interpret, and expounde scripture. And what text do these vnlerned men rea­de? surely such as Luther him selfe or some other ar­cheretike hathe translated in to the vulgar tongue, and corrupted partly with false additions and preuy foisting, partly with hereticall gloses put in the mar­gin. Againe they come all to reading of it with a cer­tain preiudice that Luther hath appointed them, tea­ching that he which will reade holy scripture, ought not to bringe with him any iudgement, but seke it in the text. Which is as much to saie, that the vnlerned laie man nothing informed before in the faith of the church, nothing prepared with deuotion and humilite, nothing instructed by what meanes to [Page] vnderstande holy scripture may rashly and roundely set vpon it, as if it were Beuis of Hampton or a tale of Robin hoode. The vvel spring of heresies novv a daies. In this case if the vnlerned mā soden­ly imagin an exposition of some place, that liketh his braine, and serueth well his humour, be it neuer so contrary and repugnant to the true vnderstanding of holy scripture, yet he will not be brought from it, but cleauing vnto it tothe and naile forgeth him selfe a newe religion, frameth a faith of his owne, and set­teth vp in his hart a newe idoll, in the defence where­of he will spend his body, his goods, his life, and his soule. And this is lo the well spring of sondry here­sies nowe a daies.

Wherein me thinketh it fareth, A similitude vvor­thy to be noted. as if the common craftes men of a cite, vpon a stomach of priuat pre­sumption would sodenly displace all phisicians and remoue poticaries from their shops, persuading themselues to knowe as wel as they the vertu of their me­dicines, balmes, drogges, waters, ointmēts, rootes, her­bes and other such ware: and hereuppon would take vpon them to minister bothe to them selues and vn­to other, potions, purgations, and all kinde of medi­cine. Were not these men thinke you, likely to do much good in shorte time? especially if other would be so madde as to beleue them? would not experience quickely teache them to call home againe their olde Masters, Phisicians and poticaries, and set these men to their craftes againe? Surely so it is of the holy scri­pture translated in to the vulgar tongue and so made common for all men. For the laye man may so reade [Page 66] them, and picke out metsons mete for his appetit: but for lacke of skill (as experience hath tried) he will cast him selfe downe being whole before, and so (as they saie) shall paie for touching. For in very dede the vn­lerned man is not acquainted with the phrase of scri­pture, he knoweth not the language of the holy gho­ste, and although he heare the sounde, yet he seeth nothing, nor vnderstādeth not to what ende or purpose this or that be spokē. For it fareth in scripture as in medicines, which although they are ordained of God for the helthe of mans body, and are the giftes of God, yet if they be not vsed in time and place as the desease requireth, and as the lerned physician appoin­teth, they may be mischef in stede of a remedy: and serue to kill man being made to heale man. By this si­militude the vnlerned maie gather, howe dangerous it is for him to reade the scripture in his mother ton­gue: especially with the entēt to interpret it as he shal thinke best him selfe.

Nowe whereas I haue in dede founde faute with the translation of Luther, and haue withdrawen men frō reading of it, Hovv and vvhere Luther hath corrupted the text of the Bi­ble. I haue don it vpon good reason and waightie considerations. For it is euident that Luther in his translatiō hath bothe corrupted the text omit­ting and altering the very wordes, and also hath depraued the sence of the text by false and hereticall gloses partly added in the margin, partly foisted in the text it selfe. So by clipping awaie the termes of the text, and patching on the suttle shiftes of his owne braine, he hath gaily coloured his pernicious doctrine with the [Page] painted shethe of pretended scripture. I wil here brin­ge you for a taste some fewe examples of his liegerde­main, geuing you to vnderstāde, what conscience he is likely to haue in other doctrine, that feareth not to iugle, to cogge, and to foist in holy scripture it sel­fe.

S. Paule writeth thus vnto the Ephesians accor­ding to the Latin translation. Ephes. 6. Which also worde for worde agreeth with the graeke text. S. Paule corrupted by Lu­ther. Wherefore take vn­to you the whole armour of God that ye maye be able to re­sist in the euill daie, and stande perfite in all thinges. These wordes of S. Paule the honourable and lerned man George Gienger one of the preuie counsell vnto the Emperoures Maiestie, translated after this sorte. Dar­um ergreift den harnisch Gottes / auf daffir andem boesen tag widersteē kundt / vnd in al len dingē / als die volkommen / vesteen mijghr: that is Therefore take on the barnis of God to the entent, that in the euill daie you maie resist, and in all thinges stan­de as the perfite But Luther clipping the text transla­ted it thus. Omb des wegen so ergreifft den hamisch Gottes auff daf ir widersteen kundt an dem bosen tag / vnd in allen ewren thun be­steen mijgt. which soundeth thus. Therefore so ta­ke on the barnis of God to the entent that you may resiste in the euill daie and stande in all workes, In the which sentence Luther omitteth the worde perfecti in laten, als die volkommen in dutche, per­fyte in englishe. which deprauation of the text in this [Page 67] place, and cutting awaie the worde perfyte, serued his turne very well to raise vp againe the stinking here­sie of the Maniches. For he writeth that. Sinne is parte of man, and a thing giltie it selfe. which clea­ueth also so fast vnto man, that it can in this life, be taken a waie by no vertu of the grace of God or of the Sacraments, and therefore that man remaineth allwaies in sinne: nor is not able to attaine to any point of righteousnes in this life. The ma­ner of he retikes. And herein Luther as the maner and custome of heretikes is, fighteth a­gainst scripture with scripture it selfe. For S. Paule saieth: Not bicause I am alreadye perfyte, but I folowe iff that I may comprehend. Philip. 3. and a litle after. Let vs therefore as many as be perfyte be thus wise minded. Here he ma­keth mencion of two sortes of perfectiō. One which cōsisteth in hope and is looked for in the life to come of the wich the Apostle in an other place speaketh By hope we are saued. Rom. 8. an other, which Christ speaketh of saying. Be ye perfyte as your father of heauē is perfyte, Matth. 5. and again. Be merciful as your father of heauē is merciful which perfectiō is, Luc. 6. as for exāple, that oure glory be the witnes of our owne conscience, 2. Cor. 1. which we are boūde to haue in this life, and therefore ought to labour, as S. Paule before exhorted vs, Ephes. 6. Lib. de seruo Arbi­trio. Caluiaus de prae destruat. that taking vpon vs the armour of God, we may stāde perfyte in all thinges. Now Luther admitteth no perfectiō in this life, but teacheth, that man is so farre from being perfyte in this life, that God doth compell him to sinne. S. Paule vseth often times the [Page] worde perfection: but so that he confoundeth not the perfectiō of the life to come, with the present: which in this life as procliue and subiect to sinne, maye and ought be kept of vs as farre as our infirmitie beareth. Yet this perfection as litle as it is, Luther to the en­tent he might vtterly take awaie, he sticketh not as you see, to clippe the coyne of Gods worde, and be­reue the text of the worde perfite, lest any man per­haps woulde labour to be honest and vertuous.

The like slight vsed he in an other place of the A­postle, for the like purpose and intent. For whereas the Latin and Greke text bothe do reade, By the lawe we haue knowleadge of sinne. Rom. 2. Luther corrupteth it, tran­slating after this sorte. Durchs Gesetz ist nur er­kantuus dee Sijnden. that is, By the lawe is no­thing but knowledg of sinne. For as before he clip­ped awaie the worde perfyte, Lib. Saxo­nice eccle­siae contra Geor. Ma­iorē. Ams­dorffius in libello, Bo­na opera saluti obesse. so here he foisteth in the worde Nur (nothinge but) to buylde againe the for­mer heresie vpon this text. But although Luther (as by his writinges it is manifest, and as the Illyricans and Antinomi his scholers do yet teache) professed at the first, that the lawe nor before nor after iustifi­cation is necessary: and that good workes were per­nicious to saluatiō, yet afterward writing against the Antinomi his scholers, he corrected his former doctrine after this sort. That the lawe before iustification is in dede necessary for the knowleadg of sinne, but afterward is vtterly vnprofitable. For the maintenaunce therefore of this Pelagiā and Manichean heresie, the shifting in [Page 68] of the worde Nur (nothinge but) fitted his purpose maruailous well. For by this only worde he hath planted againe two notable and auncient heresies. Vide Nile­uitanum et Arausica­nū Cōciliae The one of the Pelagians, whiche saide that the lawe auailed nothing, but for the knowleadg of sinne, tea­ching what we ought to do and not to do, and that by the ghospell we haue no grace geuen vs to per­fourme that which by the lawe we learne to be good and godly. An other of the Maniches which teache (as Luther doth) that the lawe is made for wicked men not for Christen men: which can be helde in by no lawe, nor are not bounde to any good wor­kes.

In an other place where the Apostle according to the Latin and Greke text, 1. Cor. 9. hath thus. Haue we not po­wer to leade about a sister a womā? Luther thus trāslateth it. This pla­ce is also corrupted in our English trāslations printed in the yeares 1549. and 1551. Haben wir nicht macht ein Schwester zum Weib mit vmbher zu fijrn, that is, Haue we not power to leade about a sister for a wife? Here agai­ne like a false foister he shifteth in counterfaited dro­ges amonge the swete spice of holy scripture: adding thereunto of his owne these wordes zum Weib. that is for a wife. which is farre different from the meaning of the holy ghoste: and was neuer writen by the Apostle, nor reade in holy scripture from the beginning of the church by any Christen Catholi­ke man. But what intended Luther by this his addi­tion? surely to roote out of mens hartes all loue off chastite and virginite. (lest perhaps if S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles had caried no wiues aboute with [Page] them, some woulde be content also by their example to lacke them) yea he maketh the blessed Apostle a lyar, whereby he might remoue him cleane out of the Bible. For the Apostle say the in an other place. I would haue allen [...]n be as my selfe. 1. Cor. 7. That is (as he expoun­deth himselfe) that all priestes and preachers off the worde of God should abstaine from matrimonie and all pleasure of the flesh, to the entent that they might studie rather to please God then their wife. As also againe when he saythe. Ibidem. He that marieth his virgin doth wel, and he that marieth her not doth better. meaning the­reby that bothe are right good, bothe to mary and to liue single. Yet whem one of the twaine and the better must be chosen, certain it is that the Apostle preferreth single life before mariage. But Luther by iumbling in only these wordes, Luther addeth to the text. Lum Weib, that is, for a wife hath taken awaie the meaning and godly intēt of the Apostle not only out of the scripture, but also out of thousandes of mens hartes, Luther enemy to Varginite and vved­lock. not without great losse of many a soule. He hath beside hereby not only disgraced the excellent vertu of chastite and virginite, but also brought so in contempt the holy sa­cramēt of wedlock (as if it were in inuention of mā) that nothing is now more common then (as Luther him self teacheth in the sixt tome of his workes) If the wife will not let the maide come. And there be yet extant certaine epistles of Luther and Melan­chthon, and aduises geuen by their letters wherein they do openly permit and pronounce it to be lawe­full, [Page 69] that one husband may haue two lawfull wiues. Luther and Me­lanchthō teache pluralite of vviues. I could also alleage and note with my finger diuers examples hereof agreable to the doctrine of these blessed ghospellers.

Neither may any man here thinck that this false and deceitefull translation of Luther is any newe in­uented tricke of him selfe: it was practised also in the time of S. Augustin, who cōfuteth it with these wor­des. For vpon this respect ( sayth he speaking of relief ma­de to the Apostles) Lib. de opere Mona­chorum. cap. 4. godly and faithefull wemen hauing wordly substaunce, went about with the Apostles and mini­stred vnto thē of their substance, that they lacked nothing ne­cessary for this present life. Which S. Paule showeth he might lawfully haue done, as the other Apostles did: but he saieth afterward he woulde not vse his power and authorite herein. And this point certain men not perceauing, expounded not asister woman, where the Apostle saith, haue we not power to leade aboute a sister woman, but a wife. These men seme to be deceaued by the ambiguite of the graeke worde. [...]. For that in graeke one worde signifieth bothe a woman and a wife. All­thouh the Apostle so placed that greke worde, that they might not be deceaued. For neither he sayde a woman only, but a sister woman: nor to mary, but to leade aboute. but o­ther interpretours were nothing deceaued with this ambi­guite, translating it a woman not a wife. Thus farre S. Augustin, very plainely and roundely confuting the fonde interpretation or translation of Luther. Of the Canoni­call hovv resvsed in the chur­che.

There is in the church a laudable custome, and godly institution of the Apostles to applie holy scri­pture to the passion of Christ. So that Lessons and [Page] other praiers in the church, especially of priestes and other in holy orders, be so deuided and distributed in to certain howres, that bothe the storie of Christ his passion and the rest of holy scripture may by that or­derly distribution more cōueniently be vnderstāded. Hereof (as we haue before touched) were instituted the Canonical houres of Matins, of Prime, of the iij.vj. and ix. howres, of Euēsong and Cōplin. And that al this is not by mans cōstitutions or traditiōs, it may by diuers places of holy scripture euidently be confir­med. Dauid in a certain psalme writeth. Psal. 118. Seuē times in the daye haue I saide laudes vnto the vpon the iudgemēts of thy righteousnes. And that this was done at certain houres and prescribed times it appereth by an other place of the same psalme. I arose at midnight to confesse vnto the vpon the iudgements of thy righteousnes. And in an other psalme he writeth. Psal. 54. At euening: at morning and at none daie I wil praie and he shall heare my voice. Morning pra­ier in the church is coūted the Prime. None daie, the ix. howre after Masse. At euening the Euēsong. In the Actes we reade of the Sixte howre. Where it is writen that Peter ascended in the vpper partes to praie about the Sixte howre. Acto. 10. The iij. also the vj. and the ix. howre are­mēcioned in Daniel. at the which howres he praied with teares ouer against Hierusalē. Da [...]. 6. Complin time of praier appeareth by that which S. Luke writeth of our Sauiour. It happened in those daies he wēt vp in to the Moū ­te to praie alone, Lut. 6. and continued all night in, praier to God. These howres also by Gods institutiō are so distribu­ted for the remēbraūce of Christes passiō, that euery [Page 70] howre cōtaineth the remēbraunce of some speciall acte of the passiō. For at Matins time which is in the night Christ was borne, takē, beatē, mocked and scor­ned. At the prime which is in the morning, he was presented to Pilate and falsely accused. At the same ti­me he appeared after his resurrectiō vnto Mary Mau­delen. At the third howre he was whipped, Actor. 2. crowned with thornes, mocked, cōdēned, and bearing his cros­se, was lead to the place where he should be crucified. At the same time also the holy ghost was geuē to the Apostles. At the vj. howre he was crucified, geuen to drinke with gall and vineger, and reputed amonge theues. At the ninth howre he rendred vp his Spirit in to the handes of the Father. At Euensong he was takē downe from the Crosse: at last in the Complin time he was anoynted and buried.

This laudable, godly, and deuoute custome of daily setting forthe the passion of Christ by seuen distin­cted howres of praier, the Apostles and their succes­sours haue allwaies from time to time reuerently ob­serued. But Luther to the greate reproche of Christes church, and inestimable dōmage of Christen soules, hath in many places vtterly extinguished and aboli­shed it: placing for it the olde cursed heresie of Vigilantius. Which his purpose lest it should in any point be staied, such expresse scripture as declareth this maner of praier, he thought good by his false translation to depraue. In the actes of the Apostles according to the graeke and latin text, thus we reade. Actor. 3. Peter and Ihon went vp in to the temple at the ninth howre of praier. In [Page] all languages these wordes ( at the ninth howre of praier) be so translated, that they signifie some certain deter­minat and appointed time of praier: which Luther being desirous to abolise, interpreteth that place thus. Petrus vnd Johannes gieugen hmauff in den Tempel vmb die neund stund zu veten. that is. Peter and Ihon wente vp in to the temple about nyne of the clocke to praie. as though that the Apostles had by chaunce, and not of a set and prefix­ed order praied at nine of the clocke. And as though it were all one to reade in scripture, Great cō fusion in the chur­che by small alteration of the scrip­ture the howre of pra­ier, or in some howre to praie. But if a man list to see what greate desolation and confusion hath ensued of so litle an alteration of the text in churches and other place of godly foūdatiō, let him remēbre with him self the nūber of religious houses, Monasteries, Nunneries, Chappels, Hospitals, Almes houses, yea and cathedral churches, where God hath in times past ben honoured and serued at distinct and sundry times for the continuall remembraunce of his bles­sed passion, bothe daie and night: and nowe no serui­ce there at all: but are become either prophane dwel­ling places, or schismaticall conuenticles. And all this vnder pretence of abuses, which though they had crepte in and blemished that most godly institution and order of Christes church, the abuse should haue ben corrected: the good vse should haue remained.

In the same chapter of the Actes of the Apostles, S. Peter when he had healed the same man, he spake thus vnto the people. Acto. 3. Ye men of Israel why maruaile [Page 71] you at this, or why looke ye so on vs, as though by our ow­ne power or vertu we had made this man goe? that which the Latin text hathe pietatem the Greke hathe [...] and is well translated vertu or godlynes, Luther hath translated it merit, as though the Apostles had denied merit. But there is great difference betwene vertu or godlynes, and merit or desert. Yet Luther to take a­way all loue of vertu and good workes, laboured all that he could to persuade men, That good workes haue no merit, dejert or rewarde before God, and that they procure nothing but goddes wrath. Whe­refore all merites seming to Luther vaine and super­fluous, for the maintenaunce of this his heresie, scripture must be corrupted: seing directly it would not serue him.

In like maner behaued he him selfe in the Sacra­ment of holy Orders, to the entent he might take a­waie all priesthood out of the church, and set in their places rennagat prentices, and vnthrifty seruaunts, such as had spent their owne and robbed their ma­sters, to gouuerne the newe church by him erected. For this his purpose scripture must be wrethed and peruerted: lest the holy ghospeller might perhaps se­me to saie somewhat without scripture. Therefore whereas S. Pause admonisheth his disciple Timothe whom he had then ordained bishop of Ephesus, to vse well those giftes and graces of God, as had ben geuen him with laying on of the handes of the priest hood, that is, in taking his holy Orders, vising to him these wordes, 1. Tim. 4. Despise not the gift which is in the, which [Page] was geuen the thourough prophesy with the laieng on of hā ­des by the authorite of priesthood, for the worde priest­hood, Luther hath translated, Oure En­glish trās­lations printed in the yeares 1549. and 1551. haue cor­rupted this place also. Der altisten, that is. of the elders. Persuading thereby the people that holy orders is no Sacrament, and that it is not necessa­ry that those which must minister the Sacraments, preache, and gouuerne churches, be ordained of bis­shops which haue the authorite of priesthood, but that it suffiseth to be called to the ministery by the elders of the people as of the mayre, the shrifes, and other temporal rulers. The Ln­ther ns Ministres Whereof we see it hath happened that in Cites, townes, and Villages, where the Lutherā ghospel taketh place, showe makers and sadlers, poticaries and pedlers, taylers and tinkards, butlers aud bakers, and such other rif raf, neuer ad­mitted to holy orders, men of no lerning nor sobrie­te take vpō them the holy office of priesthood, prea­che their pleasure to the people to the vtter destru­ction of many a soule, and ministre the Sacraments without authorite thereunto.

But Luther and Melanchthon perceauing at the last this cōfusion, proceding by reason of this false inter­pretation to growe on so farre, that euery light and seditious knaue, as for example Thomas Muntzer in Turinge, Bernard Rotman in Westphalia, Matthias Illyricus in Saxony and diuers other in other places toke vppon them (not being called nor ordained, nor admitted by the masters of Wittenberg) to preache and gouuerne the people, sowing newe heresies and [Page 72] sondry schismes in the congregation: Luher and Me­lanchthō chaung [...] their language. sodenly they chaunged their tune. For Luther to refraine a litle his euill translation that it may serue for the Sacra­ment of order, in his last edition of the Bible, vppon the worde Altisten of the elders, he made this glose in the margin. So do al­so the la­ter En­glish translations printed in the yeares. 1 [...]52. and. [...]502. That is, of the priestes or of the priesthood. Melanchthon for the like consideration, though at the first he counted all the Sacraments to be but the inuention of man, and forged deceites, yet in his booke of common places, he reakeneth holy Order amonge the Sacraments, charging expresly that it should be taken and vsed for a holy Sacra­ment.

But this recantation of Luther and Melanchthon neither serued then to any purpose, The sch [...] clers of Luther diso­bey their Master. nor is nowe off any force. For the brethern stande stoute [...] in that which Luther and Melanchthon taught first, that holy order and priesthood was no sacrament at all, that e­uery mā and womā were priestes. Although this be an olde condemned heresie of the Aerians of Aetius and Vide lib. 2. Epiphā. de haeresibus & Bernardum. Pepusius raised vp now againe of Martin Luther by chaunging the worde Priesthoode in the worde Elders cōtrary the meaning of S. Paule and the com­mon receaued interpretation of all Christendom hit­herto. Yet hath it pleased Master Luther to renew and preache to the worlde and olde detestable heresie vnder pretence of S. Paules doctrine, and the expresse worde of God.

Nowe although these fewe examples might suf­fise to declare the honesty of Luther and vpright de­aling [Page] in translation of the holy scripture, yet for the more declaration thereof, I will adde yet one place notably misused and willfully corrupted of Luther. The Apostle writeth thus to the Colossians. Coloss. 2. Beware lest any man deceiue you by philosophie or vaine deceites af­ter the tradition of men, after the elements of the worlde and not after Christ. Thus readeth the greke and the latin text. But Luther drawing after his fashion the scrip­ture for his purpose, where it is in the text, After the elements of the worlde, he turneth it, Nach der welt satzungen. So hathe our englishe trāsla­tiō, anno 1552. & 62. Vide Lutheri prefaetio­nem in an­notat. Phi­lippi in Pa [...]um. that is, after the lawes and ordinaunces of the worlde. It is surely a straunge case to see howe variabel and braynsicke these ghospellers are. At the first broching of this newe ghospel, while Luther (as the rumor was) lyued yet in his Patmus, Philip Me­lanchthon, taught that sithen Christen men were all [...], taught immediatly of God him self, no man should study philosophie. For al the writings of Pla­to, Aristotle, Cicero, and such other were but friuolous tales and daungerous deceites, and to be burned and destroied (as in dede in many places so they were) but onely the Bible ought to be read and studied. For by these the holy ghoste would minister all knowledge bothe to serue God, and to liue in this worlde, bothe for euerlasting saluation and for this temporal estate. That a Christē man should not liue a studious quyet life, Genes. 2. for that it was writē, In the sweate of thy brow thou shalt eate thy bread, that is (as they expounde it) thou must be a plowemā, a showemaker, a bucher, a tayler, or some such handy craftes man: and so with thy ow­ne [Page 73] labour get thy liuinge.

This fowle errour, beside other occasions mini­stred thereunto, was of Luther in sundry places of his workes stoutely maintained and defended. One of such places I will here at large alleage. Writing vnto the Nobilite of Germany he hath these wordes. The vniuersites also haue nede of an earnest and sharp reformation. Tom. 6. fol. 589. Truly I must speake as I think. let him be angry that listeth. VVhatsoeuer was in­stituted or ordained vnder the pope, tended only to the furderance of vice and encrease of errours. for the vniuersites if they be not otherwise ordered then they haue ben hitherto, what other thing are they then (as it is noted in the Machabees) scholes of children and of the greke glorie, where is all li­centious dissolutnes? holy Scripture and Christen faith is not taught. but that blind ethnick philoso­pher Aristotle ruleth aboue Christ him selfe. VVhe refore by my aduise the Phisicks, the Methaphi­siks, Luther condem­neth good lerning. the bookes de Anima, the Ethikes should vt­terly be abolished with all the rest of his workes which professe to teache the naturall causes of thinges. Although therein nether natural nor spirituall knowledg is to be gotte. Beside that they are of such obscurite, that fewe haue hitherto vnderstode them, good wittes lesing bothe labour and time ab­out [Page] them. I dare well saie that euery coblar hath as much knowleadg of natural thinges as is to be got­te in those bookes. It greueth me euen to the hart that this cursed, and crafty proude ethnike could so longe a time abuse and deceaue the lerned men of Christendō. VVith this scorge haue we ben whip­ped for our sinnes.

This much wrote Luther in the yere of our Lorde 1520. out of these and such other writings of Luther, Carolostadius and Melanchthon first sucked out the contempt of philosophie, and all good lerning being so moued by the authorite of this german prophet, Luther. And by the yeare 152 [...]. they furdered the mat­ter so farre that in many famous vniuersites and cites all study of philosophie vtterly decaied. And al­though this doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon ta­king awaie from Christen men ( as Iulian the apostat Nicephorus li. 10. cap. 26. histor. eccles. Emperour did) all honest discipline, liberall sciences and good lerning, whereby the estat of Christēdom hathe alwaies ben in knowleadg and vertu directed, and to driue all men to handycraft workes and hus­bandry only, by a rude and bestly doctrine, yet it so serued that time, and was so wel liked, that at Wittē ­berg many scholers burned all their bookes, and be­came craftes men, sheaperdes, husband men and so forth. And Me­lanchthō becometh a baker. See the Table fo­lovving. Vratislauis. Carolostadius him selfe ( being before Archedeacon of Wittenberg) getting him to a village thereby beca­me sodenly a ploweman, tilled and sowed the groun­de him self, and brought wodde to the market of Wittenberg [Page 74] to be solde. Beside, many other cites, especi­ally Breslau did shet vp cleane all scholes, and for the space of certain yeares suffred their youth to roue a­brode without any education or instruction. Which if a man had asked them why they did so, the text of S. Paule serued them for a cloke of their foly where it was writen. Beware ye that no man deceiue you by phi­losophie and vaine suttelties after the tradition of men. Coloss. 2. But now Luther perceauing afterward that this serued nothing his purpose, retourning from his Patmus to Wittenberg he corrected Melanchthon and draue Caro­lostadius out of the dominiō of Wittenberg, professing then openly and declaring, that without grammer, logick, and philosophie, his ghospell could not be spread abrode conueniently.

Therefore in the yeare. 1524. Luther chaūgeth his hoo­de. writing to the Magi­strates and cites of Germanie of setting vp and main taining scholes, he laboureth very ernestly to haue restored againe, such as had decaied or were neglec­ted: making yet no mention of Carolostadius or Me­lanchthon by whom that enormite was committed. To quenche therefore and appaise the tumultes stir­red vp by his former doctrine and by Melanchthon, letting passe the foresaied text of S. Paule, he tea­cheth, that philosophie is good in it selfe, if it be wel vsed and not abused to deceiue mē. Which in dede had ben of him well saide, if he him selfe had not much abused phi­losophie to sett forthe his fleshely ghospell, and to persuade his wily and suttle opinons. But seing that he could not without philosophie and helpe of scho­les [Page] vtter the wicked wares of his fresh and newe ler­ning, letting passe (as I saide) the former text of the Apostle, he toke holde of the wordes that folowed. The elements of the worlde, turning it, the lawes and or­donaunces of the worlde. For philosophie hinde­red not so much his purpose, as the Magistrates and and lawes of the countre did. Whose authorite on­lesse he first ouerthrew, drawing men from due obe­dience vnto their superiours, he perceaued right wel, that his purpose could not be brought about, being to abolish olde and auncient religion, and to plant a newe of his owne inuention. To coulour therefore this his intent and fetch, he forceth me the Apostle to speake for him, and to vtter his doctrine in the vulgar tongue, putting in for the wordes of the Apo­stle after the elements of the worlde his owne wordes, after the lawes and ordonaunces of the worlde. As though the Apostle had commaunded, that bicau­se the ciuill lawes and decrees be not worde for wor­de expressed in the prophets or the Apostles, but in­stituted for a policy and worldy gouuernement, the­refore that no man was bounde to obey them. And this pageant so pretely entred of Luther proued not amisse: especially for the trim tricked translation, or rather transposing and altering of S. Paules wordes.

In an other booke entituled Of the secular power he writeth that amonge Christen men there ought to be no superiorite, no power, nor no Magistrat. In the very same booke, and in an Epistle againste [Page 75] the two edictes of the Emperour he writeth. Luther vvriteth against o­bedience to magi­strats. That our princes of Germany be lyars, obstinat, men wit­hout reason, very bestes, and to vse his owne wordes wild pret in himel, that is, like wilde dere in the element, that we ought to praie to God that the subiectes obey not their magistrats, nor go not to warre being pressed, nor geue any thing towarde battaill against the Turke: for that the Turke him selfe, is ten times better then our Princes. In the booke of his assertions against Leo the pope, he af­firmeth that. To fight against the Turkes is to resi­ste God, punishing vs by the Turkes tyranny. In his booke de Captiuitate Babylonica he saieth. Note the liberty of Luthers ghospell. There is no remedy to be hoped for onles the liber­tie of the ghospell (he meaneth his owne) being re­stored, and all mens lawes vtterly extinguished, we iudge and rule our selues. For no Magistrat (saythe he) no nor angell of heauen hath the autho­rite to prescribe any lawe ouer Christen men, other then they will be content them selues to folowe. For Christen men are fre from al subiection. Again in a litle booke againste the Collectours of wormes, he writeth, that no common welth is well ruled by lawes Last of all in his awnswer against Ambrosius Catharinus, he stormeth like a madde man and cri­eth out, that the Church of Christ and the ghos­pell, [Page] cā in no wise acknowleadg or suffer any Magi­strat or iurisdiction. For al these thinges be but tor­ments and cruell inuentions of men against Chri­stians. Luther then hauing by this false and foisted interpretation of S. Paule, founde the meanes to bur­ne the Canon lawe, to bring in contempt the Ciuill lawe, to raise vp the commons against their princes, beside many other seditions and rebellions hereby procured, I trust men will take hede and beware off such false, forged, and foisted interpretations. For who seeth not that there is great difference betwene The elements of the worlde and the ordonnaūces of the worl­de? Chrisostom, Theophilact, Theodoret, and other holy fathers interpreting this place of the Apostle, te­ache vs that the worde Elemen [...]s do meane that we should auoide the Astronomicall predictions, which are seldome without enchantemēts and coungering. And this is not only forbiddē by scripture, but also by Canons of the church, and by the ciuill lawes (as in Codice de Iudaeis & Mathematicis a man may se) is gre­uousely punished. yet Luther wil haue no other thing ment by those wordes of the Apostle (whatsoeuer the holy fathers saie) then politick and ciuill ordon­naunces, whiche he lowdely and lewdely curseth. And Melanchthon in despite of the fathers and Ca­nons maintaineth at Wittenberg most aboue other sciences Astrologie, so that in no place it is so much folo­wed and practised as there.

I could bring here diuers other false and corrup­ted [Page 76] trāslations of Luther, but that I feare me I should wery the reader with ouer long and superfluous re­citall thereof. Notwithstanding who so loueth the truthe and will not willfully be abused, he may iudge of these fewe examples, what trust is to be geuen to the rest of Luthers translation, an such other here­tikes, especially if he consider that he that is ones o­uer the showes will not sticke yet to wade furder.

But here peraduenture a man will demaunde. Sir if it be so that the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue be so perilous a matter, howe shall the vnler­ned laye man prouide that he be not abused in this case? For many there are amonge the laite that cā not refraine from reading holy scripture, taking it for a greate comfort, and instruction as well to bridle their passions, as to moue them to vertu. What part then of holy scripture might well be permitted them to rea­de? For the whole corps of the Bible were it neuer so wel translated, yet I doubt whether it were expedient for the laye to reade it. For it might be an occasion of idle and light thoughtes, if euery girle or yonge wo­mā should reade the stories of Lot, Gen. 19. Gene. 38. Num. 5. and his doughters of Lia, and Rachel the wiues of Iacob, of Iudas, and Thamar, and howe aduoutrie may be tried in we­men. Whiche all in the olde testament is to be reade.

Amonge the Iewes it was a lawe that before the age of taking priesthood, Vide Hie­ron. praefat in Ezechi­elem. which was of thirty yeares no man should be suffred to reade the beginning of the Genesis, the Canticles, the ende and beginning of Echechiels prophecy. And that bicause although [Page] all this were the worde of God, yet it was not thought expediēt that euery one indifferently should lightely come to these secret and high misteries, whi­che God would not haue reueled to all, lest being cōmō (as it happeneth) they should the lesse be este­med. Nor it hath not ben without the singular disposition and maruailous prouidēce of God, that throu­ghe all the west churche, the wordes of his holy Sa­craments haue amonge so many barbarous nations ben kept so longe time in the Latin tonge vnknowē and straunge to the common sorte of men.

Yet that the laite be not vtterly excluded from the misteries of holy Scripture, VVhat partes of Scripture may be read of the laite. but that they may as far­re as is expedient for them reade and knowe them, this our counsell were not paraduenture amisse. Bi­cause in holy scripture there are many stories, and o­ther thinges which are not necessary to be knowen not only of the laite but also of the inferiour sorte of the clergy, certain bishops of Rome many yeares past haue piked out of the whole corps of the Bible, cer­tain most necessary parcels thereof, and set it forthe together in the forme of a Breuiary or portise, to be read of the clergy by dutie, and of the laite such as li­steth. This is so distributed in to the seuen howres of Christes passion, that who so listeth applie him selfe to praier and deuociō, can surely imagin no bet­ter order then that is. The right Noble and excellent lerned man George Gienger one of the preuy counsell to the Emperours Maiestie, well perceauing the gre­at commodite thereof hathe translated the Roman [Page 77] Breuiary in to the German tongue in so handsome and pure stile that the Psalter, the lessons and the ghospels be as pleasauntely to be reade in the Ger­man tongue as they are in the Latin. It were there­fore peraduenture more expedient for the common and vnlerned laye men to haue with them some such to praie and reade in, then rashely trust to euery tran­slation: or confusely reade euery thinge they list. Es­pecially being so perilous a matter to swarue from the right vnderstanding of holy scripture, that the danger ensuing is no lesse then heresie.

It were also very profitable that certain Homelies and Sermons were gathered out of S. Chrisostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, S. Gregory, S. Bernarde, S. Bede and such other holy fathers, whiche being distribu­ted in to the Sondayes and holy dayes of the yeare, and well and truly translated in to the vulgar ton­gue, might safely and with great profit be reade off the common people. Beside where as many godly praiers for diuers necessites are to be founde in the doctours, they might serue also for common praier for the people being truly translated in to the vulgar tonge. Surely any laie man that desireth to reade scri­pture not of curiosite, but to strengthen his faith, to encrease his hope, and to kindle his charite, may in such bookes as we haue saide satisfie fully his desire and appetit.

THe third matter wherewith the Lu­therans charge me, is that I haue alle­aged falsely certain of their articles, whereby their enormous dissension appeareth, partly haue fathered some vppon them which they neuer taught. As touching the first point, doctour Smidelin preacher of Gopping sturreth vp heauē and earth against me, sweareth and affirmeth that the Lutheran preachers vary in no one point or groūde of their doctrine. But if there be any controuersie amonge them, the same is (saith he) not of any article of their faith, or of their Confession, made at Augspurg. Confessio Augustana A man may verely in many pla­ces finde light and impudent persons; which wil not sticke to call chauke chese, and saie white is black. But such an impudent preacher as this Iames Smi­delin of Gopping is, not this fourty yeares hath ben seen in Germany: which is not ashamed to write and set forthe in printe, yea that in bookes dedicated to men of worship, that amonge the Lutherans is no o­ne iote of variaunce in all their doctrine, nor no dis­sension in any article of their Confession. In dede this argument troubleth much the mā, that where di­uision [Page 78] and dissension is in the chefe pointes of Chri­sten religion, Note the grounde of this booke. there must nedes heresies be. But the Lutherans can not denie their enormous dissension and open variaūce in sondry pointes, yea in these ar­ticles of their Confession made at Augspurg, Ergo there be heretikes amonge thē and heresies great store. For whereas to the first proposition of this argu­ment no man can gainsaie, but if he be extreme im­pudent or very foolish, M. Smidelin shifteth him selfe to the other part and denieth stoutely that there is any one iote of variaunce or controuersie betwene them. Nowe then to proue the contrary and to stop­pe the impudent felowes mouthe (who being often­times frendely warned perseuereth yet in his folie) I will bringe here certain of his felowe Ministers and such as him selfe is, which may a litle remoue his bo­net from his eyes, and showe him the glasse, where he may see his owne impudēt face, and shameles loo­ke that blusheth not at so lowde a lie. The first testimony of the Lutherās dis­agreing. Nicolaus Ams­dorfius in his booke entituled Publica Confessio purae doctrinae Euangelij & confutatio praesentium Swermerorum vel factiosorum, writeth thus:

The matter amendeth neuer a whit, but wexeth daily worse and worse: It is no other wise likely but that we shall vtterly lese the gho­spell and in stede of it haue nothing but mere lies and hainous errours: and that for no other cause then that euery man foloweth his owne wit­te: and desireth not after the truthe. In the diet [Page] and conference had lately at wormes. In the yeare. 1557. Brentius and the Adiaphoristes would not condemne Zuingli­us and Osiander, bicause they were men lerned in the tongues and liberall sciences. But hissed vs out of the cōpany and laughed vs to scorne bicause we refused to agree vnto the conference and diet on­les those men were condemned. Some of our felo­wes ( the Lutherans) pretend that they cōdemne the Zwinglians, but Brentius his praeface vpon Ma­ster Iames Smidelins booke testifieth the contrary. For here they go about to reconcile godly Luther and Zuinglius, which is impossible. For who euer heard that two contradictories could agree? Such childish and impossible matters they be not asha­med to affirme, which wil be counted teachers and Masters of Christen religion, as though we and all other were stockes and blockes. But surely we can not embrace with quiet conscience the heresies of Zuinglius and Osiander. Neither can we subscri­be and yelde to such as haue departed and seuered them selues from Luther. The defi­nition of a zelous Lutherā. Truly if they had con­stātly cleaued vnto the worde of God and Luther and had not geuē them selues to alteratious, or yel­ded to them whiche first altered from Luther, there should haue ben no dissension nor variaunce [Page 79] amongest vs, and al these mischefs which we see no­we hang ouer our heades had ben escaped. Farder although the Ministers which after our departure remained in the conference at wormes, wrote after and published it abrode that they woulde not de­parte from the Cōfession of Augspurg, yet in dede they do cleane cōtrary. For while they wil not con­demne the Zwinglians and the Osiandrines, they can by no meanes agree with our Confession off Augspurg: but in so doing, they be all ready depar­ted from it. So haue they caused dissēsion and remoued all meanes of agreement. Our pro­testants haue vvell marked this. For if they would cō ­demne with vs the foresaide errours of Zwinglius and Osiander, then might we agree together aga­inst the papistes. But no we whereas the Confession of Augspurg teacheth that the Bloud and passion of Christ is our righteousnes, and that the bread in the Lordes supper is the body of Christ, this can not possibly agree with the madnes of Zwinglius and Osiander. Therefore these two repugne, to sa­ie, they remaine in the Confession off Augspurg, and yet go aboute to defend Zwinglius and Osian­der.

VVe therefore first and formest do condemne for heretikes Caspar Swenckfeldius and the Ana­baptistes [Page] which do contemne and refuse the exter­nall 2 preaching of Gods worde. Secondarely we con­demne the Secte of Osiander which holdeth no les­se grosse and impudent heresies. Our pro­testants a-recondemned by the Lutherās. Thirdly we con­demne the Sacramentaries, Zwinglius and his fe­lowes, 3 Fourthely we condemne the Indifferents 4 bicause in their churches beside the ghospell they will haue mens traditions to be obserued. For the ghospell admitteth no commaundements of men to be kept in their churches. But these indifferents coulour and counterfaite all thinges. to please the Emperour they embrace the papisticall Masse and religion, which yet they loue not in dede, and with all this will seme to remaine in Luthers doctri­ne. Is not this to denie God and his holy worde? Is not this to begyle and mocke the Emperour? Is not this to faine the papisticall religion and counter faite the Lutheran? This is if any thing be, to halte on bothe sides, to serue God and Baal, to please God 5 and men. Fiftely we condemne this proposition: go­od workes are necessary to saluation. The ma­ster Lutherans of Lipsia be Pelagians Beside these fiue some there are (as D. Pfeffinger bishop of Lipsia and his felowes) that teache man to be able and sufficient to dispose him selfe to grace, and make him selfe meete to receaue the holy ghost by the na­turall [Page 80] power of his owne fre will, as the same So­phistes Thomas and Scote taught. The scho­le doc­tours ne­uer taugh so. For this Pfef­finger in a disputation made about two yeares past of free will rashely and boldely concludeth with these wordes. A man maye by his owne naturall power assent to the ghospell, apprehend the promis of Christe, not withstande the holy ghoste, &c. Thus farre Amsdorfius. Here we see this Lutheran Master condemneth six diuers sectes and schismes, which all (except only the Swenckfeldians) do yet de­pend of the Confession of Augspurg, and defende, and embrace euen to this daie their doctrine. For though some peraduenture doe wene that the Swinglians be excluded frō the Confession of Augspurg, yet I finde the cōtrary in Ihō of lasky writing to the King of Pole, Caluinus in vltima ad­monitione sua ad Io­ach. VVest­phalum. and in Ihon Caluin. in the which pla­ces bothe of them affirme directly, that the Confes­sion of Augspurg teacheth the very same touching the Sacramēt of the aultar, that Zwinglius and the Sacramentaries do. Seing then these foresaide se­ctes so bitterly varie one with an other in the chefe pointes of our religion, that eche pronounceth the other heretike, truly right it is, they be taken for such as they pronoūce them selues to be. In the meane yese by this proces of Amsdorffius howe well and truly M. Doctour Smidelin affimeth and maketh him sel­fe sure that amonge the Lutherans is no dissension touching the articles of the Cōfession of Augspurg. [Page] Yet to make this matter more clere, I wil adde hereū ­to some other testimonies of their owne felowe mi­nisters, if peraduēture their owne cōsciēce may touch them to acknowledg the truthe. Nicolaus gallus in The­sibus & Hipotiposibus. in the laste leafe writeth thus.

The altercations and contentions betwene vs ( Luth [...]ran preachers) are not light nor of light mat­ters, The se­cond tes­timony. but of the principall articles of Christian reli­gion, of the lawe and the ghospel, Special articles of contradi­ctions a­mong tho Prote­stants. of iustificatiō and good workes, of the Sacraments and vse of Cere­monies, so greate that they seme impossible to be brought at one. For some are plaine contradictions that cā not be reconciled. as. That the lawe must be 1 preached in Christ his church and must not be pre­ached. That our righteousnes is the very substance 2 of God in vs, or his operatiō, actiō, and omissiō, wit­hin vs, or the imputing of his obedience without vs. 3 That the Bloud of Christ doth iustifie no mā, and that (which the Apostle saieth) we are iustified in his bloud. Rom. 6. That no man hath ben saued without 4 good workes: that good workes are necessary to saluation. And cōtrairely that good workes are not necessary to saluation, or as the psalme saythe, happy are they whose sinnes are forgeuen, happy is the man to whom God hath not imputed sinne, whiche seketh not after good workes nor can haue [Page 81] none to be saued by. That Christ is in the Supper and is receaued there corporally vnder bread and wine bothe of the beleuers and of those whiche be­leue not, and againe that he is there only spiritual­ly and is receaued only of them whiche beleue. Thus farre Nicolaus Gallus. who although he re­hearse with no lesse stomach the contrary and re­pugnant heresies of the Lutherans his felowes, then Amsdorffius doth, yet beside he confesseth there are many more a coining and readye to come to light. And no doubt but it is so: for not longe sens the princes of Saxony and Countes of Mansfeld, The third testimony eche off them hathe sett forthe seuerally greate volumes tou­ching this matter, where they reaken vp vnleuen sundry sectes lately sprong vp, condemning them all for heresies to witt.

• The Anabaptistes.
• The Seruetians.
• The Antinomi.
• Although in very dede the Iesuites are no more to be coun­ted amonge these he retikes, then pigeons amonge crowes.
  The Iesuites,
• The Osiandrins,
• The Melanchthonistes,
• The Maioristes.
• The Adiaphoristes or In­differents.
• The Swenckfeldians,
• The Sacramentaries.

[Page] Nowe where Smidelin denieth that amonge the ghospellers is no heresie, no dissension in religion, no variaunce in the Confession of Augspurg, I woulde he tolde vs what is it that those Superintendents, Amsdorfius and Nicolaus Gallus, condemne in their former sentences? What meaned the princes of Sax­ony and the Countes of Mansfeld? Do not all these fore named sectes acknowledge the Confession of Aug­spurg and belonge thereunto? The Anabaptistes in dede do not, and much lesse the Iesuites. But all the rest walke vnder the winge of the newe ghospel and vpholde them selues vnder the pretence of the Con­fessiō of Augspurg. For Lasky in Pole, and Caluin in Sauoye labour continually to persuade men, The Sacramentaries desire to be vnder the vving of the Lutherans. thrt their sacramentary doctrine is expresse in the Confession off Augspurg. Here I would demaunde of Master Smide­lin whether the articles cōdemned here and recited of the princes of Saxony, the Countes of Mansfeld, of Amsdorfius and Gallus, and defended of those ten sectes aboue mencioned, do properly appertaine to the Confession of Augspurg or no. Surely I see not what awnswer this doctour of Gopping is able to make vs: for if he saie these articles touche not the doctrine of tbe Confession of Augspurg. then would I desire him to take the paines for his estimation sake only to af­firme the same in one printed leafe of paper, against those Superintendents Amsdorffius and Gallus and against the princes and Countes aforesaide. Whiche if he dare not for his life to do, then must he nedes be an impudent felowe and past all shame and honesty, [Page 78] to affirme openly that the Lutherans do all agree in the grounde and chiefe pointes of their Confession off Augspurg. Here I holde this wily foxe, and be he ne­uer so ssipper yet shall he not escape here my fingers. And therefore yet we will laye hande on him more surely.

In the booke of the Countes of Mansfeld aga­inst the vnleuen sectes, fo. 179. the Ministers saie in this wise The reader nede not to maruaile that Osiander to auouche his matter alleageth plenty of scripture, but rather ought diligētly to marke howe wicked­ly he wretheth and corrupteth the right meaning and vnderstanding of holy Scripture. Thus much saie they. In lib. con­tra longiorē Catalogū. But what nowe saith Master Smidelin here­unto? In the booke he made this yeare against the longe table, where he goeth about to reconcile toge­ther the Masters of Wittenberg and Osiander thus he writeth. Then bothe partes proue their opinions by holy Scripture, and truly with the very same sen­tences, but not the very same interpretations, all­though yet not contrary. Let vs harken I praie yow howe swetely these bells agree. The Ministres off Māsfeld saie that Osiander wickedly wretheth and corrupteth holy scripture: this man saith, that the interpretations of them bothe are not contrary. Againe in the same booke of the Countes of Mans­feld thus we reade. sol. 166. Neither is this errour of Osian­der [Page] sightely to be passed ouer, by the which he bin­deth the benefits of Christ to certain circunstaun­ces, to bring men thereby to desperation, while the minde of man hangeth in doubt whether he be fit to receaue the benefits of Christ or no. Fol. 1. & 2. But cleane contrarely writeth Smidelin in the booke aboue na­med. If that Osiander saithe he or his aduersaries bicause of this contention inschole pointes only are to be counted heretikes what shall we saie, I praie you, of the olde fathers? But howe swetely agree the semen? The Ministers of Mansfeld saie. that the do­ctrine of Osiander hath such a notable errour annex­ed vnto it, that it forceth men to desperation. Smide­lin saieth, it is but a light contention in schole poin­tes. But this felowe perceauing that such manifeste and diuers heresies can in dede by no meanes be re­conciled together, he bringeth in the olde fathers for example, as thoughe they had vsed to confute here­tikes by false interpretation of holy scripture, which cā neuer be proued of them. Yea it is impossible that heresies may be ouerthrowen by false doctrine. Li. 8. Top. For as Aristotle teacheth, it is impossible that of a false gro­unde any truthe may be cōcluded. Fol. 152. Farder in this booke of Mansfeld the Ministres saie. VVe ought to su­spect the doctrine of Osiander, Novv Lutherans can abide no nevve doctrine. bicause it is new and not heard of before in the church and we finde no­thing in holy scripture that is anything like to the [Page 83] doctrine of Osiander. Let vs nowe here what saithe Master Smidelin in his booke alleaged. A childe of seuen yeares olde, which had lerned but his cathe­chisme maye euidently perceaue that bothe the­se doctrines, Fol. 1. 2. of Osiander and of the VVitenber­gers, disagree neuer a whit. If there were in oure Germain tongue any one worde, that might thou­roughely expresse an impudent and shameles felowe, surely it would nowe serue well the turne to tricke this doctour in his termes. So impudently and so past al shame in the face of al the worlde, he lieth so low­dely, and boasteth so bestly, that amonge them all, is no difference in doctrine, no variaunce in opinions, but all smothe, all quiet, all vniforme and agreable. yea and that so euidently so swetely so like pigeons they agree and coll together, that a very childe of se­uen yeare olde woulde be the better to see it.

But seing this good man slepeth so soundely in the swete concent and vniforme harmonie of his brethern, that it semeth he hathe forgot all the worl­de, and remembreth not the prety pageants they ha­ue plaied of late, and what notes of discorde hathe fallen amoge, I wil be so bolde as a litle to wake him: and call him to remembraunce of the fourten Lu­theran churches, The fourthe testi­mony. which all of late wrote and set for­the in print their writinges against the Confession of Andreas Osiander, amonge the which the chefe a­re, The Ministers or diuines of Wittenberge, the Mi­nistres of the younger Lordes of Vinaria, the Mini­stres [Page] of Magdenburg. The ministers of Franckford on this side of Viader. The ministers of Ihon of Co­strin the Marquis, of the dukes of Pomerain, and of the cites on the seacost of Saxony as of Lubek, of Ham­burg, of Breme, of Luneburg, and diuers other. Vnto all the which churches and Ministres Osiander in his booke entituled Schmeckbier awnswered, Vide Ioan­nis Functij scriptum de rebus Osiandri. paieng them home with such coine as they laide out, so that nowe they are bothe on fire one against an other cursing and charging eche other with hainous and abhominable heresies. He that listeth not to beleue me, let him proue and trie the truthe in their bookes that are abiode in all mens handes, let him serche the printers shops of Germany, and he shall finde bitter contentions and greuous controuersies betwene the Lutherans and the Osiandrins. Yet Smidelin winketh and noddeth still and will not see all this. But if he be an vpright and plaine dealing man let him come forthe, and proue in open writing that any thinge here saide in false or fained.

Well Smidelin goeth forthe after his fashion, and laboureth against al reason to make the worlde wene That amonge the Lutherans and the Zwinglians there is no variaunce of any waight or force tou­ching any articles of our faith of Christian religiō. But against this saieng of Smidelin, The fift testimony Luther him selfe. Luther him self directly pronounceth, codemning the Swinglians in these wordes. Tom. 2. I [...]o. 260. I must nedes eschew and auoide them as men condemned by their owne iudgemēt: nether [Page 81] may I ioyne with them in any meanes, nor by let­ters nor by writinges, Math. 18. nor by worde nor by dede, as the Lorde hathe commaunded, whether he be Swenckfeldius, Zwinglius, or what soeuer he be called. For I accompte them all a lyke (as in dede they are) whosoeuer beleue not, that in the Supper of the Lorde, the bread is his true and naturall bo­dy, which as well Iudas and the wicked man doth receaue as S. Peter and all the Saintes. VVhosoe­uer will not beleue this, Luther excludeth Suinglius and Svvēcfeldius frō his grace. let him not medle with me, or in writing or in talke, nor let him not looke for any communion with me. For he shall but lese his labour. And a litle after. It shall nothing helpe the Swermers or Sacramentaries that they trifle aboute the Sacrament of the spirituall eating and drin­king of the body and bloud of Christ: and of the charite and vnite of Christians, Fo. 263. &c. It is in vaine that they beleue in the father, the Son, and the holy ghoste, and in Christ our Sauyour. All this I saye nothing auaileth them, howe truly and sincerely so euer they pronounce this faith with their false and blasphemous tongue, as longe as they denie this one article, or reproue it as false where Christ saith of the Sacrament. Note. Take (breade) and eate This is my body. For this is the maner of all heretikes, [Page] first to beginne but with one article and then after to denie all the rest, Luther did vvhich he repro­ued in his scholers. Note ho­vve heretikes maye be used. euen as a ringe if it be ones broken or cleft, it is vnprofitable and vnfite, and as a bell, if he be crackt, or crased in any part, he leseth his so wnde and is worth nought. Thus farre Luther Let vs nowe on the other side here the awnswer of the Swinglians of Zuri [...]h In the third treatise of their booke made against the last Confession of Luther thus they write. The pro­testants of Zurich a­gainst Luther. Luther craketh him selfe to be the prophet and Apostle of the Germans: which ne­uer lerned of any man but all other of him, that no man did any thing but Luther hath done all: and whatsoeuer he hath not done, hath remained vn­done. VVhatsoeuer he hath saide it must stand, and no man so hardy to gainsaie it. Iff men speake not iust as Luther doth, then they are cursed and persecuted as heretikes. And a litle before. Luther hath forsaken god and all his honour calling vs a condemned and cursed secte. But let him take hede lest with this teasty and wicked talke, he condem­ne not him selfe, and proue him selfe an archehere­tike seing that he nether will nor can haue the so­ciete of such as sincerely teache and confesse Christ our Lorde. And howe wonderfully doth Luther here betray himself with all his felow sprets, and [Page 85] deuills? VVhat foule wordes vseth he mete only for the deuill? For he saith that there dwelleth in the Zwinglians a malicious deuill, Ani [...]um in sa [...]hanasia­tum, super satha [...]a [...]a­tum persa­thana, a [...]ū. bothe nowe and euer, that their hart and mynde hath the deuill dwelling in them, raining ouer them, and percing thourough them. that their mouth is full of all lies, and the deuill him selfe is poored in them, poored ouer them, and poored thourough them. Did euer any man heare such talke of any sobre or reasona­ble mans mouth, yea or of any furiou [...]e deuill or ra­ging sprit? Againe in the same place. Luther seketh onely after his owne, he is obstinat, prowde and high minded condemning boldely and deliuering vp to the deuill, all which will not agree vnto his minde. He raileth and curseth like a deuill. The­re is no token of mekenes or beneuolence in him. Here would I wish M. Smidelin to come forthe, and tell vs what Luther meaneth by such wordes of his, as we haue here alleaged. I am very sure, he is neuer able to make accorde betwene the opinions of Lu­ther and Zwinglius touching the Sacrament, al­though he laboureth much about it. As when he writeth in an other place. VV [...]ē the one part ( saithe he) teacheth bread in the holy Supper to signifie the body of Christ, to be the figur [...] of the body of Christe, to be the value of the body of Christ, to be the [Page] pleadge of the body of Christ, yet all these teache, beleue and professe one doctrine and one opinion, the difference is only in the interpretation as Lu­ther VVitnesseth, and in the phrase or maner of speaking, not in the thing it selfe. This saithe Smide­lin. and Amsdorffius in his confession obiecteth it vnto him with these wordes. There be (Lutherans) which saie they condemne the Zwinglians, but the preface of Brentius vpon Master Iames Smidelins booke testifieth the contrary. For here they go ab­out on gods name to reconcile godly Luther and Zwinglius together, which is vtterly impossible. For who euer heard that contradictories could be made one? Such childish matters and impossible thinges they are not ashamed to warrant which be­are themselues for Masters of Christian religion, as though al we were stockes and blockes.

Let here the Christiā reader confer together these debates a [...]d contentiōs of the two prophets of god, Luther and Swinglius, and set Smidelin as a pacifier and arbiter to bring them at one. surely I doubt not, but he shall soone per [...]eaue that Smidelin in this en­terprise, other hath lost some peace of his brayne, or hath vtterly cast awaie al honesty and shame. Luther saieth directly and plainly that the Swingliās doctrine is not only contrary bothe in worde and in dede to his doctrine, but also that their opinion is so pestife­rous [Page 86] and execrable, that he doubteth not to pronounce thē al starke heretikes that subscribe and agree vn­to it. yea and this with such a vehemēcie he vttereth that he affirmeth: who so euer swarueth in this ar­tikle of the sacrament, he is an heretike in all other artikles and pointes of the faith. Now cometh Smi­delin and saith, that the opinion of Luther and Swin­glius touching the Supper is all one, and that all the controuersie remaineth only in wordes. And in his latin booke, set forthe against me, he saith of them. It is most certain that their opinion and minde is all one, therefore they agree in doctrine.

And where as I noted that amonge the Suinglians were eight sectes that Smidelin denieth also. and saith Although Zwinglius varied and swarued some what from Luther yet of their schisme there were but two partes. Therefore in his booke against my table he raileth in this sort. Fol, 3. libri contra catalogum. Of these two partes this nightrauen (so terming me) hath made eight se­ctes. The first part whom he calleth Adessenarii, which beleue the praesence of the true body and bloud of Christ in the Supper, he diuideth in to foure sectes as the Significatiui the Tropistae, the Energici, and the Arabonarij. wherein who loketh ne­re to the matter shall see he hath plaied the wicked and naughtie mans parte. I knowe very well that the vnlerned man reading these his wordes, must nedes [Page] suppose that I haue iniuriousely slaundered the Swinglians, and done like a false felowe, to charge honest men with eight diuers heresies, whereas the Lutherans and the Swinglians, are diuided only in two partes, and those two partes also (as Smidelin sa­ith) consist only in the phrase, or maner of speaking not in the thinge or dede. What thē haue we here to awnswer? Luther shal take the paines to do it for me. whiche in his brief Confession writeth after this sorte. At the very first these men Luther a­gainst the Sacramentaries. (meaning the Sacramentaries) were well warned of the holy ghost, when vpon that one text, they diuided them selues in to seuen sprits, eche one differing alwaies frō the 1 other. First Carolstadius would haue the text so, that This is my body should signifie, Here sitteth 2 my body. Then Zwinglius saith, that could not be well saide though the father of heauen had reueled it therefore being moued with another holy sprit 3 of his owne, thus he turned the text. Take, eate, This signifieth my body. The third Oecolampadi­us, 4 brought forthe his third holy sprit, which tur­ned that text in to another hewe: as this. Take ea­te, this is the token of my body. Luther calleth Svvēcfeldius by the name of Stenc­feldius in mockerie, as one that stinketh. The fourth Stencfeldius thinking to make his stenche to smell as muske, brought vs forthe out of his holy sprit this rule. These wordes (This is my body) must be [Page 87] remoued from our sight: for they do let vs of the spirituall vnderstanding, &c. The fifte holy sprit 5 being but the excremēts of that other do thus reade that text. Take and eate. That which is deliuered for you is this my body. The sixt holy sprit saith: Take and eate. This is my body in remembraunce. 6 as though Christ had saide, Take and eate: this is the monument of my body. The seuenth holy sprit Ioannes Campanus bringeth this exposition. Take 7 and eate [...] Corpus pancum. Of this mide vvas Melanch­thon at his later daies. In iudicio Heidelber­gensi. This is my bready body or body of bread. Beside all these an other sprit flieth about (for the deuill is an holy and a greate sprit) which persua­deth men, that herein is no article of our faith, and therefore we ougth not to contend of this mat­ter, but leaue it fre to euery man to beleue herein what he list. Thus farre be the wordes of Luther. Is not here Smidelin an honest and an vpright man? is he not a kinde scholer towarde his Master, Luther? The master saith, There are amonge the Swingli­ans eight diuers factiōs or sectes. The scholer saieth. That the Zwinglians amonge them selues do per­fitly agree: and from Luther, they differ only in wordes and maner of speaking. Is not thinke you Master Smidelin a trim pacifier? doth he not by good reason reconcile these protestants together? In the booke against my table he raileth, and saith, he [Page] must nedes be a wicked person which woulde saye, that amonge the Swinglians were eight diuers and seuerall opinions: Doctor Smidelin proueth Luther to be a vvic­hed man. and who is so blinde that seeth not Luther him selfe in his wordes aboue alleaged to recite eight contrary opinions of the Swinglians? It foloweth then by the iudgement and sentence of Doctor Smidelinus, that Luther is a wicked and perni­cious felowe. Surely very well and as it should be. for such honour vse kinde scholers to geue to their ma­sters. But truly they are bothe vsed according to their deserts: while the Master proueth his scholer a liar, and the scholer proueth his Master a knaue. and no­we it happeneth as we commonly see of a frowarde curre a peuish whelp.

But what will Smidelin saie, if that amonge the Lutherans them selues, Sacramentary sectes and diui­sions amō ge the Lu­theraus. The sixt testimony Melanch­thon. be sacramentary sectes and schismes, and that not a fewe? This present yeare 1560. in the seconde of Octobre was printed at Hei­delberg the iudgement of Philip Melanchthon, tou­ching the Supper of our Lorde, dedicated to the ho­nourable prince Electour Coūte palatin of the Rhe­ne. where he writeth thus. It is not hard but some­what dangerous to awnswer, yet I will declare that debate and controuersie which happened at Hei­delberg, and admonish men as much as I may at this time. I will also praie vnto Christ our Lorde that it will please him prosperously to directe the­se our aduises and their doinges. Greate and gre­uous [Page 88] cōtentions shal vndoubtedly arise in the worl­de, vpon the Controuersie of our Lordes supper for the worlde must nedes be punished for their ido­latry and other hainous offenses Let vs then praie that the Son of God teache vs and direct vs. But seing that many are yet in many places feble in the faith and not well instructed in this doctrine off the church, but rather nouseled in many errours, it is mete that first we take order for such. I like the­r fore very well the aduise of the most honoura­ble prince Electour that all such as contend of the Supper of the Lorde be put to silēce, So in the Alcoran of Maho­met all disputing of religion is forbed. lest dissensiō and variaunce arise in the church yet tendre and weake, whereby the febleī faith might perhaps be seduced and disquieted. And I would wish also, that the contentious persons on bothe sides were some o­ther where. VVhich being sēt awaie, the rest might agree into some forme of wordes. Melanch­thō vvoulde haue vs chaunge th [...] institutiō of Christ in the Supper, and saie this is the par­ticipation of my bo­dy, vvhereas Christ saide, this is my body vvhich is vp and d [...]vvne Suinglians heresie. And in this con­trouersie me thinketh it were best to kepe the wordes of S. Paule. The bread which we breake is the participation of Christ his body much also must be saide of the frute of the Supper to stirre vp men more to loue this pleadge, and the oftener to vse it. A­gaine the worde Participation, is to be declared and expounded. For S. Paule saith not (as the pa­pistes [Page] do) that the nature of bread is chaunged. nor that the bread is the substātiall body of Christ as the ministers of Bremesaie. Nor as Heshusious saith, that bread is the true body of Christ: but that it is a participation or communion, that is, by the which we are coupled and made one with the body off Christ. VVhich copulation and making of one consisteth in the vse: not without it. imagining that mise could knawe that bread. The papistes and such as are like them to earnestly con­tend that the body of Christ is vnder the forme of bread, or included in the bread beside the vse, and when it is not receaued. they wil haue it adored also as Doctor Morlin of Bruns wicke saith. Thou must not saie. Mum. Mum: But what is that which the priest hath in his handes. Sarcerius would haue all the parcels that sal doune, to be gathered vp, and to be burned together with the earth on which it fell. Two yeres past whē we were at wormes, a quaestiō was asked vs out of the Courte whether the body of Christ passed downe in to the bely and so forthe. Such absurde questions ought not to be moued better it is that the forme of S. A questiō of the ghospellers disproued [...]y Melanch­thon. Paules wordes be kept and that men be well instructed of the vse and fru­te of this Sacrament. The forme of wordes of the [Page 89] Supper ye may see in the ordinatiō of the church of the Megapolians, where also aduertisement is geuē of the frute thereoff. The Son off God in the mini­stery of the ghospell is present, and worketh also in those that beleue. But he is present not for cause of the bread but for mans sake, as he saith him sel­fe. Tary in me and I in you, Ioan. 15. Ioan. 14. I in my father and you in me and I in you. And with this true Comfortes he maketh vs his membres, and testifieth that he wil raise vp and quicken our bodies. Thus do ol­de writers expounde the Supper of the Lorde. but some terme this true and plaine doctrine, buskins or showes mete for euery foote. and will haue that the body is in the bread or in the forme of bread: as though the Sacrament were made for the breads sake or to be adored papistically. Then other ima­gin that the body should be enclosed in the brea­de. some will haue it euery where and in all places. Melanchthon dalieth here at his pleasure: The vvordes of Staphylus. but all ho­ly fathers and olde writers, haue continually hither­to taught the conuersion, transmutatiō, and chaun­ging of the creature of bread in to the body of oure Lorde, that we may truly say with Christ, This is my body. Heshusius saith, he can not agree with Ori­gen terming the bread and wine the signes of the the body and bloud. So he reiecteth Clemens Alex­andrinus, [Page] ready to do the like to Augustin, Ambrose, Prosper, O the im­pudency of Melāchthon. for these fa­thers do al teache the contrary. Dyonisius, Tertullian, Bede, Basill, and Gregory, Nazianzen (which calleth the body [...]) to Theodoret which writeth that the nature of bread remaineth. No nor your au­thorite Mclāchthon. Is thē the authorite of Heshusius so great, that we will rather b [...]leue him thē the olde writers This is a lovvd lie. which testifie clerely that the church in their time had no adoration nor no such doctrine as the papistes no we teache? For seing the­se are Is not the doctrine of Me­lanchthon nevve? the felovve raueth. newe and straunge in the church, we doubt whether it be conuenient to bring in newe doctrine in the church. And I am not ignorāt, that many alleage forged bookes vnder the name of olde writers: but let the lerned iudge hereof. I will not make any longe debate of this matter presently. nor entre to dispute with contentious men defending the idola­try and robberies of their forefathers. VVhose ty­ranny and cruell persecutions I feele also. I thought good only to declare my minde herein what were best to be done in respect of our weake and tender church. Ergo it is nevve. Therefore I am still of that minde that bo­the partes be put to silence, and that one forme of wordes be vsed. VVhich if some like not, Hoc videli­cet est Syn­ [...]retisare. and will not therefore come vnto the Sacrament, they may be permitted to do as they see good, so that yet [Page 90] they styrre vp no dissension amonge the people. This much Melanchthon. Melanch­thon a dissembling ghospel­ler. who although he would neuer before this time openly in writing professe his minde of the Sacrament, yet he allwaies tolde his fa­miliar frendes and men of worship, that in this point he condemned Luther, and claue vnto Swinglius, correcting yet a litle his opinion. For where as Swin­glius saide, This signifieth my body, he will haue it saied This is the participation of my body, which newe inter­pretation is plainely a newe Sacramentary heresie, and neuer heard of amonge the rest of the Swingli­ans. And to maintaine this his proper and newe he­resie, he vseth two pointes of sutteltie and falshood. first when he saith the holy fathers taught no con­uersion or transsubstantiation of the bread, which is a very impudent and lowde lie. Se the x. article of D. Hardinges avvn­svver to Master Iuells cha­lenge fol. 124. Fiue sectes among the Lutherans of the Sa­crament. For the conuersion of the bread and reall presence of Christ his true body and bloud in the Sacrament may euidently be pro­ued out of all the fathers aboue named and many mo: and the contrary opinion clerely condemned. Secondarely whē he rebuketh his owne scholers, and chargeth them with fiue other Sacramentarie heresi­es. For he saith some be of Heshusius minde, some of Sarcerius, some other folowe the ministers of Bre­me, and some Ioachimus Morlinus, then he alleageth other whose opinion is that Christ his body may be in euery place. These fiue heresies, which (as Melāch­thon testifieth) are amonge the Lutherans, and the o­ther eight which Luther showeth to be amonge the [Page] Swingliās, make all together thirten heresies. which al noweadaies vpon the Sacramēt only are folowed, Thirten heresies a­mong the protestāts touching the blessed Sacramēt. professed, and defended amonge the protestants.

Here againe we may consider the honesty and truthe of M. Doctor Smidelin, which is not ashamed to terme such open schismes, manifest to al the worl­de, a sure and certain agremēt of Catholike religi­on, who beside all this knoweth well inough, what agreate and vehement altercation there was this pre­sent yeare 1560, at Heidelberg amonge the diuines and ministres there, touching only this point of the blessed Sacramēt. of the which matter Guilelmus Kle­bicius of Brandeburg hath writen very bitterly and sharpely. And this much hitherto of the dissension amonge the protestants touching only the point of the blessed Sacrament.

The dissension and variaunce of the Lutherans touching the doctrine of Penaunce, Nicolaus Gallus libr. cui titulum fecit, Fundamenta Nic. Galli etiā ­numperstāt & in The­matibussuis I haue noted before in a litle booke. For some of them put two, some thre partes of penaunce. But doctor Smidelin will accorde all this discorde with a worde: saing, it is all one to put two or thre partes of penaunce. As though that al other Superintendents and ministres of Luthers secte ought to couche, and obey the pontificall authorite of Doctor Smidelin taking vppon him like a pope of protestants. But Illyricus will not abide that, persuading him selfe that he is of as good mettall to make a Lutheran pope, The se­uēth testi­mony Illyricus. as any other is. and therefore he will not graunte to the Masters of Wit­tenberg, no nor to his owne Master, Luther, to de­fine, [Page 91] diuide and determinat the ghospell at their ple­asur. For in the booke, which he intituled, Fol. D. 3. An information vpon certain articles of Christen religion, he writeth in this sort. But not so much he (meaning Melanchthon) as his proctours do exasperat this matter: although they agree not amōg them selues: for one interpreteth the matter after one sorte, and the other after an other, as it happeneth in euill causes. One saieh that the worde Penaunce signi­fieth only sorowe or contrition an other, that it sig­nifieth contrition and faithe with al. One saith that the ghospell preacheth repentaunce of one sinne The ghospellers doubt vvhat the ghospell preacheth only, as of infidelite: an other saith, of all sinnes. So­me imagin this glose, that the ghospell preacheth repentaunce vnproperly, vndirectly and by occa­sion only: some saie that consequently it preacheth repentaunce. An other saithe by a figure of contra­riete: the fourth saith, after a sorte and in some point. The fift saith, it doth but argue mens incre­dulite or slacknes of belefe. The sixt saieth that it reiecteth the small faithe. The seuenth saith that it preacheth repentaunce not principally. Thus they disagree amonge thē selues no lesse then the Sacra­mentaries or Babylonians, or those builders of i­dols that Esaie speaketh of: where one thinketh to [Page] holde vp the idoll with glue, another with nailes, Esaiae. 41. and the third with chaines. But all these gloses bo­the destroy them selues one another, and the defini­tion also. Thus farre Illyricus. Doth not Illyricus affir­me here that Melanchthons diuines varie one from an other, and sett vp seuen sondry opinions, neuer a true: and all repugnant one with an other, no lesse then the sectes of the Sacramentaries? and that they agree as the builders of the towre of Babilon in olde time? Saithe not directly all this Illyricus? And what saieth Smidelinus? VVe in the principall articles and grounde of our doctrine do not vary. Which if it be true, then must we saie, that the doctrine of pena­unce and of the Sacrament of the aultar appertaine not to the grounde of Christen religion, nor are not necessary articles of the same. For Smidelin in his litle booke, whiche he set forth against me, standeth stiffe in this minde. Libello con­tra trimem brem Theo­logiam. fol. 80. That it forceth not whether two or thre partes of penaunce be taught: nor skil­leth any whit, whether you beleue vprightly, or embrace that seuenfolde heresie contrary in it selfe, in the matter of penaunce. Againe in his booke against my table writing of the altercations betwene the Illyricans and the Adiaphoristes, he saith. Although one write bitterly against the other, yet in their churches there is no alteration of doctrine, but they professe and teache the pure doctrine of the gho­spell [Page 92] in perfit agrement with vs and them selues, e­uen as before this altercation beganne. Howe soū ­deth, thinke you, these wordes of Smidelin with the saieng of Illyricus? In like maner doth he defend An­dreas Musculus. For where I write, that he teacheth, the Godhead of Christ to haue as well died in the Crosse as the māhood, Smidelin goeth about to pur­ge him in these wordes. Fol. o. 3. I haue vnderstode nowe that Staphylus dothe iniuriously slaunder Andreas Musculus. For Musculus in open writing published and printed hathe purged him self against Staphy­lus. Thus saithe Smidelin. It is the nature and custo­me of all heretikes not to continew longe in one minde. But to denie to morowe which they saide to daie. So dothe Musculus. And although Smidelin, as he confesseth him selfe, be vtterly ignorant of the de­bate betwene Musculus and Stācarus (wherein tho­se wordes be vttered) yet he sticketh not to write that I slaunder Musculus. Truly bicause he would be counted a common pacifier of all contentions, a physician for all sores, and a reconciler of all vnruly he­resies. But what will bothe Musculus and Smidelin sa­ie vnto me, if I bring their owne brethern and fe­lowe heretikes, witnesses against them? The eight testimony. The Luthe­ran churches of Pole sent to the vniuersite of Lau­sana for the determination of this matter betwene Musculus and Stancarus, and the doctours of Lau­sana sent them this awnswer. Although well belo­ued [Page] brethern, In epistolis Petri Statorij Galli Pinc [...]uiae aeli [...]is anno 1560. we can neuer saie inough against the opinion of Islebius and Andreas Musculus tea­ching that Christ suffred in bothe natures of God and of man, and yet bringing no argument against the contrary. Neuertheles seing you desire to know our iudgement and minde of this opinion, we can not conceale it from you, &c. Thus therefore you shall vnderstande. VVe denie vtterly that God can suffer any mutation, & cae. Here thou maiest per­ceaue, gentle reader, what kinde of men these Luthe­rans are. Sometime whot, sometime colde: sometime white sometime blacke. And yet not withstanding Smidelin writeth, It is a greate lie to saie there is any dif­ference amonge our diuines, touching the articles of our Confession of Augspurg. In praefatione libelli contra Sta­phylum. It is a worlde to see howe this felowe hath hardened his face against all shame, and howe proudely he persuadeth him selfe to blinde all the worlde, seing and feling that the Lutherans disagree in the articles and grounde of their Confession of Augspurg.

For the better Declaration whereof, let vs yet a litle more diligently waighe and expend the articles of their Confession of Augspurg. Clere it is that their chefe and principall articles are, of the Blessed Tri­nite, of free will, of Iustification, of the lawe and the gospel, of good and euill workes, of faith, of Christe Iesus our Mediator, of the numbre of Sacraments, of Baptim, of the Supper of our Lorde, of Penaunce [Page 93] and such other. These are the principall and chefe articles of the Confession of Augspurg. Which if Smide­lin denie, I appeale to the printed copie of their con­fession: being very sure that all these articles are the­re. But if he graunte me they are all there, then I de­maunde of him as I haue often times done before, whether he wil confesse or denie that the Ministers and Preachers of this newe ghospell agree in al the­se articles or no. A brief re­capitulation of the schisines and dissensions amō ge the protestants. Epistola Illyrici ad M. VVernerū Barben. Caluinus de pre destinatione et Illyricus in articulis ineundae cō cordiae, eta­lij pleri (que) o­mnets. Illyricus in libro suae infor­mationis. Gallus in exceptionum libro & cae. Anisdorfius lib. opera bona esse per­niciosa. Illyricus contra Mentum et ali [...]i. If (as he hath done hitherto) he de­nie it, I must nedes rest vppon my former sentence, and pronounce that surely his wittes be not his ow­ne, he is braynesicke and beside him selfe.

For he knoweth very well (as anon in the Gene­alogie of Luther or table of the heretikes we shall at large declare) that first as concerning the blessed Tri­nite, diuers heresies haue in a short space sprong vp. As the heresies of Seruetus, of Illyricus and of diuers other in Bohem, and in the vpper Silesia. Againe e­uident it is that the Caluinistes and the Illyricās can not abide to heare of fre will, whereas the Melanch­thonistes and the Adiaphoristes contend hereof bitterly against them. Nor it is not vnknowen what greuous altercations be amonge the ghospellers a­bout Iustification. In so much that there haue risen fourten contrary opinions against Osiander, onely v­pon this worde of Iustification. And howe terribly fighte Illyricus, Gallus, and such as take their partes, against the Melanchthonistes and the Adiaphoristes about the name of the lawe and the ghospell, howe one differeth from the other, and what eche one is? [Page] Nowe howe the ghospellers like the brethern of Cadmus, raile and brawle aboute good workes, some saieng they are profitable to saluation, and some that they are pernicious, all the worlde seeth and feleth. As touching faith, howe many yeares haue the ghos­pellers had as thongh it were open warre thereupon? while some crie that Only faith iustifieth, some that faith for the more parte iustifieth, and good wor­kes for the lesse parte, or as some other write, faith principally and good workes partly. What shal I tell howe they storme and rage in contradiction about Christ, Caluinus in institutione Christiana. Melanchthō in vltimis locis commūnibus. Lu­therus li­bro de capt. Babylonica Zuingliuscō tra Vrbanū Regium de Baptismo. Lutherus in postrema cō fessione. Illyricus in suae informationis libro. Gallus in exceptionibus [...]ontra acta VVittē bergensium Professorū. howe he is our mediatour and howe he doth iustifie vs? For some teache that Christe iustifieth man only by his manhood, some only by his godhe­ad, some againe teache that the godhead of Christ died in the Crosse. About the numbre of the Sacra­ments there hath ben a longe time and is yet amon­ge them cruell variaunce and dissension. For some saie, there are but two Sacraments, some thre, some foure, some none at all. The Caluinistes thinke o­therwise of Baptim and the vertu thereof, then the Lutherans do: but the Anabaptistes differ from them bothe. As touching the Supper of our lorde, Luther hath noted eight diuers sectes amonge the Swingli­ans, and Melanchthon of late fiue amonge the Luthe­rans. Aboute penaunce Illyricus reakoneth vp seuen contrary heresies amonge the Adiaphoristes. But what should I recite all that may be saide? Here agai­ne [Page 94] I demaunde of Smidelin, let him tell me, whether those articles, by reason of which the princes of Sax­ony and Countes of Mansfeld condemned the ten sectes of heresie, be of the Confession of Augspurg or no. Againe whereas Amsdorffius, Illyricus and Gallus in open and printed bookes do testifie that the Me­lanchthonistes and Adiaphoristes haue swarued in six or seuen principall articles from the Confession off Augspurg, whether that altercation and contention be not of the articles of this Confession or no. Howso­euer Smidelin here awnswereth, he can not escape, but he must buckle with the Illyricans. Yea Gallus hath of late set forthe a greate commentary, wherein he doth not only accuse the Melanchthonistes and Adiaphoristes, but proueth plainly that they haue departed like Apostatas from the Confession off Aug­spurg in the most principall and waightiest articles thereof. By these articles therefore aboue rehearsed, and by diuers other which you maye see in my table of heretikes, it is euident and can not be denied that very fewe articles of the Confession of Augspurg rema­ine, which are not distracted and torne in to sondry and diuers heresies.

Surely any common laye or vnlerned man if he desire to knowe the truthe hereof, he nedeth not much lerning of skill to espie the contrarietes of the protestants: only he maye diligently reade, waighe, and think vpon the places that I haue alleaged out of their owne bookes and writings, and he shall finde [Page] to be (alas) to true, all that I haue noted of the diuers, contrary, and repugnant sectes of the Lutherans. I aske then of Smidelin whether euer he read in the Confession of Augspurg the articles aboue reakoned. Againe whether they belong to the ground of the same Confession. Or if these articles were cleane taken out of the Confession, what would be lefte? if he awn­swer that the aboue rehearsed articles be not of the Confession of Augspurg, euery man that hath sene the bookes, can proue him a lyar. For I appeale to the booke of that Confession: and I am very sure that the whole ground of that Confession lyeth in those arti­cles. If he graunte that those articles are the chefe pointes and grounde of that Confession, he must be driuen to saie, that the Lutherans in those articles a­gtee very well and vary in no point, or that they va­rie not so, that for that variaunce they may be char­ged of heresies. Nowe then let Smidelin come forthe and tell vs, if he stand stiffe in his opinon, howe he estemeth the Princes off Saxony and Countes off Mansfeld: Lib. contra 9. sectas. Li. cōtra [...]. sectas. whether he think that Illyricus, Gallus, Amsdorffius, Morlinus, Ioachimus westphalus, be all ly­ars, when they write and cōdemne their owne schis­maticall brethern and felowe heretikes, and all pro­fessing the Confession of Augspurg, of more then fiften sundry heresies: yea and that about the principall ar­ticles of their Confession of Augspurg. And whereas Smidelin laboureth to colour the matter, and like a pa­cifier to recōcile al that is a misse, surely he doth but vtter his foly: and varieth from other him selfe. For [Page 95] Amsdorffius, Gallus and Illyricus (pretended bishops of the Lutherans) write and crie out that these deba­tes and variaunces, are mere contradictories, not able to be iustified vntell the one part be cast. If Amsdorf­fius with his felowes saie truly, then doctor Smidelin lyeth. If they lie and saie all vntruly, let them trie it amonge them selues: and kepe their estimation as well as they can.

We saide in the beginning of this laste parte, The seconde part off this boo­ke. that the Lutherans laie to my charge, as though I fathe­red vpon them certain articles whiche they neuer wrote nor taught. I haue in dede gathered out (as they maie knowe, whiche haue reade my other trea­tises) aboue a hundred articles of the Lutherans, De materia Lutheranae Theologiae. par­tly directly false: partly mingled with falshood: and haue quoted the places of their writings, where eue­ry article might be founde. Nowe the Masters off Wittenberge haue picked out of the whole summe thre or four fragments only, and denie that these pertaine any thinge to their doctrine. Hoping thereby that if vnder pretence of innocency, they could shake of those fewe, then their other heresies and absurdi­tes would the lesse be espied, or molested. Theologiae Lutheranae trimembris epitome. But this goeth the matter. In my booke offered vp at the diet of wormes, in the which I gathered certain princi­pall pointes wherein the Lutherans differ and vary not only from vs Catholikes, but also striue bitterly amonge them selues, Lib. de capt Babyl. titu­lo de matri­monio. among other thinges I noted Luthers doctrine aboute Matrimony out of his ow­ne booke, where it is writen, Let then Mariage be [Page] the figure of Christ and his church, and a Sacra­ment not instituted of God, but inuented of men in the church, being lead with ignoraunce as well of the worde as of the thing. This the Masters of Wit­tenberg vtterly denie, and therefore inueigh furi­ousely and beyonde all reason against me, Note here the modesty of pro­testants. after this sorte. Tell vs thou wicked hipocrite, where euer it was saide or writen of any man in our churches, that matrimony was inuented of men by the igno­raunce as well off the worde as off the thinge. Surely I think sobre and wise men will not like this malapert and ouer hotte talke of the Masters of Wit tenberg, although I had iniured them in very dede. But howe maye they nowe like it, where as in this sentēce I haue nether added, nether taken awaie any one sillable or iote, but haue euen so recited it, worde for worde, as it lyeth in the seconde Latin tome off Luthers workes printed at Wittenberg with the pre­face of Melanchthon?

But a man peraduenture may here obiect, that of these only wordes the doctrine or minde of Luther can not certainely be gathered, for that in other pla­ces he hath otherwise writen of Matrimony. Vnto whom I awnswer thus. Howe constant and sure Lu ther and his scholers haue allwaies ben, and are yet in their doctrine, I haue declared to the whole worl­de in my litle booke entituled, Trimembris Theologia. But what was the sure and settled opinion of Luther touching matrimony, he hath declared him selfe in a [Page 96] certain sermon of matrimony printed at Wittenberg in the yeare 1522. And that no man maye thinke that Luther euer chaunged or recanted that doctrine (as he did diuers) the very same sermon, euen worde for worde was printed againe at Wittenberg in the yea­re 1553. and is extant in the sixt Germain to me off Luthers workes. Where thus he writeth worde for worde. Sexto Tomo germanico. Fol. 172. Truly this I saide, if a woman fitte for the acte of mariage haue a husband vnfitte thereunto nor can not openly mary any other, and yet would be lothe to cōmitte any dishonesty, A holeso­me lesson for the Lutheran da­mes. bicause the bis­hop of Rome requireth about it many witnesses and muche busines to no purpose, she ought with these wordes talke vnto her husband. You se good husband that you can not do your dutie vnto me, and you haue disappointed my youthely body, and brought me beside in daunger of my good name with greate hinderaunce of my helth: you se there is before God no mariage betwene vs two. Let me therefore by your good leaue mary priuely with your brother or next Kinsman, so that alwaies yet you beare the name of my husbād, lest your goods come into other mens handes, and suffer your selfe of your owne accorde to be deceaued of me, as you ha­ue deceaued me against my will. I saide also that the husband ought to graunt hereunto, and pro­uide [Page] her the duty of mariage and children. The mari­ages of nevve ghos­pellers. whiche if he refuse to do, she ought priuely to departe from her husband in to some other countre, a [...]d there mary an other. Such counsell I gaue then, when I was yet fearefull. But nowe I would geue freer coun­sell: and that husband that beguiled his wife, I would handle more roughely: and likewise the wo­man that beguiled her husband: although this hap­pened seldomer in wemen then in men. In such wa­ightie matters that toucheth our body, our goods, estimation, and helth, it is not inough to compasse slightely by crafte our neighbour: Note the iustice of Luther. a iuste and ae­qual recompense must be required of him. That is, the woman lustely ought to plaie the hoore and committe aduoutry. Tom. 9. f [...]. 177. And a litle after. There be we­men so frowarde and so obstinatly sette, that all­though her husband fall ten times into incontinen­cie, A spiritual lesson for the prote­stant hus­band. she passeth not vpon it. Here it is time that her husband speake thus vnto her. If thou wilt not, an other will▪ if the wife will not, let the maide come. so that yet the husband warden her twise or thrise before, and open the matter to other, that her fro­wardnes be knowen and punished before all the cō ­gregation. if she wil not, Ester. 1. then dimisse her from the. put a waie Vasthi and take Hester, as king Assue­rus [Page 97] did. Thus farre Luther. I knowe very well the Lutherans be angry hereat, and would that there were no more talke of these matters. for that being dis­couered and brought to light, they worke them muche shame and dishonesty. Vnto whom I awnswere that I am not the first that haue discouered this their shamefull doctrine of matrimony. Diuers haue done the like before me: and especially the vertuous and Catholike Prince, of most worthy memory George Duke of Saxony, in his aunsuer against Luther. Which if Melanchthon haue forgotten, yet I truste he re­membreth what he wrote him selfe generally of all the sacraments, in his annotations vpon the firste e­pistle to the Corinthians the seconde chapter. where he writeth thus. There be in all two sacramentall signes, baptim and the Supper of the Lord, the o­ther which are called sacraments are but mens imaginations. Nowe what difference is there betwene the wordes of Luther saieng, that Matrimony is but the inuention of man, and these wordes of Me­lanchthon saieng, That the rest of the Sacraments ( amonge the whiche matrimony is counted) be but mens imaginations? And see the wicked doctrine off these ghospellers, calling the blessed Sacraments, but mens imaginations. Matth. 19. Marci. 10. for what saith our Sauiour of holy matrimony? VVhat God hath coupled, let not man separat. Is this nowe the inuentiō or imagination of mē, and not rather the institution and ordonnaunce [Page] of God him selfe?

When the ghospell of Luther first sprange vp, The incō ­stancy of the Lutherans. Melanchthon wrote that only faith iustified, the Sa­craments indued men with no grace, baptim and the Supper were only Sacramentall signes. In locis communi­bus medijs & vltimis. A litle after he wrote they were true Sacraments and of two he made thre, and at length foure, so that in the espace of fewe yeares that which he first laughed to scorne and called imaginatiōs of men, sodenly they proued holy Sacramēts, and weighty ordonnaunces of the liuinge Lorde. I entend not here to dispute of the number of Sacraments, what is the Catho­like doctrine and what is the heretical, it is not nowe oure purpose.

Farder the Lutherans will not be a knowen, The Lu­therans haue cor­rupted the Crede that they haue corrupted our Crede, scraping out the worde Catholike in the article, I beleue the holy Catholike churche. Thus I saide before of them, and saie it yet agai­ne, reporting my self herein to their Confession of Aug­spurg, where they describing their church, omitte cle­ane the worde, Catholike. In the Apologie Melanchthon being accused thereof maketh a litle mencion, but so that he calleth Catholike. that which heretikes in cor­ners do imagin. In his common places and in his booke Examen examinandorum he bableth and pratleth to no purpose very muche of the churche, but the worde Catholike, he can finde in no churche. In the greate and in the litle Cathechisme of Luther, and in his litle booke of praiers where he reciteth the Cre­de [Page 98] and expoundeth it, Children are taught a corrupted Crede. in euery place for the Catholike church, he writeth the Christian churche. And hereof it cometh that through oute all Germany where the ghospell of Luther is receaued, children allwaies ler­ne their Crede and saie it at table, euen as it is corru­pted of Luther and Melanchthon. Who like crafty he­retikes laboured by all meanes possible that the wor­de Catholike might by litle and litle vtterly be forgot­ten. And all heretikes haue euer shunned and auoided this article of our Crede I beleue the Catholike churche. and that not without good cause: for certayn they are if their doctrine come to examination to be bul­ted out by lerning, that this only worde Catholike wil cutte their throtes.

Sithen then we see clerely and euidently by this which we haue saide, Prote­stants are proued to be hereti­ke [...]. that amonge the Lutherans are not only diuers and variable, but pernicious and hai­nous hereticall schismes, diuisions and opinions, as out of their owne saings, doings, and writings we haue before declared, surely it must of necessite folowe, that the Lutherans be and remaine pernicious and detestable heretikes. Smidelinus extrema parte libri contra S [...]a phylum. For doctour Smidelin him selfe and all heretikes do confesse this that whereas in the do­ctrine of faith, that is, in the principall articles of faithe are hereticall dissensions and schismes, that then the teachers and setters forthe of such haereti [...]all schismes, must nedes be here­tikes them selues. But no man can nowe denie that the Lutheran preachers do sette forthe, vpholde and de­fende hereticall schismes. Wherefore it foloweth that these Lutherans, ghospellers, protestants, or howsoe­uer [Page] they call them selues, be pernicious heretikes, and for such are to be taken, and auoided of al Christen­dom.

And truly there is no better meanes, to reduce he­retikes to the right and common highe waye of the Catholike church, then to put before their eyes the­ir hainous and hereticall dissensions, wherein they haue runne a straie: one this waie, an other that way, but all out of the waie of the Catholike and Christē belefe. Or if heretikes will be obstinat allwaies, and continewe wilfully in their errour and presumed opiniōs, the readiest waie to bring them to nought, is to beseche god to suffer them to continew in the sprit of dissension, that being seuered into diuers parcels, and scattered into sundry schismes, they maie the sooner perish and vanish awaie, Dissension destroieth heresies. euen as the builders of the tower of Babell, and all heretikes yet hitherto. For the only destruction of all heresies hath ben the­ir mutuall dissension and schismes. This Luther him selfe testifieth, writing thus vppon the fift psalme. Euery kingdome diuided within it selfe shall be desolated: Lutherus in 5. psal. for heretikes were neuer ouercomed by force or by art, but only by their owne altercatiōs and dissensiōs. Iudic. 9. Genes. 11. Nether Christ by any other meanes ouerthroweth heresies, then by suffe­ring them to fall in to the sprit of dissension and variaunce as the Sichimites and buylders of Babell in the olde lawe, and the Arrians, Pelagians, and Donatistes in the newe la­we. The Iewes also were destroied only by discorde amonge them selues. For as Hilarius writeth, The warre of hereti­kes is the peace of the church. Bicause by their contentions, [Page 99] they perish euen bodyly, not only in their soules. Thus farre Luther. Dissension allvvaies accompa­neth here­sy. And truly so it fareth, when one heresie is o­nes spronge vp, and that diuers Masters professe it, straite vpō many schismes and factiōs arise. Marcion that archeheretike brought forth many absurde opi­nions, which ones being scattered in to the wild brai­nes of his scholers, his heresie incontinently began to breake in to sondry partes: so that of him proce­ded Appelliani, Seueriani, and Manichei, Again of the Manichei grewe the Priscillianistae, Encratitae, and di­uers other, all horrible heretikes, and yet allmost in all countres suffred. Epiphanius in the third booke confuting the Hemiarite and Arrians, writeth of the Arrians thus. For we saie the armie of the Arrians is di­uided into thre bandes, so that Eudoxius, Germanus, Geor­ge of Alexandria, Euzoius of Antioche be departed in to the first bande, cutting them selues of from their felowes. In to the seconde bande Basill (not the doctour of the churche) Eleusius, Eustachius, Georgius of Laodicea, Syluanus of Tarsus, and Macedonius of Constantinople haue straied. In the third companye (as I sayde before) is Acacius, Meletius and Eutychius. All their doings be vaine and wicked. For that as ony one taught, the other would not receaue, but with mutuall hatred and malice they dissent and disagree eche from the other. Thus farre Epiphanius. Vide histo­riam tripar titam. lib. 9 cap. 40. & Nicephorun lib. 12. cap. 29. & li. 13 cap. 1. & lib 18. cap. 45 & 50. Who listeth more at large to see the schismes and diuisiōs of the­se and of other heretikes, he maye reade Eusebius and other ecclesiasticall stories. S. Augustin maketh men­cion off dissension of the Donatistes, obiecting vnto them that Donatus his secte was distracted into son [Page] dry schismes. For thus he writeth in his first booke▪ De Baptismo contra Donatistas, Cap. 6. This part of Dona­tus is cutte in to many smal pieces, al which parcels reprehēd very much this great portion where Primianus ruleth, for approuing the baptim of the Maximinianiste▪ and eche of all those parcels do stoutely affirme that the right and true bap­tim is only among them and no where els. Thus much S. Augustin.

But what nede we be longe in these olde and auncient heresies, whereas (alas) euen nowe presently in our dere countre of Germany such a plentyfull broode of heresies groweth and increaseth? for howe son­dry and howe diuers sectes hath that only braine of Ihon Hus begotte? Some of them are called Fratres VValdenses, some Thaborite, some Picardi and some Grubenheimeri, with diuers other names which were here tedious to recite. For amonge those wiche no­we call them selues ghospellers, spronge vp of the sede off Luther, there are (alas) so many factions, so diuers sectes, so soundry heresies, that they can scant be numbred. Yea and many more (as Gallus writeth) hange yet in the penne: but I wil somewhat shake the pen to see whether any will fall out. Tru­ly this is most euident. Suche an archeheretike, as in our daies Martin Luther hath ben, neuer yet was see­ne in the churche: and therefore God neuer so decla­red his wrath in this our miserable time. Yet God of his mercie hathe geuen vs clere tokens and sure argu­ments to knowe and espie out this heresie, suffring such straunge dissensions and horrible schismes to [Page 100] come to light: and that so clerely and manifestly that euery man may easely perceaue, and surely pronoun­ce, that euen as God is the author of peace and vni­te, so the deuill hath ben the father, inuenter, and set­ter forthe of all this Lutheran discorde and conten­tious doctrine. If therefore any good Christen man desirous to saue one, coueteth euidently to see and behold what, and howe greate the schismes and factions of these Lutherans are, all chalenging to them selues the truthe and light of the ghospel, let him reade and peruse this table of sectes that foloweth, which I sett forthe before in latin, but nowe haue augmented it in my mother tongue for my de­re countremens sake.

NOthing is more naturall, saithe the philosopher Aristotle, then that e­uery thing bring forthe his like, and that not only bicause the nature of thinges should not be confounded, (wherefore the lyon bringeth forth a lyon, and the [Page] man engendreth man, and as the Poet saithe, [...]. The rocke Scylla bringeth forthe no rose) but also to the entent that euery kinde by it sel­fe should be like in maners and disposition: where­fore of the valiaunt father cometh not lightely a co­wardly sonne nor as the poet Euripedes saythe, Of an vnthrifty father cometh a wise childe. This then being a constant and perpetuall lawe of nature, it hath pleased God by cōsideratiō of the natural course and issue of temporall thinges, as if it were by a similitu­de, to leade vs to the knowleadge of spirituall mat­ters: as for example, to knowe and discerne the true prophets of God, which are the right and naturall broode of the church, frō the false prophets and preachers, which are as monstres or euill begotten chil­dren in the churche. therefore he saithe. By their fru­tes you shall knowe them. Mat. 7. and why by their frutes? Bi­cause of thornes no man gathereth grapes nor figges of bram­bles. And this it is, which is commonly saied, euery thing foloweth his kinde.

What a prophet Luther was, his broode and issue hath well declared. For as soone as Luther pricked first with desire of promotion and praise, was strait enflamed with the firy lustes of the flesh, and that to accomplishe this matter, Apoca. 16. Luther the false prophet and that seuenheaded beste (whereof the Apocalipse speaketh) were ioyned together, the olde Dragō (the deuill) geuing her to wife, incontinently these three vncleane sprits, of the Confessionistes, of the Sacramen­taries, and of the Anabaptistes, creped out of their [Page 101] mouth like frogges. And although these thre vncleane sprits, like the foxes of the Philistians beare their heades farre a sonder and distant, yet they are so tied together by the tayles, to burne vpp the corne of Christes churche, that nowe in all Europe no here­sie can be founde, which hath not the marke either of the Confessionistes, or of the Sacramentaries, or of the Anabaptistes. That you maie if ye liste, euidently knowe to which of these sprits euery heresie is boun­de.

And to the entent you maie espie of out euery and singular markes of these vncleane sprits, note what foloweth. God punisheth the worlde for sinne with seuen principall plages. But those especially he vtte­reth in thre elements, in water, Apocal. 16. in ayre and in fyre. For as it is writen, Sap. 11. Loke wherewithall a man sinneth, by the same he shall be punished. This also in an other pla­ce is notised. For there are three that beare recorde in he­auen, the father, 1. Ioan. 5. the worde and the holy ghost, and these thre are one. And there are three which beare recorde in e­arth. The Spirit and water and bloud, and these three are one. This latter kinde of bearing recorde Christ him selfe instituted and confirmed in earth, especially hā ­ging for vs on the Crosse, where he shed water and bloud out of his side, and yelded vp his Spirit into the handes of the father. And as Eue was made oute of the ribbe and side of Adam, Ioan. 19. so vndoubtedly the church toke his roote and beginning of the side of Christ, as the Councell of Vienna lernedly expoun­deth it. For the church by thre Sacramēts is specially [Page] holden by baptim, the Sacrament of the aultar, and by Penaunce. The seale of baptim is water. The mi­stery of the blessed Sacrament is bloude off wine, which is of the ayre. The holy Spirit, which Christ inspired to his Apostles, gaue the kayes of the church in penaunce. And the token of it appeared, fire in the mouthe of the Apostles. Nowe these three maner of bearing recorde in earth which Christ hath institu­ted, and by the which the churche is vpholden, are al at this present profaned, brokē and corrupted. The Anabaptistes haue corrupted the water of baptim. The Sacramētaries, haue profaned the bloud of our Lorde. The Confessionistes haue broken the kaies of the churche. And these hainous crimes haue part­ly already ben punished: but the ende is not yet co­me: bicause the profanation, corruption, and brea­che of these holy institutions cease not yet. Let him beware, that vnderstandeth. Let him flie that can escape. Let him shake of the duste of these here­sies that feareth the wrath of God: But nowe to the table.

THe Dragon, Apo. 16. the Beste, the false pro­phet (mencioned in the Apocalypse) Martin Luther, the fifte euangelist, out of whom proceded principally thre vncleane sprits, In the yeare of our Lorde. 1517. vpon S. Martins eue, to wit, the A­nabaptistes, the Sacramentaries, and the Confessioni­stes, whiche are commonly called protestant prea­chers.

The first vncleane sprit or tode Muntzerus and Bernard Rotman, son of Luther and father of the Anabaptistes began in the yeare of our Lorde. 1514. out of these proceded.

Muntzerans, The late rebells in Fraun­ce are of this secte. whiche are named of Thomas Mun­tzer. for when that mā read in the bookes of Luther De captiuitate Babylonica and contra duo mandata Caesa­ris, that, There was no hope of remedy vnlesse all mens lawes being extinguished the people did ru­le, and that we ought to praie to God, that subiects obey not their magistrats, He sturred vp the com­mons through out al Germany against the nobilite. whereby after sondry battailles had, there perished [Page] more then a hundred thousand of the commons. Reade the storie of Sleidan.

Anabaptistes who first sprang vp by reading in an epistle of Luther to the Waldenses or Picardi, That it is better, baptim were omitted in children thē that they should be baptised without their owne faith. Of these arose diuers sectes, amonge the which these are accompted the cheafest

Adamitae, The sectes of Ana­baptistes. the Adamites, whiche professe to folo­we the innocency of Adam. they wander in woddes, and sometime naked, as Adam and Eue did.

Stebleri, which teache that scripture forbiddeth to cary sworde or wallet. item that it is not lawfull for Christen men to accuse in iudgement, that it is not the part of a Christen man to repell violence by for­ce, but to him that striketh on the one cheke he ou­ghte to turne the other. This Luther taught in his articles condemned of the Sorbon in paris.

Sabbataries, which obserue the Sabbaoth daye like Iewes. despise the Sonday, and do inuocat the father only, and seme to contemne the Son and the holy ghoste. See Luther in his booke againste the Sabba­taries.

Clancularij, Close Anabaptistes, whiche being asked whether they be Anabaptistes, thinke they may law­fully denie them selues to be such, supposing it i­noug to knowe priuely what they ought to beleue, and that it is not nedefull to confesse openly. And these be commonly in greate cytes: they enter in to [Page 103] no churches, they learne and teache at home in their houses, or els mete in gardens. Such are commonly called [...]arrenbrijder, that is, garden brethern.

Manifestarij. Open Anabaptistes, which being asked whether they be Anabaptistes, think it a wicked thinge to denie it. In Prussia this secte is common.

Daemoniaci, which beleue (as the Origenistes in ti­mes paste) that the deuills shall be saued after the en­of the worlde.

Communia habentes, Commonholders, which are of the opinion, that wiues, children, and all other thinges in the common welthe ought to be common, as Plato in his Common wealthe taught, and in olde time the Nicolaite, and off late the ghospelling prophets off Moūster. The Sprit They saie one to an other. My sprit lusteth after thy fleshe: come therefore, and let vs do mar­uailous thinges. See Sleidan in the battaill of Moun­ster.

Condormientes, Byslepers, which commaunde that for the vehement loue of the newe ghospel, men and wemen; younge men and maydens, ought to lyue in one place and parler, and slepe in one chamber. So did other heretikes of olde time in Burgūdy, and af­terward in Bohem the Grubenheymeri. which put­ting out the candles, cried one to an other, Encrease and multiplie.

Eiulātes, Howling Anabaptistes, whiche thinke no de­uotion pleaseth God so muche as to wepe and how­le continually. greate store of this secte are in the vpper Belgia.

[Page] Georogianidauidici, Dauigeorgians, whiche began in Friselande in the yeare of our Lorde. 1525. They saie there is no deuil, they denie the resurrectiō of the fle­she. See Sleidā. The Author and Master of this secte saied him selfe, he was the third Dauid, as Luther that he was the third Elias, and Osiāder the secōd Enoch.

Memnonitae, which denie that Christe toke fleshe of the Blessed Virgin.

Polygamistae Bernardin Ochin Peter Mar­tirs scho­ler defen­deth this secte by scriptures Tom. 6. fo. 177. an. 53. Many wiuers, which teache that one man maye lawfully haue two wiues at one time. Itē that the brother maye mary his brothers wife, he yet liuing. So practised Ihon Leiden kinge off Moun­ster (Se Sleidan) and so taught Luther in his sermon set forthe of mariage. Where he saithe. If the wife will not, let the maide come. There be many other sectes of Anabaptistes, which here to auoide prolixi­te we let passe.

The Second vncleane sprit, and tode, son of Luther and father of the Sacramentaries, Carolstadius, be­gan the yeare of our Lorde 1521.

Carolstadius and Zwinglius toke occasion to raise vp againe the olde heresie of Berengarius by these wordes of Luther in his assertions against pope Leo, and in formula Missae. Nether kinde (of the sacra­ment) is necessary to saluation. And againe in his Resolutions. Only faith of the Sacrament doth iustifie, not the Sacrament. These and other saiengs of Lu­ther moued Carolstadius and Swinglius to beleue that the Sacraments were but bare signes, as Melanch­thon [Page 104] vppō the epistle to the Romans teacheth. The­se Sacramentaries are many and diuers. First there are eight Sacramentary factions, which Luther, him sel­fe in parua Confessione attributeth to the Swinglians, as we haue noted and recited before. Thē Philip Me­lanchthon declareth six other Sacramentarie sectes amonge the Lutherans, in his determination writen a litle before his death vnto the Counte palatin of the Rhene, and printed at Heidelberg in the yea­re 1560. whiche we haue also before touched. But these which folowe, are the most famous and most renouned sacramentarie sectes.

Significatiui, Signifiers, whiche affirme that in the Supper of our Lorde (for so they call the Sacrament of the anltar) is not the true body, but only the signe of the body. So Swinglius writeth in many and son dry bookes sett forthe De Caena Domini.

Tropistae, Figurers, which saie that in the supper of our Lorde is the figure of the body not the true bo­dy. So taught Oecolampadius in many places.

Energici, Valuers, which teache, that in the Supper of our Lorde, is not the body it selfe, but the vertu and value of the body. so Caluin teacheth in many bookes: and lately in his last admonition against [...]oachimus Westphalus. Melanchthon also (as Caluin laieth to his charge, and as it may appeare in his de­termination printed at Heidelberg) affirmeth the sa­me.

Arrhabonarij, Pleadgers, which are of the opinion, that the Supper of our Lorde when it is geuen, is geuen [Page] as a pleadge of the body, as though it were like the inuesting, or taking possession of a farme or any other thinge whiche is geuen. So Franciscus Stanca­rus teacheth in Pole and in Transsil­uania. Sybenburgen.

Adessenarij, Presentaries, of whom there are son­dry sectes. For some write that the body of our Lor­de is in the breade. Some aboute the breade: some with the breade, some vnder the breade. see the as­sertions of VVilhelmus Klebitius of Brandebourg aga­inst the disputation lately had at Heidelberg, in the yeare. 1560.

Metamorphistae, which affirme that the body off Christ after it ascended in to heauen, was made god it selfe. And that it ought properly de saied. The bo­dy of Christ is God. Therefore if ye aske howe the body of our Lorde is in the Supper, they awn­swer. That the true body is there, but suche a body, as is the very substaunce of God and God himselfe: not fleshe, whiche is of the same substa­unce that mans nature is of. So writeth Swenck feldi us in many bookes: but chefely in his booke De dupli cista'u Christi.

Iscariotistae, Iudaistes, whiche denie that in the Supper of our lorde Iudas Iscariot receaued the true body of Christ. So writeth Swenck feldius in a litle booke entituled of this very matter, and Caluin in his laste admonition against VVestphalus and other where.

The Neutres Sacramentaries, which teache that [Page 105] nether one kinde, nor bothe kindes are necessary, but that only faithe suffiseth. Againe that if the Coun­cell should determinat, that all should communicat vnder bothe kindes, then contrairely the laye men ought other communicat vnder one kinde, or vtter­ly refuse bothe. they are the wordes off Luther in his booke de formula Missae, O hotte communi cants. ant it is the common practise of all Lutherans: where by it happeneth that some not in ten yeares come to the communion, so­me neuer at all.

Iconoclastae, Imagebreakers, which caste out of the church the images of Christ and all sainctes, putting vp in their places their owne pictures and their wi­ues maruailous finely and amorousely painted, as in times paste Simon Magus and his bawde Helena did as Nicephorus witnesseth. Our ghospelling protestāts practise it daily. The examples testifie.

The third vncleane sprit or tode, son of the false prophet Luther, is Melanchthon: father of the Con­fessionistes in the yeare. 1530. off these there are thre contrary sectes and factions. Zelous. Some are roughe and zelous Lutherās which without choise or excep­tion defend all the doctrine of Luther, be it neuer so absurde: taking all that Luther hath writen filthy or carren as it is, for the holy and pure ghospell of God. Nexte are the softe, Ciuill. gentle, Ciuill and moderat Luthe­rans, which haue departed in many pointes from the doctrine of Luther. And faining as if they woulde ioyne nearer to the Catholikes, by making their [Page] Interim (that is a delaye vntel a Councel come) haue yet fallē frō errour to errour the later contrary to the first, as sometime of Maniches becoming Pelagians. The third sorte of these Confessionistes, we may cal Extrauagāts, and vnruly Lutherans, which although they pretend to be Confessionistes, for bicause off the authorite of [...]uch Princes as haue subscribed to the Confession, yet in dede they runne and roue far­der from the doctrine of Luther, then the common sorte of Lutherans do. But nowe first of the zelous and rough Lutherans.

Antinomi, The ze­lous Lu­therans. lawles Lutherans, which so extoll the ghospell, that they affirme the lawe of god to be vt­terly vnprofitable, and nether before iustification, nor after necessary. That men of the ghospell are not boūde to the good workes of Gods lawe. So Lu­ther taught in the beginning, and of him lerned Io­annes Agricola as he writeth in his annotations vpon S. Ihon. And Luther in his Antinomicall disputations.

Samo satenici or newe Arrians which denie that this terme [...] the worde, in S. Ihon signifieth a per­son of the blessed Trinite. The vniuersite of Witten­berg witnesseth that Mathias Illyricus is of that opi­nion. In a litle towne or village of Silesia, called Zary there is an other Mathias Minister off that village, which vtterly denieth that there is any Trinite. In Czeshau a towne of Boheman other Minister with like madnes inueighed against the blessed Tri­nite, preaching in the hilles called Guttni, and diuers other in other places. O blessed frutes of the nevve ghospell. Yea they are come to this fury [Page 106] and madnes, that they call the Blessed Trinite, the thre headed Helhounde Cerberus, some other denie there is one God: and affirme there are three Gods. So a certayn Minister preached openly in Prussia.

Infernales, Certain Lutherās denie an article off our crede. Hellmasters, which denie hell, and that Christ descended in to hell, affirming that euery mās graue is called in hebrew hell. Therefore where our Crede saith that Christ descēded in to hell, they saie it must be ment of his graue. This is a common doctrine in the seacost townes of Germany, as at Breme, at Hamburg, at Lubek and such other places. It semeth also to be the opinion of Brentius. Reade his greate Catechisme.

Infernales of an other sorte (helltormenters) are, which affirme that Christ not onely descēded in to hell, but also suffred the eternall torments and pai­nes of hell. So teacheth Nicolaus Gallus at Ratisp [...] ­na. Regens­purg in his printed Catechisme: and Iames Smide­lin preacher of Gopping, and Caluin in his Institu­tions.

Antidaemoniaci, which denie there is any deuil or euill sprits, or any witchecrafte, or enchauntments wrought by the deuills. So teache the Dauigeorgians and Andreas Osiander.

Amsdorffiani which teache that good workes are pernicious for man to saluation. So writeth Nicolaus Amsdorffius in his litle booke entituled, That this proposition is true. Good workes are pernicious to saluatiō. So the scholers of Flaccius and many preachers of Saxony do teache and write.

[Page] Antadiaphoristae which admitte no auncient ceri­nonies in the church, nor no iurisdiction of bishops. so write the Illyricans and the Flaccians in many bookes sette forthe against the Adiaphoristes off witten­berg.

Antosiandrini or Osiandromastiges, which denie that man is iustified with that iustice, whereby God is es­sentially iuste: teaching that he is iustified by impu­ting of righteousnes, that is (as Illyricus doth glose) he is called iuste in worde onely: he is not so in dede. Fourten Lutheran churches haue writen against O­siander: but eche of them bringeth a peculiar definiti­on of iustice and contrary to his felowes. Sethe wri­ting of Ioannes Functius de origine Osiandrinae litis contra Staphylum.

Antiswenck feldiani, which teache that by the ex­ternall preaching only or vocall ministery we attay­ne to the Christen faith. Illyricus in diuers writings set forthe against Swenck feldius.

Anticaluiniani which although they do well af­firme the reall presence of Christes body in the Sa­crament, yet they do falsely and wickedly denie trās­substantiation and adoratiō. Again they falsely holde that the Sacrament consisteth onely in the vse off it. Ioachimus VVestphalus in his awnswer against Cal­uin, and diuers other.

Manus impositorij, which will haue that the layeng on of handes of laye men is a Sacrament. This secte swarmeth in Saxony, in Pomerania, and in the seacost townes. Se Illyricus against Iustus Menius.

[Page 107] Bisacramentales, which admitte only two Sacra­mentes. so teache Caluin and the Flaccians.

Sacerdotales, which teache that men and women and all laie persons may preache the worde of God, in the churche, maie minister the Sacraments, maye binde and lose. For all men are equally priestes. that holy order is but a tale and imaginatiō of men. This is the doctrine of Luther in his booke De captitutate Babylonica. and of Illyricus in his Apologie againste Iustus Mentus.

Inuisibiles, which teache that no churche is visible bicause onely God knoweth who are his. So Luther and Melanchthon taught in the beginninge, as it ap­peareth in the Apology off the Confession of Aug­spurg. but allthough they afterwarde secretly recan­ted this errour, yet neuertheles the Illyricans, the Swenck feldians, the Osiandrins, and the Anabaptistes kepe it still.

The Seconde Secte of the Confessionistes, in the which are (as we saide before) the softe Philosophers and Masters of Wittenberg: which will be counted moderat, ciuill Lu­therans. meke and more ciuil then the reste (for the moste parte of these protestants are hotte and sedi­tious) and after a sorte kepe vnite and peace with all other sectes: as in times paste the heretikes Meletiani (amonge the Arrians) and Rhetorij.

Biblijstae, Scripturians, whiche affirme that nothing is to be admitted, read, or sette forthe to the people in the church, or to the youthe in scholes, but onely the bare text, and holy scripture of the Bible▪ and that [Page] there nedeth no interpretation, for that we be all in­structed frō God. So writeth Melanchthō to Georgius Spalatinus in his preface vppon the Canons off the Apostles. Againe that no parte off Philosophie, is to be lerned, Colloss. 2. bicause S. Paule forbiddeth vs to folowe vaine philosophie. And againe bicause it is writen of Moyses that men ought to eate their bread in the sweate of their browe. Ge [...]e. 3. Therefore while Luther re­mained in his Pathmus, Carolostadius and Melanchthon persuaded the scholers of Wittenberg, that burning their humanite bookes, euery man should gette him to some hādry crafte worke. Many did as they were counselled. Carolostadius in a certain Village by, in the grounde of VVittenberg (being before Archedea­con of the cyte) Melanch­thon is a baker. became a labouring husband man. and Melanchthon getting him to a bakehouse, lerned to bake. This decree of so great diuines was dispersed abrode in to many cytes of Germany. And to omitte the rest, it is wel knowē, that in Silesia at Breslau and Suidnicia, grāmer scholes were for the espace of two yeares shet vp and abolished. al which time the scho­lers of the Master ghospellers did reade nothing but the very text of scripture. There be at this daye li­uing which can well testifie all this. The same all­so appeareth well in two bookes of Luther set for­the in the yeare. 1522. writen to the Magistrates and cytes off Germany for the setting vpp agayne off scholes.

Adiaphoristae, Indifferents, which teache that the la­wefull constitutions of the churche and of Coun­cels, [Page 108] also the cerimonies are thinges indifferent: whi­ch to obserue or to breake is no sinne. So teache the Masters or diuines of Wittenberge and of Lipsia, in their Interim made at Lipsia.

Trisacramentales, which admitt onely thre Sacra­ments, Baptim, the Supper of our Lorde, and Abso­lution or penaunce. such is the practise in the Ordy­naunce of Lipsia.

Quadrisacramentales, which alowe foure sacramēts Baptim, the Supper of our Lorde, Penaunce and ho­ly Order. so is it obserued in the Ordinaunce of Wittē ­berg out of Melanchthons common places.

Lutherocaluiniani, which counterfaite that the Lutherans and the Zwinglians accorde smothely in the matter of the Sacrament, and would make men wene that the contention is in wordes not in the thinge. See Iames Smidelins booke of the Supper of the Lorde. See also Nicolaus Amsdorffius in his Cōfe [...]sion: who vehemently reprehendeth this gui­le and deceite of Smidelin.

Semiosiandrini, which against Osiander, taking the parte of the Antosiandrini teache that man in this li­fe is accompted iuste and righteous by imputation onely▪ and againe taking Osianders part against the Antosiandrins teache, that in the life to come, man must in dede be iustified with that very iustice where with God him selfe is essentially iuste. of this o­pinion are the diuines and Masters of Tubing. Rea­de the duke of Prussia his booke set forthe vpon this [Page] controuersie of Osiander, and the epistle of Brentius writen vnto his prince of the very same controuer­sie, and printed at Wittenberg in the yeare .1552.

Maioristae, which denie that any man (yea infants them selues) can be iustified, or euer haue ben saued without good workes going before. Georgius Maior in many writinges against Illyricus.

Poenitentiarij, which haue corrupted the doctrine of penaunce with seuen grosse errours. Illyricus ac­cuseth hereof the diuines of Wittenberg and of Lipsia in a writing set forthe against the corruption of the ghospell, printed in Iene in the yeare .1559. and thus intituled. Beriche M. F. Illyrici von ethliken ar­tikelen.

Nouipelagiani, newe pelagians which write that a man may dispose him selfe by his owne naturall po­wer to receiue the grace of God: so Illyricus accuseth Melanchthon in the writing aboue named and Ams­dorfius in his Confession.

Syncretisantes, politik Lutherans, whiche persuade and counsell al other sectes, that they pretend at lea­ste vnite amonge them selues, seing they can not co­me to any true agremēt: that like the people of Cre­ta they may with more yoined force sett vpon their common aduersaries the papistes and ouercome thē the sooner. This writeth Melanchthon in his boo­ke against Staphylus.

The third secte of the confessionistes, wherein are the disorderly and vnruly Lutherans, althoughe they manifestly oppugne and resist the doctrine of the [Page 109] Confession of Augspurg, yet vnder pretext of the same Confession the mayne flocke of these shepe of Me­lanchthon beare them selues for Lutherans.

Swenck feldians, haue hetherto ben all moste all of one opinion, but nowe they begin to scatter and swarue amonge them selues. For of the selfe same po­ints in doctrine those of Breslau haue one opinion (approuing one point and reprouing an other in Swenckfeldius) those of Suidnicia haue an other, fin­ding faute with those Swenck feldians, whiche call baptim ein Sewbad / that is, Certain protestāts call bapti abathe for svvine. a bathe for swine: and those of Glogouia haue yet an other, measuring by their proper sprit the writings of Swenckfeldius. But the peculiar and speciall doctrines, of that man are these. That the manhood of Christ is the beget­ting of the holy ghoste, not the creature of God (as other men are) but a middle thinge betwene God the Creator, and man the creature, but yet in suche wise, that the same manhood of Christ after his as­cension in to heauen was made very God. This te­stifieth manifestly his legat at Augspurg and his bookes offred off late to a certain frend off his there. Againe that euery man is endued with the same ri­ghteousnes, the same wisedome, the same charite, and all the same vertus with the which God is es­sentially endued, of like worthines and in like ma­ner, and by this very diuine nature is God: Beside that the same vertu or operation which is in the [Page] worde of God preached, is the very son of God, [...] that is, the worde, as scripture termeth it. Thus he writeth in his booke de duplici statu Christi, de vero euangelij vsu, and in many other writings, whiche he presented to a certayn frende. Truly this man wrote many thinges not amisse, but these and many other very euill: a man not so malitious as vnlerned in true diuinite.

Osiandrini, which saie that Christe iustifieth man by his diuine nature onely, vtterly excluding his hu­manite, againe that a Christen man ought to be iu­ste with that very iustice where with god him selfe is essentially iuste. farder that Christe the onely be­gotten son of god according to bothe natures ( off god and man) as he was in his mothers wombe, is the very same image after the which the firste man was created. therefore when man in the sacrament of baptim putteth on Christe according to bothe natures (of god and man) that he is made the very same image generally, not particularly as the ler­ned vse to speake. And this is the meaning (sayth he) of the wordes of S. Ihon, 1, Ioan. 4. that Christe is come in to sleshe. Martin Luther in the yeare 1539 at Smalcaldiū, where the Leage (or rather conspiracye) was then made, preaching vnto the estats and orders of protestants, interpreted these wordes of S. Ihon that Christe is come [Page 110] in to fleshe, after this sorte. That Christe came not therefore in to flesh, that he might communicat vn­to vs his owne iustice or righteousnes, but that he might accepte vs for iuste and righteous outwardly: so that our inwarde man should not in dede be iu­stified or made righteous from vniuste and vnrigh­teous, but we should onely be accounted for suche before God after the maner of acceptation: as in ti­mes paste the Lacedaemonians made and decreed A­lexander a God with these wordes. Alexander wil be a God. let him he a God, and let Alexander be coūted and accepted for a god, though he be no god. And Luther saith that this doctrine was the sure foundation vpon the which the Leage of Smalcaldiū for the defence of the ghospell might and ought right worthely be builded, erected and absolued. But anon after when it came to Osianders course to prea­che, he toke the very same theme of S. Ihon that Lu­ther did. But leauing the interpretation of Luther, he interpreted it after his owne minde: in suche sorte that it directly repugned Luther: as, that the very essentiall iustice or righteousnes off God, proceding and flowing out of the foresaide image off God (which he calleth Christe) is planted in man. and at the last, though preuely, he gaue them to vnderstāde that this his doctrine was the very iewell and treasu­re of the ghospell: farre better then that of Luther: [Page] in consideration whereof bothe the Leage and the warre of Smalcaldium should be entred, made, and fi­nished. And this sermon of Osiander was allmoste the laste that was made at that meting: as I am able to showe by the hande of Melanchthon. Thus Luther for the grounde of his iustification would haue (as in his owne printed disputation it is euident) a kinde of relation and imputing, which is the lest of all thin­ges that are, and in dede nothing. But Osiander put­teth for his grounde the diuine essence, God him selfe, whiche is all thinges. See howe iumpe these two ghospellers and Archeprotestants mete in the very highest point of our religion. Vpon this faint and frickle foundation of two false and contrary opi­nions was that leage of Smalcaldium stroken: whe­reof ensued that lamentable and cruell warre, to the greate waste and destruction of Germany, with the murder of infinit thousands of men. Then experience it selfe declared, howe true that prophecye of Lu­ther was, when in the yeare .1545. in a certayn litle booke writē to two noble princes of the sight of a certayne coyne brought oute of base Germany, (whe­reof we shall speake more anon) he warranted v­pon his othe and faith all the confederats, that by this his doctrine of imputed righteousnes, they might boldely and hardely assure them selues of the victory at Brunswicke, Vide Micha elis Rotlin­gis ludima­gistri Norē bergensis li bellū cōtra Osiandrū. and off euerlasting saluation at the hande of God. But as touching Osiander, and his do­ctrine, it may be sene in a litle booke printed in the ye are of our lorde .1550. with this title. De imagine dei. [Page 111] There be many other articles of the Osiandrins: whiche to be short I omitte. See the disputation of Osiā ­der had at Regie­mons. Coiningsberg, in the yeare 1459. and his open confession sett forthe there also, in the yeare 1550.

Stancarians, which against Osiander vrge and affir­me vehemently, that Christ iustifieth vs by his manhood onely, not by his godhead at all. So Stancarus bothe taught openly, and wrote against Andre­as Musculus at Francford by Odera.

Antistancarians, whiche to refute the opinion of Stācarus do so farre affirme that Christ iustifieth mā and worketh oure righteousnes bothe by his man­hood, and by his godheade, that they doubte not to teache, the very godhead of Christ to haue suffered on the Crosse with his manhood. that Musculus is of this opinion, his extemporall treatise ( [...]) off Luthers doctrine witnesseth: and the condemnation of the Swiceran ptotestants for this opinion: as it is notised in the writing of Petrus Statorius the fren­che man, printed this yeare 1560. at Pinczouia in Po­le.

Noui Pelagiani, New Pelagians, which saie thereis no originall sinne in children, but that it is onely an infirmite not worthy of death. Suinglius is a Pela­gian. So teacheth Swingli­us in his litle booke of baptim against Vrbanus Regius. Againe that Numa, Cato, Scipio, and such other notable men of the ethnikes, although they lacked the true faith in Christ to come, yet that they are saued [Page] by the vertu of the lawe of nature. It is the doctrine of Swinglius in the booke aboue alleaged: and Lu­ther entwiteth the Swinglians with it in his laste cō fession of the supper of our Lorde.

Noui Manichei, Our nevv protestāts are nevve Mani­chees. New Manichees be and haue ben diuers protestants in our daies. First Luther: then Melanchthon, Caluin and many other, as Amsdorffius, Illy­ricus, Gallus, Beza, VVestphalus. Luther and Melanchthō teache, that all thinges bothe good and bad, come to passe by absolute necessite. that God is not only the cause of sinne by permission, but also by opera­tion: as the worker of it. It is the doctrine of Luther in his Assertions against pope Leo, and in his Resolutions: of Melāchthon in his annotations vpon the epi­stle to the Romans. Againe that. The aduoutrie of Dauid, the crueltie of Mālius, the betraieng of Iu­das, be as well and as much the worke and operatiō of god as the very Conuersion of S. Paule. Melāch­thon in his annotations vpon the epistle to the Ro­mans. But he recāted this heresie afterwarde, as it ma­ye appeare in his common places of the laste edition. Luther continued still obstinat in his errour: whom also al the obstinat and zelous Lutherans folowe yet as Illyricus, Amsdorfius, Gallus, and other.

Manichaei & Marcionitae Caluiniani, which as scho­lers of Ihon Caluin do professe, and spreade abrode these detestable and blasphemous doctrines against God and man, as folowe. That god chefely created [Page 112] mankinde for to be perpetually damned, that god created Adam not onely that he should die, Detesta­ble doctrines off Caluin but all­so from the beginning predestinated him to mischefe, and therefore he coulde not choose but sinne. That the sinnes committed by men are not onely done by gods permission, but by his will and com­pulsion. That all sinnes committed of men are ab­solutely the workes of god. That god worketh in men theft, horedome, aduoutrie, and all suche sinne as man doth. That the lawe of god and the will off god be oftentimes contrary, one to an other. That the deuill by gods commaundement and will lieth in mens hartes. That not onely God is the cause of euil, but also doth inspire in mēs hartes euil thoughtes to worke euill: so that men sinne not, but God is the willer and efficient cause of sinne. This is the doctrine of Ihon Caluin in his booke of predestina­tion, and of Theodore Beza ( the archeheretike of Fraū ce) in his defence for Caluin.

This yeare 1561. one Lucas Sternberger in Omoluke a towne of Morauia being cast in to preson, prea­ching amonge the Sternbergers, and in diuers other places, bearing him selfe for a Minister of the ghos­pel and scholer of Luther and Melanchthon, preached and persuaded the people this doctrine that foloweth for the true and expresse worde of God.

First he openly taught and confessed, That al su­che [Page] as worship the name of the Blessed Trinite do imagin falsely the Gods. That the name of the Trinite is vaine and superfluous, bicause that wor­de is no where expressed in holy scripture, beinge also but one God in heauen. Therefore he forbad that the same songe O veneranda Trinitas, O blessed Trinite should be songe, and commaunded in his place to singe O blessed goodnes of God. Horrible blasphe­mies of a ghospel­ling Minister. He wisheth also that all the deuills of hell woulde come and cary awa­ye this Trinite: saieng he can not tell whether it be a man or a woman: yet that he is sure that the sa­me Trinite was ones a woman, which had thre hus­bands.

Secondarely he confessed and taught, that Chri­ste was not true god but mā only like other mē, For if he had bē god he should haue descended out of he auen in to earthe and committed the gouuernemēt of the worlde here to Angels. That he was borne only of Mary and Ioseph the carpenter and that he exercised that crafte with Ioseph vntel the thirtyth yeare of his aage. Beside he teacheth, That Christ rose frō death not by his owne power but by the po­wer of god almightie: and that he worked no miracle, but by the power and operatiō of almightie god, which had endued him with more excellent giftes and graces then al the other prophets: adopting him [Page 113] for his son at the leghth for his vertuous and hone­ste life, when he was baptised of Ihon in the Iorda­yn, and the voyce from heauen came downe saieng This is my welbeloued son in whom I am delited, so that Christ is not the son of god but touching his soule onely, bicause in the crosse he commended and gaue vp but his soule to god.

Thirdly he mocketh at the holy ghoste, saieng, that it is nothing els but a pigeon. affirming beside that nothinge is writen of his diuinite in all scrip­ture nether of the olde testamēt nether of the newe and that it is not knowen what is this holy ghost. Finally he had rather returne to the cloyster, and be a papiste, then to beleue in the holy ghoste.

Fourthely. he will not the blessed virgin Mary mother of god to be a perpetuall virgin, but that she had before two or thre sonnes, and that she no­thing differeth frō the rest of wemen: and therefo­re nether she nor any other saints ought to be wor­shipped, or haue their holy daies kepte. Againe that men ought to worke the Sonday. and reste the Sa­terday, Note the grounde of nevve heresies novvea­daies. bicause in holy scripture the Saterday is cō ­maunded to be kept holy. But of the Sōday nothing is prescribed nor appointed. for (as Luther taught) nothinge ought to be admitted or obserued, which [Page] god hath not in expres wordes commaunded or forbyd in holy scripture.

Fiftely he reiecteth holy baptim, calling it a diue­lish institution: affirming also that it procureth nought els, but hell and eternall damnation, for cir­cumcision was instituted of god, not baptim.

Sixtely as touching the blessed Sacrament of the aultar he can neuer satisfie himselfe with mocking, iesting, and scorning at it. for he saith the Iewes ha­ue longe ago eaten vp the paschall lambe. and if any thing were lefte they burned it. Finally he confesseth he is of that opinion in this Sacrament, as Melanch­thon is. For at a certain time hauing some communi­cating with him, but fewer then he thought, he in­uited all other by speaking to them in these wordes. Come hether: for [...]am not able to deuoure him vpp alone. as for other sacraments he foloweth Luther in all points as his schole master, of whom he recea­ued this doctrine.

Now that these heresies here reakoned vp, be rife in Morauia, and that many a soule is miserably in ueig­led and seduced with them, the experience showeth. They also which are sene in the Alcoran of Maho­met, and in Luthers doctrine, may well consider and perceaue, The Issue of Luthers [...]hospell. that this fifte ghospell of Luther prepareth and fostifieth the waie for Mahomets Alcoran to co­me in to Germany.

And though the Lutherans to excuse them selues and their ghospell will here obiect, that Luther ne­uer inuented, neuer thought, nor taught these dete­stable [Page 114] heresies published by Lucas Sternberg, it maye and ought well be awnswered vnto them, that though Luther neuer tought these matters expresly, (which yet is to be doubted of) yet he gaue abundant and sufficient occasion for these and all other heresi­es and schismes, Luthers doctrine (to haue naught but expres scripture) cause off all here­sies. onely in that he writeth and bableth all waies, that nothing ought to be receaued, appro­ued or obserued in the church, which was not mani­fest, euident and expresse in holy scripture. And what other grounde hath this Lucas Sternberg to abolish al truthe of our Christen religion, and to plante his de­uelish doctrines, then this lesson of Luther? For euer he crieth. VVhere is it writen, where is it in holy scripture that there be thre persons? VVhere is it read that Christ in the vnion of his godhead and manhood, should be the Second person in Trinite? or that Christ is the true and naturall son of God, and not a creature according to his euerlasting and diuine generation? VVhere is it expressed in scri­pture that the holy ghoste it selfe is any other then the euerlasting father? VVhere is it noted in holy scripture that Mary the mother of Christe was a Virgin before and after the byrthe, and that shee continued a Virgin allwaies? In what place of the Bible can we reade that the Sabbaoth daie should be abrogated, and the Sonday instituted? And what heretike I pray you maye not saie the like of all the [Page] articles of our catholike faithe? For what scripture hath saie the Anabaptistes that infants shoulde be baptised? And the Swinglians. VVhat Scripture, saie they, affirmeth that the true body and not the figure off Christ his body is in the Supper of the Lorde? Againe the Lutherans. VVhat place of scri­pture, saie they, dothe testifie that Christ instituted the Masse in his Supper? Therefore if Luther had raised vp no other particular heresie, yet this was de­testable and cursed inoughe, that he taught nothing to be obserued, or receaued in the church, but whi­che god had expresly, directly, and in plaine wordes commaunded or forbed in the Bible.

To this heresie of Lucas Sternberg an other secte directly repugnant and contrary rose vp very lately at Pinczouia in Pole. in the which place two new ghospellers Petrus Statorius and Georgius Brandata teach that there is not one God, but thre gods, and they so diuers one from an other as thre men. yet that the son is somewhat lesse then the father and the holy ghoste. Againe that the Crede which the churche vseth to singe, is not to be called the Crede of Athanasius but of Sathanasius. as you woulde saie of the deuill. Certain noble men of Pole demaun­ding of Petrus Statorius and Georgius Brandata whe­re they had lerned this doctrine being newe and ne­uer heard off before in Pole, they awnswered, [Page 115] It was the pure ghospell and very worde off god, and the very same doctrine which they had lerned of their masters, Caluin, Bullinger, Peter Martir, and VVolfgangus Musculus. But the cause why it was not before heard of in Pole nor abrode in the worlde was that it pleased god to reuele to the worlde this highe misterie and greate treasure no­we in these later daies by his faithefull Ministres. The Lorde Stanislaus Baron, Mathias Stadnitzky, and Franciscus Stancarus by their patent letters writen to to the Swinglian doctours aboue mencioned, in the yeare 1561. and sent by their owne Messenger, do testifie and write these thinges of Petrus Statorius and Bran­data.

HEtherto by the sondry and diuers factions of heretikes of vs rehearsed, it may appea­re howe and in what matters they swarue and disagree amonge them selues. For who readeth nowe all the articles of the Confession off Augspurg, he shall see that swaruing and scattering in all the reste, they haue remained onely in these fewe of one accorde and agrement. And of those articles this is the firste.

Firste they agree all in this, that all sectes wil be called ghospellers, all boaste them selues to folowe the worde of God, the ghospell, the Crede of the Apostles, and of Athanasius. they all saie, that the worde off God is cleare and opē: and nedeth no interpretation, that women and men, laie and priestes, maye al a like handle and treate off the worde off God. And what­soeuer sence of holy scripture shall like any man, that he maye folowe and defend it for the worde of God it selfe.

The Second Article, wherein they do all agree is, that they do all with like endeuour and malice, stri­ue against the Catholike church. that none of them [Page 116] all admitteth any Catholike or vniuersally receaued exposition of holy scripture, that they all accompte the bishop of Rome for Antichriste, all bishops, Prelats, Priestes, for the mēbres of the deuil. that they do all abhorre constitutions and ceremonies of the Catholike churche. That all hate and detest a like the blessed sacrifice of the Masse. that all go aboute to take oute of the churche all priesthood and cler­gy.

The third article, wherein all the protestants agree is, that for the moste parte al leaders and Masters off sectes forge some notable lies vppon the Catholike writers, and then persuade the people they are the doctrine of the papistes. As for example. They make the people wene that the papistes taught man to be able to merit the grace of God, and the benefit off iustificatiō with his only good workes. This and su­che other lies they haue already so persuaded the pe­ople, that although neuer Catholike man taught so, yet they put this absurdite as the foundation and grounde of papisticall doctrine.

The fourth article wherein all protestants agree, is that to confesse and reaken vp our sinnes, to do any satis­faction whereby the temporall paine due for sinne may be released, to labour and endeuoure to purchase euerlasting life by good workes proceding of the grace of God, and depending of the merites of Christe, is naught els but a papisticall buchery, and torment of cōsciences. that Cōfirmatiō, Matrimony, and ex­treme vnction be mans inuentions, not Sacraments [Page] of the church. They agree also al in this, that no man can liue chaste, Aboue in the leafe. 16. no more then he can liue withoute spetting, as Luther writeth: and that to faste certain appointed daies, is the worshipping of deuils. In the­se articles off the Confession off Augspurg, in these articles of the fifte ghospell, all sectes of our time agree wonderfully. But in al other pointes they braule and snarle one at an other like cats and dogges.

THe Anabaptistes dwell frely and opē ­ly in easte and weste Friselande: and especially about Geddan, Dantsch, El­bing and Coiningsberg, also in Mora­uia abundantly, in Bohem not so com mon. Yet vnder pretext of Lutherans they liue here and there priuely vppon the Rhene: in Flandres and Henaut, in Holland, in VVestphalia, and nowe vppon Danubius, and in Silesia they are common.

The Swinglians, rule allmost euery where, and abo­ue all other sectes are moste dispersed. In Schueytzer­landt they haue possessed fyue of the better Cantōs. Basill, Zu rich, Ber­na, Scha­fusa, Cla­rona And a good parte of Sauoye, and the lake of Geneua. In Englande also and Scotlande they are thicke. Yea and of late they haue priuely inuaded the Counte Palatins Dominion of Rhene, and the dukedom of Wirtenberg. At Augspurg Luther beareth the name, but in dede Swinglius and Caluin beare the stroke. Yea Caluin is of so great power, that he hath his gar­de [Page] in Fraunce, It appea­red vvel of late in Fraunce. and diuers places of Hungary. The Swinglians doctrine is not vtterly banished at Witten berg nor at Lipsia.

The Zelous Lutherās and Confessionistes, haue posse­ssed the territory of Vinarium, and the moste parte of Saxony, Magdeburg, Brunswicke, Luneburg, Lubeck Hamburg, Breme, and all moste all Denmarke, and Holste, Holsatia, Ratispona. and the greatest parte of the dukedome of Mega­loburg, and in Byerlande the cite of Regenspurg.

The Ciuill Lutherans, and Melanchthonistes beare all the rule in Misnia, in the greater parte of Franconia, and at Norimberg. In the vpper and lower parte off the Palatins Dominion. and in some parte of Swe­thelande. At V [...]mes, in the dukedom of Wittenberge and the Marchie. But here they are somewhat diuers: for some will be Flaccians, some Melanchthonistes and Adiaphoristes, Vratislauia But in Silesia especially at Breslau, and Brige, the masters of Wittenberg beare the greater stroke.

The Swenck feldians in Swethelande and at Aug­spurg, lyue priuely, A [...]gusta vindelico­rum. but yet are many and common. In Silesia among the Nobilite they florishe. at Suidni­cia also and at Glogouia they be not obscure.

The Osiandrins haue shewed them selues openly in that parte of Prussia which is vnder Albertus the Marquise: but at Norimberg they kepe close.

Stancarians, in the lesser Pole and in Sibemburgē: Transsilua­ [...]ia. for these disorderly Confessionistes are yet but gre­ne, and dare not showe their heads, expecting a time, when the blaste of their heresie shall ones infecte the [Page 120] people.

But howe longe o lorde shalt thou be angry? for euer? howe longe shall thy zele and wrathe be kindled lyke fire? Poore oute thy wrathe vpon the nations whiche haue defiled thy holy temple. Nether remembre, o lorde, ou­re olde iniquites, let thy mercies praeuente vs. Make vs all of one minde, of mutuall charite, of one faithe, doing nothing contentiousely or for vaine glorie, but in all humilite to ac­knowledge the one God and whom thon sendest, Christ Ie­sus. AMEN.

This table of Heresies hath alreadye diuers times ben printed in the Latin tongue, solde abrode, and read of many: and although all protestants haue mar­uailousely ben offended therewith, yet it hath dis­pleased none more then Smidelin and his company­ons the politike protestants. For these consider the matter depelyer then the other cōmon sectes do: and perceaue very well, that this foule dissension of the Lutherans being knowen will bringe at the length their fifte ghospell to naught. But howesouer Smi­delin turne and winde him selfe herein, wil he nill he, he must of force confesse, that the Lutheran prote­stants, which call them selues ghospellers, be at hai­nous dissension one with an other, and do brede and foster vp, detestable and heretical schismes, so diuers, so repugnant, so plaine cōtradictory one to an other, that sooner you shall make fire and water, hotte and colde agre, then their doctrines, and opinions. Where of vndoubtedly it must ensue, that the euill thinge consuming allwaie it selfe, and nothing being worse [Page] then these cursed and dissensious schismes, they wil in time spende them selues, consume, and come to naught.

But howe miserably comforteth Smidelin him sel­fe with this slight and slender argument when he crieth out, Beholde, the doctrine of the ghospel doth not onely not decaie, nor go to wracke, as the papi­stes hope, but encreaseth dayly in many places, and is spread through out Christendom euen in those places where the ghospell before was neuer heard of? First howe true and worthy a comforte this is, I reporte me to Smidelins owne conscience. For, but if he be a very block, or els beside him selfe and starke madde, he must nedes confesse, that these newe and freshe doctrines which daily arise and springe vp to destroie the olde and awncient religion, can in no wise be called the pure and expresse ghospel. Smidelin and his felowe Lutherans, which cleaue yet onely to Luthers doctrine, are not so betle blind or ignorant, but that they knowe and see very wel, what euāgeli­cal doctrine hathe sprōge vp of late in Fraunce, in En­glāde, in Scotlande and in Pole. If they knowe it not, I wil tell thē. The doctrine preached in those countres is partely of the Suinglians, partely of the Caluini­stes, some Laskonicall and some Anabaptisticall, but all together deuelish and heretical. In libello contra Sta­phylum. And although the doctrine of Smidelin be not much better then these, yet in his printed writings he openly cōfesseth, that he accompteth none of the foresaide doctrines for [Page 121] Christian or euangelicall. And in dede if he be of the opinion that the Brentians are (as he pretendeth) he must accurse and condemne as Brentius dothe, the doctrine of the Swinglians, the Caluinistes, the Anaba­ptistes and of the Stancarians, not onely for their do­ctrine of the Sacramēts, but for many other articles also, The ghospel of Luther decayeth daily especially the article of Iustification and faith. Here let Smidelin beholde the iudgment of his ow­ne conscience, laye his hande to his owne brest, and aske of him selfe, whether he thinke in dede that the ghospell whiche Luther planted, do encrease and multiplie, or rather be plucked, and rent daily in to sundry parcels and peces, cleane hewed frō the first shape, and so hared of this secte and that secte, that of that poore ghospel nowe (as Luther left it) nether head nor heare, nor taile nor foote dothe appeare. Or if he can not espie this by examining and enqui­ring of him selfe, let him counsell his brethern the di­uines and masters of Vinaria, which can well in­structe him hereof, and thoughe it be to their greate grefe, yet they will assuredly tell him (for these are their wordes) that the ghospell and doctrine off Luther remaineth no where (alas) so pure and incorrupted as in the dominion of the princes of Vinaria. And where is thē the worthy and waightie comforte of Smidelin, where is the triumphe and io­ye he maketh, that the ghospell of Luther (for that is the ghospell he meaneth) groweth on dayly more and more through Christendome?

[Page] But now Smidelin findeth an other sory shifte to cō ­forte his poore brethern withal. This sory shift oure Apologie of Englā ­de allea­geth also in defence of their dissensiō. Libro cōtra Catalogum Bicause in dede he cā not denie the heretical schismes that are amōge thē, he turneth the blow vppō the Catholikes and char­geth thē with the like sayeng. that amōge the papistes al­so are sectes and schismes: for some mōkes were blacke cooles, some grey some white, some eate fleshe some fishe, some wil ta­ke mony, some take none. some vse longe portises. some shorter. Is not this think you, a horrible and perilous dissē ­sion amonge the papistes? If our doctours and diui­nes should vse suche arguments against them, howe woulde they scoffe and scorne at it? But these ghos­pelling preachers vsing such, must not onely not be founde faute withall, but must be highely praised and commended therefore, as men of excellent ver­tu and knowleadge. Whiche allthough it be very iniurious, and may well be complained of, yet sen­ce that it liketh them so to vse vs, we must take it in good parte and beare it. But as touching the matter, euen as in our Christen religion we haue ler­ned of S. Paule to acknowleadge and beleue in one God, euen so we must professe one faith, and one baptim. Although therefore among religious men and womē there be diuers orders, and sundry rules, like­wise betwene the clergy and the laite diuers professi­ons and vocatiōs, and that by the sure and certain prouidēce of almightie God, yet among these al, there is but one God, one faith, one Christ, one church, one and the selfe same interpretation of holy scripture. We by the true vnderstanding of Gods worde, ha­ue [Page 122] lerned in the churche the difference betwene the Catholike faythe of all men, Faithe in one in all but trade of life ci­uers. and the priuate hope of eueryman. First in the articles of oure belefe, we beleue al one thinge and al after one sort. But to eue­ry man priuately it is permitted, that vpō right cōsci­ence, and due consideration, for the encrease and cō ­firmation of his hope (which lacketh not his sure rewarde) Heb. 2. he maye take and chose vnto him some such honest trade of life and cōuersation, as is agreable to his nature, though he differ hereby from the com­mon life and vocation of other men. Therefore as concerning the agreement of our faithe, we reade in the Apostle. Philip. 2. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ if there be any comforte of loue, if there be any feloweship of the spirit, if there be any compassion and mercie, fullfill ye my ioye, that ye be like minded, hauing one loue, being of one accorde, that no thing be done through strife or of vaine glo­ry. And againe. Neuertheles vnto that whiche we haue attained vnto, Philip. 3. let vs procede by one rule that we may be off one accorde. Many such sentences are in holy Scriptu­re, whereby we are admonished, that the doctrine of our faithe and belefe ought not to be referred to any one state or person, but to the whole communite off Christ his churche. Wherefore S. Iames commaun­deth, That we esteme not the faith of our Lorde Iesus Chri­ste in respect of personnes. Iacob, 12. Whereof it appeareth euident­ly that the vnite, consent, and agreement of our faith is builded and grounded vppon the communite off Christes Catholike churche. Whereby all schismes and particular heresies are excluded. But that the di­uersite [Page] of grace, of giftes, and vocatiō is to be referred to the condition of euery man. And what is the rea­son hereof? Bicause as we haue many membres in one body, Rom. 12. but all membres haue not one office, so all Christen men are one body in Christ: but euery one hath his singular and peculiar giftes, grace, and vocation. And this blessed Apostle saithe also in an other place. Galat. 6. Ro. 2. & 14. Let euery man trie his owne doing, and so he shall haue glo­rie in him selfe onely, and not in an other. For we shall all stande before the iudgment of Christe, that euery man maye receaue the workes of his body according to that he hath do­ne whether it be good or bad. 2. Cor. 5. Seing thē these two poin­tes, the agreement of faithe and diuersite of vocations, are in the Catholike churche by due reason to be wai­ghed and eche in his place to be osberued, I can not sufficiently maruaill at the sutle shifte and wily de­ceit off these Lutherans, A vvily deceit of the Lutherās. forcing the Catholikes to suffer amonge them heretikes beleuing as they list, and sowing schismes at their pleasure, bidding them withall dissemble and winke at the matter, whereas yet them selues will not suffer the like li­berty in diuersite of vocations amonge the Catho­likes, but will persuade Princes and Magistrates to force their subiects, bothe temporall and Spirituall and Religious of all sorte, to forsake their godly vo­catiō and perfit professiō, and to take such a frame of faith as it shall please the Prince or Magistrat to pre­scribe them. The pro­testants cōfounde vniformi­te and di­uersite. What other thinge is this, then to make that diuers, and different in the Catholike faith, whiche should be one and vniforme, and that one and v­niforme [Page 123] in persons and vocations, whiche should be diuers and different? O horrible confusion. If there were not beside this point, manifest and outragious impietes of the Lutherans, repugning bothe to right reason and to the worde of God, whereby we might iudge howe pestiferous, abominable, and wicked the doctrines and doings of these Lutheran preachers and protestant Ministres are, yet of this only matter it might appeare euident, while they confunde V­niformite and Diuersite. Teaching that which ought to be in our belefe consonant and agreable, that it maye varie and be diuers: and cōtrairely those things whiche in euery mans peculiar vocation shoulde be proper and distinct, maie in no wise varie or differ.

Whereof spronge the insurrection of the commōs in Germany, the sedition of the Anabaptistes in West phalia, The fru­tes of this confusiō. The late rebellion also in Fraunce. and the rebellion against their highe rulers and magistrats? Surely of no other roote, then that Luther and all protestant preachers haue taught, and do yet teache, and write to, that seing, There is no res­pect of personnes before God, Ephes. 6. therefore there ougth to be no difference of persons, no magistrat in the church, but that all Christen men are fre, and therefore all o­ther distinct estats, dignites, and qualites as well gre­ate as small ought to be all one, and all a like. And whereof arise these greate and enormous dissensions in religiō, but only of this occasiō, that the Lutherās take awaie from the Catholike faithe all vnite and agreement, and teache that euery man may be saued by his owne priuat faith, which he forgeth him sel­fe, [Page] and that he maye for his owne person frely bele­ue what he listeth? Thus they would force the Ca­tholikes to a certain dissembling deceit, such as neuer was heard of. As that they should suffer euery man to beleue as he list, and set vp newe factiōs and schis­mes against the vnite and agrement of our faith: But the difference of vocations, qualites and degrees, as is betwene lowe and high, tēporall and spirituall, priuat and publike, they should no more suffer, but make all estates cōmon, all vocatiōs aequall, al trade of life one and vniforme. If this be not to confounde heauen and earthe, surely I knowe not what heauen and e­arthe meaneth. Colde which procedeth of water, is of this nature that it knitteth and fastneth together diuers thinges in to one masse and substaunce, and cōserueth them also in the same, as golde, siluer, bras, tinne, leade, claie also, durte and wodde. But heate contrairely resolueth and seuereth all these substa­unces. So likewise the property of faithe is to knitte ioyne and fasten together in one belefe, and in one vniforme vnderstanding of Gods worde all nations and all kinde of mē, noble and base, princes and sub­iects, men and women, riche and power, younge and olde. But the workes of charite, the perfitnes of li­uing, the choise of our vocation is lefte fre to euery man, according to the qualite of his person, and con­dition of his power and abilite. Wherein euery man bestoweth his talent that God hath lente him, and beareth the yoke laide on his shoulders gladly, go­ing all waies forthe, and pricking him selfe forwarde [Page 124] with a sure and certain hope in God, 2. Cor. 6. who shal rewar­de euery man according to his good dedes and mea­sure of his charite working seuerally with the com­mon faith of Christes church.

Nowe then if Smidelin be, I will not saie lerned, but at the lest of any reason or iudgement he maye well thinke with him selfe, that there is greate and eui­dent difference betwene the common nature (whi­che is one in all men) and euery particular man, whi­che hath his proper and peculiar qualites and giftes from God as it pleaseth his goodnes, some of more price and value thē other: euē as we see in coūtes and waightes. And therefore the olde holy fathers haue so taught, that the grace of God is due neither to the nature, nor to the person: and that, bicause god oweth nothinge to any creature. It is therefore a very cursed doctrine of the Lutherans, and abhominable before God to chaunge the faith of Christendome whiche oughte to be commō, Lutherans do chaun­ge faith in to hope and confi­dence. one, and vniforme in all, in to hope which euery man hath differently according to his vocation. And contrary wise to make that euery mans particular hope, cōfidence, and truste is the cō ­mon faith of the Catholike church.

Greate is the misery and greater the shame off vs Germans that haue thus ben deluded. We persuade our selues we are wiser, and see more. then all Chri­stendome beside, yea then all our swete forefathers euer sawe. But I thinke, and not without reason, that it were greate wisedome for vs, if we coulde but see and perceaue howe wise, graue, and circumspecte our [Page] forefathers were.

As for doctor Smidelin, I would earnestly counsel him that geuing vp his Lutheran doctourship in so­me Smithes shop, Smid. soundeth in the germain tongue Smith. he begin again his diuinite, and le­arne of some parishclarke, why when he ringeth to sermon he ringeth but one bel and that the greatest: but when he ringeth to euen song or other seruice, he ringeth many belles at ones, A prety similitude. bothe greate and small. For here Master Smidelin maie lerne that the ringing of one bel to sermō representeth the vnite of the Catholike faith taught at sermons, which ought to be but one and vnifor-me in all men. But the iangling of many diuers belles to commō praier signifieth the diuersite of mē, some praieng feruently some coldely, some seruing god one waie, some an other▪ yet so that euery waie cometh to one ende.

But nowe M. Smidelin practising his smothered smithish diuinite, runneth in rudely with his ham­mers, and tonges, and will nedes persuade men, that the variete of vocations must be reduced to the vnite of faith, and contrary wise that by their scattered and ragged faithe (whiche they define to be euery mans truste and confidence in Christe) all men maye fre­ly beleue as they liste, and frame them a faythe after their fonde fantasie. Suche is forsothe the wisedome and policie of our time passing our forefathers sim­plicite: and yet this blindnes they will haue vs to winke at, and runne hedlong with the reste. Not withstanding we, grounded vpon the authorite off gods worde comforte our selues herein, that the vni­te [Page 125] and agreement of our Catholike faithe is the grounde of all truthe. But the variete amonge vs off diuers vocations in the Catholike church, serueth as a guide and meanes to trade euery man: that he so di­rect his course in perfit hope and godly workes off Christen charite, Ro. 13. 1. Cor. 15. that at length for his deserts (auai­lable onely through the merites of Christ our Redemer) he may be counted for a starre or parte in heauen litle or greate.

To awnswer therefore directly to Smidelins ac­cusation, charging vs of schismes and dissensions (by reason of diuers religions and vocations) we do plai­nely confesse, that in the doctrine of the Christen faith, according to S. Paules commaundement, we be of one minde and of one accord. And againe euery man for his qualite and vocation endeuoureth to beare his owne yoke, and cary his owne burden, some mo­re carefully and diligently then some: some this waie, some that waie: according to the grace and gif­tes of god, and as eche man vseth the same. And off this diuersite of the giftes of god, Philip. 2. The cause of diuers professiōs of religiō in the ca­tholike churche. and of mans infir­mite or abilite it cometh to passe, that among vs so­me for example of their conuersation, and to sette before them as though it were a glasse of perfection, do folowe and embrace the rules and steppes of olde holy fathers: some of S. Augustin, some of S. Ber­nard, other of S. Benedict, of S. Dominicke, and of S. Frauncis, euery man as his deuotion serueth.

But let vs nowe see and consider the agremēt and variete of the Lutheran churches. In this point first [Page] they do all agree, that according to their Christen li­berte planted first of Luther, Luther reacheth this in his booke de saecu­lari potestate in the 6. German tome fol. 602. and in many other pla­ces. and nowe receaued off his scholers, there be no Emperour, no kinge, no Magistrat, no prince. Againe that where such are, yet they ought not be obeyed, but al must be aequal. that the countre man ought to be as highe as the Noble man: the Noble man as the Prince: the Prince as the Emperour: that the parishe clarke oughte to be as good, as the vicar, and the bishop no better then the vycar. And this wilde and vnruly doctrine of Lu­ther hath so farre proceded, that not onely many no­table foundations, as Monasteries, bishoprickes, and other churches erected for gods seruice are wasted and destroied, but also in many places the commons against the Nobles, the Nobles against their princes, yea and against the Emperour him selfe, haue of la­te yeares diuers times rebelled, labouring to suppresse Nobilite, to ouerthrowe all superiorite, and to con­founde all princely souuerainte. Not consideringin the meane season, howe daily experience showeth vs, that heretikes against Catholikes or subiects a­gainst their princes neuer preuaileth, Hereticall rebellion neuer proueth. In the yeare 1325. as Athanasius writeth. For what successe had the commōs in Ger­many rising against the Nobilite? more then a hun­red thousand of them perished. What got the people of Denmarke, making insurrection against the No­bles? what auailed the nobilite of Swethland and Fraunce rebelling against their Souueraines? VVe haue late examples of oure ovvne countre. they wrought all their owne destruction. And if ye list to knowe, what triumphes the heretikes haue had [Page 126] ouer Catholikes in ciuill rebellion, The triū ­phes of late hereti­kes ouer the Catholikes. see howe the Swinglians sped in Switzerland, the Anabaptistes in Mounster, and amonge the Saxons, the Lutherans in Liflāde, the Caluinistes in Fraūce. Euery one was rewarded according to his desert: missed of their pur­pose, and lost their liues. And although the Mosco­uites in certayn cerimonies varie from the church of Rome, Vide prodr [...] mū Staphyli. yet their faith and belefe touching such ar­ticles, as the Lutherans haue swarued in from the Catholike churche, is in moste pointes agreable to the Catholike doctrine.

If therefore, o true and vertuous Germans, A good lesson for oure countre also. we li­ste to put out this greate blotte of our good name, to auoide the vtter destruction and desolation of our dere countre, and purchase the eternall saluation of our soules, this is the onely waie for it, to seke after againe the steppes and pathes off our dere forefa­thers, to ioyne our selues with the whole corps off Christendome, and to call backe againe and restore that doctrine, that faith, that church, and that gho­spell, by the which we were first made Christen men and haue continewed so many a hundred yeare. For what so euer the Lutherans bable of their newe for­ged religion, howe so euer the protestants pratle in pulpits of the primitiue church, yet they can not de­nie, but that this their doctrine, their trade of ecclesi­asticall gouuernement, Euen so it is vvith vs. their maner of common pra­yer, and all other ordinaunces was neuer yet sene nor heard of in Germany, sence it was first Christned, vntell Luther.

[Page] Charlemain the first Germain Emperour with his successours brought the Saxons to Christen re­ligion: Vide Cario­nem. So did S. Augu­stin the first Apo­stle of English men Vide Bedā. founded amonge them their chefe bishopric­kes, churches and Colledges, planted in Germany the very same doctrine, the very same religion, the very same cerimonies, the selfe same Masse and serui­ce of god as it is at this daye vsed amonge all Catho­likes: and so left it to all Emperours after him. Like­wise those holy bishops and Martirs, the Apostles of higher Germany, which first brought Christendo­me in to it, instructed it not with that doctrine or ecclesiasticall gouuernement as the Lutherans vse, but with the very same vnderstanding of holy scripture, with the same religion and gouuernement of the church, whiche the Catholikes euen to this daye do practise.

S. Seuerin Archebishop of Rauenna conuerted Au­striche to Christendome. The first Apostles of the hi­ghe Alle­mans. S. Eleutherius and Quirinus the countre aboute Anisus. S. Maximinus and Ru­pertus the bishoprick off Salispurg. S. Valentin and VVolfgang the cyte off Passau. Bedurum, Ratispona. S. Paulinus and after him S. Emeranus Regenspurg. S. Corbinianus Frising. S. Richard and Vilibaldus the cyte of Eystat. S. Nar­cissus and Viricus Augspurg and Algouia. S. Kiliaenus and Burchaerdus Virtzbourg. S. Columbinus and Gallus Suethelande. Herbipolis. S. Maternus and Valerius the inhabi­tants of Rhene. Constantia. S. Paternus and Laudo Costnitz. S. Amandus and Argobastus Strasbourg. S. Victor and Seruatius Wormes. Argentina VVormatia Moguntia. S. Crescens the disciple of. S. Paule and Maximus Ments. Whiche all beside many other [Page 127] blessed Martirs and lerned bishops, in other countres where they planted Christes religion, and institu­ted gods seruice, taught no other doctrine, preached no other ghospell, practised no other religion, saide no other Masse, vsed no other clergy then suche as from the Apostles time through out all Christendo­me hath ben hetherto kept and vsed. In this religion we germans were traded first to Christendome. With this religion our godly and vertuous forefa­thers attained to euerlasting life. By this religion the Romain Empire hath ben translated to the Nobilite of Germany. Through this religion the aūcient ger­mans haue had greate victories, haue dilated their do­minion, hath brought infidels to the Christen fay­the: as Hungary, Bohem, Pole, Vandale, Slavony, Prussia, Liflāde, Denmarke, and Swetheland: which partly by force of armes they haue constrained, part­ly by instruction of holy bishops they haue persua­ded to receaue Christendome. All this maye be sene in our Chronicles and awncient foundations. But now we see to our greate grefe and shame, that with­in the space of fourty yeares all these countres are all moste come to destruction. The hainous heresies, the sundry schismes, and the horrible blasphemies euery where practised proue it to clerely. Farder the greate decaie of the German Empire, the contempt off our nation (being nowe in obloquy with all the worlde, whom before all nations other loued or fe­ared) testifie this abundantly.

Where is nowe become Thiethmarsh, whiche [Page] belonged before to the diosece of the Archebishop of Breme? Countres loste in Germany by heresy. The Danes haue taken it. Where is Lifelā ­de the olde soiourne and retire of the Saxon Nobili­te? The Moscouite by maine force hathe wronged it out of our handes Prussia what is come of it, whiche was wonte to be the receite and soiourne of higher germany? The Polonians haue chalenged it and en­ioye it. And these two countres of Liflande and Prus­sia be no smal territories, but two riche and large Re­almes. especially Prussia which hathe in length abo­ue Aboue thre hun­dred of oures. threscore miles, and in bredth Tvvo hū dred of o­ur miles. fourtye: and con­taineth diuers cytes, portes, and villages greate and small, so riche and full of commodites as no place of Germany beside. And although Lif [...]lande be not com­parable to Prussia either in riches or in power, yet is it a goodly, beawtifull, and large countre, from whence not onely the Nobles of Saxony and tow­nes of the seacoste, drawe sundry commodites, but all the state of the Empire also, and many foren countres. And these two countres, Prussia and Li­flande are as two sure feete of the Germain Empire: which nowe by our dissension being bothe cut from the Empire, it is easye to coniecture, howe hansomly and surely it is like to stande. And howe haue we lo­ste these noble countres and prouinces? Prussia loste by Lu­thers here­sy. by the force and power of oure enemies? No truly. For the knightes of the Order in Alemaigne, forced the Prussians being yet heathē to receaue the olde Chri­sten religion whiche they had lerned off their Apostles and forefathers, and vntell oure daies haue [Page 128] stoutely kept them in the same. And as longe as that worshipfull Order continued in this godly purpose, H. Muti [...]s Cuspinianus in vita Henri [...]i. V. & alij. that countre flourished and encreased in all wealth. But as soone as that Order receaued the newe ghos­pell of Luther abandoning the true ghospell off Christ, and forsoke the spirituall Crosse of that Or­der, folowing the fleshly doctrine of Luthers crosse, incontinently that whole countre being gotte and kept so many yeares vnder the olde ghospell, was so­denly loste through the newe ghospell of Luther: the Nobilite of Germany thereof berefted, and yel­ded to the prince of Pole. so that nowe they rule o­uer the germans, whiche in times paste paied tribut to the Emperours of germany.

The like happened of Liflande. for as longe as the knightes of the Order in Lifelande kepte and main­tained the Catholike faith (whereby they first sub­dued Liflande lost by Luthers he­resy. that countre) ten thousand of them coulde in open filde put to flighte fourescore thousand of the Moscouites: but sens that the same worshipfull Or­der put downe the awncient religion, whereby they obtained such victories, planting in the place of it heresie, all the victory hathe enclined to our aduersa­ries, and the Moscouites haue obtained the countre. For so it is. Gala. 5. Colloss. 3. The frute of only faithe. Lutherus in epist. ad Gallum Ams­dorfium. By agrement small thinges encrease. by discord greate thinges fall awaye. The olde Catholike faith worketh by charite, which is the bonde of perfection and all prosperite. The Lutheran fayth abideth not charite with it, but will iustifie man alone. [Page] And therefore all charite, agrement, and vnite is broken amonge them. And no maruail. For God is the authour off peace, 1. Cor. 4. as the Apostle say the, and the deuill of dissension.

The Turke hath possessed Hungary, Hungary loste by Luthers heresy. onely by dissension of religion. For as soone as these Luthe­rā preachers had spread abrode their cursed heresies, and stirred vp thereby among the estats of the Em­pire, much variaunce, hatred, and malice, neighbours began so to mistruste one an other, that all honesty fidelite and frēdly feloweship vtterly decaied. Whe­reby euery man sowghte after his owne profit, no­thinge regarding the common welthe and good e­state of the Empire. In the meane season they that bordered on the Turkes were destituted of all com­forte and succour of vs. Yea and the enemies of the Empire hath diuers times had of the Empire it selfe succour and ayde. Beside that we haue many waies hindred and kept backe our owne countremen and Princes whiche bothe ought and desired gladly to withstande the enemies of our countre, getting and winning grounde daily vppō vs. And to make shorte herein, it is muche to be feared that we Germans haue ministred sufficient occasion to the accomplishe­ment of that olde prophecie, Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 16. Rupertus Taitien. su­per 20. cap Apocal. which Lactantius men­cioneth and diuers other writers. That the Northe shall rule ouer the Southe, and the Easte ouer the Weste. And so Magog from the Easte and Gog from the Northe shal come and destroie the Romain Em­pire: whiche yet thoughe weake and al most spent, [Page 129] hāgeth by a weake threde in the hāde of vs Germās.

We haue the examples of two greate nations, whiche geue vs good occasion to feare the fall of the Empire in Germany▪ The de­struction of grece through heresy. to witte, of the Grekes, and off the Liflandmen. For what other thinge did Grece in times paste, then that we do presently in Germany? The Grekes resisted the bishop of Rome: would not acknowledg the sea of S. Peter to be head of the churche. They made them selues at home bishops and prelats (against all canons and rules of the chur­che) whom they made al of equal and of like autho­rite. And what I praie you folowed of the gouuerne­mēt of this headles church? First in the clergy spron­ge vpp many heresies and schismes. Then the Em­perour of Constantinople and other princes of Gre­ce fell at warre together, and vtter deffiaunce one wi­the an other. Thirdly euery bishop and Minister be­ing of like authorite, hauing no head or chief bishop whom they might folowe and obey, as their spiritu­all Magistrat, euery man expounded Scripture as it pleased him. brief newe sectes and schismes were so plenty in all Grece, that by reason of partes taking in religion, the Emperour rose against the other Princes, and they against him: spoiling, wasting, ran­sacking one an other, countre against countre, Prince against Prince, vntell all came to nought. For the Ve­netians in this confusiō and dissensiō gotte from the Grekes Peloponnesus, Epirus, Cor [...]yra, and other coun­tres. The Hungariens wonne in to their handes Cro­atia, Dalmatia, and other prouinces: Vntell at the [Page] length the Turke entring in to Grece vnder preten­ce of reconciling the Princes and the Emperour, Note and bevvare in time. sle­we, murdred, and extinguished miserably all the remnant of the grekes, bothe Spirituall and temporall, the Emperour, and all other princes and Rulers: o­uerthrewe and toke in to his owne hādes the who­le Empire of grece, spoiled also the Hungarians and the Venetians of that whiche they had gotte, and so at the laste vtterly abolished and destroied all the Se­ctes and heresies: making his slaues all the remnaunt of the catholike Christiās. as they remaine yet to this daie presently. Nowe the state of Germany to be as Grece was before the cominge of the Turke, Oure state in Englād touchinge religion is the same. euery man seeth. And that we may feare the like ende as the grekes had: the like inuasion of the Turke, or Moscouite, or some other tiran, I leaue it to euery wise man to be waighed and considered.

An other example of the calamite hanging ouer our heades whiche nowe we see in Liflande, maketh me remember the miserable destruction of the cite of Ierusalem, and the Iewes. For what is more like then the ouerthrowe of these two people, The cyto of Hierusalem destroied by schismes. the Iewes and the Liflandmen? There were among the Iewes thre sectes repugnant to the right doctrine of Moyses and the Prophets. As the Pharises, the Saduces, and the Esseni. The ground of the Pharises doctrine (as Iosephus writeth) was this. That men did all thinges by for­ced necessite from God, not by liberte of fre will. Lib. 2. cap, 7. de bello. Iudaico. And this is the very grounde of the zelous Luthe­rans [Page 130] doctrine, Matth. 21. Luc. 20. as Illyricus witnesseth. The Saddu­ces affirmed (as the ghospell witnesseth) that there should be no resurrection of the dead. And althou­ghe the Suinglians professe not openly this doctrine of the Sadduces, Reade Vil legaignon aga [...]nst Caluin and oure discourse. yet it foloweth necessarely of the­ir doctrine, that our bodies shall not arise, if (as they saie) we receaue not the true body of Christe really present in the Blessed Sacrament. For this most ho­ly Sacrament through the naturall and corporall coniunction of Christ his body with our bodies, 1. Cor. 15. In [...]. li. 4. ca. 14. et seque [...]. is a most assured warrant of our resurrection as Cyrillus and other doctours of the churche do teache. The thirde secte of the Iewes, the Esseni, accorde maruai­lousely with our Anabaptistes, as in the place of Io­sephus aboue noted it maie appeare. These thre facti­ons and sectes of the Iewes, at what time Vespasian beseaged Hierusalem, caused the horrible dissension and strife whiche was then within the cyte amonge the Iewes them selues. Iosephus de bello Iudai­co. li. 6. c. 1. For notwithstanding the straite beseaging of the Romans, and the greate da­unger they stode in, yet diuiding them selues in to thre partes, some folowed Zelotas, some Simon Ge­rasenus, and some other Iohannes Giscalenus, the Ma­sters and ringleaders of these sectes. Yea they destro­ied and mangled one an other in the cyte, no lesse then Vespasian did abrode. Nowe let vs conferre the state of Liflande with this. The mise­rable estat of Lifland through heresy. I doubte not, but we shall finde them like in euery point. The Moscouite hath thre greate armies and well appointed in Liflan­de: [Page] laieth sore seage to the Archebishop of Runebourg, and hath all readie gotte his cheafest forts in to his hāde: Riga and Reualia. And what doth the worship­ful Order in this perturbatiō and tumulte? what hel­peth the Priour and Master of the Order? What suc­ker bringe the foren protectours of the countre? Let me nowe with good leaue speake that all the worlde seeth and crieth out at. It fareth amōge them nowe, euen as it did in Hierusalem amonge the sectes of Ze lotas, Simon and Iohn. For amonge them some are Lu­therans, some Zwinglians and some Anabaptistes▪ and while euery secte vnder pretence of his ghospell hopeth to gett some parte of the countre from the Moscouite to him selfe, the Moscouite marcheth on, winneth grounde daily as Vespasian did in Pale­stine, and the Turkes in grece: and this he dothe vn­der a plausible pretence of recōciling the dissensions, and extinguishing the sectes in Liflande: and of re­storing the countre in to that mightie princes han­des. It is muche to be feared, that all this is to vs a warning piece, and but a preamble of a terrible tra­gedie whiche we see already plaied in Hungary the­se many yeares, and is nowe of late begonne in Liflande: the ende whereof (as we maie coniecture) is staied onely by two eyes: which being putt ou­te, the Iewes and the grekes maye reade the storie off their owne fal in our bloud, and singe vs that songe that the Romans ones songe vnto them. Iosephus lib 6. ca. 7. de bello Iudai­co. DISSEN­SION HATH DESTROIED GERMANY. THE TVRKE AND THE MOSCOVITE [Page 131] HATH DESTROIED DISSENSION. God graunte that I deme herein amisse. For if that cala­mite should happen (which our Lorde of his tender mercie forbid) I, all mine, and al such as I am, shall ha­ue our parte therein: and perish with the reste. God is my witnes, I haue brought in all this vppon a good intent and purpose. And that I haue here touched the state of our present time, I did it not (God is my Iudge) to offend any man of whatsoeuer condition or qualite he be, but by this charitable admonishe­ment of my moste dere countre, to declare my good will, and desire to serue, helpe, and succour her at all times. For vndoubtedly the axe is nowe put to the roote of the tre: and if we bring forthe no better fru­te then we haue done, we shall surely all be hewed downe. And as S. Austin saieth. De fide & operibus & serm. 181. de tempore. It is an vnfrutefull re­pentaunce, which purposeth not to amende. And certain it is we haue highely offended the wrathe of God, as well by abhominable heresies and schismes yel­ding vnto them, and suffring them amonge vs, as by our wicked and dissolut life.

As touching our liuing, it is not inough to heare sermons, haue the ghospell allwaies in our mouthe, and liue not after the ghospell. But we must folowe the lesson of the prophet saieng. Ezech. 18. Be conuerted and turne you cleane from all your wickednes, and your iniquite shall not destroye you. and an other lesson of the A­postle, He that stole let him now no more stele. Ephes. 4, Epist. 54. And the saieng of S. Augustin is worthy to be remembred: That the sinne is not forgeuen onles restitution be made. [Page] Which in al other sinnes is likewise to be vnderstan­ded.

But as touching the horrible errours, Luther calleth him selfe an euāge­list in the sixtetome of his vvorkes. wherewith Luther the fifte Euangelist, and other newe ghos­pellers in Germany haue plucked and remoued from the Catholike churche bothe them selues, and many a thousand more, working this lamentable e­state, variaunce, and dissension in Christ his church, this surely is of all sinnes the greatest and most gre­uous that may be. And hereof our Lorde saith, Luc. 17. Wo vnto that man by whom offense riseth. And although this worde Wo spokē of Gods owne mouth be a dreadful significatiō of his wrath and high displesure, yet his mercie farre passeth, ready to receaue vs againe in his fauour, and embrace his loste childrē, if vtterly forsa­king the straie pathes of errour and heresie, we come again to the high waie of Christ his church, and ca­sting awaie al wicked thought out of our hartes and fāsie of grosse heresies (as the feding of the prodigal son vpon beane coddes with the hogges) we returne home to our fathers house which is the churche of God. Vnto the which the prophet exhorteth vs, sai­eng. [...]ere. 25. Turne againe euery man from his euil waye and from your wicked imaginations: and so shall ye dwell for euer in the lande that our Lorde gaue you and your forefathers.

The onely meanes therefore to auoide this grea­te calamite hanging ouer vs, is vtterly to forsake this newe forged and dissensious ghospell, and retire ho­me again to the Catholike church, embracing the right and auncient doctrine thereof, wherein we [Page 129] were borne and brought vp, and ioyning our selues to the whole corps of Christendome, letting go by, these scattering schismes and seditious factions.

Which counsel of mine I trust is more sincere and godly, and will haue better succes, then the cruel and vnmercifull aduise of Martin Luther in a litle booke whiche he made laste of all, shortly before his soden deathe at Wittenberg in the yeare. 1545. dedicating it vnto two honourable Princes the Duke of Saxony, and the Lantgraue of Hesse, that they should not dis­misse their presonner the Lorde Harry of Brunswic­ke. The title of that litle booke is this. Ad Electorem Saxoniae & Lantgrauium Hassiae D. Martinus Luthe­rus decaptiuo D. Brunsuicensi. And to the entent that in these countres and euery where the worlde maye knowe, howe Martin Luther tooke vppon him in his papacie, and howe proudely he behaued him sel­fe, I will out of his owne booke declare you worde for worde the whole matter. These then are the wordes of Luther.

For my parte I would not passe, An example of the pride and presump­tion of Luther. if that captiue of Brunswicke were kinge of Fraunce and his son Kinge of Englande. For what coulde that hurte me? But to counsell you to let him go fre and at li­bertie, that I can in no wise do. He hath lost that hope and confidence. For seing God dothe punish him, who dare be so bolde as to absolue him from Gods punishement, onles he first do penaunce, and [Page] make due satisfaction, so that we maie boldely tru­ste, that God is appeased and reconciled? otherwise it shoulde be no other thinge but to tempt God: whiche in no wise must be counselled.

Luther would forsothe that the Duke of Brun­swicke were kinge of Fraunce. A likely matter truly. But why suffred they him not to remaine Duke stil? who gaue Luther authorite to punish the Duke? Is not this against all lawes Canon, ciuile, and lawe of nature, that a man in his owne cause may be a par­ty and the Iudge? The ciuill lawe hath hetherto so prescribed, that iff any debate fall oute betwene man and man for iniury taken or geuen, that the ordina­ry Iudge and lawfull magistrat should determinat the matter: what? is the authorite of this lawe wiped a­waie also with the ghospell? or was not the Empe­rour the highe and ordinary Iudge of all Dukes and Princes here in Germany? what hath Luther to do herein? Is it against the doctrine of the ghospell that the Apostle commaundeth vs to obey the higher powres? There is no power Rom. 13. (saieth he) but from God. and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordynaunce off god. whiche who do, purchase them selues damnation. But we muste not obey, saie they, an euill magistrat. but what euil magistrat meane they? forsothe the Empe­rour. And who saithe he is an euill ruler? Luther and his felowes. But he should well and substantially ha­ue proued it, before he saide it. And would god we [Page 133] had mo such Emperours. The daye will come that we would be glad to scrape such Emperours oute of their graues with our nailes, if we might so come by them. But graunte they were tiraunts: whiche yet who affirmeth, lowdely belieth them. Doth not S. Peter saie, 1. Pet. 3. Be ye subiect in all feare to your rulers not one­ly good and gentle but also suche as are froward? It was not then Luthers part, but the Emperours bearing the sworde as an higher power and minister of god, to reuenge and punish malefactours. Nor Luther hath no cause nowe so proudely to demaunde, VVho dare be so bolde as to restore to libertie the presonner prince? Rom. 13. For he whose parte it was to do it, was not onely bolde and able to do it, but did it in dede princely: and scourged worthely those whiche had offended. But nowe let vs see what punishment and satisfaction this pope of Germany enioyneth the Duke.

VVhereas this captiue, saithe he, is depriued of his estat and dominion, he ought not to thinke that this is a worthy punishment for his deserts, but that, being touched onely gently, as with the flappe of a foxe taile, he is but prouoked and inuited to penaunce: Luthers penaunce. and thus he must saie. O most mercifull god, whereas I haue deserued a greate deale worse, and thou yet dost but whip me with small roddes, verely I will gladly beare this punishment all daies of my life: and I will vtterly renounce my dominion [Page] and estate: as of the which thou hast moste iustely, na rather most mercifully depriued me, and from the which I am rightly and worthely thrust out. for I am not as I perceaue nowe, fit to gouuerne the same. Thou art iuste o lorde, and thou hast dealed iustely with me, yet not according to my desert. for as I saide before, we muste entreate with god from the bottom of our harte, and obediently yel­de to his punishment if we do not so, he as the tri­er and sercher of mens hartes, from whom nothing is preuy and whom no man can deceiue, will ease­ly espie it: and if any man go aboute to deceiue or delude him, he maketh his cause be it neuer so god, starke naught: which all we Christen men knowe well inoughe, or ought at leste to knowe. Marke he­re nowe diligently good Christen Reader. Nowe Luther will haue this poore prince beinge prisonner not to make his confession after the Lutheran or­der, that is, that he confesse his fautes onely to god in his harte, but euen after the papisticall maner (as touching the confessing of his sinnes by mouthe) Luther is become a papist for a vaunta­ge. will that he kepe nothing preuy from him or them that shall be his confessours, nor be not so bolde as to denie any thinge. what then must this penitent of Luther confesse? Forsothe all those thinges, whiche his open and notorious enemies do falsely accuse him of: to the entent that, if being forced by cruell [Page 131] emprisonment he happe to yelde vp his owne right, then all the worlde might thinke that his voluntary confession was the cause of such satisfaction: for they will haue him confesse, that he suffreth such emprisonment worthely, and that for his deserts he is thrust out of his estate and dominion: and that he will neuer require it againe, but will of his owne ac­corde yelde vp all his right, and the right of his heires for euer to his aduersaries and mortall enemies here in earthe, abiding for and expecting an other estate in heauen. Is not this thinke you a swete and pleasa­unt satisfaction, and merely inuented of Luther, and very ghospell like? when the Lutherans offend a­gainst the Catholikes then in the whole penaunce there can be founde no satisfaction. contrition suffi­seth. But nowe in this case, we must haue all thre degres of penaunce, Contrition, confession, and sa­tisfaction.

But nowe Luther to showe that he is not only the holy Father, the highe bishop, and pope in Ger­many, but also that he is a prophet and the third Elias, he comforteth the princes vnderneth him, and dothe prophecy of thinges to come: taking occa­sion of a certayne coyne brought vnto him oute of base germany, vnto Wittenberg in the yeare. 1545. whereof in this his litle booke thus he writeth. This yeare there goeth a talke that certain straun­ge coynes are brought hether out of base Germa­ny: which bothe declare the greate knowleadg off [Page] the Papistes, and threaten wonderfull perills to the two princes the Electour Duke of Saxony and the Lantgraue of Hesse. These coynes of one side haue two pillers Crowned: the one with the Em­perours, the other with a kinges Crowne. betwe­ne the two pillers are fetters and giues and two chaines prepared for two men. O cleanly spirit of Luther. I thinke this shitten prophet, would bynde the Prince Electour off Saxony and the Lantgraue there with. for in the circle of the coyne, thus it is grauen. Ad alligandos reges eorum in compedibus. that is, to binde their prin­ces in fetters. Psal. 143. The other side of the coyne hathe a spread egle climping in his clawes the two swordes which are painted in the Duke of Saxony his ar­mes. Beside, the pointes of these swordes strike through a virgin lieng on her side vnderneathe. and fire droppeth on her like raine. the virgin is tituled, Psal. 143. Infidelite: the writing aboute is, Ad facien­dam vindictam in nationibus. that is, to worke vengeaunce in nations. whereby they declare what they wrought againste vs, and howe they would haue interpreted the leage of defence, if those thin­ges that they saide, had come to effect. At Smal­ [...]ldium. We nede not here to aske whether of these two in this fore­saide prophecye was the true, or (that I may by your good leaue vse Luthers ciuilite) the shitten prophet.

[Page 135] This day the Duke of Saxony vvas taken The foure and twentith daie off Aprill in the yea­re, 1547. in Locher filde: and The [...]āt graue submitted him selfe. the, xix. daye off Iune off the same yeare at Halles in Saxony hath manifestly declared it. I can not without greate grefe remembre howe our Noble countre of Germany hath suffred a rennagat monke thus to blinde them, and delude them to our perpetuall shame and ignominy in the face off all other coun­tres, to the vtter destruction of thousands off sou­les, murder of our bodies, and spoiling off our goods. Truly I fully persuade my selfe, that this fo­resaide coyne was sente vnto vs out of the lowe countres not without the instinct of the holy gho­ste, either mercifully to admonishe vs to looke bet­ter to our matters, or that the vaine prediction off this false prophet Luther might by so euident and true a prophecy be conuicted. For he that can not see maye yet sensibly feele that this whole matter had the very same euent that the coyne foreshowed, cle­ane contrary and repugnant to Luthers dreame. Lu­ther persuaded the simple germans that this prophe­cy was fulfilled in Duke Harry then presonner: and that thereby the popes dominion was vtterly de­stroied. and therefore pricked forwarde the Duke and the Lantgraue to fight and rebell against their liege Souuerain. For thus he addeth yet farder in the same booke.

But nowe for whom they haue painted the­se giues and fetters we see, thanked be god, [Page] which hath iudged according to the saieng of the psalme. They haue opened the pitte, and dig­ged it vp and haue fallen in to it them selues. their sorowe shall be turned vpon their owne heades, and their iniquites shall fall vpon their owne crownes: therefore we thanke the iuste and all­mightie god and praise the name of the highest. Amen.

Se howe this proude prophet boasteth and tri­umpheth as thoughe all the element ronge of trom­petts and musike, and as thoughe this article, I beleue the Catholike Churche vere scraped out of the Crede. Math. 16. Ephes. 3. or as thoughe that were no more true, that Christ hath saide, that the Churche is builded vpon a sure rocke not able to be shaken. or as though it were false that the Apostle writeth, calling the Churche the piller and grounde of truthe. Who thē fell in to the ditche? was it not he that first threwe his neighbour in, and after The Du­ke of Sax­ony and the Lant­graue by Charles the Emperour was constrained to plucke him out again, and fall in him selfe? all the worlde knoweth and seeth it. This then lo is the first prophecy of Martin Luther in this foresaide booke. Nowe let vs here an other straite folowing hereupon.

To the entent, saithe he, that our conscience be not burdned with the sinnes of an other, and we be counted afore God as wicked Achab. For if he be deliuered out of preson, the papistes withoute [Page 136] doute will blaspheme Note the Luthe rans God our God, and will crake after this sorte. Lo be not our praiers hearde of God? VVe haue praied for the Duke Harry of Brun­suicke, and God hathe tried oure patience, but he hath heard vs at the lēgth. For although he suffred the Duke Harry to fall in to the heretikes handes for our temporall punishment, yet they haue not ben able to kepe him still, but were compelled off God to dismiss him. The pra­iers of the Carholi­kes. Thankes be to our God, whi­che hathe not forsaken the churche and awncient religiō. And in dede true it is that this argumēt ha­the most moued me. For we knowe the pope and his parasites be incurable therefore they can do nought els, but euen in their moste miseries, and wicked dedes comforte, coulour and tricke vp them selues. His other prophecy whereby he woulde be counted a thirde Elias, he confirmeth by this reason. That the same must nedes be the right church off Christ, whiche was able by their good praiers to re­store their princes in to liberte. Therefore if the Du­ke Harry through the earnest and continuall prai­ers of the papistes were dismissed of his enemies, thē euery man will thinke verely that the papistes are the true and right church of Christ. And this is true in dede. For this reason therefore Luther (as he wri­teth) was most moued, in no case to suffer the Duke to be sette at liberty, lest perhaps the papistes shoul­de [Page] be taken for the true churche of God, and he and his felowes for the maligne churche. Here let euery man that lacketh not common iudgement, consider whether Luther be not suche a prophet as Caiphas was: Ioan. 11. For he prophecieth nowe the truthe, but as Ca­iphas did against him selfe and for the contrary par­te. The Catholikes in dede praied continually and earnestly for the emprisonned prince, that he might escape out of his enemies handes. Luther wroughte by force and by crafte all that he coulde to kepe him continually in preson, and in his enemies han­des. Whiche parte then did God heare? vndoubtedly the righter and more iuste. For God is no vniuste iudge, but paieth euery man according to his paines. Therefore he succoured the presonner, deliuered him, and so dealed with hym that he might saye, Iudge me o Lorde according to my righteousnes. Psal. 7. God the­refore gaue the right and true sentence: and nowe which parte and whose praiers were heard, the euent declared.

But howe laboureth Luther to ouerthrowe the reason of the papistes (wherewith he was so muche moued) and by that ouerthrow to set vp his prowde and arrogant prophecye? The first parte of the rea­son he letteth stāde, and graunteth that God heareth the praiers of his churche. But he laieth at the other parte, and denieth stoutely that the papistes are able to obtaine any thinge of God. For so he goeth forth in his foresaide booke.

[Page 137] Their praier therefore is not to be feared, 3. Reg. 20. Fol. E. 4, & F. 1. no more then Elias feared the praiers of the prophets of Baal. But as he laughed to scorne their praiers and their God, so we maye lawfully laughe to scor­ne the papistes and their God. For we knowe their praiers are execrable as their doctrine and belefe is. According to that of the psalme, 199. Let their praier turne in to sinne. And whomsoeuer they te­ache, he can not chose but be condemned. Nether are their praiers other, then such as the deuill ones mocked, at what time a certain priest being wel ti­pled saieng his complet in his bead, and spetting, as he praied, O the ci­uilite of Luthers sprit. letted also a greate farte: well quôd he, Diuell▪ such praier, such frankensence. The like maye be saide of all their mumbling in churches and monasterys. For they can not praie nor wil not praie, nor know not what to praie, nor how to pra­ie. The hereticall doctrine of Luther is so printed in some mens hartes by the instinct of some euill sprit, that they passe vppon no praier, beleue no truthe no miracle, not God him selfe: but one worde of Luthers mouth more persuadeth them, be it neuer so false, then God him selfe, or his worde, or the whole Catholike church. Therefore if any man at that ti­me had ben so bolde as to haue saide, that the Catholike churche shoulde throughe her deuoute praiers [Page] obtaine the victory against her enemies, and that this Duke thē prisonner should be deliuered, and the other (the Duke of Saxony and the Lantgraue) caste in preson, that man had ben mocked and scoffed to deathe: presuming so to contemne the authorite off the thirde Elias Luther. And I doubte whether yet vntel this daie some simple mē are deceaued by that his prophecy: though the ende of this tragedy being so open to all the worlde, geueth euident testimony that allmightie God hath heard the praiers of the papistes, and reiected those of the Lutherans: deliue­ring the Duke Harry, and bringing the other two Princes in to the Emperours handes as presonners.

Nowe Luther to absolue and consummat this his laste worke (for with this holesom piece he ended his fifte ghospell) he prouoketh mē of armes and power to fighte courageously against their chief and Liege Souueraines. For thus he writeth. Only God must be honoured, only god must be praised, to him only thankes are due to the entent that he which maketh all thinges, may geue also the victory. For god can abide none of these twaine, either that mā tempt him, or that he truste to much to himselfe, VVe must walke the high waie turning neither on the right hāde, nether on the lefte. VVhosoeuer ta­keth not weapon when he may, he vseth not the giftes of god: he turneth on the lefte hande, and seing a blowe coming laieth out his head. He tempteth god. wherefore it happeneth wel and worthely that [Page 138] such mēs heades beare awaie the rappes. This coū ­sell of Luther is true and good touching Magistrats, Kinges, Emperours, Princes, and rulers. But not for them which are subiects and priuat men. For Luther him self writeth and teacheth, that no Prince or Lor­de (whiche is vnder a higher power and oweth alle­geaunce vnto him) can rightely make warre againste any other prince or Lorde: Tom. 6. fo. 612. in lib. num mili­sint in stat [...] salutis. muche lesse against his owne Liege and Souuerain. Therefore it should at that time diligently ben prouided, that men folowed not this seditious and false high waie of Luther, which no subiect can treade without his princes lea­ue. Especially perceauing that this highe waie of Lu­ther hath euer an vnhappy and miserable ende, re­pugning manifestly to the worde of God, all writen lawe, and Luthers owne doctrine.

Demosthenes the lerned and eloquent oratour saith, Orat. 2. cō ­tra Philip. wise men deliberat before the facte and fooles after the facte. For as Liuy writeth, the euent teacheth fooles. And we Germans vse to saie, the Italian taketh aduise be­fore he begin, the french man when he is a doing, and the German when he hath done. Which althou­gh it hath hindered much our countre in diuers af­faires, yet this is in vs no voluntary negligence, but a naturall infirmite. For Hesiodus the poet noteth thre sorts of men to be on the earthe. saieng.

[Page] Seing then we Germans are not so quicke of iud­gement (which peraduenture procedeth of our col­de countre) as the Italian is, to foresee what is to be done, yet we maye nowe by this lamentable calami­te that we see hath befallen vs, A counsel good and necessary for vs also and the present grea­te waste of our deare countre lerne and remembre, howe within this fourty yeares it flourished and prospered in al respects, before this German prophet and fifte euangelist Luther ranne out of his cloister. And although our dutie had ben at that time to haue re­membred that saieng of our Lorde, Beware of false prophets, Deute. 13. Matthae. 7. 1. Ioan. 4. and the wordes of S. Ihon. Trie the spirits whe­ther they be of God, and so to deliberat before the facte: yet seing we haue forslowen that, let vs at the leste, after the smarte be wise, and haue recourse nowe at laste to that cōmaundement of almighty God, whe­re he commaundeth the simple people to warde them selues from false prophets and teachers. For this question being in holy writ propounded, Deuter. 18. Howe shall I vnderstande the worde that oure Lorde hathe spo­ken? God awnswereth and saithe. This token I will ge­ue the to vnderstāde it. That which the prophet hath foresa­ied in the name of the Lorde, and cometh not to passe, that worde the Lorde spake not, but the prophet of his owne vaine fantasie forged it. If we drawe the line of Luthers prophecye to this rule, we shall euidently see that he is not onely a false prophet, Ioan. 8. but also as his greate grande father Satan is, a cruell murderer.

Is it not a greate pride and rashe arrogancy of Lu­ther to prophecye and write that the god of the Ca­tholikes, [Page 139] whō he calleth papistes, wil not heare their praiers for the deliuraūce of the Duke? by what reuelation had he this? Luther is a false prophet. Againe that no man liuing shoud 1 be able, or so bolde as to restore him in to liberte? A­gaine that those his princes (the Duke of Saxony and 2 the Lantgraue) should not be bound with those fet­ters, which the coyne brought from base Germany 3 pretended? Farder that the warre thē ensuing should haue a prosperous successe? Laste of all that S. Bri­gids 4 prophecy was false, and his true, saieng that the 5 See of Rome and estat of the Pope should then vt­terly perish and neuer rise vp againe? All these thinges did Luther prophecye in the booke aboue mencio­ned. And did the euent proue all this? Not one iote. But in euery point it hathe proued cleane contrary. Then this worde of Luther was not the worde off the Lorde, as Moyses teacheth, but it was the worde of the deuill in the person of Luther.

Againe that Luther hath ben a very murderer of men, Luther is a murde­rer and a stronge thefe in the church. and a stronge thefe in Gods churche, it is eui­dent hereby that his doctrine and vaine prophecyes (setting together the princes by the eares) hath ben the onely cause of all seditions, warre and bloudshed that within this fourty yeares haue happened in Germany. The first booke that Luther made to spoyle and ransacke the churche, was his booke De Captiui­tate Babylonica & Christiana libertate. In the whiche booke he so debaseth, reuileth, and bringeth in con­tempt not onely the awncient true and Catholike religion of Christ his churche, but also the lawes [Page] bothe Canon and Ciuill, that it maye seme he lac­ked but a head and capitaine to make a perfit sediti­on. But whereas at that time there was yet amonge men more feare of God and reuerence to their magistrats, thē that they would be moued with Lu­thers light talke, fewe were founde to helpe blowe the fire which he had kindled, vntell at the length Luther him selfe moued peraduenture more hotely with the sprit, ronge the alarum him selfe in the yea­re. 1523. setting forthe a booke entituled, De saeculari potestate. in a parte whereoff he writeth these wor­des.

These are our Christen princes which defende the faith and deuoure the Turke. In tomo 6. germanico. Fol. 602. In dede worthy men, and such as you maie truste that by their gre­ate wisedome they are likely to do some what, as to breake their owne neckes first, Luther proueth contempt of princes by scripture. and then leade who­le countres and peoples to breake necke after. These blinde princes I would well aduise, to be ware o­nely of one small sentence of the 166. psalme, whi­che is this. He pooreth oute contempt vppon Prin­ces. I swere vnto you by God, that if through your negligence this poore sentence ones take holde on you, you are vndone, were you as mighty and of as greate power as the Turke himselfe. Nether will your storming any thinge profit you. The matter is nowe all ready well begonne. For fewe princes are [Page 140] nowe that are not counted for villaines and fooles: and that bicause they showe themselues for such: and the people beginneth nowe to wexe wise, and the plage of princes which god calleth contēpt, en­creaseth daily in the peoples hartes: and I feare me it will not be staied, onles princes behaue themsel­ues, as it becometh them, and begin againe to rule more modestly. Luthers counsell to princes For men ne will ne can lenger aby­de your tiranny, O wellbeloued Princes and Lor­des. Therefore prouide for yourselues: God wil not suffre this your tiranny any more. the worlde is not no we as it was in times paste, Thankes to the Luther. when you were won­te to hunte and chase men like bestes. awaie the­refore with your pride, power and haugtynes, and labour to do that is right and good: suffer the wor­de of God to haue his course, which yet it must ha­ue and shall haue, and you shall not be able to let it. If we teach heresie, let it be confuted by the wor­de of God. If you will trie the matter with the sworde, take hede leste some man cōmaunde you to put vp your sworde not in Gods name. But you wil saie peraduenture. If amonge the Christians there ought to be no secular sworde nor Ciuill gouuer­nement, howe then shall men be kepte in order, howe shall they be gouuerned? For amonge Chri­sten [Page] mē must be magistrats and officers. Luther proueth there must be no magi­strats a­monge Christen men, by scripture. I awnswer you. Amonge Christen men there can not be, nor ought not to be any Magistrat. but euery mā is subiect one to another all a like. as the Apostle saithe. Philip. 2. Thinking euery one superiour one to another: and S. Peter. 1. Pet, 5. Euery one sho­we humilite one to another: vnto the whiche Chri­ste also consenteth, saieng. Luce. 14. when thou ar­te called vnto a mariage, go, sit downe in the lowest place. Amonge Christen men there is no superiour, but onely Christ: and what superiorite or magi­gistrat cā there be where al be equal, of one right, dignite, and vocation? and where none desireth to rule ouer the other, but euery one is glad to be vn­der? VVhere such men are, if any would make a Magistrat, yet he can not make one that should be superiour to the other. for it is against nature to haue superiours, where no mā wil be, nor cā besuperi­our▪ and where such men are not, there are not true Christians. Againe in the next leafe before he wri­teth thus. They be princes of the worlde. But the worlde is enemy to God. Therefore they must ne­des do those thinges that are contrary to God, T [...]m. 6. Fol. [...]1. and acceptable to the worlde, lest they lese their honour and be no more worldy princes. Maruaile not the­refore [Page 141] if they storme and striue against the ghospel and plaie like madde fooles. For their doings must nedes corresponde to their name and title. Marke also that from the beginning of the worlde a wise prince hathe ben a seldom birde. but a good prince much more dainty. The reue­rence off Luther tovvard Princes. The moste of them are other principall fooles, or the moste wicked knaues on the earthe. And therefore we can hope for litle good of them, but feare allwaies the worste. Especially in matters of God and pertaining to our soule hel­the. For they are as the hangmen and tormen­tours of god: &c. And anon it foloweth. Therefo­re if perhaps there be any wise, good or Christian prince, that is to be counted for a wonder and a singular token of gods greate grace and clemency towarde that countre.

I beseche you al good Christen readers, of what­soeuer degre or qualite you are, remēbre your vocati­on, and suffer not your selues to be abused of this fonde frier, or to be lead in to his seditious errours and cōtempt of Magistrats, from the true belefe and awncient obedience of Christendom. For the true ghospell of Christ commaundeth directly all subie­ctes to obey their Lieges, 1. Pet. 2. Princes and Souueraines in all dread and obedience not onely good, vertuous, and mercifull, but also frowarde, wicked and cru­ell.

[Page] But what effect had this fifte ghospell of Luther and his prophecyeng of the fall of Princes? forsothe in the yeare 1525. Sleidan in the 5. booke. (that is two yeares after the setting forthe of that his seditious booke) it sturred vp that notorious rebell Thomas Muntzer: whom yet Luther (as it maye by good euidence be proued) at the firste excused and defended before the Duke of Saxony: hoping that Muntzer shoulde haue sped of his pur­pose: But afterwarde perceauing the princes to make greate preparation, and to gather power against the rebells, feling that his Christen liberte was like to fall in the donge, straite he writeth vnto the Princes and Nobilite, to hewe downe the rusticall rebel­les.

And to declare vnto the whole worlde the greate thought and grefe that father Luther tooke of that his former pernicious and deadly counsell, The mariage of Luther. euē at the very same time, he toke a Nūne out of her cloyster, and for mere pitie of the poore commons so delu­ded, Vide Eraf­mum in epistol. ad Thomā Lupse­tū. an. 1525 celebrated the solemne swete mariage of the fif­te ghospell. But to the entent the Princes and Ru­lers might not espie these his preuy fetches and de­uelishe inuentions, the very same yeare. 1525, he sette forthe an other booke quite contrary to the former. Which he intituled. Whether souldiars be in state of sal­uation. In that booke he writeth thus.

Here the lawe itselfe speaketh, Tom. 6. germanico. fol. 612. that no man ought to take weapon against his superiour. For vnto superiours and magistrats honour, reuerence, [Page 142] obedience, and dread is due. Rom. 13. For he that hacketh wodde ouer his heade, the chippes will fall in his eyes: Ecclel. 27. and as Salomon saith, he that throweth a stone vpwarde it will fall downe vppon his head. euen such is the lawe made of god and receaued of men. For these two can not agre, to obey and yet to rebell: to be a subiect, and yet to abyde no ruler. Thus much Luther in that place. Here I beseche al­mightie God to geue the light of truthe to all good and godly readers hereof: that laieng a side al affectiō to the person or man, they will waighe and considre vprightly the whole cause it selfe, as it standeth.

Luthers bookes De Captinitate Babylonica, Contrari ete in the doctrine of Luther and of Secular Authorite, teache according to his ghospell. that among Christē mē there can not be, nor ought no to be any higher power, or power at al. And why wrote he so then? bicause that if the Emperour or other princes would perhaps haue persecuted the he­resy of Luther, then the commons and cytezens might lawfully haue slaien the Catholike Prince, hi­gher power and magistrat. Now in his other booke, Of the state of souldyars, the ghospell of Luther tea­cheth plaine contrary, that the higher power must be obeyed: not onely good, but also the badde: to punishe the seditious and put to deathe rebells. Aga­ine in his laste litle booke writē to the Duke of Saxony and the Lantgraue, his ghospell preacheth after an other sorte: as that subiects may take weapon and [Page] stād in the field against their liege Souuerain. But so that they walke the high waie: that is, that spetting wel in their hādes and falling to it lustely (as he was wonte to saie) they hewe downe their princes a pa­se, and if it proue prosperousely, then geue honour vnto the Lorde. Beholde the honour of God, that heretikes seke. They teache the subiect to murder the Prince against the expresse commaundement of God in holy write, teaching vs to honour God in the hi­gher power.

Awake ye o Germās, A godly exhorta­tion. stirre vp your selues, see and acknowledg the mercifull visitation of allmighty God. Nowe god knocketh at our hartes, and looketh for repentaunce, and that with this fatherly lesson of king Dauid. Psal. 94. Todaie if ye haue heard his voyce, harden not your hartes. and the wordes of the Apostle. Knowest thou not that the mercifulnes of god and longe bearing dra­weth the vnto repētaunce? Rom. 2. Let vs therefore aske and crie vnto god. O Lorde conuerte vs, and showe thy face, and we shal be saued. Psal. 79. Let vs also heare the worde of our Lorde calling vpon vs by the prophet. Anchar. 1. Turne ye vnto me (saythe the Lorde of Hostes) and I will turne vnto you. And to the entent that all the honour be geuen to God, and yet that our good intent and purpose lacke not, if we will do true penaunce, we muste from the bottom of our hart lament with Ieremy the prophet, and crye with teares vnto our lorde, Theren. 5. O Lorde turne vs vnto the, and we shall be turned. And what necessite driueth vs to this crie and lamentation? surely euen the very same which moued that Prophet so to be­waile [Page 143] and lament, when, he saieth. VVo be vnto vs, bicause we haue sinned. For truly I thinke we germans haue sinned tentymes more greuousely then those Iewes. And what was the plage of their hainous of­fences? the prophet declareth. The crowne and garland of our head is fallen of. I feare me, we germans shall he­ue the selfe same plage, onles we spedely do penaun­ce for our wickednes. It foloweth in the lamentatiō. Therefore my harte is heauy and full of griefe. We, alas, are not yet come so farre towarde penaunce, that our harte hath ben heauy for our sinnes. For we yet con­tynew in them. and why spede we not to penaunce? Bycause our eyes are darkned. and wherefore? for the hil­le of Sion, that is, the Catholike church. why? what is befallen it? bycause it is destroyed. O Mercifull god, this is to to true with vs Germans. For amonge vs, one saythe Here is Christ: Matt. 24. an other saythe, there is Christ. this man saythe, Amonge the Caluinistes is the churche, an other saythe, Amonge the Illyricans. the thirde, amonge the Indifferents. the fourthe amonge the Osiandrins, the fifte amonge the Swenck feldians, and so with the reste. whereas yet it is vnpossible it should be amonge them all. why so? bicause it is destroied, it is scattered, it is vndone. And howe cometh it, o holy Ieremije, that the holy hill of Sion (the Catholike churche) is so wasted and destroied? Foxes haue walked in it. In dede foxes, that is, as S. Am­brose and S. Augustin expounde it, Ambros. in 9. cap. Luc. Aug. in psa. 80. suttle, crafty, de­ceitefull, stinking and lurking heretikes. These foxes haue onerrunne, spoiled, and destroied the holy hil [Page] of Sion, the Catholike church of Christ. And as so­one as the light that shineth from this hill (the Ca­tholike church, Esa 42. of whom it is saied, I haue set the vp as a lighte to all nations) was ones in Germany darkned and extinguished, mens eyes and hartes were so blin­ded, that with open eyes they see nothing, and are so sicke that they fele no paine at all, nor perceaue not howe daily the Croune falleth awaye from their he­ades. Let him therefore pray that can praye. and who so euer feareth the smarte of gods rodde, let him labour to escape it: and crie with the prophet. Thren. 5. Turne vs o lorde vnto the. and that he faile not also on his par­te, let him saie with mouthe, and perfourme in dede, And we will be turned.

But bicause that (as S. Augustin teacheth) repen­taunce which procedeth not of faithe is vnprofita­ble, August. de vera & falsa pae [...]it cap. 2. there is no hope of true repentaunce amonge vs, onles we embrace the true doctrine of Christen fay­th. To the entent therefore that euery common laie man may be sure and perfit of the faith and religion which he foloweth, I will adde hereunto to knitte vp this our simple treatise, a litle piece out of a booke that Vincētius lyrenēsis wrote aboue twelue hūdred yeares past, vnder Theodosius the Emperour, for the mayntenaūce and setting forth of Catholike religiō.

A man peraduenture maye demaunde ( saith he) seing the Canon of holy scripture is sufficient off it sel­fe for all pointes, what nedeth the interpretation off the Church to be added thereunto? to the which question he answereth. For bicause forsothe holy scripture being depe [Page 144] and mystical, is not of all men after the like sorte expounded: but the sentences thereof some man expoundeth one waie, so­me an other: that allmoste as many men, so diuers expositions may be drawen thereof. For the Nouatian expoundeth it one waie. Sabellius an other waie. Donatus, Arrius, Eu­nomius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus, Iouinianus, Pelagius, Celestius, and Nestorius al founders of sundry heresies, folowe eche of them their owne proper and peculiar waie of interpreting holy scripture. Wherefore it behoueth that in consideration of so many crekes and by er­roneous pathes, the line of interpreting holy prophets and A­postles be drawē and directed according to the rule of the Ca­tholike and ecclesiasticall exposition. In the Catholike chur­che it selfe we must seriousely prouide, that we folowe onely that which is receaued in euery place, at al times, of al mē. for this is Catholike in dede and properly (as the worde it self emporteth) comprehending all vniuersally. This we maie so do, Vniuersa­lite Anti­quite Consent. if we folowe vniuersalite, Antiquite, and Consent. Vniuer­salite we shall folowe, if we acknowledg that faith and be­lefe which the whole church through out the whole worlde acknowledgeth. Antiquite if we departe not from those ex­positions which the holy awncient fathers haue lefte vnto vs. Consent likewise, if in the antiquite we cleaue vnto the determinations of all or allmoste all priestes, prelats, and tea­chers of the church. What then shall the Catholike and Chri­stian man do, if any part of the churche cutte it selfe of from the communion and societe of the generall belefe? What o­ther then that he muste preferre the whole body before the deseased parte? What if some newe infection plage not onely some parte but the whole church? Then must he diligently [Page] cleaue vnto the Antiquite or awncient receaued faith whi­che can be seduced by no guile of nouelty. VVhat if two or thre men, or some one cyte or countre swarue from the An­tiquite, and receaued doctrine? Then against the rashe igno­rance of a fewe he must set the awncient and vniuersall decrees of some generall Councell. What if such doubtes arise that no such decree can be founde? Then let him labour to seke out and confer together the saiengs of the fathers, such as though in diuers times and in diuers places, yet remaining in the vnite and belefe of the Catholike church, haue bē approued for teachers and doctours of the same: and what soeuer he shal finde that not one or two onely of them, but that al with one Consent haue clerely taught, oftentimes writen, and continually helde, this without all doubte and stagger he ought to be leue. Thus farre that holy father, Vincentius Lyren.

It were much to be wished that this good and pro­fitable booke were soundely and truly trāslated in to the vulgar tongue, The booke is in oure engl [...]sh tongue already trāslated, and is most necessary to be read in these [...]i­mes. and so sett in printe to be read of all men. For this holy father aboue twelue hundred yeares since hath so writen of this matter, that he se­meth thereby to cal to the Catholike vnite, and pro­uoke to amendement off life, not only the heretikes of his time, but also euen these of our time. To then­tent that shaking off all sinne and heresie, we might liue here in peace, vnite, and cōcorde: and obtaine he­reafter the euerlasting life, praising with all the sain­ctes our Lorde and God for euer: the which his dere son our Sauiour Iesus Christ by his tēder mercie and blessed merites graunte vs. AMEN.

OVr Sauiour in the ghospell forwar­ning vs off false teachers and pro­phets, Matthe. 7. which comīg in shepes skinnes are inwardly rauening wolues, and checking the proude Pharisees cor­rupting the worde of god with their fonde inuenti­ons, making thereby a secte by them selues as Iose­phus recordeth, Lib. 2. cap. 7. de bello Iudaico. Matth. 15. pronounceth of them in this wise. Coeci sunt & duces coecorum: Coecus autem si coeco ducatum praestet, ambo in foueam cadunt. that is. They are blinde and the guides of blinde men. and if the blinde leade the blin­de, bothe fall in to the ditche. Likewise the blessed Apo­stle S. Peter, according to the charge geuen him off our Sauiour aboue the rest of the Apostles, Ioan. 21. euen as aboue the rest he loued Christ, forwarneth also his flocke of heretikes that should springe vp amonge [Page] them, 2. Petr. 1. as in the olde lawe before some had spronge: and writeth thus. Fuerunt & pseudoprophetae in populo &c. There were false prophets also among the people, euen as there shall be lying masters amonge you, which shall bringe in damnable sectes, euen denying God that hath bought them, and bring vpon them selues swift damnation: and ma­ny shall folowe their damnable waies, by whom the waie off truthe shall be blasphemed &c. In these sayengs bothe of our Sauiour, and of S. Peter his vicar here on earthe, we lerne bothe that false heretikes were like to arise in Christ his church, and what a perilous thing it is to folow the straypathes of such blinde guides▪ which is, as oure Sauiour saieth, to fall in to the dit­che with them. and as S. Peter telleth vs, to blasphe­me the waye of truthe, to witt, Christ him selfe who is the life, Ioan. 14. the waie, and the truthe. And truly iff we endeuoured our selues as S. Paule biddeth vs, Philip. 3. to obserue and folowe those which walke after such sorte, as we haue him for an ensample, Ephes. 4. if we were solliciti seruare vnitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis, diligent to kepe vnite of minde in the bonde of peace, if we woulde, as he most charely warneth Timothe saue that which is geuen vs 1. Timo. 6. to kepe (the treasure of our faithe) and auoide prophane nouelties of talke, and oppositions of false named knowleadg, we would not so rashly haue folowed a fewe false teachers against the common consent of Christen­dome, 2. Petr. 2. we had not departed from our first faith, and after the knowleadg of truthe haue turned away from the holy commaundement, being so (as S. Peter saieth) in worse case, then if we had neuer knowen the truthe: [Page 146] brefely we had not fallen in to so many and diuers pittes of hereticall doctrine, 1. Timo. 3. forsakinge the grounde and piller of al truthe the Catholike church of Christ. For verely who so earnestly and diligently would considre with him selfe, whereby it hath happened that in these late yeares so many haue departed from the catholike faith and yelded to newe doctrines not heard of before, he shall surely finde the princi­pall meanes thereof, to haue ben the onely light cre­dence geuen to newe preachers, and rashe beleuing e­uery newe tale in matters of conscience and saluati­on. The cause of this our rashnes I will not serche out, though it be ready to finde, our onely sinnes and wicked life being the very proper cause thereof, and nothing els. But the meanes as I saied, hath prin­cipally ben light harkening to euery such as listed to talke newe doctrine: the doctrine it selfe being plau­sible and gladly receiued of those, which burdned with sinne and wickednes, were gredy of the liber­ty, that in the doctrine was preached. according as S. Paul prophecied saying, 2. Timo. 4. The time shall be, when men will not abide holesom doctrine, but as such whose eares doth itch, they shall gett them such teachers, as shall withdraw them from the truthe, and turne them to fables. For hereof it happened, that not regarding what he was that taught, or vpon what reasons he grounded his doctri­ne, onely the pleasauntnes of it, as a bayte, choked the hearers and prisers thereof. For euen as in the ol­de lawe, the children of Israel when they fell to ini­quite, woulde not harken to the prophets, but badde [Page] them to speake pleasaunt doctrine vnto them, Esaiae. 30. and seke them out errours, so many these late yeares pressed with sin­ne, harkned gredely to such doctrine as might deli­uer them from the discipline of the church, from due repentaunce, confession, and satisfaction of their sin­nes, from obedience to pastours and curats, from fa­stings, from praier, and all necessite of good workes, brefely from all clogge of conscience, In libro. de capt. Bayloni [...]a. from which Luther craked he had deliuered the hartes off men.

Nowe as we are suffred to fall in to sinne someti­me, not onely of infirmite, or for triall of our stren­ghth, but also for the plage of other sinnes, as S. Pau­le in the first to the Romans declareth, so in punish­ment of this lewde liberty so gredely embraced in smaller pointes of our faithe, God hathe of his secret and vnknowen iustice suffred vs to fall beside in to such enormous heresies, though nothing pleasaunt otherwise, to such detestable doctrine, to so diuers and contrary opinions, that considering now the tra­de of this tragedy, and seing to what issue it hath proceded, (though truly I feare it be farre yet from the issue and ende) I haue thought it a good and conue­nient meanes bothe to staie somewhat this hedlong race, that men so blindely runne in, and to call backe such as haue passed all bondes of right belefe already, by the very same meanes, by the which they first be­gan to breake the araye of Christes church, and to runne this madde and lamentable course. And bicau­se we may worke the matter euen from the grounde, I haue thought good to consider the very first so­wers [Page 147] of the schismaticall seede of oure time: which I do finde to haue ben Luther, and his scholer Me­lanchthon, and Iohn Caluin.

The first broker of this cursed bargain, whereby many haue lost heauen and purchased hell, was Martin Luther. The setter forth of the bargain and grea­test Marchant of these perilous wares, was Melanch­thon: who semed partly to perfit that which Luther began, partly to amend with ciuill conformatiō, that which the other furiously and beyond all reason bla­med. Of these two heades are nowe two monstrous sectes swarming in all such places, as protestants and ghospellers preuaile. That is the zelous, roughe, and rigorous Lutherans cleauing fast to euery iote and parcell of Luthers doctrine, as being the very euan­gelist of this fifte ghospell: and the ciuill, softe and Philosophicall Lutherans, which after the trade off Melanchthon plucke vp in Luther such thinges as they mislike, and plante of their owne such as they liste. The third chief Master of late heresies, and principall founder of wicked doctrine hathe ben Iohn Caluin: the head and Capitayn of the Sacramentary secte. For though Zuinglius and Oecolampadius may seme his auncetours of a fewe yeares, yet he beareth nowe the name and the stroke of all that cursed se­cte, both bicause he hath writen most thereof, and al­so hath done most harme of any other.

Truly who so knewe what maner of men these were, what abhominable doctrine they haue taught, how variable and inconstant they haue ben in their [Page] owne sayings and doings, if he be a Christē man and feareth God, he will neuer forsake the whole corps of Christendom, and the Catholike faithe of so ma­ny hundred yeares, to folowe the priuat, newe, and variable doctrine of their braynes. But it semeth they are of a number vnknowen, and hereuppon rashely beleued. I will therefore adde vnto this worke of Sta­phylus a short discours, touching the doctrine of the­se thre Archeprotestants of our time. For euen as the intent and purpose of that vertuous and lerned man Fridericus Staphylus in this his Apology by vs trans­lated, was to reduce his deere countremen of Ger­many, wandering like straie shepe, to the flocke off Christes churche againe, partly by discouering the falshod of their guides craking of Gods worde with­out the right meaning thereof, and abusing the vnlerned with false forged translating off the same, which in the first and second part of his Apology he hath done, partly also by setting before mens eyes their greate variaunces and most clere dissensions in doctrine (an euident argumēt of heresy) euen so our intent and pupose is for the edifieng of such of my dere countremē, as haue not of malice, but of ignorā ­ce cleaued vnto the plausible and pernicious doctri­ne of these thre Archeheretikes Martin Luther, Phil. Melanchthō, and Iohn Caluin, to make an especiall dis­cours of their doctrine, bicause they are in our coun­tre aboue all other secte masters most folowed. For not only, the common sorte of deceiued protestants but the lerned and pretended prelats, and ministres [Page 148] of our countre, are partly Lutherās, partly Sacram [...]taries. And of the Lutherās, some (though the fewer nū bre) are zelous and rigorous Lutherās: that is, such as wil in al points folow Luther, taking hym for the ver [...] prophet of God, the fifte Euangelist, and the third Elias of our time. Some are ciuill Lutherans, gentle and courtly protestants, which admit Luther so farre as thē list, professing a kinde of indifferency in many matters of religiō, as Melanchthon their first Master taught them. The third sorte of protestāts, the most common and allowed secte in Englande, are the Sa­cramentaries of Geneua. Who are so greate in nūbre and authorite, that the other are allmost of no accōpt or reputatiō. To these mē Luther is a papist, and Cal­uin is the right and vndoubted prophet.

To the entent therefore that beside the generall discours of Staphylus, the particular humours of our countre may somewhat be serued, I haue thought it necessary to annexe here vnto a particular discours of these thre sectes, by examining the thre first foun­ders and fathers thereof. But especially and most lar­gely we entend to treate of the Sacramentary secte, as being the greatest sore of the corrupted body off our countre: And although we saie not herein al that may be saied, (which would require a large volume, and perhap; more tedious then profitable) yet these fewe that we shal bring, may be sufficient arguments to discredit the authorite of any one of them: which in many mens eyes semeth so greate, that at the warrant off their mouthe, they sticke not to caste [Page] awaye all credit off all the lerned men in Christe his churche this fiftene hundred yeares and vpwar­de.

For if I declare vnto you most manifest and clere heresies, The argument off this dis­cours. such as haue ben condemned aboue a thou­sand yeares paste in that state and time of Christes church, as our protestants yet acknowleadg, or [...]eme at the lest to acknowledg for pure and vncorrupted, to be in the doctrine of Caluin: If I showe most ma­nifest contradictions and brutish absurdites oute off his writings, in the waightiest articles of our belefe (as of the blessed Sacrament, of Baptim, and of free will of man) if I declare vnto you such inconstancy of Melanchthon, as woulde scarse become a meane scholer in matters of common lerning, yf I discouer a numbre of olde heresies condemned also in the primitiue church, renewed by Luther (generally recea­ued of all protestants) beside diuers other most cer­tain tokens of hereticall doctrine auouched by him, all this I truste shall be a iuste and sufficient cause not only to suspect, but vtterly to mislike the residew off their doctrine and opinions, whereby they haue in­ueigled the hartes of men to the vtter destruction off thousands of soules. For truly if they be men sent es­pecially from God, to restore vnto vs the light of his holy worde after the darcknes of so many hundred yeares (as they pretend to be, and are taken for such) it can not possibly be, but that their sayings and do­ings must sauour of the Apostles, holy Martirs, and awncient fathers of Christes church, by whom the [Page 140] faith of Christ was first planted here on earth, and spred through oute the whole worlde. That is, they must haue Cor vnum & animam vnam. Actorū. 2. One harte and one mynde as the Apostles had, they must Obedire excorde in eam formam doctrinae in qua traditi sunt, Rom [...]. 6. Obeye­uen from their harte to that m [...]ner of doctrine wherein they were brought vp, as the first Christians did, they must haue the ensample of holesom wordes and doctrine, 2. Timo. 1. which they heard of their first fathers and teachers, as the churche of Christ hath allwaies continued. But iff their sayings and doings repugne directly against the manner and vsage of these holy men, if they be at va­riaunce amonge them selues, and with them selues, (as especially you shall see in Caluin) if they forsake the trade of olde doctrine, and renewe in their place olde condemned heresies: if they forsake the ensam­ple of other, forging doctrine of their owne: no Christen man may doubte, but that they are not off that race nor line, but rather of the issue of the olde heretikes, whose doctrine they renew, and behauiour they folow. For vndoubtedly the saying of our Sauiour can not be false: Matth. 7. By their frutes you shall knowe them. But now to the matter, and first of Luther.

It is well knowen by all the histories of our time as of Fontanus, Reuerus, Sleidan, and other that the first breache of the well ordred aray of Christes churche was by Luther attempted, not of reuelatiō, con­science, or lerning, but only for the grief of a repulse taken touching the publishing of that famous par­don of the Cro [...]sad. For hereuppon began he first to [Page] open his lippes against the abuse of pardons, after a­gainst the pardons them selues, thē against the who­le authorite of the church not only in that matter but almost in al other necessary articles of belefe. And bi [...]ause we wil not go by cōiectures but by most [...] redemonstrations, I will bring you the wordes of Lu­th [...] him s [...]lfe.

In a disputation before the Duke George of Sax­ony helde openly at Lipsia with D. E [...]kius, he doth plainly pronounce, That the quarell of religion thē by him enter pr [...]s [...]d, was not begonn for the honour of God, nor should not ende to his honour. Fonta [...]us lib. 2. Luther in all his doin­ges declared well this his intent and purpose, but no­we bicause Ex abund [...]ntia cordis os loquitur, as the har­te thinketh, the tongue speaketh, he vttereth it also in wordes, and be wraieth his deuelish intent. rashely perhaps and vnprouidently on his owne parte, but not without the mercyfull prouidence of allmighty god in our behalf. And in very dede according to his talke the matter proued. For see howe he made his entry to this ioly enterprise. He knew right well, that the authorite of lerned writers stāding, he could not plant his deuelish and wicked doctrine. Therefore at the first he persuadeth the worlde that the ghospell hitherto hath ben trod vnder foote, and mens con­stitutions haue preuailed. Wherefore nothing ought to be receiued, but the only clere and expresse text of holy Scripture. L [...]e Eras mā in [...]y [...]. For these be his wordes in his booke De s [...]ruo arbitrio against Eraesmus. Laie aside all the ar­mour and defence, which the olde Catholike writers, all scho­les [Page 150] of diuines, authorite of Councells, and popes, the consent of all ages, and all Christendom do minister vnto you. VVe ad­mitt nothing but Scripture. VVhatsoeuer the olde writers taught, the authorite of the church hath deliuered, Christen people hath embraced, Scholes haue defended, it is all the pesti­lent poison of the deuill. I will no iudgement, but I require obedience. Nor let not any mā be any whit moued with the miracles or holynes of the Saints off the church. They are all damned, if they thought as they wrote. Thus farre Frier Luther.

Be these the wordes, thinke you, of a Christen mā? If Porphirius, Lucian, Iulian the Apostata, or any Turke or Pagan shoulde go about to withdraw Chri­sten men from the faith of Iesus Christ, and of his ho­ly worde, what surer grounde could he vse of his persuasion, what suttler entry coulde he make, then to persuade them that all Counsells, al doctours, al Po­pes haue erred damnably and taught Satanicall do­ctrine?

There arose in Holland about twenty yeares past one George Dauid, first a Lutheran protestant, and after a most detestable Apostata, affirming him selfe to be the true Messias and Christ. He liued afterward in Basill certain yeares vnder pretence of a Lutheran protestant, and naming him selfe Iohn of Bruncke, he died at Basill: and but two yeares after his deathe was espied to be that George Dauid, whom so many Anabaptistes folowed and beleued. At what time his bookes and writings being serched, cōtaining the reasons and persuasions of his doctrine, amonge ma­ny [Page] other this was founde, and is the viij. th in num­ber. If, Vide histo­rian Da­ui [...]s Georgij. Antuer p [...] impressam. anno 1560. saieth he, the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had ben the true and perfit doctrine, truly the church which they planted and framed by their doctrine, should necessarely ha­ue continued, and neuer perished. Bicause hell gates them sel­ues, as Iesus saied, should not preuaile against his church. but nowe it is euident, that Antichrist hath vtterly ouerthro­wen the doctrine and building of the Apostles. For this, sa­ieth he, is manifest in the papacy. Whereof he will haue it ne­cessarely ensue, that the doctrine of the Apostles be vnperfitt and false: but the doctrine that he bringeth for the be the per­fit and true. These are the very wordes of the history of his life, sette forthe by the vniuersite of Basill. Be­holde the reason of Luther to plant his newe ghos­pell, and the reason of George Dauid to ouerthrowe the ghospell is all one. Luther groundeth vppon the errour of the church: George Dauid groundeth vppon the same. Luther maketh his entry by condemning the churche: George Dauid maketh the same. Onely this is the difference. Dauid goeth plainly to worke: and openeth his diuelish intent at the first: and the­refore he prospered not. Luther craftely pretendeth the defence of Gods worde (though he condemne the church) and therefore it succeded ioylely with him. For tenfolde worse is a preuy enemy then an o­pen: and sooner is the Turke auoided, The heretike more dange­rous, thē the Tur­ke. then the he­retike: though they bringe vs bothe to one pitte. the Turke walketh naked: he asketh all at ones: his filth­ynes appeareth at the first sight, and therefore the Christen man at the first blushe, abhorreth him. But [Page 151] the heretike is cloked with the name of a Christian: asketh but the deniall of some part of our saith, pre­tendeth the worde of God, and therefore is not off many espied.

Our Sauiour in that most tender and longe prai­ers, that he made for mankinde after the mysticall Supper, praieth thus. Ioan. 17. O holy father kepe them in thy na­me whom thou hast geuen vnto me, that they may be one as we are. I aske not only for them, but for all such, as by their worde shall beleue in me: that they all be one as thou father in me and I in the, that they also be one in vs, that the worlde may beleue that thou hast sent me. Christ here praieth for vnite in his Church, and that to continue for euer. For he saied before, Ioan. 14. he would praie the Father, and he should geue a comforter to tary with vs for euer, the Spirit of truthe. And why doeth our Sauiour praie for this vnite and truthe to continew for euer in his Chur­che? forsothe he protesteth it vnto his Father, and saieth, to the entent that the worlde may beleue that thou hast sent me. Lo Christ would haue the continuaunce of truthe and vnite in his Church, to be a most eui­dent argument to all the worlde that he was the true Son of God, the only Sauiour and Redemer of the worlde. Nowe Luther and George Dauid denie this vnite and truthe to haue continewed: and our prote­stants appeale to the first six hundred yeares, condem­ning wickedly the whole corps of Christendom off these last ix. hundred yeares, of errours, superstition, and idolatry. And what other cōsequēt looke we he­reof to folowe, then that with George Dauid and his [Page] secte, they denie Christ him selfe? In the preface off Staphylus to the bishop of Eistat you haue sene, ho­we the protestants of Bohem are allready come to this point, In the Ieafe 18. where this heresie first began, and hath most continued.

But here peraduenture some ciuill Lutheran will be offended with vs for vrging these wordes of Lu­ther, and charging him so farre therewith: and awn­swer with their common distinction, saying. The wri­tinges of Luther are of thre maner of sortes: to witt. some writen before he thouroughly espied what popery was, some a­gain writen in vehemency of contention, wherein sometime he showed him selfe to much passioned. some again that he wrote in mekenes of spirit, and such to be taken for the very pure kernell, and vndoubted verite of his ghospell. This di­stinction and poore shift, Sleidanus lib. 3. histo. though Luther vsed it befo­re the Emperour at Wormes, and be a common cloke of the ciuill protestants, to couer the filthynes off their father, Luther: yet bothe it standeth litle with the truthe of an Euangelist, as he termeth him selfe, or of the third Elias, In epist. ad Argentora­tenses. Me­lanchthon de vita & morte Lu­theri. as his scholers call him, and will neuer be graunted of the zelous Lutherans, Illyricus, Gallus, Amssdorffius, and such other, which will not departe from any one iote of Luthers doctrine. No nor Luther him selfe cannot abide it. For thus he writeth in his presumptuous booke against our late Souuerain, Tomo 6. fo. 436. edi­tionis. an. 1553. king Henry the eight. It repenteth me, saith Luther, that I submitted my selfe so much before the Em­perour at VVormes, that I would suffer any man to sitt Iudge on my doctrine, or heare if any man could conuince [Page 152] me of any errour. For I should not haue declared so foolish an humilite, being sure and certain of my doctrine. Beside that the same submission nothing auailed me before that ty­ran. A man must be so sure and certain of his doings, that al­though all the worlde be sett against him, yet he departe no o­ne iote from them. Thus farre Luther. Where you see, he confesseth not that he speaketh amisse sometime by infirmite, sometime of a passion, but he maketh him selfe to stande vpon a most sure grounde, so that he can not saie a misse. Tomo 2. fol. 35. sac. 2. contra caelestes pro­phetas. Likewise at what time Carolo­stadius suaruing from Luther, would so haue excused him selfe, that at the beginning he was but weake in the spirit, &c. Luther awnswereth him, that the spirit of God vseth no such excuse.

Well then: if the doctrine of Luther, be so sure and constant, that it may not vary, will our protestants and new Masters at home stande stoutely to the sa­me? Will they condemne all Councells, all holy Fa­thers, all authorite of the Church, all that Christen people haue hitherto beleued? for these are the very wordes of Luther, quoted you before oute of his workes. Truly this were a compendious waie, not only fot their purpose, but for the Turkes to. Yea and for Antichrist him selfe. For when he cometh, can he deuise any more politick engin to vnderminde Christendom, can he wish for any better harbengers to prepare mens hartes and good wills to lodge him in? waight the matter who listeth wisely and diligently: he shall finde none like to this.

Yet Luther, they will saie, leaueth vs holy Scriptu­re, [Page] which Antichrist will not do. Yea truly, but how leaueth he it? I meane to be read of the vnlerned laye man. Forsothe he translateth it in to the mother ton­gue. And how? sincerely and truly? I reporte me to the second part of this Apologie, where you haue se­ne, how vprightly he hath dealed herein. As for the common text which our protestants after their Ma­ster, Luther, do vse, and commaunde to be read in Churches, we haue in our preface noted you in part the truthe and soundnes thereof. But to show to the worlde their fidelite and sincerite yet farder, I will here specify some other places of holy Scripture alte­red and corrupted by them. And this I will do but in part, and brefely: noting such as it hath ben my chaunce here and there to espie, not making any spe­ciall discours vpon the whole translation of the en­glish Bible, which may with time and more diligence hereafter be done.

Where as S. Paule hath, Haereticum hominem deuita, Auoide the heretike man, Tit. 3. our new english trāslatiōs re­ade, Auoide a man that is an author of sectes, A numbre of places corrupted in the en­gl [...]sh Bi­ble. prin­ted in the yeares. 1549. 51. 52. and 62. as though an heretike and an author of a secte wer all one. By this false forged text, the doctrine of our protestants being proued hereticall, yet Luther, Caluin, Su [...]n [...]k fel­dius, Osiander, and such other were only to be auoided (as being the authors and first beginners off these present theresies) but our protestants being no au­thors thē selues of sectes, but folowers of other, may (notwithstanding S. Paules wodes) be embraced and supported. But an heretike (as S. Augustin defineth) [Page 153] is he, In lib. de [...] ­tilitate cre­dendi. ca. 1. which, for tempor all commodite, honour or welth, ei­ther forgeth him selfe new doctrine, or foloweth. And all such S. Paule biddeth vs auoide. But no maruail iff these men did so alter this text. It is good reason a mā fauour him self. for els perhaps the people reading this text of S. Paul, would beginne to auoide our pro­testants, whom they see to be heretikes. And therefo­re in an other place, where S. Paule saieth. Oportet hae­reses esse. There must be heresies, 1. Corin. 11. they likewise turne it, There must be s [...]ctes, auoiding allwaies the name of he­resy, bicause it touched them to nigh. And verely it were not amisse for them, if the name of heresy and heretikes were quite forgotten: se [...]g their whole doctrine which they haue lerned of Luther and Cal­uin, is nothingels but olde condemned heresies pat­ched together and newly scoured, as in this discour­se we shall euidently declare vnto you.

For this purpose also, where S. Paule writeth to Timothe, 1. Timo. 6. P [...]ophanas vocum nouitates deuita, auoyde straunge nouelties of wordes, whereby he ment new [...]e­reticall doctrine, these men turne it, auoide vnghostely vanities of voyces, altering quite bothe the wordes and the sence of the Apostle. for it standeth vpon these men to haue nouelties allowed.

With the like vaine of euangelicall sincerite, bicause they may not abyde to heare off aultar, (hauing plucked them downe against the express [...] practise of the primitiue churche and all ages) where S. Paule writeth, 1 Cor. 10. Are not they which eate of the sacrifice partak [...]s of the aultar? these men turne for the [...]. The [Page] latin hath altare, and the graeke [...]. In the same place they make S. Paule talke of images (as thoughe Christen men had then worshipped images, whiche yet they say is but a late inuention) where as he tal­keth only of idols and idolaters.

In like maner bicause traditions are a great eye so­re to all newe ghospellers, they putt out of S. Paule the worde Traditions, 2. Thessal. 2. & 3. and put in his place sometime Ordinaunces sometime Institutions, as ofte as S. Paule biddeth thē to be kept. In other places, when the tra­ditions of the Iewes are reprehended, 1. Pet. 1. then they kepe the worde gladly.

All Sacramentaries that folow the banner of Cal­uin make light of the Sacrament of baptim, teaching that the children of Christen parents may withoute daunger lacke it, In institut. cap. 17. in fine. if there be no cōtempt or negligen­ce on our parte. We shall haue occasion in examining of Caluins doctrine, to speake more of this cursed he­resie. Nowe bicause the saying of oure Sauiour in S. Iohns ghospel, Ioan. 3. Onlesse a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghoste, he shall not entre in to the kingdome of hea­uen, did vtterly ouerthrowe this wicked opinion, our protestants in their translatiōs haue founde the mea­nes so to clippe the text, that it might no lenger dire­ctly fight against them: and therefore they leaue out the worde ( againe) in S. Iohn, which of necessite im­ported a second natiuite of baptim. But of this we shal haue occasiō to speake more hereafter. In the me ane ye see the vpright dealing of our protestāts. How are they to be trusted in their sermōs, in their home­lies, [Page 154] and in a numbre of assertions and articles which they teache without scripture, that corrupt the Scrip­ture it selfe?

They wil saie, A refuge for false translati­ons of scripture confuted. they alter sometimes the text, bicause of the greke, which varieth from the latin. If they did so sincerely, and in all places, it were perhaps the lesse faute, And yet not without greate faute, the la­tin text being vniforme, vniuersally receiued, and commaunded by general Councel, whereas the grae­ke lacketh such authorite, Vide Li [...] ­danum de optimo scripturas interpretandi genere lib. 2. and is beside variable and most vncertain, for the greate variete and discorde of graeke copies. But nowe when the greke serueth their purpose, and may any thinge furder their heresies, then they grate gredely thereupon. But when it ma­keth against thē, they kepe the latin, and let the gre­ke passe. As for example. Whereas in the Actes off the Apostles, the greke hath [...], Cap. 13. while they sacrifised, as Erasmus also hath translated it, they folowe the latin, Ministrātibus illis, turning it, as they ministred. Here they forsake the greke, and Erasmus to bicause they wil not heare that the Apostles sacrifised, as the greke text cōuinceth, and Erasmus truly after the gre­ke translateth. But in an other place, where the greke may serue their turne, see howe they snatche after it, and yet were fouly deceaued.

In S. Paule, where the latin hath, Iustificati ex fide pa­cem habeamus apud Deum. that is, Being iustified by faith let vs haue peace with God. Rom. 5. And the greke readeth, [...], we haue peace with God, they folowe there the greke, bicause they would sett vp a seconde iustification by [Page] only faith, as if S. Paule had saied. Nowe being iusti­fied by faith in our first iustification, We haue peace with God, we are safe and sure. But though the com­mon greke text reade so in dede, yet the graeke fathers who hath lefte vs their lerned commentaries vppon that place, did reade as the common latin hath, to wit Chrisostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophilact.

In their translation also of the olde Testament, their demeanour is not vnlike. For sometime, when the ambiguite of the hebrewe worde or phrase maye importe any other sence, then the common translati­on hath, in such places as ouerthrowe their heresies, they alter the text at their pleasure: sometime they for sake bothe the hebrew and the greke according with the latin translation, without any ambiguite at all. As in some fewe places for example of many, we wil no­we declare vnto you.

In the psalme 118. the common translation readeth Inclinaui cor meum ad faceindas iustificationes tuas in aeter­num propter retributionem, that is, I haue applied myne hart to fullfill thy statutes for euer, for the rewarde. Oure english trāslations printed in the yeare. 1549. 1551. 1552. 1162. all with one accorde haue altered the later parte of the sentence: and in stede of these wordes, For euer for the rewarde, they turne it, allwaie, euen vnto the ende. This text of holy scripture they haue corrupted for the maintenaunce of their lewde liberty by only fai­the, and defacing of al reward for good workes. And vpon what grounde trowe ye, haue they vttered this false translation? forsothe vppon the ambiguite off [Page 155] the hebrewe text, which readeth: [...]. for here their peufelowe Sebastian Munster hath turned [...] in finem, Euen vnto the ende. And of him they haue lerned to correct the text of holy scripture. What then? was the olde translation allwaies before vsed, false and corrupted? Was it contrary and repugnant to the hebrew originall? No truly. But here it fareth with our protestants as oure Sauiour noted of the blinde Pharises. Matth. 15. Caecus caecū ducit, & ambo in foueam ca­dunt. The blinde leadeth the blinde aud bothe fall in to the dike. They folowe Munster, and their notes of Gene­ua sett forthe by Robert Steuen, bothe blinded with selfe will and malice against the common translati­on of the church. For allthough the worde, [...] do signifie sometime Calcaneus a hele, or hinder parte off a thinge (and thē otherwise pointed then it is in this text of the psal.) so that metaphorically it may signi­fie, the ēde, yet properly it signifieth rewarde as Pagnin in his dictionary noteth, and as it is here pointed can signifie no other thing. The proper significatiō hereof in an other psalme most manifestly appeareth. Where we reade. [...], Psal. 18. In custodiendis illis retributio multa. In keping of them (the lawes and sta­tutes of God) is; great rewarde. And therefore the greke of the, 72. elders haue trāslated the place of the, 118. psalme [...] that is, for euer for rewarde: and S. Hierom (then whom no writer in the latin Church hath ben more skilfull and perfit in the he­brew tongue) turneth it proper eternam retributionem for euerlasting rewarde, keping the propriety of the [Page] worde [...] truly expressed in the cōmon latin tran­slation. But our protestants haue either ignorantly or malitiousely forsaken the propriete of the hebrew worde, the greke interpretation of the, 72. elders, the lerned translation of S. Hierom, and the common la­tin text in all Christendom alwaie receaued, to folo­we ignorant Munster, and the corrupted notes off Geneua. This is lo the worde of God which our pro­testants pretend only to embrace. This is the pure text which they force the vnlerned to reade. But let vs now consider some other places, and see how gho­spellike our ghospellers haue behaued them selues.

In the, 9. chapter of the ecclesiastes, the common latin translation readeth thus. Sunt iusti atque sapien­tes: & opera eorum in manu dei. Et tamen non scit homo v­trum amore an odio dignus sit. that is. there are iuste and wise men: and their workes are in the hand of god. But man knoweth not whether he deserue to be loued or hated. The heretikes of our times amonge other their heresies teache an assured certainte of grace by only faith. This place bicause (according to the saieng of S. Paule, Philip. 2. bidding vs in metu & tremore operari salutem nostram, to worke our saluation in feare and tremble, and of S. Peter writing. satagite vt per bona opera certam ve­stram vocationem faciatis, 2. Pet. 1. that is, labour to make your vo­cation (in Christ) sure by good workes) it declareth that all the doings of the iust and vpright man are in the handes of god, and that no man knoweth whether he be in fauour with God or no, teaching vs in all humilite and lowlines to repose our selfe vpon God [Page 56] and his goodnes, not vpon our owne faith and con­fidēce as the recheles protestants of our vnhappy ti­me do, bicause I saie this text ouerthroweth this their heresy, they haue here, as in many other places, ad­uentered to alter the text of gods worde it selfe. And though in their alteration and departing from the re­ceiued text, these foxes tailes be all tyed and knitt to­gether, yet in the newe inuention and placing there­of they beare their heads farre a sonder. For in the translations printed in the yeares, 1549. and, 1551. thus they reade. The righteous, the wise, yea and their workes al­so are in the hand of God. And there is no man that kno­weth either the loue or the hate of the thinge that he hath be­fore him. In the translations of the yeare, 1552. and, 1562. thus they, reade. The righteous and the wise, yea and their seruaunts also are in the handes of god. there is no man that knoweth either loue or hate, but all thinges are before them.

As neither of these two translations agree with the hebrew, greke, and latin, so do they bothe vary from the iudgment of all the lerned interpretours off this place. first whereas the former translation rea­deth. There is no man that knoweth the loue or the hate of the thinge that he hath before him: this lo varieth from the hebrew, the graeke and the latin not only com­monly vsed, but that which we finde in S. Hierom, in Symmachus and in Pagnin, yea and in Munster him selfe. The hebrew readeth. [...]. the greke hath. [...]. S. Hie­rom turneth after the hebrew, worde for worde. Et [Page] quidem charitatem & quidem odium non est cognoscens ho­mo: omnia in facie eorum. that is. Bothe loue and hatred man knoweth not. all thinges are before him. The interpretation of Symmachus alleaged by S. Hierom foloweth the same sence and meaning. Pagnin like­wise and Munster, euen as ye see the later english translations printed in the yeare, 1552. and, 1562. doth also folowe. well then: the former translation vari­eng from all these texts and authors alleaged, is the later nowe perfit and sounde? In this parte of the sen­tence it hath well corrected the former, and folowed metely the hebrew &c. But in the other part where they reade, Yea and their seruauntes also are in the handes of God: they walke wide of the truthe. and haue for­saken therein all the lerned hebricians bothe awnci­ent and of these daies: to folowe their dutche doctour Munster, who only hath so translated it. wherein they declare their great ignoraunce, (to charge them now no farder) especially this translation being la­ter, and as it should seme more corrected. for the he­brew worde [...] hauing the point camets vn­der [...] can not signifie ( seruaunts) but opera, workes, as Iōanes Mercerus the kinges Reader in Paris, a man excelling any other of this time (being no hebrew borne) in the knowleadg of that tongue, in his pub­licke lessons noted. Whose authorite I haue not doubted to alleage in this place, bothe bicause for his lerning I reuerence him hauing a longe time ben his scholer: and for that, his conscience our men can not mistrust, being one of their owne cote touching reli­gion. [Page 157] Beside Pagnin in his dictionary hath noted out of Rab. Abraham in his com. and out of R. dauid in lib. rad. that the Radix [...] hauing [...] after him (as he hath in this place [...] in manu, in the hande of god) can neuer signifie to serue, but to worke. The greke also hath turned that worde [...]: S. Hierom, Symma­chus, and Pagnin, opera, workes. Munster therefore and his ape our later english trāslations haue declared here their ignoraunce, and geuen good warning to the lerned worthely to mistrust their iudgment in other places.

But here perhaps you will demaunde, howe the common latin agreeth with the hebrew and greke. We awnswer according to the iudgement of the best lerned and most expert in the hebrewe tongue, that the latin translation hathe expressed the right sence and meaning of the hebrew text, though it hathe not folowed precisely the very wordes. One S. Hie­rom in stede of many shall counterpaise the fonde and peruerted interpretation of Mūster, and our pro­testants his scholers. His interpretation vppon this place is this, Hic sensus est, Etiam in hoc dedi cor meum, & scire volui quos Deus diligeret, quos Deus odisset, & inue­ni iustorum quidem opera in manu Dei esse: et tamen vtrum amentur à Deo an non, nunc eos scire non posse, &c. This is the meaning (saith S. Hierom), this also I laboured to knowe whom God loued, and whom God hated: and I founde that the righteous were in the hande of God. But yet that nowe (in this life) they coulde not knowe whether they were loued of God or no, &c. Thus farre S. Hierom. Whom [Page] for his lerning and knowleadge in the propriete off this tongue, for his approued vertu, and great antiquite we may boldely preferre before these vpstert smat­terers of our daies.

Neither is it any vnwonte thinge in the common translation to folowe the sence of the hebrew, leauing the wordes: as in diuers places it is not vnknowen to the lerned. In the second psalme, where the hebre­we readeth, Osculamini filium, Kisse ye the Son, the common latin translation hath turned it Apprehendite disciplinam, Receaue and embrace discipline, that is, re­fuse not the visitation of the hande of God, &c: whi­che to be the right and proper vnderstanding of that place, beside other authorites the iudgement only off Ionathas Targū the Chalday interpreter or paraphra­stes writing before the coming of Christ, and reuerē ­ced aboue all other interpretours of al the lerned he­bricians, sufficiētly cōuinceth. For that is his very in­terpretatiō vpō this place. whereby the ignoraūce and blindnes of Iohn Caluin railing vpon this place aga­inst the cōmon trāslation, and charging it with ignoraunce of the hebrewe, doth euidently appeare it self.

But to returne to our english translations, as we haue in these places alleaged, declared you their igno­raunce and itching foly, in folowing their dutche doctor Munster (to speake nothing of their malice in departing from the church, and presumptuousnes in altering at their pleasure the receiued text of Gods worde) so nowe we intend to showe with what feli­cite they haue folowed their blinde presumptuous [Page 158] guide of Geneua Iohn Caluin. For of these two do­ctours and worthy fathers (after Luther) haue oure protestants lerned to corrupt the worde of God by their false translations.

Caluin as he hath of all other protestants vttered most detestable and blasphemous doctrine, so farre passing Luther and the protestants of Wittenberg, that he accompteth thē for papistes, and calleth them so in his writings, so was he principally enemy to the blessed Sacrament of the aultar, the most precious ie­well and dearest treasure that Christendom hath on earth. Such places therefore of holy Scripture as part­ly prophecied, partly expressed the verite of this dread ful Sacrifice, he hath other peruerted by heretical and new inuēted expositiōs, or corrupted by false and wrō ge trāslations. In the 9. chapter of the prouerbes of Salomō where it is saied of Christ in the persō of Wisedō She hath offred vp her sacrifices, she hath mingled her wine, and prepared her table, is contained a clere prophecy of this blessed Sacramēt, by the iudgement of the lerned fathers, Ibidem. S. Hierō. Lib. 2. epist. 3. S. Cypriā. Lib. 17. cap. 20 de cinit. Dei. Augustin. and Homil. 5. in pasch [...]. Eus [...]bius Emissemus: as also the wordes of the text do necessarely import. Now Caluin in his frēch trāslatiō printed at Geneua and at Lyōs by the heires of Iohn Michel turneth it thus. Ila tue ses victuailles, il a verse son vin: that is She hath killed her victuals, powred out her wine, and prepared her table. And this is the very trāslation also of our english Bible printed in the yeares. 1549. 1551. 1552. and 1562. But bothe the trāslatiōs of our Bible and of Caluin (herein their Master) are other them selues much [Page] deceaued, or do malitiously deceaue other. For the la­tin, the greke, and the hebrew all with one accorde reade after the first english translation aleaged by vs. The hebrew hath [...]: the gre­ke readeth thus: [...]. The latin hath, Prouer. 9. Immolauit victimassuas, miscu­it vinum suum, &c. Nowe I appeale to all the lerned in these tongues whether the wordes of these textes aunswer not worde for worde to the first translation brought by vs. True it is that in the greke text the worde [...] is ambiguous, and may signifie to mingle or to fill out. But the hebrewe text admitting no su­che ambiguite, from whence the greke was deriued, nor the latin which folowed the greke, that worde must nedes be takē in such sence as the greke receiued of the hebrew, and as the latins folowed in the greke. Therefore the french translation of Caluin, and our english folowing the same, is not the worde of God, nor the text of holy scripture, but the worde of Cal­uin and his text. What may not heretikes do, if they maye sette vs forthe their worde, for the worde off God, their imaginations for holy scripture, their poi­sonned heresies for sounde faith? You haue sene what conscience our protestants make of it: and howe ma­ny places of holy scripture they haue altered, peruer­ted and corrupted for the maintenaūce of their pretē ­ded ghospel. I will not in wordes exaggerat this wic­ked presumption of our protestāts. The matter it selfe doth, I truste, sufficiently speake it. And I do not vt­terly despeare their amendment, when they shall see, [Page 159] and fele their falshood discouered and broughte to light: seing that in the later translations they betray sometime their former iuggling: as in certain places here noted by Staphylus of Luther it is euident. For although (as we saied in our preface) of all the places corrupted by Luther, and noted here by Staphylus, there is but one readen in the cōmon translations off our countre, yet that is to be vnderstanded of the la­ter onely, See the places a­boue in the leafe 71. and. 68▪ printed in the yeares, 1552. and 1562. For in the former translations printed in the yeares 1549. and 1551. the place of S. Paule in the 1. to Timothe the 4. chapter, and the first to the Corinthians the 9. chapter are corrupted, euen as Luther had first taught them. but in their later editions they haue made the holy ghoste to talke in an other language. Well. I be­seche God to geue thē grace farder to see and to amē de their owne fautes, and other men spedely to bewa­re of them.

And truly what one man, yea what one colledge or vniuersite of lerned men, may take vpon it to sette forthe any translation, Fontanus lib. 1. histo. eccles. Lin­danus de opt. genere interpr. scrip. cap. 8▪ other then whiche allwaies hath ben receiued? Erasmus Roterodam a lerned man vndoubtedly, but in this point ouer rashe, was the fir­ste of our time that with his newe translation in la­tin of the newe Testament, comptrolled the olde. Whereof he is worthely reprehended of diuers. And what folowed? Soone after Sebastian Castalion sette forthe an other translation in latin also. Vide Tia­phylum in absolu [...]ae apolog. fol. 62. Likewise Luther in the vulgar tongue: which only was com­maunded amonge the protestants to be reade and v­sed [Page] in a publick decree made at Lipsia. But an on after the Zwinglians of Zurich published yet an other translation of the Bible. And in the preface of it, they write plainely, that the congregation ought to be bounde to no certain trāslation, but that euery man may turne the text of holy Scripture according to his iudgement. Thus we see by this bare text of scripture left of Luther (more then Antichrist will leaue, as they saie) in the liberte of so many and diuers translations, to be a very bare and weake staye of mens consciences, and litle bet­ter, then if with Antichrist we had no Scripture at all.

For when a doubte ariseth in holy Scripture (as thousandes do) what helpe haue we? The expositi­ons of holy fathers, Councells, and so forthe, by the vardit of Luther auaileth not. Translations be false, diuers, and vncertain. What then? Forsothe there is yet one shifte more. Smidelinus cōtra apologiam Sta­phyli. c. 4. fa. 1. Places of scripture, they saie, must be conferred and laied together: so one place shall geue light to the other. Is this allwaies true? Maye this be a generall rule? Let vs take for example some parcel of holy scripture. Greate controuersies and sundry sectes are no­we a daies vpon these fewe wordes of Christ, Take, eate, this is my body. Matth. 36 Luther and Zuinglius, Brentius, and Carolostadius, were at defiaunce one with an other vp­pon the true meaning thereoff. Luther excommuni­cateth all that confesse not the naturall body withe the bread to be there. In parna Confess. de Caeua Do. Zuinglius and Carolostadius will haue the breade to be but a signe or tokē of the body The latin text is plaine and euident for the reall pre­sence. [Page 160] The greke likewise. Will they counsell the he­brewe ghospell of S. Matthewe? If any hebrewe text serued their turne, were it neuer so barbarous or Rab­binicall, they would not spare to sett it out to the vt­termost. Let vs then see what that text hath. I meane not the barbarous text of Munster, nor the lerned ex­ercise of Quinquarboreus, but that text, which beinge founde in Italy amonge the Iewes, was of late yeares printed and sett forthe in Paris without points by the diligence of Ioannes Mercerus. That text readeth thus. [...]. That is. Take and eate this which is my body. Here the hebrew text though it haue some one worde more then the latin and gre­ke translation, yet it furdereth the meaning of the Catholikes, and fighteth directly against the Sacra­mentaries.

But let these interpretations by helpe of tongues passe. Let vs see howe by conference of other places, this sentēce may be lightned. Luther compareth the­se wordes to the saying of S. Iohn, Ioan. 1. Verbum caro factum est. The worde is made flesh. Zuinglius compareth them with an other place. Ioan. 6. Caro non prodest quicquam. The fle­she profiteth nothing. Caluin varying from Zuinglius (though bothe Sacramentaries) in his commentaries vppon S. Matthew, saieth. In Matthe. 26. Corporis appellatio pani tribu­itur, ea ratione qua Spiritum Sanctum Ioannes columbam vocat. that is. The bread is called the body of Christ, as Iohn calleth the holy ghoste a pigeon. An other sacramentary cometh yet, 1. Cor. 10. and saieth those wordes are like to the saying of S. Paule, The rocke was Christ. Lo these men [Page] haue conferred these wordes of Christ, This is my bo­dy, with other places of Scripture. But haue they no­we founde out the truthe which is but one? are they agreed? Truly as cattes and dogges. Luther neuer wrote so bitterly against vs Catholikes, as he doth against the poore Sacramentaries of Zurich. You haue the greuous complaint of the brotherhood of Zurich in the third parte of this booke, against Luther. In the le­afe. 85. Reade the later wordes of the place: and see howe charitably he vseth them. Caluin likewise calleth VVestphalus a papist, In vltima admoniti­one. In his in­stitutions the, 17. chapter. In libr. de vbiquitate. and findeth faute with Bullinger, for teaching that to eate Christ and to beleue in Christ is all o­ne, And Brentius woulde proue against all the swar­me of Sacramentaries that Christ is euery where re­ally, not only in the Sacrament.

What then? is there no meanes lefte vs sure and certain to knowe and vnderstande the right meaning of holy Scripture by? Sothely if you take the shame­les brode waie that Luther prescribeth you, none at all. But if ye acknowleadg and reuerence the autho­rite of holy fathers, of awncient Councells, off the Catholike and vniuersall Church of Christ, during continually from the time of the blessed Apostles hetherto, there is a right sure and infallible waie to obtaine your desire. In the preface of Staphylus to the Bishop of Eystat, and the first parte of this his Apo­logie you haue a very euident and sensible declarati­on thereof. As you tendre your soule health, and the inestimable treasure of life euerlasting, which wit­hout right belefe is not to be had, reade and peruse [Page 161] diligently the Authour. And you shall, I trust in God, finde your felfe satisfied to the vttermost. For howe thinke you? May you not worthely suspect that mās cause that disableth so many witnesses, so lerned, so holy, as Luther doth, condemning all holy Fathers and Councels? Is it not a pride comparable to the lof­tines of Lucifer him selfe, to saie, I will no iudgement, but I require obedience? Is it not a most impudent ar­rogancy and a detestable blasphemy, to saie that al ho­ly men of the Church are damned, if they thought as they taught? Neuer sence the worlde stode, was there he­retike that vttered such horrible blasphemies, as the cursed mouthe and penne of Luther hath done.

But sithen that Luther condemneth the olde fa­thers of the Church, is he nowe the first father the­reof? hath he no predecessours in his doctrine? In the A­pology of England euery vvhere. Sure­ly the Lutheran protestants of our countre crie so much vpon the fathers, that seing their Master deni­eth all fathers, it may much be maruailed where the scholers haue founde them. After longe study I ha­ue at the length espied, who are their fathers. And for the instruction of my dere deceiued countremen, I will not lett to declare them.

S. Paule to the Corinthians saieth. Though ye haue thousands of masters in Christ, yet not many fathers: For in Christ Iesus by the ghospell I haue begotten you. 1. Cor. 4. Such thē are to be accompted the fathers of Christes Church or of heretikes, The fa­thers of the Protestants. whose doctrine the church of Christ foloweth, or heretikes. Let vs see then whose doctri­ne Luther and his scholers, the protestants, do folo­we. [Page] First not the doctrine of the Fathers of Christes Church. For they pardie by the vardit of Luther, are all damned if they thought, as they taught. Off what fa­thers then hath he and his scholers lerned their do­ctrine? We shall see by the particulars.

Luther in his Assertions against Pope Leo tea­cheth, Artic. 36. that fre wil after the fal of mā is but a bare title: and that man while he doth as much as lieth in him, sinneth de­adly. yea and that the iuste man in his good worke sinneth also deadly. And Melanchthon his scholer in his Anno­tations vpon S. Super cap. 8. fol. 52. Paule to the Romans saieth, that the aduoutry of Dauid is as properly the worke of God as the calling of Paule, blaming the glose of such, as saie that God permitteth euill, but doth none, for fonde and foolish. In lib. de predest. cō ­tra Caluini sycophātas. So teacheth also Iohn Caluin, and Beza his derling. This heresy they lerned of Simon Magus, of Marcion, of the Manichees, of Petrus Abailhardus, all cōdemned heretikes, as in haer. 46 S. Augustin ad Quoduult­deum, in haer. 42 Epiphanius, in In recog­nit. S. Clement of Rome, and in In epist. S. Bernard it is to be sene. The allegations of the­se places we note only at this present, without reci­tall at large, to auoide prolixite.

Vpon this doctrine it folowed, that good workes by the deniall of fre wil being wiped away, faith must do the dede. Luther therefore and all his felow here­tikes teache the sufficiency of only faith to saluation. Yea and our protestants are not ashamed to putt it in to their Crede songe in their churches. Rom. 3. And for this purpose where S. Paul writeth. VVe thinke man to be iustified by faith without the workes of the lawe, Luther [Page 162] translateth it thus. Staphylus in prodr [...] ­me. VVe thinke man to be iustified by only faith. This olde dānable and most enormous heresie they haue lerned of olde heretikes aboue a thousand yeares ago. for ye may not thinke these mē lacke anti­quite in their doctrine. Their Fathers herein are Eu­nomius and Aetius, August. her. 54. e [...] lib. de fide et operibus Epiphan. her. 76. who taught likewise only faith to suffise, condemned therefore for heretikes off the Church, as S. Augustin and Epiphanius recordeth.

Luther and all his scholers can not abide worship­ping of Saints, calling such seruice idolatry. Their fathers touching this doctrine, Lib. 21. ca. 21. contra Faustū & lib. 8. cap. vlt. de Cluitat. Dei. are Faustus Manicheus the heretike, and Maximus Madaureusis the pagan, finding faute with the Christians for such deuotion, as S. Augustin mencioneth.

They condemne praieng for the dead, they abhor­re the blessed Sacrifice of the Masse celebrated for the dead. they would make men beleue it was neuer vsed before S. Gregories time. how saie we then? if the contrary opinion denieng praier for the dead were condemned for an heresy longe before S. Gregories time, was not troweye such praier allowed and pra­ctised? S. Ad quod­uultdeunt. haer. 53. Augustin reakoning vp the heresies before his time, writeth of the Aerians thus. Aeriani ab Ae­rio, qui cum esset praesbyter, dolens quôd episcopus nō potuit ordinari in Arrianorū haeresim lapsus, propria quoque dog­mata addidit nonuulla: dicens orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere. that is. The Aerians so called off Aerius, who being priest, for grief that he could not be made a bishop, fell in to the heresy of the Arrians, and added also certain doctrines of his owne, saying, that men ought not to [Page] praie nor to offer oblation for the dead. The like writeth of him before S. Haer. 75. Augustin, Epiphanius in his booke of heresies.

It was preached of late before diuers of the ho­nourable Nobilite of the Realme in the solemne fu­nerall of the late most Catholike Emperour Ferdi­nandus, that praier for the dead was bothe superflu­ous and superstitious. It was saied a third place such as purgatory is, could not be iustified by Scripture. and that the auncient fathers before the time of S. Gregory acknowledged no suche place, nor praier for the dead in such sence as the Catholikes now ta­ke it and vse it. This sermon also hath ben thought worthy to be printed and sette forthe to the vewe of the whole world, being preached of a pretēded prelat of the Realme before so honourable an audience, and at such a solemne memoriall or Obsequy. I must here craue pardon gentle Reader of the, if I diuert a litle from my principall purpose to examin that parte off the sermon, as defendeth this olde heresie of Aerius. Neither may you M. Grindall be offended herewith, when you shall vnderstand it, as I wish you maye, iff a young scholer and puine student in diuinite aduē ­ter to encounter with you. The cause of the Catho­like church whom wickedly with the olde heretike Aerius you blame and reproue, the honourable No­bilite of the realme, which in that place presum­ptuousely you abused, the vnlerned audience of our dere countremen, which shamefully you deceaued, maketh me bothe to breake the order of my discour­se, [Page 153] and not to feare your person, whom authorite hath more auaunced, then lerning or true religion commended. 2. Cor. 13. Non enim possumus aliquid aduersus ve­ritatem, sed pro veritate. for we can not do any thinge against the truthe, but for the truthe.

And what is it good Sir, that moueth you to dis­proue praier for the dead? First of all (saie you) in the Scriptures we finde no commaundement to praie for the sou­les of the dead, vnlesse they will cite the place of the booke off Machabees. And then S. Hierom shall make thē awnswer, who permitteth in dede these bookes of Machabees to be read: but bicause they be not of the Canon of the Scriptures, they be not (saieth S. Hierom) sufficient of them selues to establish any doctrines in the Church of God. This is your first rea­son Master Grindall, why we ought not to praie for the dead: and it containeth two partes. First that we haue no cōmaundement in Scripture to praie for the soules of the dead, but the place of the Machabees: and then that the same place is not in the Canon off the Scriptures. Cōmaundement in Scripture to praie for the de ad, beside the boo­kes of the Machabe­es.

As touching the first parte, I awnswer it, that we are commaunded of S. Paul, Tenere traditiones quas ac­cepimus siue per sermonem siue per epistolam, To kepe suche traditions as we haue receiued either by worde or by wri­ting. And S. Chrisostom telleth vs that it is a tradition of the Apostles to pray for the dead. these are his wor­des. 2. Thess. 2. Homil. 69 ad populum Antioch. Non temere ab Apostolis haec sancita fuerunt vt in tre­mendis mysterijs defunctorum agatur commemoratio: sciunt enim illis inde multum contingere lucrum, vtilitatem mul­tam. Quum enim totus constiterit populus, extensis manibus [Page] sacerdotalis plenitudo, & tremēdū proponatur sacrificiū, quo modo Deū nō exorabimus pro his deprecantes? that is, These things, saieth Chrisostom, were not without cause decreed of the Apostles that in the dreadful mysteries we should remēbre the dead. For they do know that it shall much auaile them. For when al the people stādeth with their hādes stretched for­the, and the number of priestes, whē the dreadfull sacrifice is proposed, howe maye it be but that we shall obtaine of God, praiyng for thē? Now Sir. S. Chrisostō telleth vs it is a decree of the Apostles to pray for the dead, which de­cree being not expressed in scripture is called a traditi­on. And S. Paul biddeth vs kepe such traditions. ergo we haue cōmaundement in Scripture to praie for the dead beside the place of the Machabees. Iac. 5.

Againe are we not commaunded in scripture to praie one for an other? Howe farre doth this com­maundement extende? doth it not reache to all those whose sinnes are remissible, who are in the state to haue their sinnes forgeuen? What then if scripture tel vs that after this life some sinnes are forgeuen? Ought we not then praie for our brethern departed this li­fe, and burdned yet with such sinnes? Let vs harken what our Sauiour saieth in the ghospell. Matth. 12. Whosoeuer, saieth our Sauiour, shall speàke against the holy Ghoste, it shall not be forgeuen him neither in this worlde neither in the worlde to come. Other sinnes then of lesse offence and importaunce, though they be not here forgeuē, yet in the worlde to come they may be pardoned and relea­sed. Apocal. 21. What place that is, let your wisedome instruct vs, M. Grindall. In hel you knowe, nulla est redēptio, there [Page 164] is no redemption: and in to heauen nihil coinquinatum intrabit: no defiled or spotted thinge shall enter. How saie we then? Scripture commaunding vs to praie o­ne for an other, and that praier extending to all suche as are in the state to haue their sinnes forgeuē, such a state also being proued by scripture to be in the world to come, which cā not be but of such as haue departed this world, haue we not againe foūde in scripture a cō ­maundement to pray for the deade, and departed sou­les of this worlde beside the place of the Machabees?

What will you replie M. Grindall, or what can you obiect against these arguments? The principle of S. Paul, bidding vs to kepe vnwriten traditiōs, if you li­mit and restraine it neuer so much, yet must you ne­des suffer it to extende to suche traditions, as the A­postles them selues left vnto vs. You will not, I dare saie, prescribe against the Apostles. And that the Apo­stles decreed praier to be done at the Masse time, for the dead, you heare Chrisostom saie and affirme. Will you discredit S. Chrisostom? Will you as Brentius youre mate saied of Epiphanius (affirming that the Apostles In prolego­ments. had deliuered and taught that the vowe of virginite could not be broken) Iudico eum tam bonum tam pium virum vt hac asseueratione non voluerit Ecclesiam Domini scienter fallere, sed cum non fuerit admodum vicinus tempo­ribus Apostolorum, cogito multa ad eum publica sed incer­ta fama, nomine Apostolorum relata esse, quae fortassis alijde Apostolis vt plausibi [...]ior a essent cōfinxerunt, so saie also of Chrisostom, that you iudge Chrisostom, in dede so good and [...]tuous a man, that he woulde not wittingly beguile the [Page] church of God with so stoute an asseueration, and yet bicau­se he was not very nigh the Apostles, you imagin that he might haue hearde many thinges by reporte, as frō the Apo­stles, which other perhaps to make such matters more plausi­ble, had fained that they came euē frō the Apostles. Will you thus, I saie, as your mate Brentius did, delude the au­thorite of Chrisostom? Truly other shift you haue no­ne. And thē we may aske you, whether you were ne­rer to the Apostles and more assured what doctrine they lefte behind them, then Chrisostom was. There is no lesse, you knowe, then twelue hundred yeares be­twene you and Chrisostom. And yet not only Bren­tius, but your selfe, and all such as with you haue de­parted from the Catholike doctrine of Christes churche, do stoutely affirme that the Apostles neuer pra­ied for the dead, nor neuer decreed any such matter. In his in­stitutions the 18. chapter. Nowe then let the Christen Reader iudge who is he­rein more to be trusted, Chrisostom or you. and iff one Chrisostom fuffise not, let S. Augustin, a most trusty wit­nes (by the verdit of Iohn Caluin, whose iudgemēt you will not, I suppose, discredit) of antiquite in the doctrine of the churche, come and affirme as muche. Who wri­ting to Paulinus of praieng for the dead. saieth. Lib. de cu­ [...]a pro mor [...]uisgerenda cap. 5. Allbeit it were not read in the olde scriptures, yet the authorite off the vniuersall church is not small, which in this custome is e­uident. VVhere in the praier of the priestes which are offred to our Lorde God at his aultar, the commendation of the de­ad hath his place. Io here S. Augustin calleth it a custo­me of the vniuersail churche to praie for the dead at the aultar of God. Lib. de vnita [...]e Eccles. And vninersall is that, by the mea­ning [Page 165] of S. Augustin which euery where, and at all ti­mes is and hath ben: which in all places euen from the Apostles them selues hath ben obserued. Epipha­nius also coufuting Aerius affirmeth it to be a tradi­tion of the Apostles to pray for the dead. Her. 75. Thus much then of the first parte of your first reason M. Grin­dall that we haue no commaundement in Scriptu­re to praie for the dead, but the place of the Macha­bees.

Nowe Sir as touching the second parte, that you saie the same place of the Machabees is not in the Canon of the Scriptures, I maruail not much hereat, considering of what race youre doctrine procedeth. For as you haue lerned of the olde heretike Aerius condemned aboue twelue hundred yeares past, The cu­stome of heretikes to denie partes of Scripture. to di­sproue praier for the dead, so haue you lerned off a numbre of olde heretikes, to denie for scripture suche places as ouerthrow your heresy. For euen so did the Marcionistes allowe but 9. of S. Paules epistles, Tertul. li. 4 contra Marcionem. Contra Fan [...]um Ma­nich. vbi (que) & in haer 46. ad Quo auult Haeres. 76. Cap. 17. whe­reas the church alloweth. 14. So did the Manichees take awaie the first chapter of S. Mathewes ghospell, and reiected allmost all the olde Testament, as S. Augustin witnesseth. So the Arrians disallowed the epi­stle of S. Paul to the hebrewes, as Theodoret recordeth in the prohem of his commentary vpon that epistle. So Aetius also denied much of the olde Testament, as Epiphanius mencioneth of him. Briefly it was the manner of all heretikes so to do, as Tertullian in his prescriptiōs noteth. Therefore as I saied, I maruail the lesse at your demeanour herein, considering that it is [Page] no new thing for an heretike to denie scripture it self, whē al other shiftes faile. What thē M. Grindal? Must we proue vnto you that the bookes of the Maechabees are in the canō of the Scriptures? O the blessed daies of our time, wherein not only al the articles almost of our belefe, but the Scriptures thē selues also are called in cōtrouersy, and that of such mē, as beare the persōs of Prelats and rulers in Christes church. What authorites thē may be sufficient to proue that those bookes are of the Canō? You bring against vs S. Hierō. you tel vs he saieth that these bookes of Machabees be not suf­ficiēt of them selues to establish any doctrines in the church of God. You quote vs his preface vpō the boo kes of Salomon. Sir if you reade the place againe, and marke it wel. you shal finde that he saieth this of the Prouerbes of Salomō and of the Ecclesiastes, not of the Machabees. though in dede he saie in that place, that they are not of the Canon. And this saying of S. Hierō in that place, I may wel expoūd by his wordes in an o­ther place. In his preface vpō these bookes of the Ma­chabees he saieth expressely, that they are not in the Canō of the Iewes, but of the church of Christ they a­re receiued inter diuina volumina, amōg Gods bookes. But what if S. Hierō do not acknowledg them for Ca­nonicall scripture? What if in reakoning off the Ca­nonicall Scripture, Vide Me [...] ­chiorem canumia locis theolog. lib. 2. he folow the Hebrewes and Iose­phus especially, as lerned men haue noted of him? What if in his time they were not with full authorite receiued? The whole corps off scripture was not, you know, at one push approued. It was longe doub­ted [Page 166] of the epistle to the Hebrewes, off the second e­pistle of S Peter, of S. Iohns Reuelation, and yet af­terward without doubte and controuersy they we­re in all Christendom receiued and reuerenced for holy Scripture Shall it nowe be lawfull for euery he­retike to condemne such parcells of holy Scripture, as haue ben so many hundred yeares of all Christen­dom vniformely receiued bicause they were ones doubted of? It is not sitting for the wisedome of a Prelat, it stādeth not with the Charite of a Christen mā, to renew suche doubtes, and to make a schisme in the church of God vpon priuat presumption and affectiō.

But to matche the authorite of S. Hierom, The Ma­chabees proued to be of the Canon. (whom only you alleage) and to knitt vp this matter shortly, you shall see what we can saie for the bookes of the Machabees. The, 85. canons of the Apostles, allowed for such by the generall Councell helde at Constan­tinople in T [...]ullo, Cā. vltima. in reakoning vp the bookes of Ca­nonicall scripture, recite the thre bookes of the Ma­chabees amonge them. The third Councell of Car­thage helde not longe after the time that S. Hierom liued, Can. 47. reakoneth them vp also for Canonicall Scri­pture. Lib. 6. E [...]y molog. c. 1. Isidorus declareth also that in his time they we­re vndoubtedly approued for holy Scripture. S. Au­gustin is most clere in this point: for not onely in his bookes de doctrina Christiana, Lib. 2. c. 5, where of sette purpose he reakoneth the whole corps of the olde and new Testament, Lib. 18. cap. 30. he placeth these bookes of the Machabe­es amonge them: but also in his bookes de ciuitate dei he doth constantly affirme, that they are approued of [Page] the Church for holy Scripture. And beholde a most clere testimony of S. Augustins iudgement herein. A sorte of Donatistes called Circuncelliones, murdered and s [...]ewe them selues commonly being persecuted for their heresy of the Catholikes. they defended this their diuelish fury and rage, with the example of Ra­zias who slew him selfe as in the Machabees it appea­reth. They builded vpon this fact of Razias, as vpon an example of holy Scripture. What aunswered them here S. Augustin? It had ben truly a ready answer for him to saye, those bookes are not of the Canon off holy Scripture, and therefore the example of him can nothing helpe you, if he had so thought in dede off these bookes. But S. Augustin denieth them not to be of the Canon, as you do M. Grindall, for the main­tenaunce of your heresy, though it had ben much then for his vauntage, and might soone so haue stop­ped the heretikes mouth, if he had thought it the du­ty of a Catholike bishop, to flit from scripture when vauntage serued. His obedience to the Church off God, his lerning and vertu taught him to cleaue vn­to the Church in determining holy Scripture, and to seke other meanes to awnswer heretikes. Therefore notwithstanding the facte of Razias, who semeth in that booke to be commended for killing him selfe, he acknowledgeth the bookes for Canonicall Scri­ptures, and teacheth vs also how such examples in holy Scripture are to be read. These are his wordes. Landatus est itaque iste Razias amator ciuitatis, vt valde bene audiens, &c? Contra 2. Gaud. epist cap. 23. I stam vero eius mortem mirabiliorem quā [Page 167] quā prudentiorem narrauit quemadmodum facta esset, 1. Thes. 5. non tanquam facienda esset scriptura laudauit. Nostrum est autem sicut Apostolus admonet, omnia probare, quod bonum est tenere. Et hanc quidem scripturam que appellatur Mac­habaeorum non habent Iudaei sicut legem, & Prophetas & psalmos: sed recepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie le­gatur vel audiatur. that is. Razias therefore was praised as one that tendred the cyte, and a man of a very good name &c. But his deathe more straunge and wonderfull then wise and discret is declared of the scripture howe it was done, not commended as if it ought so to be done. But it is our parte as the Apostle teacheth vs, to proue and trie all thinges and to holde that good is. And this Scripture which is called the Machabees, the Iewes in dede receiue not, as the lawe, the prophets, and the psalmes. But it is receaued of the church not vnprofitably, if it be read and heard with discretion. Thus farre S. Augustin. In whose Wordes you see M. Grin­dall that not only he acknowledgeth the bookes off the Machabees for Scripture, and that receiued off the Church, but also he telleth vs how Razias is com­mended in these bookes: not (as you obiect in your Sermon) bicause he killed him selfe, but bicause he was amator ciuitatis &c.

Howe thinke you? Cap. 16. Cap. 19. Cap. 38. shall we condemne the bookes of the Iudges bicause we reade there of Sampson, that he killed him selfe? or the Genesis bicause we reade there of Lot that he laie with his daughters, and off Iudas that he compained (as he thought) with a hoore by the high waie? shall we not rather reueren­ce the holy Scripture, and saie with S. Augustin, that [Page] Scripture declareth these thinges howe they were done, not commending them as if they ought to be done?

As for your other sory shift, where you gesse that the place of the Machabees commēding praier for the dead, hath ben put to the text by some addition of la­te yeares, bicause you saie certain of the oldest copies in greke haue no mention thereof, I answer, to char­ge the Church withe any such addition, hauing no proufe thereof, August. cō ­tra Faust. Manic [...]. as yet you bringe none, is the maner of olde heretikes, the Manichees by name, who saied also the genealogie in S. Matthew was added to his ghospell by some they knew not who. And as for greke copies that lacke that place of praieng for the dead, if you haue sene any such M. Grindall, you may rather thinke they are corrupted of some olde or new Aerians, heretikes, as you haue heard, in that point, then to doubte of the common receiued text of holy Scripture. els what heresy is there that may not esca­pe by this shift, if it may be lawfull vpon variete off copies (which may rise of sundry causes, as well the printed as the writen) to call in doubt the authorite of holy scripture, which ought without all doubt be­ing ones vniuersally authorised, assuredly and con­stantly be beleued and folowed? And thus much to the reasons and arguments brought against the boo­kes of Machabees.

You go forthe M. Grindall and you saie. Praier for the dead ought to be vsed, thoughe no Scrip­ture com­maunded it. Secondare­ly we haue no example in the Canonicall Scripture of any inuocation for the dead: What then M. Grindall, if that were true as we haue proued it already false? will you [Page 169] therefore condemne the practise of the vniuersall Church, which is clere and euident in this point? What example in Canonicall scripture haue you off celebrating the Sonday holy daie? Will you therefo­re driue men to their craftes that daie with the Sabba­taries, a secte of the Anabaptistes of oure time? See the A­pologie in the leafe. 113. what ex­ample of Canonicall scripture haue you of inuocati­on of the holy Ghost? Will you therefore (as that protestant Minister of Morauia preached) rather be a pa­pist, then beleue in the holy Ghoste? What example haue you in Canonicall Scripture of baptising in­fants before the yeares of discretion? Will you there­fore with the Anabaptistes baptise no children here­after in the Realme, and call vs all to the fonte agai­ne? And did not thinke you the Anabaptiste laugh in his sleue, when he heard you make youre reasons in pulpit, vpon lacke of example of Canonicall scriptu­re? Especially when you concluded afterward so stoutely and solemnely. For most certain it is, if praier for the dead had ben so necessarie, as many now adaies woulde haue it seme, it had not lacked all authorite and example of the Ca­nonicall Scriptures as it doth. Surely M. Grindal you can neuer speake better worde for heretikes, then graun­ting them this your proposition, that without exam­ple and authorite of Canonicall scripture nothing is to be admitted. And yet this one sentence is the gro­unde and foundation of all your newe doctrine? For why? May not the Anabaptiste saie vnto you, iff yow hadde him in consistory before you? Most certain it is my L. if baptising of infants and babes were so ne­cessary, [Page] as you would haue it seme, it had not lacked all authorite and example of the Canonicall Scriptu­res, as it doth? And could you then repell him for so saying, seing you preache it in pulpit, and make it your strongest argument to ouerthrow praier for the dead? Againe might not Nestorius haue tolde Cyrillus and all the fathers of the Ephesin Councell, We ha­ue no example in the Canonicall scripture, that Our Lady is called the Mother of God. And certain it is, if it were so necessary a matter to haue her so called, and beleued for such, as you will haue it seme, pronoun­cing me an heretike for denying it, and assembling your selues so from al partes of the worlde for appro­uing and defending it, it had not lacked all authorite and example of Canonicall Scriptures, as it dothe, might he not, I saie, thus haue tolde them, as you M. Grindall do tell vs, if that argument had ben thought worth the telling? Might not Arrius haue quarelled in like maner with the fathers of the Nicen Councel for the wordes, Consubstantiall and ingenitus, might not Heluidius haue vsed the like againste S. Hierom for the perpetuall virginite of our Lady, and Nouatus with S. Cyprian for reconciling of such as had abiu­red Christ? For none of al these had any authorite or exāple in the Canonical Scriptures. And yet M. Grin dall the Anabaptistes, the Nestorians, the Arrians, the Nouatians, the Heluidians, be all condēned heretikes, euen by your owne iudgement, I doubt not, though the Catholike doctrine in confuting of al those he­resies, lacke all authorite and example of the Canoni­call [Page 169] Scriptures. Where is then nowe become your ar­gument against vs for lacke of Scripture, supposing it were true, we did so lacke? Where is nowe that stou­te and great assertion, Most certain it is, & cae. But to o­uerthrow with one worde this forte and shooteanc­ker of all your pretended religion, tell vs I praie yow, if without authorite and example of Canonicall scri pture yow admit nothing, where finde you in all the corps of the Canonical Scripture from the beginning of the Genesis to the ende of S. Iohns Reuelatiō, this very rule and sayinge of yours, that If it were a necessa­ry matter to praie for the dead, it had not lacked all authori­te and example of the Canonicall Scriptures? Where finde you in Scriptures, that without Scripture nothing is to be admitted? wil you driue vs for lacke of holy scri­pture to praye no more for the dead, and binde vs to your owne rule hauing the same lacke also? Will you make a rule of your selfe withoute Scripture, and will not admitt the rules and lawes of the church, except they bring you example and authorite out of scriptu­re? I trust your wisedom considereth how vnreasona­ble the request is. and I doubt not but the Christē rea­der wil by this cōsideration, beware off such deceitful persuasions, whereby great part of our faith in Christ Iesus may by the guile of heretikes be deluded.

To passe therefore to your other reasons, let vs cōsider the remnant of your talke. Thirdly (saie you) where in the olde Testament be Sacrifices and expiations ap­pointed for many and sundry thinges, whereoff some semed small offenses, yet was there neuer any Sacrifices appointed [Page] for any purgation or expiation of the dead. What if there were any such sacrifices for the dead in the olde lawe, would you thē nowe practise thē M. Grindal, in your cōmon praier and seruice of the church? Leuit. 4. 6. & 7. If you woulde, why vse you no sacrifice for the sinnes and tres­passes of the quicke, as you see in the olde lawe prac­tised abundantly? Exod. 12. & 16. Leui. 16. Why reiect you the blessed Sacrifi­ce of the Masse clerely figured and foreshowed in the ceremonies of the olde lawe? Why leaue you the Re­alme without any sacrifice at all, as well after the or­der of Melchisedech whiche, you knowe, was proper to Christ, Psal. 109. Heb. 7. and shoulde endure for euer amonge Chri­stians, as after the order of Aaron which was proper to the olde lawe and shoulde ende, when the light off the ghospell appeared? If you woulde not vse any Sa­crifice for the dead, though in the olde lawe you had­de foūde example thereof (as it is moste euident you woulde not, no more then you vse the other) why then finde you that lacke, and refuse to offer sacrifi­ces for the dead, bicause you haue no example in the olde lawe? Do not wise men see youre collusion and false plaie herein? I will not spend time and paper in amplifying youre guile. I leaue it to the prudent Rea­der to be cōsidered. I come to your other reasons that I may ones returne to my principall purpose againe. You saie.

Nowe if they shall alleage, that the auncient doctours make for them, first it is to be saied that mens writinges alone are not sufficient in matters of faith and Religion. I answer we haue not only mens writinges, but holy scripture [Page 168] euen beside the Machabees, as we haue sufficiently proued. Againe, make you so light of mens writinges? what are Caluin, Beza, Bale, and such other, whose wri­tinges you reuerence and reade? are they not men al­so? why commaunde you the priestes of England to reade the Institutions of Caluin? why in your notes vpon the Bible referre you vs to baudy Bale for the right vnderstanding of it? In the 16. chap. off the Apo­cal [...] and o­ther vvhere. laste of all why make you so vaunting a chalēge against al the Catholikes that liue, and offer to yelde, if they can bringe but one poore sentence of any one doctour or Councell aga­inst you? As touching the writings of men, we kno­we that Animalis homo non percipit ea que dei sunt, The vvri­tings off mē in the church to befolo­vved. 1. Cor. 2. Deute. 32. the fleshly mā knoweth not those thinges that appertai­ne to God. Yet we are bidde in holy Scripture Inter­rog are patres nostros &c, To aske our fathers and they will declare vs, to enquire of our elders and they shall tell vs. And S. Peter sayth, Spiritu sācto inspirato locuti sunt sancti Dei homines: The holy men of God haue spoken as inspired with the holy Ghost. 2. Pet. 1. Neither can we forgett that beside the prophets, the Euangelistes, and the Apostles, of whom we haue receaued the holy write of Gods worde, Ephesi. 4. Christ hath left to his Church also, Pastores & docto­res, Pastours and doctours, as mē by whom the Scrip­ture ought to be expounded and the church directed. And according to these lessons of holy Scripture, he­retikes haue ben confuted by mens writinges wit­hout holy Scripture, as in the conflictes of In lib. de decretis Nic. Cō. Athana­sius with the Arrians, of In apolo gi [...] post 8 [...]athem Cirillus with the Nestorians, of In [...]uliā. libro 2. S Augustin with the Pelagians, of In lib. cō tra va­lentin. Tertu [...]lian, and [Page] lib. 4. ca. 43. Irenee with the Valentinians, of ep. 60. et 69. S. Basill with Euno­mius you may reade and see M. Grindall if you haue not yet sene. But let vs passe on and see what you sa­ie farder.

It can not be denied but from Gregories time &. But the eldest writers and doctours of the Church speake not at all of praying for the dead. wel then M. Grindall att one push you condēne all the Christē people of England that euer hath ben, of errour and superstion. For sence the time of S. Gregory only, you knowe, we englishmen haue had the faith of Christ, and of that blessed Po­pe we receiued it. But let that passe: your stomach is good that cā digest so many hundred yeares without grudge of conscience. The eldest writers saie you, speake not at all of praying for dead. Not at all M. Grindall? will you abide by it? Before so honourable an auditory, at such a solemne funerall, in so open and publick a pla­ce, blushe you not at so lowde a lie? I am sory you did so farre forget your self. You spake then in pulpit, and now you speake in print. These two conditions re­quire deliberatiō, truthe, and honesty. And how shall I proue you the contrary? where shal I beginne? I sho­wed yow before out of S. Augustin and Epiphanius that Aerius was condemned for an heretike, euen for this cause that he disallowed praier and oblation for the dead. Be not Augustin and Epiphanius elder then S. Gregory? Your frēdes Cariō and Pantaleon can tell you they are his auncetours, the one aboue a hun­dred, the other allmost two hundred yeares. But these wordes may seme to haue escaped you (though [Page 171] if they had in pulpit escaped, yet in print they might haue ben corrected) for euen in your wordes folo­wing, you remembre your selfe better, and then you runne to your distinctions, and you saie. If the aūcient fathers when they praie for the dead, meane of the dead, which are already in heauen and not els where, then must we nedes by their praier vnderstande either thankes geuing, or ells take such petitions for the dead for figures of eloquence and exornation of their stile and oration, rather then neces­sary groundes of reason of any doctrine.

Howe can you suppose M. Grindall any such me­aning in the olde fathers, The mea­ning of the fathers praiyng for the dead, imagi­ned by M. Grindall: vaine and foolish. as though they were either of so litle wisedome, as to praie for those that neded no praier, or of so smal faith as to doubt of their reste and perfit blisse which are already in heauen? Let vs cōsider your maner of reasoning. It is manifest saie you, that those holy fathers ment nothing lesse then by praying for the dead to establish purgatorie or third place. This you suppose as manifest, without any proufe at all, which you ought well and substātially to haue pro­ued. For hereupon depend your distinctions that fo­low. But how better and trulyer saie we M. Grindall, it is manifest that those holy fathers, seing they pra­ied for the dead, that they ment vndoubtedly there was a purgatory or third place? You suppose they pra­yed only for such as were already in heauen, and he­rupon you make your distinctions. But as your sup­position is a point of sophistry called petitio principij, and beside all reason and truthe, so are your imagined distinctiōs vaine and foolish. Wil you haue clere and [Page] euident proufes that the fathers praiyng for the de­ad meaned nothing so, and that your suppositiō is voide of all truthe? Or will you be contented hereafter that praier for the dead be solemnised in your chur­ches, if we proue vnto you, the practise of the eldest fathers to haue ben such? S. Denys you reiect for an awncient writer, bicause of the iudgmēt of Erasmus. Let vs geue you leaue to reiect him, whom the sixt­generall councell and second of Nice alleageth for awncient, euen for Denys the Areopagita S. Paules scholer. Whom thē may we alleage to testifie against you, of such authorite, that you will be contented to rest vpō him? Your olde frēd and Master Ihon Caluin calleth oftentimes S. Augustin in dogmatibus ecclesiae fi­delissimum vetustatis interpretem, the faith fullest reporter of antiquite in doctrines of the church. Let vs thē see what S Augustin reporteth of praying for the dead and of the meaning of the church therein. De. 8. Dul­citij quaest. quest. 2. Awnswering to the questions of Dulcitius demaunding amōge other thinges howe the soules departed were relieued by the praiers of the church, after lōge debating the matter, he concludeth in these wordes. Cum ergo sacrificia siue altaris siue quarūcūque eleemosynarū pro baptisatis de­functis omnibus offeruntur, pro valde bonis gratiarū actio­nes sunt, pro non valde malis propitiationes sunt, pro valde malis etiam si nulla sunt adiumenta mortuorum, qualescun­que viuorum consolationes sunt. that is, Therefore when the sacrifices either of the aultar, or of any aulmes geuinge are offred for all Christen folcke departed this life, for the perfit and very good they are thankes geuinges, for meane e­uill, [Page 172] though they are no reliefe to the dead, they are propitia­tory: for the vvic­ked and very euill, though they. &c. as in the next. yet they are certa­yn comfortes for the frendes that liue. Thus farre S. Augu­stin. In these wordes M. Grindall we lerne the mea­ning of the fathers prayng and offering sacrifices for the dead, not to be allwaies thankes geuings or figu­res of eloquence, as yow woulde haue them mea­ne, but to be thē only thanckes geuinges, when they are offred for such as haue departed this worlde in a perfit estate, and vprightnes of life. For other depar­ting as sinners but not extreme hainous, and wicked, they are, he saieth, Propitiationes, propitiatory sacrifi­ces, that is, such as purchase fauour and mercy at Go­ds hande. The third sorte of men though Christned, yet being Valde mali, that is, so euill that they die wit­hout true repentaunce, they auaile not at al. We kno­we well M. Grindall youre doctrine beinge builded vppon onely faith, admitteth not these distinctions of the estates of men. But the Catholike churche which condemned your heresy of onely faith in Eunomius and Aerius aboue twelue hundred yeares past, as you heard before, acknowledgeth them and tea­cheth them. By the which distinctions also we lerne the meaning of the church praying and offering sa­crifices for the dead.

As for the figures of eloquence Master Grindall, which you imagin the fathers vsed praying for the dead, is a figure of your owne called [...]. and in latin is called Mendacium, we english men terme it, a lye. But you saie, yow can showe by examples that the fathers so meaned. Let vs heare and cōsider what [Page] they are. You saie.

But I will make this matter more plaine by an exam­ple or twaine, & caete. And then you bringe the wordes of S. Ambrose affirming first, Theodosium frui luce per­petua, tranquillitate diuturna, & pro ijs quae in hoc gessit corpore muner ationis diuinae fructibus gratulari: to enoiye perpetuall light: and continuall quietnesse, and for those thinges that he did in this body to reioyse in the fruition of Gods rewarde: and yet afterward praying for him in these wordes. Domine da requiem perfecto seruo tuo Theodosio, requiem quam parasti sanctis tuis. Lorde geue rest to thy perfect seruaunt Theodosius, the reast, I meane, which thou hast prepared for thy Saints. In the first wordes, say you, he pronounceth plainly that Theodosius was vndoub­tedly saued, and in the later he praieth for him, vsing a figure of eloquence and vehemency of affection. Here ones again M. Grindall you turne the cat in to the panne, and reason tout au rebours as the frenche prouerb goeth, euen as you did before: for as then you woulde ouerthrowe praier for the dead, bicause you supposed there was no third place, whereas the third place must nedes therefore be, bicause the chur­che praieth for the dead, so nowe the praying off S. Ambrose for Theodosius, you call a figure off eloquen­ce and vehemencie of affection, but his wordes com­mending Theodosius you call a certain persuasion, and plaine pronouncing of his vndoubted saluati­on: whereas in dede the wordes of S. Ambrose com­mending Theodosius procede of a vehement affecti­on, and loue towardes that Emperour (for how coulde [Page 173] he be assured in dede of his blessed state, semed he neuer so perfitt in his life, without some speciall re­uelation from allmighty God, which yet M. Grin­dall, I dare saie, you will not saie he had) but his pra­ier for the Emperour was the vsuall practise of the church, vsed at all funerals in all ages sence Christen religion began.

Againe these wordes of S. Ambrose pronouncing Theodosius to enioy the perpetuall light and continual qui­etnesse & cae. may well be a figure of eloquence of Amplification and exclamation, but the praying for him, tel vs I praye you M. Grindall, in what figure of Rheto­rike you will put it.

Farder if that saying of S. Ambrose. Domin [...] da re­quiem perfecto seruo tuo Theodosio, & cae. Lorde geue rest to thy perfect seruaunt Theodosius, & cae. be a figure of elo­quence, vsed in that solemne funerall of that mighty, and vertuous Emperour Theodosius, howe wel might it haue becomed you also M. Grindal, occupying the place of a Bishop, as that blessed Doctor S. Ambrose then was, and preaching at the funerall solemnite of that most highe, mighty and vertuous Emperoure Ferdinandus: as he did of Theodosius, to haue saied also Da requiem Domine perfecto seruo tuo Ferdinando, Lor­de geue rest to thy perfect seruaunt Ferdinandus? Fe­ared you, that if yow had so saied, yow shoulde haue ben thought to haue praied for Ferdinandus, and when S. Ambrose saieth so, wil you not haue vs thinke that he praied for Theodosius? Might not you ha­ [...]e vsed it for a figure of eloquence and so haue folo­wed [Page] the maner of the olde fathers, as you would se­me to do in all your doinges, if that maner of spea­king were but a figure of eloquēce, as you saie it was no more.

Againe what difference is it M. Grindall to sa­ie. Lorde geue reast to thy seruaunt, and to saie, Lor­de haue mercy vppon the soule of thy seruaunt? For to the departed out of this worlde no other rest can be geuen but to his soule: iff his be so, why are they called papistes, which vse so to speake, and yet S. Am­brose so speaking is no papist?

But what stande we so longe hereuppon? I wil as­ke one question, and so passe to your allegation off Chrisostom. Faustina a vertuous woman lamented much the death of her Sister. S. Ambrose writeth vn­to her, Epist. 8. and saieth. Non tam deplorandam quam prose­quendam orationibus reor: nec moestificandam lachrymis tuis, sed magis oblationibus animam eius Deo commendan­dam arbitror. That is. My aduise is, that you lament not your sister, but praie for her, and commend rather her soule, to God with oblations, then mone and morne it with tea­res. I aske here. Did S. Ambrose will Faustina to leaue her lamenting, and fall to figures of eloquence, and so to vtter her vehement affection to her sister? do­eth your wisedome iudge so Master Grindall? Or do not rather all wise men see, howe farre from all witt and wisedome this shift of youres is?

Well; though perhaps ye spake but merely here, yet you haue a sadde testimony out of Chrisostō. For he offreth the sacrifice of the masse euen for the Pariar­ches, [Page 174] prophets, Apostles, yea and the blessed virgin al­so▪ what if he do so M. Grindall? Mary saie you, shall we now gather hereof that these are in purgatory? It is to greate an absurdite. I graunte it is so. What then wil you gather hereof M. Grindall? This oblation therefore, saie you, is only a thankes geuing to God for the Saints of God departed. Will you gather so M. Grindall? that is to greate an absurdite. Haue ye not heard S. Augustin sa­ie, that the sacrifice of the aultar is for some a than­kes geuing, for other a propitiatiō? This your cōclu­siō of only thākes geuing in the oblatiō of the church is much like to your concluding of only faith. The scripture saith Iustus ex fide viuit, Abacu [...]. 2. the iuste mā liueth by his faith. LO say you, faith only iustifieth; and you forget it is writē againe, Rom. 1. Factores legis iustificabūtur, the perfourmers of the lawe shall beiustified, whereby it is clerely proued that good workes must cōcurre with faith. Euen so nowe you forgett that although Chri­sostom here offer vp the oblation for the Saints, as in thākes geuing to God for thē, yet that in the same li­turgie in the next petitiō after he maketh an other es­peciall praier for the dead, saying. Sancti Iohannis Bap­tistae, prophetae & praecursoris, sanctorū & nominatissimorū Apostolorū & sancti huius cuius memoriā agimus, & omniū sanctorū supplicationibus, visita nos deus, & memor esto ō ­niū in domino dormientiū in spe resurrectionis vitae aeternae, a [...] requiē presta eis, &c. that is. By the supplicatiōs of S. Iohn baptist, the prophet, and precursor of the holy and most re­nouned Apostles, and of this Sainct whose memory we kepe this daye, visit vs good Lorde, and remēbre al those that slepe [Page] in our Lorde in the hope of resurrection to life euerlasting and graunt them rest & cae. this lo M. Grindall you for­get, and conclude very absurdely that the oblation is only a thankes geuing. But let vs now againe haue a recours to S. Augustin, the faith fullest reporter of an­tiquite in the doctrines of the Church, by the verdit of Caluin him selfe, and let vs lerne of him how, and in what sence the Church vsed the memory of saints in the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, and whether that sacrifice be only a thākes geuing, as you conclude M. Grindal. These are the wordes of that lerned and ho­ly father.

Habet ecclesiastica disciplina, De verbis Apost. serm 17. quod fideles nouerunt, cum martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare dei, vbi non pro ipsis o­retur, pro caeteris autem commemoratis defunctis oretur. In­iuria est enim pro Martyre orare, cuius nos debemus oratio­nibus commendari, that is. The doctrine of the Church hath, which the faithfull do knowe, when the Martyrs are in that place reakoned vp at the aultar of God, where they are not praied for, but the other soules departed there re­akoned vp are praied for. For it is an iniury to praie for a Martyr by whose praiers we ought to be our selues commē ­ded. In these wordes of S. Augustin we lerne M. Grin­dall that the martyrs are not praied for, though they be named at the aultar, as you heard in Chrisostom the Patriarches, Prophets and Apostles named. We ler­ne that other soules departed, not Martyrs, are praied for. Laste of al we lerne that the martyrs praie for vs, we praie not for them. Where is now your imagined s [...]pposition M. Grindall, that the eldest fathers prai­yng [Page 175] for the dead meaned such dead as were already in heauē? S. Austen denieth that the church praieth for thē, he saieth the doctrine of the church hath other­wise taught, and that the faithful knowe it. Yf you be of the church M. Grindall, if you be of such a faith as was in S. Augustins time, you knowe that Mar­tyrs were not praied for: you knowe that other soules departed were praied for. Last of all you know that the Martyrs praied for vs. But you denie al these mat­ters, you mocke and scoffe at it, and therefore you are not instructed in the doctrine of the church, you are not of such faith as was in S. Augustins time. To cō ­clude, you holde with the heretike Aerius cōdemned for an heretike a hūdred yeares afore S. Augustin flourished. And yet you were not afeared to abuse the ho­nourable Nobilite assisting at that Funeral solēnite, nor ashamed to preache in pulpit for the very pure worde of God, an old cursed heresy. I beseche God to lightē the hartes of our most gracious Souuerain and Lady the Quenes Maiestie, and of the most honou­rable Nobilite of her realme, that they may see, auoide and exterminat this cācred vermin of heresy, corrup­ting no lesse the tēporal welth and prosperous estate of our dere coūtre, then the spirituall hope of our sal­uatiō, and al right faith in Christ Iesus. I haue aūswe­red al such reasons as you haue brought in your sermō M. Grindal against praier for the dead. I haue done in part my duty to the church of God, as my vocatiō re­quired. I haue declared my good will to my dere coū ­tre, as nature and iust indignatiō moued mē. I haue [Page] done this but slightly and shortly, and yet I trust suf­ficiētly, hauing first ētred the printing of this booke, before I vnderstode of the sermon, and yet desirous to saie somewhat, rather then to suffer a preached and printed heresy vncōptrolled, or the truthe vntolde. I desire the catholike reader, to take this short digres­sion in good part, and I wish the protestāt rather to marke the waight, then the copie of that I haue saied. Let vs then now returne to the olde cōdemned here sies, renewed by Luther, and folowed of al protestāts of our vnhappy time.

Luther with all his scholers contemne fasting da­ies ordained by the church, abusing Christen liberte for a cloke of their fleshly fantasie. They haue here­in right auncient Fathers, the Manichees, as Epi. 93. cap. 4. Leo witnesseth. Aerius as Haer. 75. Ephiphanius, and Lib. 30. cap. 3. cō tra Fau­stū Mā. S. Augustin write, and Eustathius, as the In prae­fat. Councell of Gangra a­boue thirten hundred yeares past recordeth.

They wedde freres and Nūnes, Luther leading the daunce of that wanton trace, with Kater. Bore, Lib. 1. c. 7. de peccat. merit [...]s & remissione. and breake vowes of chastite without scruple of consciē ­ce, folowing the stepps of their father Iouinian, condemned therefore for an heretike as S. Augustin recordeth.

They throwe downe Martyrs towmes, scoffe at the deuout visiting of thē, inueigh and raile against pilgrimage, holy reliques, and places of deuotion. Nothing truly was in the primitiue church more fre­quent then going on pilgrimage: Homil. 5. in [...]. Iob. [...]ome. 1. in so muche that Chrisostom crieth out in one place. Iff I were of a [Page 176] stronge body and without ecclesiasticall charge, I woulde not refuse so longe a pilgrimage, as to go see onely the chaines wherewith, and the prison wherein Paull was bounde. Iff I had liued then to haue sene those holy handes bounde for our Lordes sake, I would haue put my very eyes on them, and continually haue kissed them. Thus speaketh Chri­sostom an auncient and lerned father of the Catho­like church, and Bishopp of the greate cyte of Con­stantinople, and thinketh it no superstition to prea­che it to the people: for these wordes he spake in pul­pit. But what fathers haue the protestāts in their cō ­trary opinion. Of whom lerned they to mocke, and scoffe at suche deuotions? Of right worthy masters, I warrant you. First (beside the Pagans of whom The odoret maketh mencion) of Iuliā the Apostata, as you may see in the workes of Cyrillus against him: Lib. 8. d [...] curat. Grae car. affecti­onum. lib. 10. cap. 20▪ Lib. 3. de i­mag. Cu [...]. thē of Eustathius as the Coūcel of Gangra reporteth. After these of Vigilantius, whom S. Hierom refuteth: and a­boue seuen hundred yeares paste off one Claudius, a­gainste whom Ionas Bishop off Orleans in Fraunce wrote.

Luther, and all that folowe his banner, be mortall enemies to the images of Christ and off all Saintes. Their holy fathers be olde cursed heretikes the Marcionistes, the Manichees, Aerius, Felicianus, and all the wicked secte of Iconomachi, as it is at large mencioned in the sixte generall Councell, and seconde of Ni­cea. Nicephorus also recordeth off one Xenaias, Lib. 6. ca. 27. who helde this heresy vnder Anastasius the Emperour ab­out a thousand yeares past.

[Page] Luther taught first in our time, In li. de cap tiuitate Babylonica. that holy Orders is no Sacrament, that euery Christen man, and wo­man is a priest. And all the zelous Lutherans to this daie beleue and teache the same, thoughe Melanch­thon and many of the Ciuill Lutherans be departed from that fonde and absurde opinion. It is also a cur­rant doctrine in the pulpits in certain dyoceses of oure countre. De haeresi­bus hae. 27. Epiph. hae. 79. et 49. The fathers of this heresy were Pepuzia­ni, as S. Augustin maketh mencion, and Collyridiani, as Epiphanius writeth.

It is common to all Lutherans and protestants of oure time to abhorre the name and profession of a Mōke. This was the maner also of the Donatistes, and of the Circumcelliones. VVhat meaneth saied these here­tikes, this name of Monkes? In Psal. 132. Vnto whom S. Augustin awnswereth, Howe much better may we saie, what mea­neth this name off Circumcelliones? Againste such writeth Chrisostom whole treatises, entituling them, To [...]o. 5. Against the dispraisers of monastical life.

The Lutherans and present protestants of our dayes protest that they haue departed from the see of Rome, and other Catholike Bishops for the euil and wicked life of the Popes and prelats in Christes chu­rch. The Apologie of England pretendeth the same excuse. Cōtra Cres. lib. 3. ca. 6. Contra 2. epist. Caud. li. 2. ca. 9. contra Do­nat. li. 6. c. 4. contra Parm. lib. 2. cap. 5. But was this their owne imagination, thinke you, and deuise? No truly. It was the very grounde of that cursed secte of the Donatistes. And their fathers herein are Cresconius, Gaudentius, Parmenianus, and other. As S. Augustin writing against them eftsoones declareth.

[Page 177] It is the doctrine of Luther in his booke de Christi­ana libertate, and diuers other places, that faith ought to be free, and no man constrained thereunto. In our countre also, whē the sworde was against them, Fri­the and his felowes cried for that liberty, though no­we they cease not continually to crie for the contra­ry. It was the olde accustomed maner of al heretikes, Epi. 20 4. et cōtra Petilianū saepe. especially of the Donatistes as S. Augustin in sundry places witnesseth.

Likewise before these heresies were fauoured off Princes and authorised of higher powers, the riches and possessions of Bishops was a great eye sore to all Lutherans and protestants. Nowe they can like well the pompe of Prelats, being placed them selues in su­che preferment. But their former griefe was an here­ticall grudge of the olde heretikes Vadiani as S. Au­gustin writeth, Aug. haer. 50. Epiph haer. 70. or Audiani as Epiphanius calleth them.

What is nowe more common in the mouth of all protestants, then that nothing ought to be added to the commaundemēts of God? For by this short blo­we they wipe awaye all constitutions and ordina­unces of the Churche. They lerned this argument off Iulian the Apostata, who vsed it against the de­uotions off the Christians, Lib. 9. cō ­tra Iulian. as in Cyrillus it appea­reth.

Protestants will be counted martirs being cutt of by the secular sworde, that their cancred doctrine in­fect not the sounde shepe of Christes flocke. Great crakes are made, and greate workes sett forthe of the­ir [Page] stiff standing to the stake and glorious embrasing of the fire. None do this more stoutely then the A­nabaptistes, whom yet the greater part of protestants detest and abhorre for hainous heretikes. But not only these new heretikes, but much more the old as the Marcionistes, and especially the Circumcelliones ex­celled in this pretended patience, [...]d Quod­u [...]deum haer. 69. and proude persua­sion of Martyrdom. See S. Augustin, and the ecclesia­sticall history of Nicephorus libro, 4. capite 23. S. Cipriā also. lib de simplicitate praelatorum.

Luther at the diet helde at Augspurg in the yeare. 1521. being much intreated of diuers (tendring) him for the authorite of Friderik duke of Saxony) to lea­ue all singularites and not to reiect so rashely aun­cient Councels of Christes Church, Fon [...]nus lib. 2. he awnswered, he disproued none except the councell of Constan­ce, and thereto he saied he was moued with an vnuincible reason and most assured argument▪ that was, bicause that councell had condemned Iohn Huss, affirming that the church of Christ consisted on­ly of such as were predestined and elected. And in this opinion he would liue and die. All the broode of that fonde frier sing the same song. Beza and his compa­nions at the late Synod of Poissy in Fraūce, were stiff in that opinion alōg time, but at the lēgth were dri­uen from it. whereupō they chaunged the tenour of their supplication, calling them selues Les esleus de Dieu, the chosen of God. This wilde persuasion is allmost receiued of all protestants. It is the very here­sy of the Pelagians condemned therefore in S. Augu­stins [Page 178] time, Heres. [...] as in his booke De heresibus he reciteth at large.

What a great corrupter of holy Scripture Luther hath ben, in the second part of this Apologie it is at large declared by Fridericus Staphylus. How our pro­testants also haue folowed his example therein, and how manifoldly they haue peruerted the very text of holy Scripture, I haue in part touched, to geue good warning in the rest. Who list to see how this hath ben the gui [...]e and maner of olde heretikes, Let him reade Tertullian in his praescriptions, Cap. 17. Capit. vlti. Lib. 1. c. 1. S. Ambrose vpon the epistle of S. Paul to Titus, Iraeneus also, and S. Augu­stin writing against Adimantus the manichee cap. 12. 14. & 16.

What should I procede farder in declaring how Lu­ther and his scholers folowe rhe race of olde hereti­kes, bothe in their doctrine and in the maner and set­ting forthe thereof? The very refusall of the aunci­ent fathers in Christes church pronoūced (as you haue heard) so impudently of Luther, and folowed with no lesse impudence of his scholers, is no new point, but euen the very shift of their forefathers cursed he­retikes of olde time. This appeareth well by the dis­putations of Athanasius with Arrius, Coram Probo Indice. Socrates. li. 5. cap. 10. Actione 1. Epist. 28. lib. 1. cōtra Eu [...]mitū. by the counsell of Sisinnius to the Emperour Theodosius: by the maner of Eutyches in the Councell of Chalcedon, by the wri­tings of Cirillus touching Nestorius, and of S. Basil cō ­cerning Eunonius. For all these lerned fathers could not drawe those vnruly heretikes to the rule of the auncient and holy writers in the Church of Christ. [Page] [...] [Page 178] [...] [Page] They appealed to only Scripture and would be tried only by that, as Luther would, and the protestants of our time wil, though many heretikes receiued not the whole corps of Scripture, but such partes only as li­ked them, reiecting all that made against them, euen as now a daies also Luther and his scholers reiect the bookes of Machabees, and the epistle of S. Iames, the one bicause it praieth for the dead, the other bicause it writeth directly against their only faith. Of what heretikes they lerned this shift, we haue already de­clared defending the Machabees against M. Grindall.

Aduise your selues now (good Christen readers) whether you thinke the surer waie to saluatiō, to for lowe the steppes of these fathers of Luther and all new ghospellers, all condemned heretikes aboue a thousand yeares past, or embrace the doctrine of the holy Fathers and lerned approued writers in Chri­stes church. May we not wel iudge and assuredly persuade our selues that the very sprit of heresy spake in Luther and speaketh in all new ghospellers, prea­ching and defending olde condemned heresies? Why haue protestants departed from the olde Catholike religion, and embraced the new doctrine of Luther? they saie forsothe bicause all thinges are reformed af­ter the paterne and practise of the primitiue Church. What meane they trow ye herein? truly I do not otherwise thinke, but that a great numbre, the vnler­ned and deceiued sorte, take them to meane wel, and that all is reduced to the doctrine and religion appro­ued and generally receiued in the primitiue church [Page 179] for the espace of fiue or six hundred yeares after Christ. But vndoubtedly the lerned and ringleaders of this new fangled faith, if they meane truly, must nedes meane the renewing of such heresies, as were in that time condemned. For thus and no otherwise do they folow doctrine practised in that time: that is of heretikes, as in a numbre of particular assertions you haue sene.

But to returne to Luther, Luther [...] ued an he retike. what point of a right heretike is there, that hath not in him ben verified? He condemneth the Church and holy Fathers, ap­pointed of the holy Ghoste to gouuerne and direct 1 his church, as you see by his owne wordes before al­leaged. He corrupteth holy scripture by false transla­tions, 2 as the secōde part of this Apologie hath decla­red you. He denied partes hereof at his pleasure, af­ter 3 the acustomed maner of al heretikes. He holdeth, 4 teacheth, and defendeth olde cursed, and lōge condē ­ned heresies, as we haue before deducted vnto you. 5 He hath bredd diuers sectes by his owne doctrine re­pugnāt and cōtrary one to an other: to wit, the Ana­baptistes, the Sacramētaries, the S wēck feldiās, and diuers other, as it appeareth clerely by the Table of his Of­spring in the thrid part of this Apologie. Finally bi­cause 6 al heretikes are knowē by their frutes, See the [...]e­fe. 29. and folovving what the frutes of this mās doctrine haue bē, it is in this Apo­logie of Staphylus in diuers places expresly set forth, Also the leafe. 127. b. &c. as wel for the great decaye of deuotion and spirituall vertus, as for the temporall waste and misery, that of this heresy hath ensued. Of his terrible arrogancy [Page] and pride (the most euident token of a wilfull hereti­ken 7 and voide of all grace and goodnes) all that haue read his writings can testifie abundantly. None more complaine thereof then his felowe protestants, the Sacramentaries of Zurich, In the leafe. 84. b. and 85. as partly by their wor­des in the thirde parte of this boke alleaged it maye well appeare. Neuer baude in bridwell, nor scolde in the stewes so railed, as this man doth, beinge comp­trolled of his doctrine. His awnswers against all such as wrote againste him, abundantly declare the same. For hereupon the ciuill Lutherans do swarue in ma­ny pointes from such doctrine, as he was wonte to vtter in the vehemency of sprit (as they cal it) and in his cholere. He wrote him selfe an Euangelist off 8 Christ: euen as Manicheus called him selfe an Apost­le of Christ: as S. Augustin witnesseth. In epist. ad Argentoratenses. Contra epi. fundamēti. cap. 6. And off his scholers he is called the thirde Helias, as in the story of his deathe we reade writen by Melanchthon, Ionas and Pomeranus. Euen as Manicheus was of his scolers called the holy ghost, Ibidem. and Montanus of his secte also. He writeth, that he is sure and certain he hath his doctrine 9 from heauē, euē as Aetius sayde also of him selfe. Vide Rofensem contra cap. Baby. Epiphanius in haer. 76. I knowe God moste clerely and euen as perfitly as I knowe my selfe. The cause and original of Luthers departure from the church was ambitiō, as all the ecclesiasticall histories 10 of our time, Fōtanus, Rouerus, and other do testi­fie. to witt, bicause he was not preferred to the pu­blishing of the famous pardon of the croisad. The sa­me ambition made Aerius an heretike, bicause Eu­stathius was preferred before him in a certain bishop­rike [Page 180] as Epiphanius recordeth. Haer. 75. The like writeth Ter­tullian of Valētinus, Lib. contra Valētinia­nos. and Nicephorus reporteth of Montanus lib. 4, cap. 2. of Nouatus libro 6. capite 3. of Flori­nus. libro 4. capite 20. Lib. 4. cap. 7. and of Thebutes one of the firste heretikes in the Apostles time, the very same cause of falling in to heresy. And truly euen as the begin­ning and course of Luthers doctrine hath thourou­ghely resembled the maner of olde heretikes, so his ende was not much vnlike, to witt, a soden and vn­prouided death. For being mery and makinge greate feste ouer night, he was foūde dead in the morning. 11 Such soden deathe was neuer reade off any Apo­stle or Euangelist of Christ. But of diuers heretikes, Sleidanns & Fonta­nus lib. 17. especially of Arrius, thoughe as by that the Arri­ans were nothing moued, so the Lutherans of this make smal accompte.

And this much of Luther the father protestant of oure time, as touching the pointes of his doctrine: where you see bothe what a godly ground he layde, and howe in the course and issue there of, he hathe showed him selfe to be but a scholer of olde hereti­kes, as he hathe ben the Master of many newe. For this man worse then any gutter or sinke, whiche re­ceaueth onely the filthe that is brought vnto it, bre­deth none, not onely toke olde heresies of other, but added also thereūto some of his owne: breding of his owne filthy brayne as foule fonde doctrine as any foolish heretike before him. And of these his proper inuentiōs one of the maddest is, that he teacheth the bread remaining bread, to be the very naturall body [Page] of Christ in the Sacrament. The pro [...] heresy off Luther touching the Sacra­mēt hath vvrought his confusion. Which hathe semed such a fonde doctrine euē to the ghospellers thē selues his scholers and brethern, that the farre greater part off them hath in consideration of this point chefely, not doubted to condemne him for an archeheretike▪ as you may see by the wordes of the brethern of Zu­rich in the thirde parte of this booke. Fol. 68. And by reason of this absurde doctrine not onely at the first Zuinglius, Oecolampadius and Caluin drewe with them di­uers countres from the vnite of Luthers ghospell, but also the Lutherans them selues hauing many ye­ares serued the idoll Luther, daily faile and shrinke from him, cleauing to the cursed Sacramentaries, proceding allwaies in mischef, and encreasing with time their heresies and abominations.

About this time two yeare, Surius in epist. nun­cupatoria praefixa Prodro [...]c. Brema a greate cyte of Saxony, and one of the firste that had receaued the light of Luthers ghospel, hauing cōtinued in the fo­resayde doctrine of Luther aboute fourty yeares, as zelous and vpright Lutherans, now after greate stri­fe and contention amonge them selues, hath openly condemned the same, and are become Caluinistes. Likewise in Augspurg where the famous Cōfession of the Lutherans was made, [...]fred to the Emperour, and confirmed by all the Nobilite of the protestants, yet nowe there are mo Caluinistes then Lutherans, mo that disproue that Cōfessiō and doctrine of Lu­ther, thē that approue it. How other coūtres also ha­ue flitted frō Luther, hauing many yeares serued hī, you haue in the thirde part of this booke declared. Pagi. 121.

[Page 182] Our countre also being at the firste chaunge, all Lutheran, is nowe become for the moste parte Cal­uiniste, and Lasconicall, as not onely oure doings at home declare, but other countres abrode haue noted of vs. Peter Martyr at his first coming to Oxforde was a right Lutherā in the matter of the Sacrament, as he declared him selfe not onely in priuat commu­nication, but also in his open lessons, where inuei­ghing at a time against the argumēt of the Sacramē ­taries, Christ is in heauen, ergo he is not here in the Sacra­ment, he cried oute, Profecto est nodus Diaboli, that is, Sothely this is a shifte of the deuil him selfe. He was wonte also at his first coming to Oxford to complaine, An­glos nimiū vergere ad Zuinglianismum that we english men enclined to much to the Zwinglians. After­ward as al the worlde knoweth, he condemned Lu­ther, and became him self, a Zuingliā. For he had ler­ned an other lesson in the Courte.

Philip Melanchthon him selfe, the very darling of Luther and father of the Confessionistes, in his later daies became a very Sacramentary: as his famili­ar letters to the Counte Palatin of Rhene printed at Heidelberg in the yeare 1560. hathe declared to al the worlde. Thus the proper heresy of Martin Luther, that he him self by the spirit of the newe ghospel had inuented in the despite of the Pope (for so he prote­steth him selfe in a letter of his to the brethern of Strasburg) was at the first much misliked, and is no­we allmost euerywhere vtterly abhorred.

Ioachimus VVestphalus, the onely staye and piller [Page] of this Lutheran doctrine cōplaineth him selfe here­of. For thus he writeth. In lib. Re­ctafides de c [...]a [...]i. No false doctrine is so farre spredde, none with so much labour and hypocrisy defended, non hath more beguiled the worlde, then this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament▪ meaning the heresy of the Sa­cramentaries. And Nicolaus Amsdorfsius an other ze­lous Lutheran writeth thus. The Anabaptistes and the Sacramētaries do blinde and deceaue Germany with their pretended holines euen as the monkes before blinded the who­le worlde.

And this verely hathe happened on Luther and his felowes not without the iuste iudgemēt of God. For whereas vpon dispiteous malice he laboured by his new doctrines to ouerthrow the church of Ro­me, (where it hath pleased our Sauiour to place his vicar here on earthe) as in diuers of his writings it appeareth, he hath wrought his oune destruction, and shame. for though in very dede through the perni­cious persuasions of that wedded frere, certain places and corners of Christendome haue swarned frō the Catholike church, and authorite of that Apostolike see in these northe partes of the worlde, yet it hathe thousands folde more ben enlarged in the west par­tes, and the newe landes founde oute by Spanyardes and Portugalles in these late yeares, as the letters off the Iesuites directed from those countres in to these partes do euidently and miraculousely declare. And truly euē so befel it, at what time Grece and the easte churche departing from the head and vnite, of Chri­stes church, gaue them selues to sundry schismes and [Page 182] heresies. Vide thro­uologiam Alexandri Sculte [...]i. For then sprange vp the faithe in Germany, Pole, Dennemarke, Swethen, Norwaie and other northe Countres. For thus from the east to the northe, and from the northe to the west of the faithe of Christe passeth, donec, Luc, 21. as Christe saithe, impleantur tempora gen­tium. Vntell the times of the gentils be acomplished. Oure Lorde graunte that it passe not from vs by he­resy and schisme, as it passed from the grekes, and from Afrike the southe parte of the worlde. Grece and Afrike [...]o­ste the fa­ [...]ithe by he resy. For bo­the these people through schismes (especially of the Arrians and their ofspringe) lost the faith of Chri­ste, as the histories declare vnto vs. But to returne to our matter, the church of Rome, the see Apostolike, that Luther laboured by heresy to ouerthrowe, stan­deth yet in his full force and interest, notwithstan­ding the miserable losse of a numbre in our countre and otherwhere. Truly Luther him selfe cometh ve­ry short of the counte he made being reiected nowe allmoste euery where. The Catholike also may lerne to auoide and shunne hereby all maner of prote­stants what so euer name or secte they be of, proce­ding all of this heade, beinge all the corrupted issue of this vncleane spring, and the branches of this roote.

Much more might be saied of other proper heresies of this archeheretike Martin Luther. But this one of his maie serue for a taste to the zelous Lutherans of our coūtre, that they glory not so much of this their Elias, and fiffte euangelist, as though all that euer he wrote or sayed were the ghospell it self. But nowe to [Page] the ciuill Lutherans.

The ciuill Lutherans are those, Of the ci­uil Lutherans. whiche not with such zele and rigour as the other, force men praecise­ly to euery doctrine and article of Luthers ghospell, but are content ciuilly to conforme them selues to better iudgement, and take so much of their Master, Luther, as they shall thinke good and conuenient. But these men by this their ciuilite and philosophi­call moderation haue conformed them selues to so many frames and facions, as there be amonge them Superintēdents and Ministres. As for example in the administration of the Sacraments, through their ci­uilite, see in what maruailous vnite their churches be directed. At VVittenberg where the see of these ciuill protestants is, foure Sacraments are approued and ad­ministred: to witt. baptim, the Supper of our Lorde, Holy Orders, and Penaunce or absolution. At Lipsia thre only take place, holy orders being wiped awaie. At Magdeburg but two are allowed: euen as amonge the Caluinistes of our countre. And hereof iesting o­nes merely a lerned mā though with a heuy hart be­ing demaunded why in the Lutherās Churches we­re not 7. Staphylus in Def. contra Melāch thon. Sacramēts, yes forso the quod he: there are 7. and two mo. For at VVittenberg foure, at Lipsia three, at Magdeburg are two: whiche in all make nyne. And these thre cytes be litle distant one from the other.

The father and head of these ciuill Lutherans is Philip Melanchthon: who so longe dalied in this kinde of perilous ciuilite, that at the length, as you haue he­ard before, he fell to the pestilent heresy of the Sacra­mentaries. [Page 183] And see I praye you how light, variable, and inconstant a person this man was.

In the yeare. 1540. Staphylus in prodro­mo. he wrote bitterly against the Po­pe defending Luther miserably, as if he had ben his slaue or bondmā. In the yeare. 1548. Vide Lipsē Interim & literas ad Carolvvit­zium. itē (que) postremas a [...] Com. Palatinum. heenclined again to the Pope and embraced the Interim that was made in Germany, that is, the delaie and deliberation vntel a generall Councell were called. But of late euen a litle before his deathe in the yeare. 1559. writing to the Counte Palatin he cōdemned the proper doctri­ne of his M. Luther, and ioyned him selfe to Caluin and the Sacramentaries.

This graund Captain was the inuentour or ra­ther scribe and writer of that famous Confession made at Augspurg in the yeare. 1530. But howe he altered and corrected the same, not onely in his Apology in the next yeare after, but at diuers other times, someti­me for better, sometime for worse, I reporte me to the diuers editions of that booke. For who so conferreth the first edition and certain next to the first, with the laste, he shall clerely see what settled iudgement, and constant or grounded knowledge was in that man. But after the deathe of Luther, howe miserably it ha­the ben mangled, Nicolaus Gallus a zelous and rigo­rous Lutherā in opē writing bitterly cōplaineth. For thus he reporteth in generall, after the reticall of cer­tain particulars. Here then, In libell [...]. Vox Vigilū [...] fol. d. 3. saieth he, all Christen men may easely perceaue, if they wil yelde to reason, and consider and conferre together their doctrines, howe all those positions whiche our aduersaries in the foresaide articles after the dea­the [Page] of Luther do teache against vs blasphemousely, do in dede in the very grounde touche Luther him selfe and his doctri­ne, though we beare the name thereof: yea and beside the per­son of Luther, they belonge properly to the true Confessiō of Augspurg, which in the meane while is of them chaunged, peruerted, and racked in to expresse contrary meaning. And this false foisting and iuggling of the ciuill Luthe­rans (though truly very vnciuill in this point) is not only euident in the confession of Augspurg the gro­unde of all their newe broched ghospell, but also in the workes of their Master, Martin Luther, whiche they chaunge and correct daily at their pleasure. For Amsdorfius, Illyricus, and Georgius Rorarius, al zelous Lutherans in open treatises and bookes entituled de deprauatoribus librorum Lutheri, Vide epist. Hosis al Henri. ducē Brun [...]uicen sem. of the deprauers of Luthers bookes, charge the masters of Wittenberg but Melanchthō especially, of certain hundreds of pla­ces chaūged, left oute and corrupted by thē, and that (as they saie) against the ghospel, Luc. 6. quia non est discipulus super magistrum the scholer is not aboue his master.

Againe as touching the inconstancy of Melanch­thon, those whiche haue read and sene his common places, can not be ignorant thereof: which as ofte as he sette forth, so ofte he altered and corrected. In the numbre of Sacraments what diuers minde he hathe ben of, and vpon what occasion he so chaunged his minde, See in the I [...]a. c. 45. and 72. it is very well declared of Staphylus in the first and in the seconde partes of this booke. In one other pointeas touching iustification, and the workes of man, I will showe yow howe contrary he hathe ben [Page 184] to him selfe, chaunging his minde with euery we­ther. At the first to gratifie Luther his master, deni­eng fre wil in man, In his annotations vppon S. Paule to the Romanes thus he writeth. In cap. 8. fol. 53. VVe saie that God dothe not onely suffre his creatures to do and worke, but him selfe dothe and worketh all thinges properly. as we con­fesse the calling of S. Paule was the proper worke of God, so we confesse all other are the proper workes off God, whether they be indifferent actions, as to eate, to drinke and suche like, or euill workes, as the aduoutry of Dauid, the cruelty of Manlius putting to deathe his owne Son. And a lit­le after. VVe nede not therefore make that grosse glose com­monly vsed, to saie that God suffreth euill and doth not worke euill & caetera. Thus farre Melanchthon: where yow see he agreeth with the bonde fre will off Lu­ther, and the wicked destyne off Caluin. And in this mynde he continewed longe and many yeares. But at the length in a conference helde at Wormes, Staphylus in absoluta a­pologia. fo. 126. he was persuaded by doctor Eckius to reiect this ab­hominable doctrine. And at the next edition off his common places he declared it to all the worlde. Cap. de hu­manis viri bus & lib. arbitrio. The zelous and rigorous Lutherans coulde not abyde this his recantation, especially Nicolaus Gallus and the Superintendents of higher Saxony. Gallus in librosuo. Wechterhan. Theologi Saxonici in libellis sup­plicatorijs ad conuentū Nūburgen­sem. But accused him in open writinges of apostasy. Farder when diuers v­niuersites, especially those of Lipsia had subscribed to this later doctrine of Melanchthon directly repugning to Luthers ghospell, Nicolaus Gallus a rigorous Lu­theran and zelous ghospeller in his booke intituled, An awnswer to the booke of the Professours of Wittenberg, [Page] examineth this their doctrine, and chargeth them with Pelagians heresy takē out of Erasmus writings. Also in an other litle treatise of his intituled, Vox vi­gilum, by certain antitheses and conferences off Lu­thers sayings, he setteth forthe to the worlde the incostāt and chaungeable minde of this Archepro­testant.

Who lyste to knowe more of this man, and howe he with al his ciuil secte is misliked of the zelous Lu­therans, let him reade the bookes of Heshusius and Hieronimus Menczelius de pastoribus (not that I wish such bookes to be read, but that who will nedes rea­de them, may note this in them) where they greuou­sely complaine of the licentious liberte of these ciuil and conformable protestants Melanchthon, and his complices. He maye reade also the booke of Iohannes Spangenbergius sette forthe in the yeare. 1561. whiche beareth this litle: A true declaration of the benefits besto­wed especially vppon Germany from God, by D. Mar­tin Luther of holy memory, and of the greate vnkindnes of diuers towarde so greate benefits receaued. In the which booke he inueigheth not so much against vs Catho­likes, whiche haue allwaies worthely abhorred the cursed heresies of that lewde fryer, as against the ci­uill Lutherans, and disordrely extrauagants, whiche haue swarued from the holy worde of that fifte euan geliste. Which they haue done in such sorte, that no­we none beareth lesse rule, then he that first sturred all this storme, and was the inuenter of this terrible tragedy.

[Page 185] At what time the generall councell of Trent, by the consent of all the estates of the Empire, Sleidam [...]s lib. 6. et 11. Histor. and o­ther Christen princes was gathered together, and be gonne, the protestāts of germany, especially the Lu­therans, hauing their saufconduit, and prouision af­ter the largest and surest maner graunted, Melanch­thon drewe backe, and retracted the time by all mea­nes possible. Whereupon first he came to the Empe­rour Ponta [...]us Rouerus li. 5. rerū me­mora. pag. 410. Charles soiourning at that time at Inspruch fewe daies iourney from Trent, and made greate suite bo­the for him selfe, and his felowes, that they might not present them selues at the councell. For him selfe he alleaged first his aage: then that he was no diuin, Non theol [...] gum sed philotheol [...] gum. but a louer and fauourer of diuinite. And yet this is that Master of Wittēberg, successour in the schisma­ticall see of Luther, father of that famous Confes­sion of Augspurg, whiche not onely the Lutherans, but the Caluinistes them selues do reuerence no lesse then the foure ghospells. But this awnswer no thing satisfing the Emperour, he pretended he woulde shortely repaire to the councel, returned to VVit­tenberg, and from thence toke his iourney thither­warde. but at Norimberg he staied, Erasmus Reinhold. i [...] epist. sua ad amicū. vntell his prince the duke Mauritius concluded the councel with fire and sworde.

And this charitable deuise of Melanchthon agreeth well with other his doings: as that he wrote, yea and put forthe in prent a litle booke to the people of Bo­hem wherein he sturreth them against their lawfull Prince, and counselleth them to rebell against their [Page] Souuerain: In libel. ad Bohemoset Si [...] sios. whereupon ensued ciuill warre and cala­mitous seditions in that countre: as also that he and other masters of Wittēberg in the yeare. 1548. at what time the duke of Saxony and the Lantgraue off hes­se rebelled, wrote opēly against the Emperour Char­les and all his adherents. Illyricus in informati [...] ­ne sua de quibusdam a [...]itulis. Whereof Mathias Illyricus a zelous Lutheran chargeth them, and reprocheth it vnto them bitterly, in a certain litle booke which he made, called An Information vpon certain articles, &c.

This Philip Melanchthon father of these ciuill pro­testants, as in wauering and ofte chaunging his do­ctrine, he was a right ciuill Lutheran, so corrupting the general Confession of his brethern, and the wor­kes of his Master, he showed him selfe very vnciuill truly, but a right heretike I assure you. For this was the practise of awncient heretikes to flie and flitt from their saiengs, being pressed with the lerned Ca­tholikes. And truly of this famous Confession of Augspurg and of Luthers workes daily thus altered and corrected, The ciuill Lutherās resemble olde here­tikes. I would saie corrupted, of these ciuill Lutherans, we may worthely pronoūce as Tertullian dothe of the Marcionistes, who had made also a gho­spell of their owne, whereof he saieth, Quotidie re­formant illud, Lib. 4. ad­uersus Mar [...]ionem. prout a nobis quotidie reuincuntur, aut eru­bescunt de magistro suo vbique traducto. They frame it a newe daily, as they are of vs daily conuinced, or be ashamed of their master all wheres reprouued. And see, I praie you, if these ciuill reformers of Luthers ghospel represent not vnto vs the face and behauiour of olde heretikes, of whom Tertulliā in an other pla­ce [Page 186] thus speaketh. In praescriptionibus. Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis &c. Let me be accompted a liar, if they vary not frō their owne rules, while euery one tuneth at his pleasure the songe he ler­ned, euen as he that first taught it, did sette it at his pleasure. The Valentinians were as bolde as Valentinus their Ma­ster, the Marcionistes made at their pleasure a newe faith, as their Master Marcion had done before them. Brefely al he­resies well considered shall be founde to vary from their first heades in diuers pointes. Thus farre Tertulliā. which how true it is in the scholers of Martin Luther the arche­heretike of our time, these ciuil Melanchthonistes declare vnto vs: and that to the greate griefe of the zelous Lutherans, as the sundry writinges of Gallus, Ams­dorfius, Illyricus famous Superintendēts of that secte do euidently showe.

This practise of Melanchthons inconstancy flit­ting from his owne doctrine, the ecclesiastical histo­ries witnes vnto vs to haue ben the maner of olde he­retikes. Off Thedotus, Asclepiodotus, Lib. 4. cap. 21. Hermophilus and Apollonides thus writeth Nicephorus. Quilibet etiam il­lorū castigationē propriorū scriptorū edid [...]: idque varian­antium & dissidentium inter se exemplarium discordantia indicat, that is. Tho Sy­nods of the Arriās resemble the confession of Augspurg and metinges of protestants. Nicephorus lib. 9. c. 5. Eche one of them did sette forthe their owne writings corrected and altered, whiche the diuersite of the sundry and contrary copies doth declare.

The greate variaunce and inconstancy of the Ar­rians no lesse then of the Lutherās, appereth wel by the ecclesiasticall histories also. First in their pri­uat Synod at Antioche, hauing concluded and agreed vpon a certain confession of their belefe, shortly af­ter [Page] they put forthe an other much different from the first. Not lōge after three of these Arrian bishops be­ing Li. 9. c. 7. conuēted before Constās in the west and being de­maunded a declaration of their belefe, they vttered it in a farre other sorte, then they had decreed at An­tioche. Li. 9. c. 13. In Nicephorus their diuers confessions are sett oute at large. F [...]we yeares after the Arriās meting to­gether at Sirmium, Rouer. lib. 3. pa. 172. published three sondry and diuers confessions of their belefe al contrary to the former. Let vs nowe see whether oure Lutherans haue not practised in like maner.

In the general meting of the protestants at Ausg­purg before the Emperour Charles in the yeare 1530, First those of Strasbourg, Costniz and Memming of­fred vp a confession of their faith as farre different from the Saxons as they were from the Catholikes.

Then in the Confession of the Saxons deuised by Melanchthō in the descriptiō of Christes church, Staphylus in absolutae Apologia. the worde Catholike is cleane left oute. The nexte ye­are after Melanchthon writing his Apology put the worde Catholike in: but with a straunge and false ex­position added vnto it, euen such as the Donatistes made vnto S. Augustin, August. ep. 48. ad Vincentium. when they sayde, that the wor­de Catholike was not ment of the societe and commu­niō of the whole worlde, but in obseruing of al gods commaundements, and all his sacraments.

Thirdly the protestants of Lunneburg and of the Roue [...]s li. 5. pag. 439. Lantgraues dominions were offended with the Sax­ons in the publishing of their cōfession, bicause they yelded to much to the Catholikes in the question of [Page 187] ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and authorite off bishops: whereupon Melanchthon was expresly commaunded to yeld no farder.

Fourthly whereas in that confession presented to the Emperour in the yeare 1530. in the tenth article we reade this, They teache that the true body and bloud of Christ is truly present in the Supper vnder the formes of bre­ad and wine, the next yere after the same Confession being printed at VVittenberg, they frame the same ar­ticle after an other sorte, and write. That the body and bloud of Christ are truly present and distribued to those which receiue in the supper: By the which addition they exclude all reseruation of the blessed Sacrament, for the sicke, and tie Christ to the pleasure of the recei­uers. But in the yeare 1540. wading furder in the moi­re of heresy they make that same article yet fouler. For this they saie. That with the breade and the wine the body and bloud of Christ is truly exhibited to those whiche receiue in the Lordes Supper. Thus lo at the length this monster of Luther was brought to perfection, I me­ane his proper heresy about the Sacramēt. But what? Doth all the brotherhood of that Confession staye here? Nay the zelous Lutherans denie it and com­plaine of it. Vide Roue rū. lib. 5. pag. 439. For from this their Confession Brentius and the Masters of Wittēberg in their conference hel­de at Wormes in the yeare 1557. haue departed openly, In publica Confessio­ne pure doctrine, &c. yelding to the heresies of Zuinglius and Osiander, directly repugning to that Confessiō, as Nicolaus Ams­dorffius a zelous Lutheran chargeth them in open writing. His wordes you may reade in the beginning [Page] of the thirde parte of this booke. Thus you maye see howe the sprit of Melanchthon and his felowes a­gree with the doinges and behauiour of olde hereti­kes.

And although Philip Melanchthon, Fontanus li. 11. Melanch­thon malitious and cruell. at the first visi­tation of the protestants in Germany was praysed for his modesty and meakenes, yet afterwarde as he grewe in heresy, so did he in malice and cruelty. The thrusting in of Osiāder in to Prussia procured by him displacing Morlinus by force, his open writing aga­inst the visitatiō of Bauaria, his bitter and dispiteous inuectiues againste the lerned, vertuous, and Noble man Fridericus Staphylus, hath sufficiently declared to all the worlde, that as good men eunt de virtute in virtutem, encrease and go forward in vertu, so he pro­ceded in mischefe and malice of harte, Vide Staphylum in absoluta apolo­gia. pagina 242. as the proper­ty of heretikes hathe allwaies ben. Illyri [...]us and other zelous Lutherans ceased not daily while he liued to entwit this vnto him. And I haue here recited onely for the intent (God is my witnes) that his credit he­reafter may be the lesse amonge suche, as by his here­ticall ciuilite haue ben deceaued and trained into he­resies from the vnite of Christes churche, where on­ly saluation is to be hoped for. For that is the body off Christ as S. Paule saieth and the piller of truthe. Coloss. 1. and as S. Augustin writeth. De vnita e [...]cclesiae cap. 4. Whosoeuer beleueth that Christe Iesus is come in to fleshe, and in the same fleshe hathe suffred for vs, hath risen again, and is ascended vp, and that he is the son of God, God with God, and one with the father, by whom al was made: and yet do so dissent from his body, which is the [Page 188] church, that they do not communicat with all the whole corps of Christendome, certain it is that they are not in the Catholike churche. What Christen mā therefore is the­re so destitut of the grace of God, and all good rea­son, that will hazarde his soule to folowe that guide, which woteth not him selfe which waie to walcke, or to lerne a newe belefe contrary to all Christendo­me beside that nowe is, and euer hathe ben, of suche a Master as knoweth not him felfe, what he may sa­ie, and was euen to his deathe but a lerner and scho­ler? For then onely began he to professe him selfe a Caluiniste and a Sacramentary, hauing all his life ti­me before taught and deceaued a number after the trade of Luther. And howe can his scholers be assu­red that thē he founde out the truthe? We will there­fore nowe come to Caluin him selfe to whom Me­lanchthon hathe yelded, and see whether he be a gho­speller worthy to be folowed againste the vniforme consent of Christes churche.

Perusing diligently the doctrine of Iohn Caluin in his Institutions, Of Cal­uin and his doctrine. commentaries vppon the holy Scripture, his resolutions vppon the Sacraments, and other his workes, touching his doctrine of the bles­ [...]ed Sacrament of the aultar, whiche he allwaies ter­meth the Supper off the Lorde, and recording with my self howe the greatest swaye of the lost flock of our time, forsaking Christ the heauenly shepearde and his vicar here on earthe, haue folowed more that wolfe of Geneua Iohn Caluin, then the foxes of Ger­many, Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, and other, truly [Page] I bothe lamented much the losse of so many Chri­stē soules straiyng after so perilous a guide, and mar­uailed yet more at the blindnes of our wicked time, that would be so soone lead out of the highe waie of Christes churche (wherein onely saluation is to be sought) and folow the trade of such a doctour or Master, which like a madde will full man being out off the waie, runneth vpp and downe among the bushes and briers this waie and that waie, seking of purpose any waye, rather then he will take the common hi­ghe beaten waie, that all Christen people haue wal­ked in. I saie this good Readers, not as enemy to the man (whom thanked be God I neuer sawe nor he­ard) but as finding him such in his writings as I haue saied, and intending by Gods helpe to sett him so before your eyes that yow shall also saie and iudge no lesse of him then I do. vnlesse you are (which God forbidde) of the number of those obstinat Ie­wes, who seying would not see, and hearing woulde not heare. I trust rather in allmighty God, that no man hath so pinned his soule to Caluins doctri­ne, but that he will yelde to the expresse worde off holy Scripture, and euident reason, when he shall see the same doctryne to fight directly against them bothe.

And first we wil cōsidre how is doctrine fighteth against euidēt reason, which by two maner of waies we will declare you. First by certain of his propositi­ons importing absurde consequences and impossibi­lites, nexte by clere and most euident contradictions [Page 189] of his owne saiengs: wherby not onely the faithfull Catholike, but the deceiued protestant may euident­ly iudge and pronounce, that this mans doctrine can not be of god, and his holy Spirit, which is the Spi­rit of truthe and vnite, but is of the diuel and his wic­ked sprit, which is the sprit of falshood and dissensi­on. For truthe is allwaies vniforme and agreable with it selfe. And as the philosopher saieth of vertu, so in truthe there is but one waie to hitt the marke: a man may shoote aside diuers waies. Wherefote two con­trary sayings maye bothe be false and vntrue: but tru­the can neuer stand with a contrary. Who then tea­cheth contradiction, as he must nedes teach some fal­shood, so possibly he may teach al false, and beside the marke: euen as it happeneth with all heretikes, that leaue the common highe waie of their forefathers, and seke out by pathes of their owne inuentiōs, whe­rein the faster they runne, the farder they straye, and the harder they finde the right waie againe.

Secondarely as touching the repugnaunce that is in Caluins doctrine against the expresse worde off God, I will also by two maner of waies declare. First by a number of his propositions and assertions cōtra­ry to the expresse wordes of Christ and his Apostles, next by the auouching of such doctrine as concur­reth with olde heresies condemned aboue a thou­sand yeares past, in that state and time off Christ his church, as Caluin him selfe doth in sundry places (especially vpon the prophets, and in his epistle to Sa­doletus) allowe and reuerence. We recited you before [Page] diuers olde carren heresies that Luther stirred vp, but Caluin beside all those hath nouseled yet a litle far­der, and digged deper then Luther did. A similitu de. For euen as a a bestly sowe coming in to a faire garden sett with diuers swete flowres and pleasaunt herbes, if in some corner thereof she espie a donghell, or heape of rot­ten wedes, or other filthe cast aside, will straite nou­sell there and tomble her selfe in the filth and carren thereof, not medling with the swete floures or plea­saunt herbes: so truly these bestly heretikes of our ti­me, especially Luther and Caluin liuing in the church of Christ compared in scripture to the garden of the bridegrom, Cant. 5. wherein are bothe swete herbes of hea­uenly doctrine, and most delectable floures of vertu­ous liuing, lacking not yet her spottes and wrincles of euil life, wich she alloweth neuer, but tolerateth of necessite and lamenteth, hauing also not in her, but by her, and cast oute of her, a nūber of olde cōdem­ned heresies, they like bestly swine nether embrace the vertuous liuing that she vseth, but raiseth at the infirmities whi [...]h she is constrained to suffer, nether fo­low the steps of her heauenly discipline and vpright belefe, but getting them to the donghell, nou [...]ell them selues in the olde condemned heresies, and vēt them abrode to the world.

But nowe to come to the matter it self, let vs con­sidre first the absurde doctrine, that he leaueth vs in his writings. I entend not to discourse vpon all the pointes of his hereticall doctrine: but for a taste off the rest, I will examin his assertions about the blessed [Page 190] Sacramēt of the aultar, bicause this article doth most nearest touche the glory and maiesty off oure Saui­our, being the most precious iewell, that he left vnto his church. After also we wil note diuers heresies, bo­the olde and new, in his doctrine vpon the sacrament of baptim. Last of all a fewe notable contradictions aboute his doctrine of the fre will of man. But now to the first point.

Caluin in his Institutions in his treatise of the Lordes Supper, Cap. 18. In stitutionū impress. A [...] gentorati. an. 1545. teaching howe by his imagination we receiue Christ in the Sacrament, after long daly­ing as though he would graunte a reall receiuing off Christ his body, at the length he concludeth in the­se wordes. Corporis communionem Spiritus sui virtute Christus in nos diffundit. that is. Christ pooreth downe vpō vs the communion of his body by the vertu of his Spirit. Which is as much to saie: Christ communicateth vnto vs his body by the vertu of his Spirit. This is in fewe wordes the communion of Caluin and all the Sacramentarie [...] denieng that we eate in dede the body of Christ otherwise then by faith. Nowe let vs see what absurdites folowe thereof.

First no scripture hath this doctrine. That vve receaue not a com­muniō of Christ his body poored vpon vs in the Sacramēt▪ Cap. 8. de fide. And how ab­surde a thing it is to folowe any doctrine without Scripture Caluin him him selfe telleth vs. In his in­stitutions thus he writeth. I ought not to seme to any man cōtentious, that I staie so earnestly vpon this point that it is not lawfull for the Churche to make any new do­ctrine, that is to teache or deliuer for truthe any more then the Lorde hath reueled by his worde. For wise men do see howe [Page] great a danger that is, if so much authorite were graun­ted to men. They see what a windowe is opened to the mockes and scoffes of wicked men, if we sayie that to be taken for truthe among Christians which men shall thinke good. Let now then any scholer of Caluin showe in all Scriptu­re where it is writen, that Christ by the vertu of his spirit pooreth downe vppon vs the communion off his body. For Caluin as he writeth in his Harmony v­pon the ghospelles, thinketh it an absurde thinge to saie that the flesh of Christ it selfe should be deriued vnto vs. But he sayeth the communion of Christ his flesh is deriued vnto vs (which he interpreteth to be, a quikening vertu out of Christ his flesh) correcting Chri­ste promising vs his very flesh. In cōment. in. 1. Cor. 11. Now (as I saied) of the deriuation of any such communion of Christes fle­she no Scripture mencioneth. But it is a sophisticall suttelty of Caluins imagination not reueled in any place by Gods worde. This is lo then one dangerous absurdite by the confession off Caluin him selfe: onles perhaps he haue some priuiledge more then the whole Churche hathe. For in the Churche he alloweth nothing beside the expresse worde off God.

Againe let vs consider what is the communion of Christ his body poored downe vpon vs. It is saieth Caluin, vis quaedam viuifica ex Christi carne in nos diffu­sa, that is, In cōment. ut. 1. Cor. 11. a certain quickening power poored downe vpon vs out of the flesh of Christ. Christ saieth in S. Iohn, that his flesh is meat in dede, and biddeth vs eate his flesh and drinke his bloud, Ioan. 6. and in the other thre Euangelistes [Page 191] he saieth Eate: this is my body: Lut. 32. but Caluin saieth, we ea­te the bread, Mar. 14. and haue a certain quickening power out of the fleshe, Matth. 26. not (as in his Harmony he saieth) the flesh it self, and that we haue a communiō of his body poored downe vpon vs, which is not to eate the bo­dy, as Christ badde vs. This lo is not only beside scri­ture but expresly against holy Scripture.

Thirdly where Christ biddeth vs eate his fleshe, saying, Ioan. 6. he that eateth my fleshe abydeth in me, he tea­cheth an action on oure part, touching the receiuing of Christ: But where Caluin telleth vs, that a commu­niō of Christ his body is deriued vnto vs, he putteth no action on oure part, touching the receiuing off Christ, but only touching the eating off the bread. For we eate not the body of Christ by Caluins do­ctrine: but a cōmunion of the same body is deriued vpon vs, and poored downe vpō vs, we suffring such deriuation and infusion. Therefore betwene the say­ing of our Sauiour and the doctrine of Caluin, there is as much difference as betwene doing and suffring, action and passion.

Fourthly what meaned Caluin to imagin this communion of Christ his body to be deriued vnto vs, and not the body it selfe? He might haue muche peuish meaning beside, which perhaps they onely know, that are admitted to the secrets of his misteri­es, as the Electi of the Maniches were. But this one thing I am sure he meaned, that bicause communion importeth a number of communicants, and one alo­ne cā not communicat (which is the cause, why the­se [Page] sacramentaries require allwaies a number at their table) therefore he would haue no receiuing of Christe without a communion, nor any other receiuing of Christ, then by hauing a communion of him de­riued vnto vs. Let vs suppose then (as it maie easely happen) that amonge the numbre of all that com­municat, one onely be a true and vpright beleuer, and all the rest euill and miscreants, as among so diuers sectes of protestants none other are to be found, but such as for feare or otherwise sitt downe amongest them, being no protestants in dede, though in this point no good catholikes neither. But let vs suppose that at the table of the protestants, one onely were faithfull and duly prepared thereunto. The communiō of Caluin destro [...]eth the neces­ [...]ite of cō ­municā [...]s. It will folow that bicause according to the doctrine of Caluin the infidel and wicked receiueth only the signe and bare bread, the faith full person remaining alone through the infidelite of other, shall not receiue Christ nei­ther. For being alone he can haue no communion of Christ his fleshe deriued vnto him, euery cōmunion importing a number, as these men saie. Now what an absurdite is this, that the good man shall not receiue Christ in the Sacrament, bicause euill men receiue with him, or bicause he can haue no cōpany of good men?

Fiftely if the communion of Christ his flesh be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit of Christe, then the Spirit of Christ serueth the fleshe as an instrument. Cap. 18. Which Caluin in his institutions expresly saieth, cal­ling the Spirit of Christ, a cundyt pipe by the which the [Page 192] flesh of Christ is deriued vnto vs. A horrible blasphe­my of Caluin. Nowe beside that this is a horrible blasphemy, to make the Spirit of Christe which is his godhead, inferiour to the flesh of Christe as an instrumēt of the same, it is also cōtrary to al reason and common course of nature. For the fleshe serueth well in thinges created, as an instrument whereby the Spirit showeth forth his operations, as by our eies we see, by oute handes we feele and so forth: but the Spirit neuer serueth the fleshe, nor ne­uer may be saied to be an instrument of the same.

Last of all if the due eating of Christ, is to haue the communion of flesh deriued vnto vs by his Spi­rit, whereby we receiue life, then the vnworthy ea­ting of Christ is the communion of dānation. How shall that be deriued vnto vs? by the Spirit off Christ to? what cā be a more horrible blasphemy? by some e­uill sprit? that were the doctrine of the Maniches. And yet if it be true that the due receiuing of Christ is no other thing, but to haue a cōmunion of him deriued vnto vs, thē truly the vnworthy receiuing of Christ must nedes be a communion of damnation deriued also vnto vs. Lo in what absurdites Caluin hath en­tangled him selfe by departing from the Catholike faith. For keping the Catholike doctrine, none off al these absurdites shal ensue. Wherefore it semeth I ma­ie well saie nowe to Caluin, and all suche as folowe this his doctrine, that which S. Augustin saied to the Arrians. Tract. 20. in Ioan. Ego secundum fidem Catholicam Video quomodo exeam (de questione) sine offensione sine scandalo, tu autem circumclusus quaeris qua exeas, that is. I folowing the ca­tholike [Page] faithe▪ can easely finde a waie to ridde my sel­fe oute this of question without offence or incon­ueniēce. But thou being al compassed in, arte to seke whiche waie to gett oute. And euen so fareth it with Caluin. For leauing the sure knowen doctrine of the catholike Churche, teaching vs according to the te­nour of Christ his owne wordes, that we eate his fleshe and drinke his bloud in the blessed Sacrament, and imagining a communion of Christ his fleshe to be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit of Christ, as by a co­undit pipe, you see what hainous blasphemies and brutish absurdites he is forced withal to cōfesse. And this point by vs nowe examined, is the chefest Kaye of all the Sacramentary doctrine, which being pro­ued nought and full of absurdites, declareth that all the store within is of no better stuffe. And that shall you anon see, and sensibly feale, if priuat preiudice haue not vtterly bereued you of common sence.

Caluin in his commentaries vpon the first to the Corinthians, In 1. Cor. cap. [...]1. disputing howe we receaue Christ in the blessed Sacrament, concludeth his whole disputa­tion in these wordes. I conclude saith he, the body of Christe is geuen vs in the Supper really, as they commonly speake, that is truly, to the entent it may be holesome foode for oure soules. I speake after the common fashion, but I meane that oure soules are fedde with the substaunce of Christ his body, to the entent we may be made one with him, or, which is all one, that a certain quickening vertu is poored vpon vs oute of the fleshe of Christ by his Spirit, though it be farre di­stant from vs and be not mingled with vs. In these wordes [Page 193] Caluin vttereth two straūge doctrines. First that our soules are fedde with the body of Christ, secon­darely that we receaue the body of Christ really and truly, though he saie after that body to be farre di­stant from vs, meaning that it remaineth only in he­auen: as in the very nexte wordes folowing he decla­reth.

As touching the first point, if oure soules are fedd with the body of Christ by eating the sacrament, we must lerne whether he meane the soule onely to be fedde and not the body or the body also to eate the fleshe of Christ as well as the soule. Caluin meaneth the soule onely to eate the body of Christ. For in his cōmentaries vpon the sixte of Iohn, he pronoūceth our eating of the sacrament to be the worke of our faith, and saith farder in expresse wordes. I confes­se we eate not Christ any other wise then by beleuing, which doctrine howe absurde it is, we shall anon speake off. Nowe let vs see what absurdites folowe, graunting the eating of Christ his body onely to the soule. That the soule on­ly is not fedde of Christ in the Sacra­ment.

First if the bread of life whiche Christ geueth in the Sacrament, be eaten onely off the soule, then Manna the figure of this sacrament was more auaila­ble to the Iewes, then this blessed foode is to vs Christians. Exod. 16. For that the Iewes did eate Manna bodely not onely by faith, Ioan. 6. and that it was a corporal foode vnto them, the scripture doth clerely testifie. Againe that it was also a spirituall foode, yea and the very same which we receaue in the Sacrament, the doctrine of Caluin defendeth though blasphemously, as you shal [Page] see anon in the conferences of his doctrine with ho­ly scripture. Hereof will it folowe by the absurde do­ctrine of Caluin, that the figure shal excell the verite, Manna shall passe the body of oure Lorde, the syna­goge of Iewes shall be off more perfection, then the Church off Christ ransomned with his precious bloud.

Againe if the soule onely be fedde in this blessed Sacrament, the paschall lambe shall also passe and ex­cel it. Exod. 12. The paschal lambe was eatē contra spiritum per­cussorem against the destroyer spirit, for a sure preser­uation of the Iewes bothe bodely and ghostely, euen as this heauenly passeouer wardeth vs bothe body and soule frō the assautes of the deuill. And our Sa­uiour beginning with his disciples this heauenly banquet, calleth it a passeouer, as Tertullian expoun­deth it and Origē, saying I haue inwardely desired to eate this passeouer with you before I suffer▪ Lib. 4. ad­uersus Marcionem Luc. 22. Homil. 35. in Matth. if the Iewes passeo­uer excelled this, as the sacramētary doctrine of Ihon Caluin importeth, why desired Christ so inwardly to eate this passeouer with his disciples? doth the lambe of God Christ him selfe, not so much profit the due receauers thereof, as the paschall lambe of the Iewes? Whereunto thinke you tendeth this do­ctrine, but by litle and litle to traine vs euen to infi­delite? who tendreth his soule helthe and life euer­lasting, let him spedely beware of it.

Thirdly I might aske Caluin and all the ranke of sacramentaries swarming nowe so miserably in oure dere countre to the vtter destruction off the same, [Page 194] where they reade in holy scripture, that the soule o­nely fedeth on Christ, and receaueth the body off Christ. The wordes of holy scripture declaring vnto vs the promis of this heauenly foode, be directed vn­to men consisting of body and soule, not to the sou­le onely. Beside that life and resurrection (the promis of this blessed Sacrament) are no lesse requisit to the body▪ then to the soule, as we shall hereafter more at large declare, when we come to the olde heresies de­pending of Caluins doctrine. Where you shal see, that this doctrine of the Sacrrmentaries graunting only to the soule the eating of Christes his flesh, denieth the resurrection of the body.

As touching the seconde pointe, Real rece­auing can not stan­de vvith­out re­all presence. to witt, that we receaue the body of Christ truly and really, and yet so that the same body of Christ is as farre distant from vs, as heauen is from the earthe, I knowe not what can be more absurdely saide. Caluin in dede will ha­ue this to be a miraculous operation of the holy ghoste: For, saith he, the vertu of the holy ghost is such, In Matth. Cap. 26. that it is able not onely to gather together thinges by distaunce of pla­ce separated one from the other, but also to vnite them toge­ther and make them one. Marke and ponder well the sa­ing of Caluin: for this reason is the onely ancre off this point of his doctrine. He semeth perhaps to some that lightly ouerrunne his wordes, to speake reason. Let vs thē cōsidre his wordes. It is most true that the holy ghost being god him self, can do al thinges that can be done, and therefore can (as Caluin saith) knit­te in one those thinges that are farre distant: as, God [Page] can by his omnipotency ioyne heauē and earthe to­gether, which we see are most distant. but then they being so ioyned shall no more be distant. We graunte that by the vertu off the holy ghoste the body off Christ which is in heauen, may be the foode of oure soules. But then it shall not onely be in heauen, but here also (or els oure soules shall be there to, and then seing oure bodyes remaine here, I see not but who­soeuer communicateth after Caluins doctrine, he must dye, the soule being separated from the body) and we saie not onely he can do so, but the Catholi­ke churche teacheth vs, he doth so. Nowe Caluin bi­cause he will denie the real presence of Christ▪ in the Sacrament, imagineth that we eate the body of Chri­ste really withoute the reall presence. But this imagi­nation is a plaine contradictition. And contradiction is of those thinges that can not be done. A thing can not be present and distant to. A thing can not be hot­te and cold to in one very place and moment of time. And therefore all lerned men haue euer saide, that God worketh no contradiction. This then being a plaine contradiction to haue Christ present, and not present, to haue him in the Sacrament, and not in the Sacrament, we saye the holy ghoste dothe not worke it. Not bycause off any impossibilite off God, but bycause the thinge it selfe is impossible. And euen as we may wel say, God can not sinne, and yet derogat no whit from the omnipotency of God, so maye we saye, God can not worke a contradicti­on, God can not make a thinge present that is in [Page 195] dede absent and not present, and yet we diminishe not the omnipotency of allmightye God. For that consisteth in suche thinges as are semely for his diui­ne Maiesty and are of them selues possible. Nowe contradiction is of it selfe vtterly impossible. Againe the workes of God are permanent and vniforme, the one of them destroieth not the other. But in contra­dictions one parte destroyeth the other, as a thin­ge to be present, taketh awaye the absence thereoff. And likewise the absence destroieth the presence. To saie therefore, as all lerned men saye, that God can worke no contradiction, argueth not an impo­potency or lacke of abylite in God: But rather the doctrine of Caluin, making God the authour of contra­diction, argueth it.

Theodore Beza and his companions at the late Sy­nod off Poissy in Fraunce, praesenting vpp their con­fession touching this blessed Sacrament, thoughe they were all scholers of Caluin, yet they dyd not attribute this contradiction to the operation off the holy ghoste, but vnto faith. The wordes of the­ir Confession presented the laste daye of September vnto the councell are these. An. 1561 Bycause the worde off God, vpon the which oure fayth is stayed, warranteth vs the true and naturall body by the vertu of the holy Gho­ste, In this respect we acknowleadge that the body and bloud of oure Lorde Iesus Christ is in the Supper. By these wor­des (Encestesgard In this respect) we meane that we appre­hēd this great and excellent mystery by faith, which is of such vertu and efficacy, that it maketh thinges absent to be prae­sent. [Page] Hitherto the wordes of their confession. Whe­rein they attribute that to faithe, whiche Caluin the­ir Master attributeth to the operation of the holy ghoste. But be their faithe neuer so stronge and vehement, yet shall they neuer obtaine thereby that one selfe thinge shall be bothe present and not pre­sent. For this being a contradiction, is a thinge im­possible, and suche as God him selfe worketh not. Faith, Heb. 11. saieth S. Paule, est argumentum rerum non apparen­tium. Is a certainte off thinges which are not sene. By faith we are assured of suche thinges as seme not to be, but are in dede. But a thinge to be whiche is not, oure faithe can not assure vs. So by faith we beleue the present being off Christes body and bloud in the Sacrament, which appeareth not present vnto vs. No­we then if Caluin shooteth much amisse to attribut his fonde imagination to the miraculous working off God, howe muche were his scholers beside the marke, that seing Gods power failed, woulde flie to their faithe, and attribute suche operation to it, as God him selfe worketh not? And this doctrine be­ing so absurde, Caluin hath inuented bycause he woulde destroye Transubstantiation. That is to saye. Rather then with the Catholike churche he will graunte that Christ maye be in many places at ones, as in heauen, and in the blessed Sacrament to, whiche is no contradiction but a worke though aboue the commō course of nature, yet wel agreable to the om­nipotēcy of almighty God, and vniformely of al ho­ly fathers acknowledged, he inuenteth an imagina­tion [Page 196] of his owne, making God the authour off con­tradiction, saieng we eate Christ in the Sacrament, aud yet being as farre distant from vs, as heauen is from the earthe, whiche bothe is a thing that God neuer worketh, and such, as neuer man before the da­yes of Iohn Caluin, taught in Christ his churche. I ha­ue ben good readers some what long in debating this one point, bicause I wish euery mā to vnderstande me. As for the deceaued scholers of Caluin in oure dere countre, if they will not beleue the Catholike chur­che, touching the omnipotency of Christe to be in diuers places at ones, they are confuted by the greate worke of Brentius a Lutheran de vbiquitate sette forth this very yeare for the proufe of that onely pointe. though it be otherwise hereticall.

Caluin in his commentaries vpon S. Iohn saith in expresse wordes. In cap. 6. I confesse we eate Christ by no other meanes then by beleuing. And what beleuing he meaneth in his Catechisme he doth expresse. In beleuing that Christe is dead for our redemptiō, Dominica. 51. and hath risen for our iustifica­tiō our soule eateth the body of Christ spiritually. Finally he meaneth no other eating of Christ in the sacramēt thē by faith. For vpon the sixt of Ihon he affirmeth eating to be the worke of faith, and in his Institutions he calleth it the effect of faithe. Cap. 18. And this againe is a grea­te stay of al the Sacramentary doctrine to make men wene, that we ought to looke for no other eating of Christ his flesh, and drinking his bloud, in the blessed sacramēt, then by faith. For this their faith is so preci­ous a thing in the eye of Caluin, that he is not asha­med [Page] to write in his cōmētaries vpō S. Matthew these wordes. In cap. 26. If we could sufficiently be mindefull of the passiō of Christ, it were but superfluous, to haue the commō vse of Sa­craments, for they are remedies of oure infirmitie. This do­ctrine bicause it is a most perilous and most blasphe­mous doctrine, and yet, as I vnderstande to my greate grief, much rooted in the hartes of many of my dere deceaued countremen, I wil labour with such reasons as I may, to remoue it frō their hartes. For truly this proude confidence of faith planted by Luther, wa­tered by Caluin, and encreased by the pricking forthe of the deuill in his Ministres, excludeth all meanes to call for grace, all due preparation to the holy Sacra­ments, all endeuour of vertuous liuing.

First if by beleuing in Christ, That vve eate not the Body of Christ onely by Faithe we eate Christe, and eate no otherwise then by faithe, then is all excom­munication vaine. Bothe the Catholike church ha­the allwaies practised, and the protestants of our co­untre for the maintenaunce of their wicked doctrine do gredely practise, that for certain hainous crimes men are kepte from the holy table as they calle it, or embarred the receauing of the blessed Sacrament, as the Catholike churche termeth it. The doctrine off the Catholike church teaching vs, as the wordes of our Sauiour expresly importe, to eate not onely by faith, but in dede the fleshe of our Sauiour in the bles­sed Sacrament, worthely excludeth from that most holy mistery open penitents (as the primitiue church speaketh) that is, suche as hauing committed notori­ous crimes, either wickedly perseuere in the same, or [Page 197] though repenting thereof, haue not yet done due sa­tisfactiō therefore. But the doctrine of Caluin and al the Sacramentaries, excluding the reall presence off our Sauiour, and graūting this heauēly foode to faith only, what auaileth it thē to excōmunicat or remoue frō their table any notorious offender, keping yet not withstanding his faithe, and beleuing allwaies in the passiō of our Sauiour and resurrectiō also? if by faith onely he receaue Christ, then may he eate as well at home in his house, as if he were admitted in to the congregation. For though he be excommunicat, he loseth not yet his faithe, vnlesse perhaps, as they saie (according to the doctrine of their graundfather Lu­ther) that who hath faith, hath withall necessarely good workes (whereupon they builde their perilous doctrine of only faith) so contrary wise they will sa­ie that a notorious offender, a bearer of malice, a diso­bedient person, and so forthe, leseth with al his faith, by the lacke whereof he can not eate Christ vnlesse he be absolued: if they saie this, first I aske what if the person repent before the pretended bishop or Ordi­nary absolue him? In this case other he beleueth, and so eateth Christ though he stande yet excom­municat, as being not absolued, or he beleueth not, and so his faith dependeth vpon the external absolu­tion, which were to superstitious a doctrine for the newe ghospell. Againe though we graunted them this suttle shift, and suffred them so to pluck their heades oute of the coler, that their excommunicati­on were good, bicause their excommunicats haue [Page] loste their faith, and are become infidels (though tru­ly their excōmunicatiō be nothing els but the diuels curse) Ciprian. in serm. de lap is, & lib. 1. Epis. 2. August. in euch [...]rid. c. 65. yet by this their doctrine they condemne the primitiue church, embarring penitents such as lacked no faithe pardy (onles a man maie bewaile his sinnes and haue no faithe) some three, some seuen, some ten yeares, some euen to the houre off their death from the receauing of the blessed Sacrament. Nowe if they boldely condemne the primitiue church, what maie they not be bolde to do? yet they beare men in hande forsothe that they reduce all to the state off the primitiue church, and will be tried by the first six hundred yeares after Christ. Iuell. Well: this only pra­ctise in the primitiue Church excluding penitents from the blessed Sacrament directly destroieth ou­re Sacramenaries doctrine teaching vs to eate Christ no other wise (as Caluin saythe) then by bele­uing.

Againe the practise of the primitiue church was, Cirillus lib. 12. cap. 50. in Ioa. Basilius & Chrisosto­mus in li­turgijs. that the Cathechumeni that is, such as were not yet bapti­sed, and beleued not withstanding bothe in the pas­sion and in the resurrection of Christ, should not on­ly not be admitted to receaue the holy Sacramēt, but were not suffred to tary in the church at the oblation and distributiō thereof. For after the ghospel they we re all by the deacōs excluded. And to this daie at Ro­me where Turkes sometime resort, and Iewes alwaies cōtinewe, some infidels and some Catechumeni, at the solēne festes when most resort of people is, at the hi­gh masse after the ghospel a staie is made and a serch, [Page 198] whether any Catechumeni other of the Iewes or of the grekes be present. Notwithstanding these Catechumeni beleued in Christ, some off them no lesse then the Christiās. Nicephor. lib. 11. cap. 32. S Ambrose was a Catechumin and a beleuer in Christ though not baptised, euē when he was ele­cted bishop of Millain. S. Augustin being yet a Cate­chumin wrote diuers litle bookes, Vide Re­ [...]ract. lib. 1. wherein he de­clared him selfe not only a true beleuer in Christ, but an excellent diuin, as it appereth especially by his Soliloquia, which he made in that time. Nowe if Caluin had liued in those daies, and sene S. Ambrose and S. Augustin not yet baptised, notwithstanding the faith and lerning they had, to be thrust out of the churches after the ghospel, and not to haue bē suffred so much as to be present at the sacring time, and the residew of the Masse, he woulde of al likelihood, comforted thē with the faith of his ghospell, and whistred them in the eare, that they receaued and did eate the fleshe off Christ no lesse thē the other that receaued at the aul­tar, seing they beleued no lesse then the other. He might also haue checked S. Ambrose for keping the Nicephor. lib. 12. cap. 41. Emperour Theodosius so longe out of the church for the greate murdre he had caused to be done at Thessaelonica. For the Emperour notwithstanding remained in his faith, as it well appeareth by the gre­ate lamentations he made at home in his house, when he sente Ruffinus one of his Nobles to S. Am­brose to be admitted in to the churche. And in very dede Caluin by this his doctrine not onely comptrol­leth S. Ambrose and S. Augustin, but condemneth [Page] all the primitiue church excluding the Catechumeni from receauing the blessed Sacrament, if, as he saie, faith only geueth them this foode. I beseche here all good Christen men, and such as feare God and loue their owne soules, diligently to aduise with them sel­ues, howe they folowe the Sacramentary doctrine of our preachers of Geneua, lest that in folowing them they departe from the Catholike church, bothe that nowe is, and euer hath ben, which in their Crede they professe to beleue.

Thirdly if when our Sauiour saied to his disciples, Take, eate, this is my body, by the worde eating he badde vs beleue, what did he bidde vs in the worde taking? do we take by faith as we eate by faith? why then call they men so earnestly to their table? maye I not as wel eate and take by faith at home, as at their table? doth not my faith serue me as well in the house, as in the church? they are wonte to saie, we maie as well praie at home, as in the church, and why maie we not also as well beleue at home, as in the church? Then if bothe taking and eating the body of Christ, be but a matter of faith, what nede they storme and trouble such as will not receaue at Easter or other times? maie not good men tel them, that by their owne doctrine they receaue at home beleuing in the passion and resurre­ction of Christ? Againe when Christ bad the Apost­les take, and eate his body, did they looke vpon him beleuing him, and receaued nothing outewardely? yes they will saie they receaued the bread. what? was the bread the body of Christe? the Lutherans indede [Page 199] would be glad to heare that. For so should Cal­uin, be a Lutheran, and agree with Westphalus which while he liued, he would not do for his life. What wil here the Sacramentary saye? What shift hath he yet? He will perhaps saye, that Christ bad thē take bread, and eate his body. This were in dede to make Christ a very sophister: to witt, that bidding the Apostles ta­ke and eate both together, saying withall it was his body, he should meane they should take bread, and e­ate his body. Brefely this I cōclude. Yf Christ in the­se wordes, Take, eate, this is my body meaned this, Take and eate this bread, which is my body, then Caluin a­greeth with Westphalus, and is become a Lutheran, a­gainst his will. If he meaned this, take bread, and eate my body, then was it a sophisticatiō. For it is a point of sophistry to ioyne two termes together, taking o­ne properly and the other improperly. As here by this laste meaning, Christ bidding them take, ment pro­perly they should take in dede and bidding them eate, mēt vnproperly, that is, they should not eate in dede, but beleue. For as al the worlde knoweth, beleuing is a very vnproper signification of eating: and suche as neuer was heard of before the daies of Iohn Caluin, being ment of sacramentall eating.

But will you see, that by the doctrine of Caluin. By the doctrine of Caluin the Apo­stles did not rece­iue Chri­ste in the last Sup­per. the Apostles did not eate Christ at all in the last sup­per? I meane by faithe. For Caluin as you haue heard by his wordes in his Catechisme, meaneth such faith as beleueth that Christ died for our redemption, and hath risen for our iustification. Nowe what faith the [Page] Apostles had when Christ made is maunde, touchinge his death, I will not nowe dispute. Althoughe it may seme they doubted much thereof, Luc. 22 whē they wō ­dered so muche at his wordes signifiēg his deathe, as that Iudas should betraie him: as also S. Peter after de­nieng him. But as touching the resurrection, the scri­pture telleth vs plain, that diuers of the Apostles at that time beleued it not. For first S. Ihon in his ghos­pell writeth of him selfe, Cap. 20. that after he looked in to the graue and sawe nothing but the winding shete lefte, Vidit & credidit, he sawe and he beleued. And straight after he writeth of S. Peter and him selfe. Nondū enim sciebant scripturā, &c. for they knewe not yet the scripture that he should rise frō deathe. S. Thomas also an other of the Apostles woulde not beleue that Ghrist had ri­sen, vntell he put his finger in to his woundes. And therefore our Sauiour saide after vnto him, Quia vi­disti me Thoma, credidisti. Thomas thou haste beleued bi­cause thou haste sene me. Lo then S. Peter, S. Ihon, and S. Thomas beleued not in the resurrectiō of Christ whē they receaued the blessed Sacramēt in the laste Sup­per. therefore if Caluins doctrine be true, the Apostles did not eate Christ at all in the laste Supper. See what godly doctrine ensueth of this ghospel of Geneua.

But here perhaps some scoler of Caluin will obiect: what Sir? Will you then conclude that bicause in the laste Supper the Apostles without such especiall faith receaued the body of Christ, therefore nowe any man may receaue it without that faith? Truly suche maner of reasoning of it selfe were naught. But yet [Page 200] inioyning with Caluin it were not amisse. For he v­seth the like against the doctrine of the Catholike church. In his Institutions, disputing against the re­all presence of Christ in the Sacrament, Cap. 18. and awn­swering to those which for possibilite of being in di­uers places at ones, alleage that the body of Christ is glorious and immortall and not subiect to place and measure, as oure corruptible bodies are, he writeth thus. Some againe, saieth he, seke a more suttle escape, to wit, that the body of Christ geuē in the Sacramēt is glorious and immortall, and therefore that it is not absurde he be in diuers places, or in no certain place, or in any certain forme vnder the Sacrament. But I aske them. VVhat body gaue our Lorde to his disciples the daie before he suffred? Do not the wordes sounde that he gaue his mortall body and the sa­me which shoulde forthwith be deliuered? Thus farre Caluin. If then this maner of reasoning be currant and allowablein Caluin, Christ before he suffred, gaue his mortall body to be eaten, ergo he geueth not nowe any other in the Sacrament, why then maye not we also reason a­gainst him, The Apostles before Christ suffred, beleued not in the resurrection, and yet notwithstanding receaued the body of Christ in the Sacrament, ergo it is not nowe requisit and necessary for the eating of Christ his body to beleue in his resurrection. If this maner of reasoning be naught and vicious, then you lerne that Caluin in reasoning against the churche speaketh not allwaies the ghos­pell, but vttereth sometimes his ignoraunce. And if this maner of reasoning be good, then Caluin mis­seth much of the marke in his doctrine, where he [Page] teacheth that to eate Christ, is to beleue in his pas­sion and resurrection. Againe we do not reason in this sorte. The Apostles at the Maunde beleued not in the resurrection, ergo such faith is not nowe necessary: as Cal­uin reasoneth. The body of Christ was then mortal: ergo it is not to be considered here as a glorious body or immortall. But this is our reason. The Apostles in the laste supper be­leued not in the resurrection: ergo Calvin defining the eating of Christ in the Sacramēt to be a beleuing in the deathe and resurrection of Christ, excludeth the Apostles from eating of Christes body in the last Supper. This is lo the effect of our reasō. Nowe if we would infer beside that bicau­se the Apostles did not then beleue, such belefe now is not necessary, I graūte the argumēt were naught. and yet were it such as Caluin vseth against vs, as you haue heard. I haue troubled you here somewhat longe. But this you haue gained: that not only the presēt point of his doctrine, whereof we now purposely do entreate, is proued to be absurde and detestable, as the which excludeth the Apostles from the true re­ceauing of Christ in the laste Supper, but also we ha­ue farder declared you an other false point of his ma­ner of reasoning against the Catholike doctrine in this moste blessed Sacrament.

The fifte absurdite against this pointe of his doctrine maie be this. If the eating of Christ his body be (as Caluin saith vpon S. Ihon) the worke of faithe, In Cap. 6. or (as he writeth in his Institutions) Cap. 18. the effect of faithe, that is, if by beleuing in Christ, we eate and receaue Crist in to vs, 1. Cor. 14 then to what purpose did S. Paule bid men [Page 201] proue them selues first, and so to eate Christ? For he that proueth, trieth, and examineth him selfe, first he beleueth. Hebr. 11. For without faith there is no triall of our hartes, and he that cometh to god (saieth the Apostle) must first beleue. then if he beleue before he proue him selfe, he eateth by Caluins saieng, the body of Christ, before he be proued. How standeth this with S. Paul bidding vs first to proue and so to eate? Surely S. Pau­le mēt that the eating of Christ was not by faith on­ly, which we muste nedes haue before we can proue and trie our owne worthines or vnworthines, but by receauing really after due probation and trial the ve­ry true and naturall body of our Sauiour Iesus Christ.

Last of all, if the eating of life whiche Christ pro­miseth in the Sacrament, is the effect of faith, the ea­ting of iudgement and deathe is the effect of infi­delite. That is, if by faith we duely receaue the blessed Sacramēt, through infidelite and lacke of faith we re­ceaue our owne damnation. By this reason the Tur­ke shall through his infidelite eate iudgment and dā ­nation, though he neuer eate the Sacrament, nor the bread which S. Paule spake of. This doctrine therefo­re of Caluin maie haue good rime, but surely it hathe small reason, it may sounde well in the eares of ig­norant persons, that we eate Christ no otherwise then by beleuing in him: but it standeth with no re­ason at all, as you haue I trust sufficiently heard: and yet when we come to the contradictions of Caluin you shal here more, and see Caluin confute him selfe. I will note onely more most notable absurdite in [Page] [...] [Page 201] [...] [Page] this their doctrine, whereby you shall perceaue to what point they bring this holy Sacrament, and so come to the contradictions of Caluin, as we promi­sed.

Caluin teacheth in his Catechisme, that we receaue the communion of Christ his body as well in baptim, and by hearing the ghospell, as at the Lordes supper. But that in Baptim and by the ghospell we receaue him but in parte, in the Supper we receaue him wholy and fully. And in his re­solution of the Sacraments he teacheth that we receaue Christ in the Supper, euen as we had him before continually dwelling in vs. Art. 19. For, saieth he, Faithe being required of vs before we come to the Sacrament, we haue Christ also before: for oure faith is not without Christ: And euen as the vse of the Sacraments profiteth no more the vnbe­leuers, then if they vsed them not at all, so the beleuers commu­nicat and haue the verite figured by the Sacraments (which is Christ) Art. 20. euen without the vse of the Sacraments. Farder the profit which we receaue at the Sacramēts, ought not to be restrained to the very time we receaue thē, as though the sig­ne being geuen vs, we receaued withal incontinently the gra­ce of God. It maie well happen that the receit of the Sacra­ment that in the acte profited nothing through our defaute or slacknes, maie afterwarde bring forth better frute. He­therto Caluin. In these wordes Caluin concludeth his doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament. Let vs nowe examin it.

What meaneth Caluin so to debace the excel­lent vertu of this blessed Sacrament, as to compare it to baptim or hearing of the ghospell? forsothe to [Page 202] persuade men that it were nought els, but a morcell of bread, a mere figure, badge or token. For see I praie you, what his opiniō and doctrine is touchīg baptim.

Baptim, saithe he in his institutions, Cap. 17. is a sig­ne of the entring whereby we are receaued in to the fe­lowship of the Church, that being grafte in Christ we maie be accompted amonge the Children of God. Here he meaneth baptim not to make vs entre in to Christ as a Sacrament hauing efficacy thereunto, The opi­nion of Caluin touching baptim refuted but to be a signe of that entring: to the entent that being first grafte in Christ (or being borne of Christen parents by the vertu of Gods promise, or being borne of infidels, by faith and repentaunce, as he teacheth manifestly in his institutions) being (as I saie) thus grafte in Christ before, then by baptim as by a sure token we maie be accompted for Christians, not ma­de such. And this to be his very meaning I will by his owne wordes declare you oute of his Institutions. In his chapter of baptim not farre from the begin­ning, thus he writeth. Baptim promiseth vs no other cleā ­sing then by the sprinckling of the bloud of Christe, whiche is figured by the water: who then will saie that we are clean­sed with this water, which dothe assuredly testifie that oure true and onely cleansing is the bloud of Christe? Lo here he teacheth baptim to figure oure cleansing procured by the sheading of Christ his bloud, whiche he cal­leth oure true and onely cleansing.

It is most true that by the precious deathe and passion of oure Sauiour we are purged from the sin­ne of our father Adam, and all other actuall sinnes. [Page] And yet it hath pleased God to vse meanes for the appliēg of this souuerain benefit vnto vs. Those are amonge other, his holy sacraments. And Caluin him selfe writing vpon S. Paule to the Corinthians, saith plainely that by the blessed Sacrament of the aultar Sacrificij beneficium nobis applicatur, In. 1. Cor. Cap. 11. The benefit of the sa­crifice is applied vnto vs. And writing vppon the sixte of Ihon, he blameth them which teache the fleshe of Christ to profit vs onely as it was crucified, and sai­eth: Quin potius comedere eam necesse est vt crucifixa pro­fit. that is. Na rather we must of necessite eate it, to the en­tent it maye profit vs, which was crucified. And againe in in the same place he saieth. Nihil nobis prodesset victi­mā illam semel esse immolatā, nisi nūc sacro epulo vesceremur that is. It shoulde nothing auaile vs to haue that sacrifice ones offred, onles we did nowe also eate of this holy bāquet. Caluin him selfe therefore acknowledgeth that not only the passion of Christ suffiseth, but that also this Sacrament of Christ his body and bloud must feede vs. Ioan. 6. The like truly we saie of baptim. For as our Saui­our saied. Onles you eate my fleshe and drinke my bloud, you shall haue no life in you, Ioan. 3. so he saide, Onles a man be borne againe of water, and of the holy ghoste, he shall not enter in to the kingdome of heauen. And though Caluin call here the bloud of Christe oure onely clensing, yet S. Paule is not afeared to call baptim also, Lauacrum re­generationis, the cleansing of our new birthe. saieng we we­re saued thereby. Tit. 3. Againe Caluin him self writing vp­pon S. Paule to the Romans teacheth no lesse. In cōment. in Cap. 6. For there he saith that by baptim we are graffed in to the bo­dy [Page 203] of Christe, and liue by the substance thereof, euen as the graffe by the stocke: sauing that the graffe kepeth his natu­rall taste and sape, but we kepe nothinge offour owne, but chaunge vtterly our nature in to the nature of Christ. A contra­diction of Caluin aboute baptim. Howe then is baptim as he made it before, a figure of our clensing, and a testimony onely? Yow see he cōdemneth him selfe. And this I haue thought good presently to declare (allbeit beside oure princi­pall purpose) leste that the other doctrine of Caluin being apparently plausible, might corrupt the vnler­ned, and well meaning Reader. But now to the mat­ter againe.

In the same chapter of baptim, Caluin mocketh at the whole Catholike churche (as Pelagius the he­retike did a thousand yeares paste) teaching that ori­ginall sinne is taken awaye by baptim. Cap. de Cae­na Domini. Brefely in the next chapter folowing of his Institutions at the en­de thereof, he maketh so light of baptim in the chil­dren of Christen parents, that if contempt and neg­ligence be not on our partes, oure children, saieth he, without daunger may lacke baptim.

Thus lo you see howe Caluin maketh baptim but a figure, Caluin maketh the blessed Sacramēts only bare signes, to­kens, and badges. and token or testimony of clensing: and e­uen so much maketh he the blessed Sacrament off the aultar, comparing it vnto baptim, to witt, a figu­re, a signe, a testimony which a man may as well lac­ke as haue, and withoute the which a man maye as well receaue Christ as with it: imagining that these two most waighty and holy Sacramēts (for of al the rest he maketh no accompte at all) are naught els but [Page] as certain markes and tokens, whereby Christ may knowe his flocke lest perhaps in seking for them he should misse. See to what point oure Christen religi­on is brought by these newe ghospellers of late yeares. Forsothe to mere signes, tokens and figu­res.

As though we were yet vnder the shadowes off Moyses lawe, Argumēts to the cō ­trary. as though that which happened to thē in figures were not brought nowe to a sure verite, as though the coming of Christ procured not better, and more present remedies for mans saluation, then such as were betokened in the tabernacle, finally as though the church of Christ, redemed with his most precious bloud were fedde with figures, and traded▪ with signes and tokens, as the synagoges of the Ie­wes was. Would Christ thinke we; threaten vs dam­nation for lacke of signes, as he dothe for wante off baptim, Ioan. 2 saieng vnto Nicodemus, Onles a man be borne again of water and the holy ghoste, he shall not enter in to the kingdom of heauen? Would he denie vs the life of re­surrection for lacke of tokens, Ioan. 6. as he doth for not re­ceauing his precious body and bloud saieng vnto the Iewes, Onles you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, you shal haue no life in you? Would S. Paule pronounce dā ­nation vpō vs for the vnworthy receauing of a piece of bread, 1. Cor. 11. as he doth for the vnworthy receauing of Christ his body? Was S. Peter deceaued, when he wrote that by baptim we were saued, as Noe was by wa­ter, 1. Pet. 3. or S. Paul writing that Christ cleāsed his church with the washing of water in the word of life? or the who­le [Page 204] church in S. Augustins time condemning Pelagius for an heretike, August. ad Quoduult­deum haer. 88. for that he denied (as Caluin dothe nowe) that by Baptim originall sinne was taken a­waie?

We recited you before, in this laste conclusion of Caluins whole doctrine touching this blessed Sacra­ment, oute of his resolutions vpon the sacraments, that we receiue Christ no lesse withoute the vse off the Cōmuniō, thē in vsing it. You haue heard there his reasons why. Truly he vttereth this doctrine off his, not in one or two, but allmost in all places of his workes, where he treateth of this matter. In his cō ­mentaries vpon the sixte of Ihon, where Christ pro­miseth life and resurrection to those whiche eate his fleshe and drinke his bloud, Caluin saithe. Nō de Coe­na habetur cōcio sed de perpetua communicatione quae extra Caenae vsum nobis constat. that is. Christ preacheth not of the Supper, but of that continuall communion which we surely haue withoute the frequentation of the Supper. And this continuall communion withoute the frequentatiō, vse, or accesse of the Supper, he meaneth to be the very same which we haue in the Supper, as his wor­des folowing declare, where he saithe. Simul tamē fa­teor nihil hic dici quod non in Coena figuretur ac vere prae­stetur fidelibus. that is. Yet I confesse withall that nothing is here spoken which is not figured and truly exhibited to the beleuers in the Supper. Then the doctrine of Caluin is clere and euident in this point, that we receaue Christe no lesse and haue him no lesse dwelling in vs cō ­tinually, though we come not to the communiō or [Page] Sacrament, then if we come and resorte thither.

What nede I spēde wordes, It booteth not to co­me to the cōmuniō by the Doctrine of Caluin time and paper in refel­ling this moste absurde doctrine? if this be so, why scorne they of Caluins secte against suche as liste not come to their table? Maye not good men tell thē that by the doctrine of Caluin they cōmunicat and receaue Christ allwaies by faithe in their hartes, no lesse then at their table or cōmunion? and that they take nothing there, but suche as they had before they came thither? Caluin teacheth this most dire­ctly as you haue heard, and as they maye more see, whiche liste to reade his litle treatise entitul [...]d. A re­solution vpon the Sacraments in the fourtenth and nin­teth articles.

I will here aske one question of the Caluinistes and scholers of Geneua in our countre. A questi­on to the Geneui­ans of Englande If, as Caluin saithe vpon the sixte of Ihon, we haue a perpetuall communion of Christ no lesse withoute celebra­ting the Supper of the Lorde, then in celebrating it, what nede Christen mē celebrat that Supper? They will perhaps awnswer, that in the Supper we receaue Christ Sacramētally not only Spiritually as without the Supper we do. If this be the only differēce touc­hing our part, and the frute that we receaue thereat, thē the differēce onely is this: that at the communiō we receaue a piece of bread, more then they whiche stande by and looke on. Spiritually, saithe Caluin, al true beleuers receaue Christ and eate his body befo­re they come to the Sacraments, In resolut. art. 20. for els saithe he, we should tye Christ to his sacraments. Sacramentally [Page 205] we receaue Christ by Caluins doctrine, vvhat the communion of En­gland is. when we re­ceaue the signes, to witt bread and wine. Lo what the cōmunion of oure countre is▪ a piece of bread and nought els.

They will perhaps saie, we celebrat in the Sup­per the remembraunce of Christ his passion. I awn­swer. So do they whiche stande by no lesse then those whiche receaue. Againe is eating your bread and drinking your wine, a remembraunce of Christ his deathe and passion? A likely matter truly. You are wonte to crie on scripture, and allow no doctri­ne withoute it. Tell vs then from the beginning off the Genesins, vto the ende of S. Ihons Reuelation, where the remembraunce of Christ his passion is taught to be celebrated by eating a piece of bread at a table in the churche, and drinking a drawthe off wine at the hande of a Minister, vpon whom no handes haue ben layed by the order of priesthood as by S. Paule we lerne to be necessary. 1. Timo. 4. Showe this and them your communion shall be somewhat mo­re then a piece of bread, and a cuppe of wine. Nowe is it nothinge elles. And this verely is the cause of so many drie communions in oure countre: this is the reason why in Germany as Friderikus Staphylus re­cordeth, Aboue i [...] the leafe. 105. some of the Sacramentaries come not ones in ten yeres to the communion, some neuer at all.

As touching the hearing of the ghospell, if, as Cal­uin in his wordes aboue recited, and in his resoluti­ons teacheth, Vide art. 5. &, 6. we receaue Christ and are made partak­ners of all his benefits no lesse then by the commu­nion, [Page] then is it ynoughe to heare the sermon, and no nede at all to tary oute the communion: then was the primitiue churche mu [...]he deceaued suffring the Cate­chumins and open penitents to heare sermons, exclu­ding them afterwarde from the communion. De incomprehensi­bisi dei natura con­tra Ano­maeos ho­mil. 3. S. Chri­sostom in his homelies complaineth that in the pulpit he had as greate audience, as was possible: but at the aultar he was lefte alone. Truly by Caluins doctrine he was a foole so to complaine: for the people had re­ceaued Christ all ready at the sermon. What neded they then to tary oute the communion? Againe what scripture haue these men that at Sermon we receaue Christ no lesse then at the communion? truly if men see not these absurdites, they wil see nothing. By the sermon we are instructed, not clensed as by baptim, we lerne Christ, we do not communicat Christes body, as in the blessed Sacrament. But these men, as lon­ge as they may saye and teache what they liste vn­comptrolled, what may we thinke they will at length do? truly they wil haue nor communion nor baptim, nor churche nor minister, but a faire pulpit in the fi­elde, where euery man as the Spirit moueth him, ma­ie teache what he liste, and the other beleue as they liste. It is all ready in some countres brought to this point. And there is no cause but we maie feare the like: vnlesse spedy policy refraine their vnruly li­berty.

You haue good Readers the effect of Caluins do­ctrine touching the blessed Sacrament, with certain of the absurdites depending thereof. We come nowe [Page 206] to his cōtradictions aboute the same matter, whiche when you shall see to be in him diuers and most ma­nifest, recorde with your selues, that as in cōmō plea where the witnesses are taken in contrary tales, the euidence must nedes be naught, so in the controuer­sy of this most highe mistery, Caluin being the en­diter against the olde possession of oure belefe herein, and chefe pleader, if you maie take him in cōtrary ta­les, you maie not doubte, but the euidēce of his doctrine must nedes be starke staring naught. Beside, his cō ­tradictiō shall serue vs, as a most strōge weapō to oue­rthrow his doctrine layde in against vs: for thus he him self shal cut is owne throte, condemne and con­fute his owne sayengs. I will first drawe you out the effect off his doctrine against the reall presence off Christ in the Sacrament, and show you how he accō ­breth him selfe, how he turneth and windeth seking by some probabilite to cōfounde the doctrine of the catholike churche, and yet after many wordes con­foundeth him selfe, by his owne contradiction. Mar­ke therefore his wordes we bring you nowe, and ho­we the other that we shall bringe you after do agree.

In his institutions treating of this Sacrament, Cap. 1 [...]. see howe he dothe cōtrary him selfe. First he saith: We cā not be mēbres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and fleshe of his fleshe, which all S. Paul affirmeth we are, vnlesse whole Christ bothe in Spirit and in body cleaue vnto vs. Eph. 1. & 4. 1. Cor. 6. and oure Lord, saieth Caluin, doth testifie, offer and geue in the holy supper to all that receaue that spirituall banquet suche a communion of his body and of his bloud. And after [Page] he concludeth thus. I saie therefore that in the mistery of the Supper, by the signes of bread and wine Christ is geuen vnto vs truly, yea his body and bloud, to the entēt that first we maie be made one body with him, then being made par­takeners of his substaunce, we maie also receaue the vertu thereof, Coalescamus in v­num cor­pus. for the enioieng of all his benefits. All this he saieth against thē, which acknowledging a certain commu­niō with Christ in this Sacramēt, make vs onely par­takners of the Spirit of Christe, as in his wordes so­mewhat before he expresseth. Woulde a man desire a­ny more Catholike doctrine then this is? truly it se­meth no. But you shall see within fewe lines he mar­reth all that he made before. For when he cometh to declare after what maner we receaue the body and bloud of Christ (for by euidence of scripture he was forced to confesse that we receaue it) thē lo he stret­cheth him selfe, and calleth his wittes aboute him, how he may defeat the real presēce of Christes body and bloud. In 1. Cor. 11. He graunteth we do truly, and (as he writeth vpon S. Paule) really receaue the body and bloud of Christe. But he will not haue it as the church tea­cheth, really present. Howe then shall we really recea­ue Christ? We nede not saieth Caluin, imagin any pre­sence of place to receaue Christ by. Howe then? This benefit (saith he) Christ geueth vs by his Spirit. By▪ the Spirit of Christ we are coupled and ioyned to Christ. and the Spirit of Christ is as a certaine cundite pipe, by the whiche whatso­euer Christ is, and hathe, is deriued vnto vs. for if we see the Son shining on the earthe with his beames, for the engendring and quickening of thinges, geue as thoughe it were, his sub­staunce [Page 207] vnto the earthe, why should the Spirit of Christ be inferiour or of lesse force then the shining downe the son for conuaying vnto vs the communion of Christ his fleshe and bloud? Wherefore scripture speaking of our partaking with Christe referreth the whole power thereof vnto the spi­rit. One place shal suffise for all. For S. Paule writing to the Romanes in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth no otherwise in vs then by his Spirit. Whereby yet he taketh not a waie the communiō of fleshe and bloud that we nowe speake of, but teacheth vs that by the onely spirit we posses­se whole Christ and haue him dwelling in vs. Accord­ing to the latin edi­tion prin­ted, in the ieare. 1545 These lo he­therto are the wordes of Caluin, euen as they lie in his Institutiōs, the 18. chapper. The effect of his who­le tale is this. That by the Spirit of Christ onely we recea­ue the body and bloud of Christ. The first contradi­ction. And is not this cleane repugnant to that he saide before blaming them whiche taught that in this Sacrament we were partakners of Christ in Spirit onely? For howe receaue we the body and bloud of Christe by the Spirit of Christ onely, but spiritually only? The fleshe and bloud of Christ are no spirituall thinges: Valentinus and Marcion were condemned for suche doctrine. Howe then receaue we thinges of a corporall substaunce, not mere spiri­tuall, onely by the Spirit? This is a mere imagination of Caluin, as we haue before declared you. No scrip­ture termeth the Spirit of Christ a cundite pipe. No scripture telleth vs, that the Spirit of Christ cōuaieth vs his fleshe and bloude. It is beside scripture and a­gainst all reason: and therefore not to be admitted by the only warrant of Caluins mouthe. We must not [Page] leaue the doctrine of the churche (though it had no reason to defend it) for the bare assertion of Caluin, being against all reason. For this is against all reason that we should really eate the body, and drinke the bloud of Christ, being not really present, though Caluin to sett a gaie colour on the matter, attribu­teth this straunge meanes and order to the operation of the Spirit of Christ God him selfe. For (as we ha­ue before proued) god him selfe worketh no contra­diction: as it is to receaue that which is not present to be receaued. Therefore notwithstanding all the shiftes that Caluin maketh, it is no real communion of Christ his body and bloud that he teacheth, as he would it should seme to be, but a mere spirituall, which before he blamed.

As touching the Son, if Caluin speake like a philo­sopher it is no body mixte, and made of the elemēts, as the natural flesh and bloud of Christ is, but a pure simple and celestial body: and so we graunte the sub­staūce thereof is deriued to the earth by the shining thereof. For that substaunce is a lightsom and shining substaunce, and differeth no whit from the light and clerenes thereof. Now Christ toke very fleshe in all conditiōs like to our flesh, except the corruptiō that sinne bringeth. This fleshe of Christ is so endued with diuinite, that it loseth not his natural substaūce. Therefore the substaūce of the Sō and the substaūce of Christ his body, are thinges farre differēt. Againe if the substaūce of the son quickeneth the earth, that substaūce is really present with the earthe. By this re­ason [Page 208] therefore Christ also should be really present with vs feding vs with his substaunce. Which we do confesse, but Caluin denieth. How thē dothe that si­militude make for him? Truly nothing.

Farder▪ The Son by the meanes of his shining, saieth Caluin, geueth his substaunce to the earthe, and so Christ by the meanes of his Spirit geueth vs the communion of his flesh and bloud. Marke that Caluin saieth the communion of the fleshe, not the fleshe it selfe to be deriued vnto vs. For by the communion of the fleshe of Christ, he meaneth (as vpon S. Paule h [...] writeth) Vim ex Christi carne viuificā, In 1. Cor. Cap. 11. a certain quickening power oute of Christ his fleshe. Nowe this quickening power of Christ his flesh, is not the fleshe of Christ it selfe, VVhich (by Caluins doctrine in his institutions) of it felfe is not quickening or geuing life. Cap. 18. But it is the Spirit onely of Christ which geueth life and quickeneth, The se­cond contradiction saieth he. Lo then againe you see notwithstanding all his faire wordes before, his doctrine is nowe, that we ha­ue but a spirituall foode onely in this sacrament con­uayed vnto vs by the Spirit, as the son by his shinin­ge conuaieth his substaunce vnto the earthe. Is not this ones againe a plaine contradiction to that whi­che he wrote before, blaming those that make vs partakners of Christ in Spirit onely? is not his doctrine the very same? is not the communion that he ima­gineth to be conuaied vnto vs a spirituall thing? do­the he not call it a certain quickening vertu oute off Christ his fleshe? this quickening vertu, is it not by the doctrine of Caluin a mere spirituall thinge, seing [Page] that he teacheth blasphemousely with the olde here­tike Nestorius that the flesh of Christ (notwithstan­ding it is Propria Verbi, one person with the Son of God) is not of it selfe quickening. I trust you see no­we euidently, that though Caluin write we receaue truly and really the flesh and bloud off Christ, yet he meaneth nothing so.

But why did he thus dally, and delude the world, The can­se of con­tradicti­ons in Caluin. a man maye demaunde. Forsothe as I suppose euen for this cause. Caluin being lerned, and knowing the truthe wel, if he had listed to vtter it, perceaued right wel by the expresse wordes of scripture in sundry pla­ces that Christ of his passing mercy and goodnes woulde be ioyned to man not onely Spiritually, and by grace, but euē really and truly by the participation of his body and bloud. Caluin knewe all this, and acknowledged it: (as you haue heard in his wordes before) for expresse scripture moued him thereunto. Notwithstanding being vndoubtedly malitious, and selfe willed, and in dede a very heretike, desirous to plāte a newe doctrine, to bringe the churche in cōtēpt pricked with malice against the clergy, which in his workes he vttereth many times) though he graunted that man receaued whole Christ bothe in body and Spirit, as he writeth in the 18. chapter of his Institu­tions, yet he would not graunt the reall presence off Christ his body, which the church teacheth and all holy fathers haue acknowledged, as a most necessa­ry consequent to the reall receauing: but as you see imagineth a communion of Christ his fleshe to be [Page 209] deriued vnto vs by the Spirit off Christ as by a pipe. Bicause therefore truthe and falshood can not possi­bly agree, he falleth often in to open contradictions: sayeng one thinge as truthe and conscience taught him, and then saieng an other thinge, as pride, malice▪ and enuy moued him, the walking mates of heresy. Hereof rise the sundry and manifold contradictions in his writings, not onely aboute this most holy mi­stery, but in the doctrine off baptim, and of fre will especially, as we shall in parte note hereafter vnto you. 2, Reg. 15. And truly it hath so pleased God to confounde the counsell of these Achitophels rebelling againste their Liege Souerain the churche of God, that not onely one against the other teacheth most contra­ry, but also eche one with him selfe disagreeth. And this mercifull prouidēce of God hathe ben allwayes a souerain meanes for the vtter cōfusiō of heretikes.

Let vs returne to the wordes of Caluin aboue al­leaged and see why Caluin graunting first a reall and true receauing of Christ his body and bloud, after­warde denieth the reall presence thereof, whiche is to denie that he saied before. He saieth, that Scripture speaking of oure partaking with Christ, referreth the who­le power thereof vnto the Spirit. for S. Paule (saieth he) writing to the Romanes in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit. Caluin belieth holy Scrip­ture. Mar­ke here well good Readers, and see the truthe off Caluin. S. Paule saieth in that eight chapter, that the Spirit of god dwelleth in vs, and againe that the Spirit of him that raised vp Iesus from deathe dwelleth in vs, and [Page] that he whiche raised vp Christ from deathe shall quicken oure mortall bodies bicause of his Spirit that dwelleth in vs. In all these wordes S. Paule teacheth the Spirit off god, god him selfe to dwell in vs, to quicken oure mortall bodies, that they die no more in sinne, but liue to god. Other thē this S. Paule in all that chap­ter speaketh not, touching the dwelling of the Spi­rit of god in vs. Reade the chapter and see. Nowe is this to saie, that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit? Marke the saieng of S. Paule, and the consequence of Caluin. S. Paule saieth, the Spirit off god dwelleth in vs. and Caluin saieth Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit. is this a good conse­quence? The spirit of god dwelleth in vs. Ergo he dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit? Euē as good, as this. VVe are iustified by faith, ergo by only faith. These wordes ( no otherwise then) are the wor­des of Caluin fathered vpon. S. Paule, not the wor­des of S. Paule, they are the limitation of a prowde heretike set vpon holy scripture, not the wordes off holy scripture. He folowed herein his father Luther, who translating the wordes of S. Paule per legem cog­nitio peccati, Rom. 3. By the lawe cometh the knowledge of sinne, turneth it thus, By the lawe cometh naught els but know­ledge of sinne. In the lea [...]e. 67. b which texte to what purpose he so per­uerted, you haue sene in the seconde parte of this A­pologye.

But what, will some scholer of Caluin saie? though S. Paule saie not expressly so, yet perhaps he meane so, seing that no scripture beside expresseth [Page 210] any other dwelling of Christ in vs thē by his Spirit, I awnswer. All were it true that scripture expressed no other dwelling of Christ in vs, then by his Spi­rit, yet were it not true that S. Paule saied so in that chapter, as Caluin saieth he doeth. But the Scrip­ture saieth plaine that we are ioyned to Christe, not onely in Spirit, but also in body: heard you not be­fore that S. Paule sayed, Ephes. 14. 1. Cor. 6. that we are membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and fleshe of his fleshe? And dothe not Caluin saie, The thir­de contradiction. that this can not be perfourmed onles whole Christ bothe in Spirit and in body cleaue vnto vs? they are his wor­des before alleaged oute of his Institutions in the. 18 chapter. And dothe not Caluin here ones againe write a plaine contradiction? he tolde vs euen nowe that Christ dwelleth in vs no otherwise then by his Spirit, and that S. Paule taught so. Nowe he tel­leth vs that whole Christ must cleaue vnto vs bo­the in Spirit and body, and that bicause S. Paule te­acheth so: sayeng that we are membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and fleshe of his fleshe. Lo you see him in cōtrary tales, nowe truste his euiden­ce who liste. Thanked be god, Caluin hath turned the weapon vpon him selfe, minding to strike the churche of Christe.

Againe Caluin disputing against the Catholikes, The four the cōtradiction. that the euill men receaue not Christ in the Sacra­ment, maketh his argument of the body of Christ, whiche if euill men receaued, seing they receaue no life but damnation, they shoulde saieth Caluin, receaue [Page] a dead body, and the body of Christ without the Spirit of Christe. If this reason of Caluin be good, thē the good and worthy receauer muste nedes receaue the body of Christ, not onely the Spirit of Christ: he muste nedes haue Christ dwelling in him bodely, not one­ly Spiritually as he saied before. His wordes are these in his commentaries vppon S. Paule to the Corin­thians. In 1. Cor. 11. Ego hoc axioma teneo neque mihi vnquam excuti patiar, Christum non posse a Spiritu suo diuelli: vnde con­stituo non recipi mortuum eius corpus, neque etiam eum otiosum, aut disiunctum a Spiritus sui gratia & virtute. that is. I holde this principle, and will neuer be brought from it, that Christ can not be diuided from his Spirit. whe­refore I determin that his dead body can not be receaued, nor he also vnfrutefull, seuered from the grace or vertu off his Spirit. Here Caluin labouring to confute the Ca­tholike doctrine confoundeth him selfe. For this is his reason. The euill mā receaueth not the Spirit of Christ: therefore he receaueth not the body of Christ, which can not be without it. A man might here saie to Caluin: why Sir, no more dothe the good mā nether. for you saied euen nowe that the Spirit of Christ onely dwelleth in vs: which if it be so, the body and fleshe off Chri­ste dwelleth not in vs: thē if we that receaue Chri­ste as muche, and in as ample sorte, as he may be re­ceaued, receaue onely the spirit of Christe, what ne­de you feare in the euill mans receauing diuiding of Christ from his spirit, or his dead body to be recea­ued? it were enough to saie, the euill man receaueth not the Spirit of Christ in the sacrament, and there­fore [Page 211] he receaueth not Christ. But nowe you reason as though the euill man, if he receaued Chri­ste should receaue his body withoute the Spirit: and as though he good man receaued bothe body and Spirit. Whiche were contrary to that you saied befo­re: That not the fleshe of Christ, but a communion of his flesh (which is, as you teach a mere spirituall thing, to witt, In com­mentar. in 2. Cor. a quickening vertu out of Christ his fleshe) is deriued vn­to vs by his Spirit. What could Caluin awnswer here, being pressed of one that would not forsake his ad­uauntage? Wel: He is gone and paste all awnswering. But he hath scholers good store on liue: Let them awnswer and defend these contradictions, if they can. Or if they ne can ne list to defend them, let them put him oute of credit, and beleue such a false felo­we no more. I beseche oure Lorde they maye so do.

Caluin in his institutions, as you heard before, The fifte contra­diction. saieth. The Spirit of Christe is as a certaine cundyt pipe by the which whatsoeuer Christ is, and hath, is deriued vnto vs. And this spirituall pipe he imagineth to be a mea­nes to receaue the communion of Christ his fleshe by. Now in other places he maketh the flesh of Chri­ste, to be as a pipe for conuaiaunce of life vnto vs. In his commentaries vppon the sixte of Ihon thus he writeth. Sicut aeternus Dei sermo fons vitae est, ita caro eius veluti canalis, vitam quae intrinsecus in diuinitate re­sidet, ad nos diffundit, that is, As the aeternall worde off God, Christe, is the fountaine of life, so his fleshe like as a pipe deriueth vnto vs life abiding, within the deite. Before he [Page] saied. The Spirit of Christ deriued vnto vs all that Christ is, or hath and so cōsequently life. Now he saieth, The fleshe of Christ conuaieth life vnto vs. Before he made the Spirit off Christ a pipe for conuaiaunce of life. Nowe he maketh the [...]leshe of Christ to be that pipe. Doth not this doctrine confounde it selfe? vnlesse to establish his doctrine, he will confounde the two natures of Christ, God and man, flesh and Spirit, making eche one instru­ment to the other, and appointing to them both like actions and functions. Which were the heresy of the Monothelita.

Caluin in his commentaries vpō the sixt of Ihon and vpon S. The sixte contradi­ction. In cap. 11. Paules first epistle to the Corinthians, disputeth earnestly that euil men receaue not Christ in the Sacrament. His reasons therefore in the four­the contradiction we touched. Woulde it not nowe seme a straunge matter, to heare Caluin saie the contrary, and confesse that all which come to the communion receaue the body and bloud of Christ, but the good and worthy receaue onely to saluation euen as the Catholike doctrine teacheth? were it not a wonderous matter to see Caluin agree herein with vs, and disagree with him selfe? Lo then his wordes. In his institutions the 18. chapter, Cap. de C [...]ena Dom. prouing oute of S. Paule that bicause we must be membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and fleshe of his flesh, we must cleaue vnto him bothe in spirit and in bo­dy, he inferreth thus. Talem corporis & sanguinis sui communionem & caete. Such a communion of his body and bloud Christ in the holy Supper, dothe testifie, offer, and [Page 212] deliuer to all that sitt downe at that spirituall banquet: al­though (cum fructu) profitably he be receaued of the faithful onely. Lo you heare Caluin saie, that all which sitt downe at the spirituall banquet of the Supper, recea­ue the body and bloud of Christ, offred and deliuered vnto them. And bicause you might not doubte, but that the euill receaue also, he putteth a distinction betwene them and the good, saieng that the faithefull onely receaue (cum fructu) profitably: geuing vs to vnder­stande, that the other receaue, but vnprofitably. els had it ben in vaine to saie, the good or faithefull onely receaued profitably. it had ben inough to saie, the good onely receaued. But it is a common saieng oportet mendacem esse memorem. a lyar had nede haue a good memory. Caluin here remembred not, that he had in other places defended the contrary: but labou­ring here, to sette forthe to the vttermost his doctri­ne of the Supper, and to make men wene that he taught according to scripture, the real receauing of whole Christ in the Sacramēt, In cōment. in Cap. 6. 1. Cor. 11. pronounceth stoute­ly, that Christ in the Supper not onely offreth, but deliuereth him selfe, and that re ipsa in very dede (as in an other place he writeth) to all that sitt downe at that Spirituall banquet. Truly I maye saie here and in all these other contrarietes of Caluin, as ofte as the one parte is true (for many times bothe partes are starke false) that whiche S. Augustin wrote of the Donatistes: who being in a solemne conference at Carthage, sometimes vttered the truthe against thē selues vnwares, as Caluin dothe nowe: that is. O Violentia [Page] veritatis. Contra Donat. post collationem cap. 3. Quod semper illa tenuit, inimicorū confessio confir­mauit. O the force of truthe. That which truth alwaies held, the confession of her enemies hath cōfirmed. Which yet in his other contradictions more clerely shal appeare.

Caluin in his institutiōs writeth this. Omnino isthaec pijs tenenda regula est &c. Cap. 18. The se­uēth cōtradiction. This is a sure rule to be kepte of all good mē, that as ought as they see the signes appointed of God ( bread and wine in the supper) they think assuredly and persuade them selues, Rei signatae veritatem [...]erto ades­se cogitēt. that the verite of the thinge betokened is also present. For to what purpose should Christ geue in to thy hand the signe of his body, but to make the right sure of partaking thereof? For if it be true that the visible signe is geuen vs for confirmation of the vnuisible thing to be ge­uen, the signe of the body being taken, let vs not doubte but the body also is geuen vnto vs. Art. 20. Nowe in his resolutions vp­pon the sacraments thus he writeth. Oultre plus, L'vtilité que nous recepuons aux sacramens, ne sedoibt restraindre au temps de la reception d'iceux, comme si le signe visible si tost qu'l nous est proposé, nous apportoit auec soy en vng mesme instant la grace de Dieu. that is. Beside, the profit which we receaue at the Sacraments, ought not to be restrained to the time we receaue thē, as if the visible signe as soone as it is pre­sented vs brought with it forthwith the grace of God. Be not these two tales cōtrary? In the fo­urthe contradictiō. First he biddeth vs not doubt but with the signe we receaue the body, which ( as you he­ard before of Caluin) can not be voide of grace. Now he saith that the visible signe bringeth not forthwith the grace of god. First he maketh it a rule that seing the signes, the verite also ( Christ him self) be present. Nowe he saith the profit of the Sacramēts ought not to be restrained to the ti­me [Page 213] we receaue thē. Peraduēture he meaneth, we shoulde receaue the signes and not see thē. els how these two saiengs maie be reconciled, I see not, and I thinke no man els dothe see. But it is not ones nor twise, that he thus contradicteth him selfe, but many times and of­ten: and that in small space, as oute of his resoluti­ons vpon the Sacraēnts I will note nowe vnto you.

In the thirde article of his resolutions he writeth, Christ estant fils eternell de Dieu, d'vne mesme essence &c. that is, Christ being the eternal Son of God of one very sub­staunce and glory with the father, hathe taken vpon him ou­re fleshe, to the ende that he should communicat vs that whi­che he had properly by nature. The 8. cō ­tradictiō. In these wordes are two doctrines cōtrary to his former saiengs. First if Christ be (as he is in dede) of the very same substaunce and glory with the father, then he is not a folowing cause of life, as he teacheth writing vpon the sixte of Ihon. We will alleage you his wordes herafter when we shall de­tecte you his heresies. The 9. cō tradictiō. Againe here he confesseth Christ to communicat vnto vs, that which he had properly by natu­re, to witt his fleshe, In commentar in 1. Cor. 11. before he graunteth not vs his fleshe, but a spirituall communion thereof, to wit a quickening po­wer oute of that fleshe.

In the. 9. article thus he writeth. Albeit we putte a difference betwene the signe and the thinges figured thereby, yet we separat not the verite from the figures. The 10. contrad. The figure or signe which Caluin meaneth, is bread it selfe, the thinge figured is Christe. Now if he seuer not Christ from the bread, then is he there present really (as the bread is) with the bread. Which Caluin writing a­gainst [Page] Westphalus and other Lutherans dothe allwa­ies declaime and inueigh against.

In the nexte article folowing, thus he writeth, But we muste not haue a regarde to the bare signe but to the promis which is thereto annexed. Beholde I beseche you what fonde contradictiō this is. The 1 [...]. contrad. For what is the pro­mis of the blessed sacrament? Christ saith. Who eateth my flesh hath life, Ioan. 6. and I wil raise him again at the later daie. Lo life and resurrectiō is the promis. If this, as Caluin teacheth, be annexed to the signe, how calleth he it a bare signe? But Christ teacheth vs, as you see, that this promis is not annexed to the bread, which is impos­sible, but to his very flesh: and that full of all diuinite: which is no bread pardy. It foloweth in the article. Therefore the simple matter of water, of bread and wine doth not present vs, nor geue vs Christ. Lo here againe he cal­leth the signe a simple matter of bread and wine. Howe then I praie you is that waighty promis of life and re­surrection annexed vnto it? The 21. contrad. Beside, he sayth the signe do­the not present vs Christ. Yet before in the seuēth article he wrote that the principall office off the sacraments was, that god by them dothe testifie vnto vs his grace, representeth it and sealeth it vnto vs. And in the .8. article he calleth them true witnesses and seales. and euery where he cal­leth the bread the figure of Christ his body. If all this be true, howe saieth he nowe true, saieng that the signe dothe not present vs Christ? howe calleth he it a simple matter of bread and wine? Lo howe many contradicti­ons are couched in one of his articles. But let vs con­sidre the reste.

[Page 214] In the twelueth article thus he writeth. Farder, as for that which is geuen vnto vs by the Sacraments, that is not by their owne proper vertu, although that the promis is comprised in them, whereby they are indued with the qualite thereof. Here he confesseth againe, in the sacraments is comprised or contained the promis of the ghospell: and that this promis remaineth in the sacraments, as the qualite dothe in a substaunce. First if bare bread be (as he saied defore) the sacrament (calling it a sig­ne, such as with Caluin all sacraments are) In art. 10. ho­we can it haue any suche promis or any suche quali­te in it? The 13. contrad. Cap. 16. de Sacramen. who euer heard that life, and oure resurrecti­on were promised to a piece of bread? Then if the sa­craments (as in his Institutions he defineth them) be not onely bare signes, but sure witnesses of gods gra­ce towardes vs, their vertu being the worke of God, why denieth he by their vertu any thinge to be ge­uen? He woulde deface the sacraments, but he cōtra­dicteth him selfe.

But wil you see a cleane repugnant and direct con­trary doctrine to all that hetherto hathe ben saied? For hetherto you heare Caluin saie art. 9. that he seuereth not the verite from the figure, art. 10, that the promis is annexed to the signe, and againe art. 12. that the promis is comprised in the Sacrament. Nowe at the very ende of all his resoluti­ons, see I praie you how he resolueth him self. In the laste article thus he concludeth. Art. 26. The 14. contrad▪ Although saieth he, the bread be geuen vnto vs as a marke or pleadge of the com­munion, yet because it is a signe, not the thing it self, nor hath not the thinge included in it, they which staie their minde [Page] thereupō worshipping therein Christ, they make an idol of it. Lo now Caluin hath plucked of his visard, and plai­eth his parte kindely, now he saieth the thing of the sacrament, to witt Christ, is not included, contained, or comprised in the sacrament, that it is but a signe or a pleadge. In dede we agre with Caluin that Christ is not in the bread and much lesse is the bread a plead­ge or marke of oure communion or participation of Christ. 2. Cor. 1. S. Paule saieth the holy ghoste is geuen vnto vs, as a pleadge, no scripture saieth so of bread. Againe we confesse that the true flesh of oure Sauiour is geuen vs in this moste blessed sacrament, in forme and sha­pe of bread not remaining, In serm. de coena Dn̄ [...]. but by the omnipotency of the worde, as S. Ciprian speaketh, made flesh.

But why dothe Caluin make the Sacrament no­we but a bare signe? VVhy C [...]luin ma­keth the Sacramēt but a bare signe. Why denieth he now the thin­ge or verite of the Sacrament to be therein included, hauing graunted it before? Forsothe the deuill him selfe moued Caluin to saie so, enuieng at the glory of god, and desiring as litle honour to be done to Christe, as might be. For after that Caluin as the proctour of the deuill, had for the blessed fleshe and precious bloud of oure Sauiour (pronounced to be in this most dreadfull mystery by the mouthe off Christ him selfe) substituted materiall bread and wi­ne, and yet to make a coulour of holynes, as the wō ­te of the deuill is, had tolde vs, that he separated not the verite from the figure, Christ from the bread, fe­aring lest perhaps by this tale some scrupulous sa­cramentary would haue worshipped the verite, not [Page 215] separated from the figure, to witt Christe ioyned with the bread, he turneth his tale, and telleth them at the ende of his talke, whiche he thought shoulde beste sticke by the readers, that the sacrament is but a signe, and hathe not the thinge or verite of the si­gne included in it. Nether dothe he cōceale his wic­ked purpose, but boldely vttereth it, euen straight, sa­ieng, they that worship in the Sacrament Christ, make an idoll of it. I haue lo discouered vnto you good readers the wicked deuise of this proctour of the deuill Ihon Caluin. stoppe your eares at the wi [...]ked enchantmēts of this flattering Circé, and harken rather to the do­ctrine of that holy, and lerned Father of the Church S. Augustin. In commēt. in psal. 98 who speaking of the worshipping off Christe in this blessed Sacrament, saieth Non solum non peccatur adorando, sed peccatur non adorando, that is, VVe do not onely not sinne or offend in adoring it, but we do sinne if we do not adore it. Lo this lerned Father fea­reth no idolatry in adoration of the Sacrament, but pronoūceth it a sinne, not to adore it. wherein he de­clareth the doctrine and belefe of Christ his churche at that time. and he spake these wordes in pulpit, pre­aching to his people, and expounding them the wor­de of God. Nowe this cursed caitif Caluin bereueth oure blessed Sauiour of his due honour, and telleth vs we make him an idoll. well. the deuill yet hath gotte small worship at his proctours hande here, ma­king him to speake suche contradictions, as shal wor­ke at the length, I truste in god, his vtter confusion, and all enemies of gods honour. And therefore we [Page] will yet discouer you more of his contradictions, and sory lessons lerned of his master the deuill the spi­rit of dissension and contrariete.

In the thirtenth article of his resolutions he sa­ieth: The .15. Conared. the sacrament is an instrument by the whiche god wor­keth. If the sacrament be an instrument whereby Christ worketh, howe is it a figure of Christ, as the­se Sacramentaries will haue it onely to be? who euer heard that the figure of the workeman as a figure were his Instrument, or the instrument his figu­re? Is not this doctrine a mere confusion and contra­diction? The truthe is: that bread is nether the figu­re of Christ nor the instrumēt whereby he worketh. No scripture saieth so: The churche neuer taught so. No reason persuadeth so. It is but a dreame off Caluin.

In the fiftenth article he saieth the Sacrament doth warrant vs Christ. The 16. Contrad. In the tenth he sayed it was but a ba­re signe and that we shoulde not regarde it. Beleue nowe whether parte ye liste. Truly bothe can not be true.

In the sixtenth article he sayeth, The 17. Contrad. the sacrament war­rāteth Christ onely in the elected and predestiant. In the .18. article he saieth, that in the sacrament Christ is offred ae­qually vnto all. and that the promis of god is not weake­ned by the incredulite of men. If the sacrament warran­teth and confirmeth Christ onely in the elected, is not the promis or verite of god promised in the sacra­ment, weakened by the incredulite of men? for they by theyr incredulite, saieth Caluin, can not receaue Christ which is the substaunce of the sacramēt, and [Page 216] that which Crist promiseth. You see his constancy and agrement. Is not this a worthy guide for a man to builde his faith vpon, and forsake his former be­lefe?

In the twentith article he saieth, it maye happē that the vse of the Supper which profited vs nothinge in the acte or doing of it, bicause of oure negligence or slacknes, maye af­terwarde bringe forthe better frute. This point lo is contrary to all his doctrine in his institutions and cōmentaries vpon holy scripture, The 18. Con. where he teacheth the effect of the Sacrament In insti­tut. cap. 18. that god fedeth vs not with bare signes, In reso­lut. that he geueth life withall, In com­ment. in 1. Cor. 11. thath oure soules are fedde with Christ truly and really. For nowe a man maye receaue the Sacrament and lacke all this. He maye I saie receaue it well and worthely, and haue none of all these. For if the vnworthy receauer rece­aueth forthewith his damnation (as S. Paule saieth) Caluin can not meane this of the vnworthy rece­auer: especially saying withall, that it may after­warde bringe forthe better frute, whiche to the vn­worthy receauer it can not do.

In the sixe and twentith article he saieth: The .19. contrad. we muste not tye Christe to the bread and to the wine. and yet in the ninthe article he him selfe tieth Christ thereto. For he sayeth. Nous ne separons pas la verite d'auec les figures. we separat not the verite from the figures. If Caluin do not separat Christ, whiche is the verite from the fi­gures of bread and wine, dothe he not couple and tye Christ thereunto? Truly the Sacramentaries and Lutherans bothe do it, making the bread and the [Page] wine to remaine. The Catholike churche dothe not, beleuing that the cōsecrated and blessed bread, is no more bread, but as Christ saieth, His body. and the the wine his blode.

Lo you haue good readers a number of contradic­tions gathered oute of this small treatise of Caluin: wherein yet according to the title thereof, he minded to geue the worlde a full and perfit resolution of the Sacraments. But whiles he laboureth to vtter his heresy vnder coulour of some Christianite, and to persuade his falshood vnder the cloke of some truth, he is miserably driuē, to tell contrary tales, to saie one thinge and thinke an other, brefely to confounde him selfe with his owne wordes. For what better re­ason may possibly be founde to discouer false forged doctrine of an heretike, then to trippe him in his tal­ke, and take him in contradiction? Nothing can mo­re discredit the Author of a secte or declare more his wicked pretence, then to espie diuersite of doctrine and variaunce of opinions in him. nor neuer, I thinke, appeared it better in any heretike (except allwaies that fonde frere Martin Luther) them in Ihon Caluin. And yet this is he, vpon whose onely warrant and worde diuers deceaued persons, haue hazarded their soules and loste their life. I beseche god geue the re­mnant grace to see, knowe, and deteste from hence­forthe, suche a teacher as you see nowe Caluin is.

Diuers other contradictions might be gathered oute of this mans doctrine touching this blessed Sa­crament, if we listed to scanne eche of his propositi­ons [Page 217] and saiengs. But bicause I haue ben ouer longe allready, and yet in so good a purpose me thinketh I can neuer be longe inough, I wil nowe passe to the repugnaunce in his doctrine against holy scripture.

Our Sauiour sayth in the ghospell off S. Ihon. Cap. 18. Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hathe life euer­lasting. Ioan. 6. Caluin in his institutions and in his cōmen­taries vpon that place teacheth thus. Who eateth the bread at the communion he receaueth a cundyte pipe by the whiche life is deriued vnto him. Repug­nances in Caluin to holy scri­pture Marke I beseche you Christen readers, howe he hathe altered the wor­des of oure Sauiour. Where Christ saith, Who eateth my flesh, Caluin saithe who eateth the bread at the commu­nion. and where Christ saithe he hathe life euer lasting, Caluin saithe he hathe a cundyte pipe by the whiche life is deriued, calling the blessed fleshe of oure Sauiour, one person with the godhead, a coundyt pype or in­strument, by the whiche life is deriued from god the Father. For that is his meaning, (as you shall see more plainely hereafter, when I come to his heresi­es) attributing life not to the fleshe of Christ, as Christ him selfe dothe, but to the Father in whom he teacheth life to remaine principally, as you shall anon see. But nowe to an other proposition.

Christ saithe, Ioan. 11. I am the resurrection and the life. Cal­uin saythe in his commentaries vpon the sixte off Ihon, The Son is as a riuer by the whiche the life abiding in the father is deriued vnto vs. Here again Christ spea­king as god and man, saith him selfe to be the life. For as the general councell of Ephesus charely war­neth [Page] vs, Cirilus in apologe­tico in de­fensione anathematismi 4. the wordes of the ghospell are all waies to be attri­buted to Christe as to one person, thoughe consisting of two natures▪ Caluin saithe the life to remaine in the father. Where blasphemousely he excludeth Christ, making him as a riuer or meanes, by the whiche life is deri­ued vnto vs. But of this we shall haue more occasion to speake hereafter.

Oure Sauiour after he had sayde in the sixte off Ihon, my fleshe is meate in dede, and my bloud is drinke in dede, expounding those his wordes vnto the carnall Iewes, thinking he had meaned his fleshe and bloud, Cirillus lib. 11 Cap. 22. in Ioan. Cap. 81. after the bare nature of man, saithe thus. The wordes which I spake vnto you are Spirit and life, geuing vs to vnderstande (as the lerned Father Cirillus noteth) that he spake of his fleshe, and blood, inseparably a­nnexed to the godhead, and one person with the sa­me. Nowe Caluin in his institutions affirmeth that by the Spirit of Christe, his fleshe is deriued vnto vs and made our foode. In the whiche doctrine he separateth the Spirit of Christe from his blessed fleshe, geuing vs the one without the other: whereas Christ him sel­fe aboue affirmed that he meaned his fleshe coupled and vnited to the Spirit, sayeng, the wordes whiche I spake vnto you (to witt, of my flesh and blood) are Spi­rit and life, that is, not bare flesh but endued with my Spirit, the godhead it selfe: nor to be deriued vnto vs by the Spirit, as separated from the fleshe, or as a cundit pype to conducte the fleshe vnto vs (whiche Caluin in his institutions saythe, as you haue heard before) but to be geuen vnto vs with the Spirit, and [Page 218] deite of oure Sauiour iointly and inseparably, as they are in him one person, and one Christ. Thus you see howe he correcteth and altereth the wordes off oure Sauiour at his pleasure.

Againe whereas Christe saythe in S. Ihon, I [...]an. 6. He that eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, hathe life euer­lasting, promising vs by eating to haue life, Caluin correcting the sayeng of oure Sauiour, in his com­mentaries vpon S. Ihon, In cap. 6. where Christe promiseth life and resurrection by the eating of his fleshe and drinking of his bloud, he saythe, Christ speaketh not he­re of the Supper, but of the perpetuall communion of him, which we haue beside the vse of the Supper. And yet that ye maye not thinke he meaneth of any other com­munion (naming the perpetuall communion) then the very same whiche we haue in the celebration of oure lordes Supper, in fewe wordes after he addeth thus muche. And yet I confesse, that nothinge is here spo­ken, whiche is not also figured and truly exhibited vnto vs in the Supper. Thus he maketh him selfe as sure off Christe, withoute the receauing of this blessed Sa­crament, as when he receaueth it. whiche by the cō ­ference of an other place of holy Scripture you shall see yet ones again.

S. Paule saieth The bread whiche we breake is the partici­pation of the body of our Lorde: whereby we lerne in this blessed Sacramēt to receaue the body of Christ. Cal­uin teacheth vs without the blessed sacramēt to receaue it. For in his resolutiōs vpō the sacramēts he hathe these wordes. Art. 19. Right as the infidell by the vse of the Sacra­ments [Page] receaueth no more profit thereby thē if he vsed thē not, euē so the verite figured in the sacraments is cōmunicated to the faitheful and beleuers, thoughe not receauing the signes or sacramēts. By this rule we receaue Christ in the supper, which before hath b [...]n geuē vnto vs and dwelleth in vs perpetually. And in the .9. article of the same worke he saythe. that such as haue before receaued Christ, receauing the Sacra­ment do renewe and continew that which they had before receaued. By this his doctrine you see, he correcteth the wordes of Christe teaching vs to receaue him by eating his fleshe and drinking his blood. And the wordes of S. Paule, sayeng the bread to be the partici­pation of our Lordes body: by whiche worde he me­aneth the blessed Sacrament: naming it so of that which it was before: Exod. 7. as the serpent was called Moy­ses rodd, Ioan. 2. and the wine water in Cana Galilea.

S. Paul sayth. Who so euer eateth the bread and drinketh the cuppe of the Lord vnworthely, he eateth and drinketh his owne dānation: 1. Cor. 11. geuing vs to vnderstāde that at the re­ceauing of the blessed sacramēt, we receaue other life by the worthy receauing other dānation by the vn­worthy. Now the doctrine of Caluin directly repug­neth. For thus he writeth in his resolutiōs vpō the sa­cramēts. Farder saith he, Art. 20. the profit which we receaue at the sacramēts, ought not to be restrained to the time we receaue thē, as if that the visible signe as soone as it is geuē vs, should bringe vs forthewith the grace of god. It may happen that the receite of the sacrament which in the acte profited nothing, through our defaulte or slacknes, maie afterward bring forth better fruict. Thus farre Caluin. Cōsider nowe, if this do­ctrine [Page 219] be not cleane cōtrary to the meaning of S. Paul. For if, as S. Paul saith, receauing the sacramēt vnwor­thely we receaue our own dānation, why also in re­ceauing it worthely receaue we not withal inconti­nently the grace, and vertu thereof? Againe if by our defaulte it worketh vs dānation, as the Apostle saith, howe cā it afterwarde auaile vs, as Caluin teacheth? Thirdly if at the receite of the sacramēt, we receaue nothing, what shall the bread (that Caluin imagi­neth alone) signifie? shall it signifie that by eating it, we receaue no profit thereby? In good sothe it will signifie vnto vs, that Caluin mocketh with God, and the worlde, and that in eating the bread, we ea­te nothing els▪ And truly if you remembre his do­ctrine before, yow see he meaneth nought ells.

S. Paule speaking of our Lordes body and bloud geuen vs in the blessed sacrament, 1. Cor. 11. saithe thus. He that eateth and drinketh vnworthely, eateth and drinketh his owne damnation, not discerning the body of oure Lor­de. Caluin in his cōmentaries vppō this place saithe, That the wicked person therefore eateth vnworthely bicause he refuseth the body of our Lorde offred vnto him, ea­ting thereby the onely signe. to wit bare bared. Marke the differēce of S. Paules doctrine, and Caluins imagina­tion. For howe dothe the wicked eate the body and therewith his dānation, whiche S. Paule teacheth, iff he eate but bread and refuse the body, which Caluin imagineth? I will graunte who refuseth Christ, re­fuseth life, and thereby worketh his owne damnati­on. But this is not to eate his damnation, in such sor­te [Page] as S. Paule speaketh there.

Our Sauiour in the sixte of Ihon saithe, Your fa­thers did eate Manna in the desert, and are dead. This is that bread whiche cometh downe from heauen, that a man maye eate thereof and not die. Caluin in his commen­taries vpō the first to the Corinthiās, the tenth chap­ter teacheth, that the Iewes eating Māna, did eate the very body of Christ spiritually as we do, and recea­ued the same effect by eating the Manna, as we do by the communion. He laboureth muche in that place to proue this fonde doctrine, and forgeth a so­ry shifte to auoide these wordes of our Sauiour in S. Ihon. Christ, saythe he, hauing to do with the Iewes pre­ferring Moyses before him, in his answer to them, expoun­ded not what Manna signified, but letting all other thinges passe, framed them an answer mete for their capacite, spea­king not according to the nature of the thinge, but accor­ding to the meaning and s [...]ns of the hearers. Thus muche Caluin. But beholde, I beseche you, the sophistry of this wily heretike. He woulde make vs beleue, that Christ in S. Ihō plaied the Rhetoriciās part, and with­all is not afeared to make our Sauiour (O blasphe­mous Sacramentary) a lyar. For Christe saithe plai­nely, That the Iewes eating Manna died (for not by ea­ting Manna, but by beleuing in the Messias to come, they were fedde of Christ) But the bread which he would geue shoulde be life euerlasting to those whiche eate off it. Iff nowe as Caluin saithe, the eating of Manna serued their turne, no lesse then the bread of life Christ him selfe serued oures, to witt, that they receaued also the [Page 220] bread of life spiritually in eating Manna, as we do in eating the blessed Sacrament, then were not that say­ieng off Christe true, nor his comparison good, pre­ferring the bread of life which he would geue vs be­fore the Manna of the Iewes. For their Manna as Caluin saithe, was bread of life to them: then was it not inferiour to that whiche Christe woulde ge­ue, but all one and the same. But nowe to an o­ther.

Our Sauiour in S. Ihon hath these wordes. Ioan. 6. Who eateth my fleshe and drinketh my bloud, dwelleth in me and I in him. Institut. Cap. 18. Caluin correcteth these wordes in his doctrine of the Supper, and maketh this proposition. Who beleueth in the death and resurrectiō of Christ, the cōmunion of his flesh is deriued vnto him, by the vertu of his holy Spi­rit. First in this doctrine where Christ biddeth vs eate his flesh, and so promiseth him selfe to dwel with vs, and in vs, Caluin biddeth vs beleue in Christ his de­ath, saieng thereby we eate his flesh: and thē in stede of Christ God and mā abiding in vs which our Sauiour in this most holy Sacramēt promiseth, and (no doubt) perfourmeth vnto vs, Caluin warrāteth vs of a certain cōmuniō of the flesh remaining only in he­auē, which shal be deriued, he sayeth, by the Spirit off Christ vnto vs. This is lo not to haue God and man Christ him selfe abiding in vs (which bicause Christ promiseth vs, we must vndoubtedly beleue so) but to haue him onely spiritually abiding in vs: to witt, coming to vs onely by spirit and abiding onely in heauen by fleshe. How false and howe farre disagre­ble [Page] with the wordes of our Sauiour this doctrine of Caluin is, we haue in his absurdites and contradi­ctions declared. Presently it suffiseth to knowe, that he dothe bothe in termes and in sense comptroll and alter the wordes and meaning of oure Sauiour.

S. Paule writing to the Corinthians, of the due ac­cesse and reuerence of this blessed Sacrament, 1. Cor. 11. saith. Let euery mā trie him selfe and so eate of this bread. Caluin in his Institutions and vpon the sixte of Ihon tea­cheth, that by beleuing we eate Christ. Cap. 18. Nowe seing that no man trieth him selfe, but first he beleueth, and in beleuing we eate Christ, then before we trie oure sel­ues, we do eate: contrary to the expresse wordes off the Apostle, bidding vs first to trie our selues, and so to eate of this bread of life. And truly according to the doctrine of Caluin (as you haue sene before) be­leuing in Christes deathe and resurrection we eate and receaue the body and bloud off Christ allwa­ies, no lesse then in the vse of the Supper or communion. Which excludeth all triall of our selues requi­red by S. Paul.

For the maintenance of this wicked Sacramen­tary doctrine, Caluin abuseth and turneth from their right vnderstanding, not onely suche places of holy scripture as directly make against him, as you haue hetherto partly sene, but also suche as by any conse­quence of reason, might seme to hinder the course of his wicked doctrine. For example I will pnt you in minde of one or two. Cap. 20. Whereas it is writen in S. Ihon that Christ entred, where his disciples were, the doo­res [Page 221] being shutt, bicause this miracle might importe to the body of oure Sauiour a possibilite of being in sundry places at ones, and so destroy the false groun­de of these sacramentaries, tying Christ to the right hande of his Father, Cap. 18 Caluin in his institutions saithe, that Christ entred not the dores being shutt, but that the dores opened of them selues. Otherwhere he writeth, that an er­thequake was made, and so the dores opened. Brefe­ly he inuenteth what shifte he maie, rather them he will yelde to the truthe of the churche.

With like confidence this presumptuous Sacra­mētary Ihon Caluin peruerteth by false trāslatiō the See the le­ase 158. wordes of holy scripture in the prouerbes of Salomō cōtaining a clere prophecy of this blessed sacramēt. We alleaged you the place before, and after what sort it was by him corrupted. If we would in other poin­tes and articles of the Catholike faith by him denied and impugned vse the like diligence, we could be as lōge in the retical and setting forthe of thē, as he is in the whole corps of his workes, where such doctrine is taught. But nowe I will procede to the other par­tes of oure promis, touching this one article, and af­ter saie somewhat of some other point of his doctri­ne.

Oure Lorde in holy scripture, by the mouthe off his prophet Ieremy, speaking against the perilous presumption of those, which forsake him and his holy worde, Ierem. 2. pronounceth the plage that falleth on thē in these wordes. They haue forsake me the foūtaine of life, and haue digged thē selues pittes and pudles al to broken, and su­che [Page] as can holde no water, geuing vs to vnderstand, that who so forsaketh the right waie prescribed vnto vs by allmighty god in his holy worde, and refuseth the moste holesom drinke of the fountaine, god him sel­fe, is forced forthewith, being as a man berefted of his right vnderstanding and sence, to lappe in suche pudle, as the fonde imagination of his owne braine instructed and supported with the deuill, ready to thruste forwarde, when god forsaketh, can inuēt. Of suche it is saied in holy scripture. Who loueth the peril, shall perish in it, and againe. VVho toucheth the pitche shal be filed therewith. You haue sene howe Caluin hathe forsaken the expresse wordes of god in his ghospell, to furder thereby the plausible doctrine, and pleasa­unt poison of his owne imaginations. You shall no­we see what pittes and pudles he is faine to lappe in, forsaking the doctrine of Christ in the ghospell. Truly they are suche and so filthy, that I feare the re­citall thereof maie be to good Christian hartes more noysom then profitable. Notwithstanding bicause this man is of suche credit amonge the deceaued sor­te of oure countre, that his Institutions, the very fardle of all his beggarly doctrine, and boxe of his ve­nimous heresies, is commaunded to be read of suche, as haue charge of soules (a sufficient meanes truly to drawe all the vnlerned of England, but if god staie them, to eternall dānation) I will by the grace of God geue you for a taste, suche instructions touching the most blessed sacrament of the aultar, and the sa­crament of Baptim, which only for sacramēts he al­loweth, [Page 222] that you maie hereafter litle lust after the perilous persuasions of his doctrine, in other inferi­our pointes of oure Christen faithe, the dearest and most precious iewell that we haue on earthe.

The pittes and pudles that Caluin hathe digged him selfe, are olde heresies condemned aboue a thou­sand yeares, and nowe renewed by him partly in ex­presse wordes, partly by most assured and necessary consequence of his writings.

Caluin in his commentaries vpon S. Ihon hathe these wordes. In Cap. 6. Ioan. Olde con­demned heresies renevved by Caluin in the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament. It is to be noted there are thre degres of life. The liuing Father hathe the first place, as the fountaine off life, but yet farre distant and hidde. The Son foloweth him, whom we haue sette before vs as a riuer by the which the life abiding in the father is deriued vnto vs. the thirde life is that which we drawe of him. Thus farre Caluin: This do­ctrine, beside that it is a mere imagination of Caluin, and a broken pudle of his brickle brain, it conteineth in it sundry heresies. First if the Son of god Christ him selfe, be a folowing, that is, a second cause of life, as Caluin saithe, then is it not equall with the first, and so is it a creature, not god the Creatour, which is first and chefest, and secōd to none. Thē he cōpareth Christ to a riuer and god the father to a fountaine. Now the foūtaine is before the riuer, and is cause of the riuer: thē by the doctrine of Caluin, god the father is before the Son and cause of the life in the Son. For al this he meaneth of god the Son, not of the flesh off Christ which he denieth to geue life or to be quic­kening of it selfe. This lo is the cursed and detesta­ble [Page] heresy of Arrius condemned in the first general councell of Nice aboue twelue hundred yeres paste. If S [...]ruetus whom Caluin burned at Geneua for an Arrian, were nowe aliue again, and Caluin to, he might chalenge M. Caluin for the like, and call him worthely to the stake.

Againe this doctrine of Caluin resembleth much in wordes (but in effect passeth farre) August. l [...]b. 20. cap. 2. contra Faustū manich. the doctri­ne of Faustus Manicheus, who sayde that god the fa­ther occupied the chefest and principall light: but the Son consisted in a seconde light. Which fonde opinion of him Saint Augustin confuteth as a dete­stable heresy. Muche more maye we so do in this distinction of degres of life, that Caluin imagineth to be in the blessed Trinite.

Thirdly he affirmeth the life whiche we receaue of Christ, the Son, to abide in the Father: as though Christ of him selfe gaue not vs life by the participa­tion of his diuine fleshe. Which to saie is the here­sy of Valentinus whom S. Irene confuteth.

Caluin in his commentarie vpon the resolution of the Sacraments, saythe that, Vnto the substaunce of bread remaining bread, the body of oure lorde whiche is the verite figured by the bread is so coupled and vnited, as the godhead was to the fleshe of Christ, it remaining true and naturall fleshe. And this his doctrine he goeth aboute to proue by the wordes of Gelasius in his epistle to kinge Frauncis prefixed before his Institutions. It is also the doctrine of Caluin that Christ is in the Sa­crament onely by faithe not corporally▪ For so (say­eth [Page 223] he) he is onely in heauen. Then will it folowe by the reason of Caluin, that the godhead was ioy­ned and vnited to the fleshe of Christ onely by fai­the, and that the fleshe was not deified and one per­son with god. This was the heresy of Paulus Samo­satenus condemned all most thirten hundred yeares paste.

The doctrine of Caluin in his Institutions is, as you partly heard before, that in the blessed Sacra­ment the maner of receauing Christ, is by the opera­tion of his Spirit, In institut. Cap. 18 & in. 1. Cor. 11. whiche (saythe he) is as a certain [...]undyt pipe, whereby what soeuer Christ is, or hathe, is de­riued vnto vs. and by the Spirit of Christe, he sayth, we re­ceaue in to oure soules his body and bloud, whiche yet depar­teth not from the right hande of the father. This doctrine separateth Christ, making his holy Spirit to serue as a cundyt pipe for the conuaiaunce of his fleshe in to oure soules. Beside the absurdite of the doctrine, whi­che we before declared you, it sauoureth of the he­resy of Nestorius. For as he denied the fleshe off Christ to be inseparably vnited to the godhead, and therefore taught that we receaued not whole Chri­ste, but his fleshe onely and not his godhead (for the­se were his wordes (as Cirillus recordeth) In oppositi­one ad ana­thematis. 11. Qui man­ducat carnem meam, non dixit qui manducat diuinitatem. that is, Christ sayde, he that eateth my fleshe, he sayde not he that eateth my diuinite &c.) so Caluin denieth we rece­aue whole Christ, graunting vs a spirituall foode onely. In. 1. Cor. 11. For so (in his commentaries vpon S. Paule) he concludeth, saieng that a certain quickening vertu [Page] is deriued vnto vs out of the flesh of Christ by his Spirit, thoughe the fl [...]sh be farre distant from vs and not ioyned with vs.

The doctrine of Caluin as it containeth variable and contrary assertions, so it bredeth diuers and sun­dry heresies. You heard euen nowe that by making the Spirit of Christ a pipe for the conuaiaunce off Christ his flesh in to oure soules (whiche he teach­eth bothe in his Institutions and in his commenta­ries vpon S: Paule) he fell in to the heresy of the Maniches no lesse wicked and auncient heretikes then Nestorius. Now you shal see that making the flesh off Christ a pipe for the conuaiaunce of Christ his di­uinite vnto vs, he falleth in to the heresy of Nesto­rius. In his commentaries vpon the sixte of S. Ihons ghospell thus he writeth. As the euerlasting worde off God is the fountaine of life, so his fleshe conuaieth vnto vs like a certain pipe that life abiding in the godhead. And in this sense the fleshe of Christe is saide to geue life, bicause it communicateth vnto vs the life which it boroweth other where. These are the very wordes of Caluin. Nowe let vs considre the doctrine of S. Paule saieng. 2. Cor. 15. As in Adam all do die, so in Christ all shall be quickened or endu­ed with life. Vppon the grounde of this doctrine whi­che can not be denied, thus I reason. If the fleshe of Christ dothe not of it selfe geue life, as Caluin say­the, but serueth vs as a pipe of the life abiding in god, then the sinnerfull fleshe of Adam was not of it selfe damnable and the cause of our damnation ( VVe all sinning and dieng in Adam as S. Paule saithe) but a pi­pe [Page 224] or instrument of deathe and damnation abiding in some euill God, from whence the fleshe of Adam toke deathe and damnation, as the fleshe of Christe (acording to Caluin) boroweth life of God. For o­therwise the saieng of S. Paule shall not be true, at­tributing as properly and as truly life vnto our Saui­our, as deathe vnto Adam. Nowe to imagin a higher cause of deathe in Adam, then Adam him selfe, and an euill God in whom that death before remained, Tom. 6. passim & in lib. de haer. to be from thence deriued to sinners, is the very do­ctrine of the cursed Maniches, making two Goddes or beginnings of all things one of the good, and an o­ther of the badde: as in S. Augustin it is easy to finde.

But here perhaps some scholer of Caluins scho­le, VVhy Caluin maye vvorthely be charged vvith such heresies. and zelous professour of the ghospell of Geneua will steppe in and saie, that Master Caluin neuer taught, neuer allowed, nor so muche as dreamed off the approuing of suche hainous heresies as these are. And therefore we deale not charitably herein, but rather vtter our malice and stomache to no purpose. To such bicause I thinke it were harde for me to frame an awnswer of my owne, that might please them, I will awnswer with the wordes of M. Caluin him selfe, which I hope shall not mislike them. Ma­ster Caluin in his Institutions hauing for his plea­sure longe iested at the blessed sacrifice of the Mas­se, and with a fewe sory reasons laboured to proue that such as saide Masse, crucified Christ againe, at the length moueth the like obiection as this is, aga­inst him selfe, and awnswereth vnto it in these wor­des. [Page] I knowe well, saith he, they haue a ready answer, whereby they will charge vs as slaunderers. For they will saie we laye that vnto their charge whiche they neuer thought, and whiche they were sure they coulde neuer do. But we knowe well inoughe, it is not in their handes to ma­ke Christ liue or die. Nether care we if they neuer thought to kill him. Onely this I would showe what absurdite doth folowe by their wicked and hainous doctrine. Thus awn­swered Caluin, thinking it a sufficient excuse to es­cape the note of a slaūderer and false accuser, hauing well deserued it. We awnswer the same being no fal­se accusers of Caluin, but true reporters of that we finde in his writings, and saie, that we passe not whe­ther Caluin euer thought as Arrius, Faustus Mani­cheus, Valentinus, Samosatenus, Nestorius, and the whole secte of the Maniches taught. Onely we entend to showe that by his hainous and wicked doctrine, such heresies do consequently folowe. Whiche the vnlerned take so muche the sooner, for that they co­me vnder the visard of a fauourer of the ghospell. Whereas being nowe brought to light, and their vi­sard plucked of, they shall appeare in their liknes, to witt, olde cursed and cōdēned heresies. This I truste shall make men take better aduisement whiche waie they walke in matters of belefe, nor lightely to trust euery newe Master bringing newe lerning, and not heard of before. Lest as Caluin hathe done, by liste­ning after newe doctrine, they fall in to olde here­sies. But nowe to the residew of them.

That the paschal lambe offred and eatē by Moyses [Page 225] in the olde lawe, was a clere figure of Christ the true lambe of god to be eaten and offred in the newe la­we, for the redēption of mankinde, it is a verite of all Christen men confessed and vndoubtedly receiued. The wordes of our Sauiour saieng that it behoued him to fulfill all wich was writen of him in the lawe, Luc. 24. the psalmes and the prophets geue vs no lesse to vnderstād. S. Paule also teacheth vs that al thinges happēed to the Iewes in fi­gure, to witt, 1. Cor. 10. of suche thinges as vnder Christ should be accōplished. Brefely Caluin him selfe in his com­mentaries vpon S. Paule to the Hebrewes, confesseth that all the sacrifices of the olde lawe do leade vs to the sacri­fice of Christe: In cap. 9. whiche doctrine he lerned of the holy fathers, especially S, Augustin, De ciuit. dei lib. 17. Cap. 20. & in psal. 39. who repeteth it in sun­dry places of his workes. Caluin therefore in his In­stitutions treating of oure Lordes supper, accordeth this figure of the paschall lambe with the supper off oure Lorde in this sorte. The paschall lambe saithe he, being bodely eaten did figure the spirituall eating of oure pa­schall lambe which is Christ. Vpon this his doctrine it fo­loweth, that Christ was but spiritually, not corpo­rally offred vp for vs. For the paschal lambe of Moy­ses figured Christ not onely as it was eaten, but also as it was offred. If then the figure of the lambe eaten be accomplished by spirituall eating of Christ, the figure of the lambe offred shall be also accompli­shed by the spirituall oblation of Christe. For bothe actions were true figures of Christ, and bothe were to be accomplished by Christ, no lesse the one then the other. Nowe to make the sacrifice of Christ, but [Page] a spirituall sacrifice, lib. 4. ad­uersu [...] Mar­cionem is the heresy of Marcion whom Tertullian confuteth. The truthe is that as Christ was a true sacrifice figured by the paschall lambe to die for vs, so was he a true sacrifice figured by the sa­me to be eaten by vs.

Bicause the heresy of Valentinus renewed by the hereticall doctrine of Caluin, well espied and tried oute maketh muche for the verite of the reall pre­sence in this blessed Sacrament, we will yet farder see how the doctrine of Caluin destroying the reall pre­sence, vpholdeth and reneweth the heresy of Valen­tinus. The opinion of Valentinus was that the body of Christ was a celestiall body, descending from hea­uē through the wombe of the blessed Virgin, taking no fleshely substaunce thereof. Caluin calleth rem signatam the thinge figured in the Sacrament a spirituall and celestiall thinge. In iustitut. Cap. 18. In the same place not many li­nes after thus he concludeth his doctrine of the B. Sacrament. I saye therefore, the holy mistery of the Sup­per consisteth of two thinges to witt the earthly signes setting before oure eyes according to oure caepacite the inuisible thinges, and the Spirituall verite figured and exhibited by the signes. The matter also of this spirituall verite he ex­poundeth him selfe to be Christ with his deathe and resurrection. And in an other place of his workes, writing against the councell of Trent thus he spea­keth. In antidoto. The bread remaineth bread terrestriall and corru­ptible: but the celestiall body of Christe is ioyned thereunto: and hereof, saithe he by the authorite of Ireneus, this mystery consisteth of two thinges, the one terrestriall and of [Page 226] earthe, the other celestial and of heauē, to witt the celestiall bo­dy off Christ, and the materiall bread of earthe. Hetherto you see Caluin in the blessed Sacramēt to acknowledg no other body of Christ, then Spirituall and celesti­all: euen as the heretike Valentinus did: and to cou­lour his doctrine also by the authorite off Ireneus. Now you shall vnderstande that Ireneus writing a­gainst the foresaide heresy of Valentinus, for the con­futation thereof amonge other arguments, vseth the common belefe of the Catholike churche, tou­ching this blessed Sacrament. Li. 4. Cap. 34. Oure doctrine saith he, is conformable to the Eucharistie (terming so this bles­sed Sacrament) and the Eucharistie confirmeth our do­ctrine: for we offer vnto god that whiche are his owne, de­claring accordingly the vnite and coniunction of the fleshe and of the Spirit: For as the material bread receauing the inuocation of god, is no more common bread, but the Eu­charistie cōsisting of two thinges the one of earth the other of heauen, so oure bodies receauing the Eucharistie: are no more corruptible, but haue certain h [...]pe of resurrection. Thus farre Ireneus. In the whiche wordes against Valenti­nus he affirmeth, that the Sacrament containeth Christ him selfe whiche consisteth of two thinges or natures, being one person, to witt of earthely fle­she taken of the virgin, and of the celestiall godhead descending from heauen. Nowe Caluin bicause he will denie the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament, imagineth the celestiall body of Christ withoute flesh to be ioyned with the material bread, as Valentinus the heretike dyd, abusing also to that [Page] purpose this very place of Ireneus wherein he sho­weth him selfe other very ignorant of Ireneus mea­ning and disputation in that place, or very malicious in deprauing it after his owne brainesicke fantasie. For S. Irene directly reproueth the opinion of Valen­tinus denieng the incarnation of Christ, and his true fleshe, bicause in the Sacrament we receaue his true and naturall fleshe. and therefore a fewe lines before he saythe. Quomodo constabit eis &cae.? Howe wil they be assured that the same consecrated bread is the body of their lorde and the cuppe of his bloud, if they denie it to be the Son of god maker of the worlde? Doth not here that holy Martyr, and lerned Father proue the very flesh and naturall body of Christe, against that heretike, vpon the grounde of oure belefe touching the reall presen­ce of Christ him selfe in the Sacrament? Doth not Caluin taking awaie this grounde of oure belefe, and denieng the reall presence of Christes flesh in the Sacrament, leauing vs onely a spirituall verite, consequently allowe the heresy of Valentinus?

Againe Valentinus denied the resurrection of ou­re bodies. Ireneus proueth it vnto him, by the doctri­ne of the Sacrament, saieng in the same place aboue alleaged. Howe dare they saie that oure flesh shall come to corruption and not receaue life which is fedd with the body and bloud of oure lorde? Nowe Caluin in his Catechi­sme, in his Institutions, and euery where teacheth that oure soule, not the body eateth the body of Christ, really and truly, but not corporally: and is nouris­hed there with in hope of life euerlasting. Doth not [Page 227] this his doctrine graunting that celestiall foode, and onely warrant of oure resurrection to the soule, de­stroie the resurrection of the body, as Valentinus the heretike dyd? Is he not ones again most manifestly fallen into brokē pudles of olde condēned heresies?

Our Sauiour saith, Onles you eate my flesh and drinke my bloud, you shall haue no life in you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life, and I wil raise him vp againe in the later daie. Ioan. 6. Nowe if the soule onely eateth this heauenly foode, The do­ctrine of the Sacra­mētaries destroieth the resur­rection of our bodi­es. as Caluin teacheth, the soule o­nely shall haue life, and be raised vp at the later daye. For the onely warrant of resurrection is the partici­pation of the flesh and bloud of Christe. For thou­ghe the bodies of infidels, of heretikes, and of euill Christians, shall arise again, yet they shall not arise to life, nor in suche maner of resurrection, as oure Saui­our meaneth, Philip. 3. [...]. Cor. 15. whiche is (as his blessed Apostle S. Paule teacheth vs) to put on immortalite, to be made in­corruptible. and to be glorified. For so shal onely the true beleuers in Iesus Christ, and partakners of this holy sacramēt arise. As for infāts baptised, though they re­ceaue not sacramētally the flesh and bloud of Christ, yet euen as by the faithe of holy church they beleue and are accōpted to haue faithe, so by the communi­on of Saintes and societe of the Catholike churche they are incorporated to oure Sauiour and assured of their resurrection.

It wil peraduēture seme impossible to the fauourers of Caluins doctrine, and prisers of his ghospell, that he should euer meane any such hainous doctrine, as [Page] this is. Verely what he thought in consciēce, we wil not iudge: but what his writings declare [...] him to be, you see, I thinke, euidently. In his Cathechisme la­bouring to wipe awaie this suspiciō frō him he saieth, he hathe a witnes and a warrant of the resurrection of his bo­dy, and of the saluatiō thereof, in that he eateth the signe of li­fe. But I praie you, could he more manifestly denie the saluation of the body, then to attribut it to that thin­ge whiche can not geue it? For what auaileth it for the assurance of life, to eate (as he saithe) the signe of life, whiche is nought els, but a morcell of bread? Where findeth he suche assurāce of life in holy scrip­ture? What scripture telleth him, that by eating the signe of life his body shal rise to incoruption? Christ promiseth vs life and resurrectiō by eating his fleshe and drinking his bloud. Is the flesh and bloud of Chri­ste a signe of life? Is he not the true bread of life? Is not his holy fleshe, vnited to the godhead, and made one person with god, true quickening fleshe and geuing life? Surely this doctrine off Caluin vtterly ouer­throweth the resurrection of oure bodies.

Peter Richier a frenche ghospeller, Villogaio no [...] con­tra Calui­nu Cap. 20. Caluins scho­ler, denieth this fonde doctrine of his Master, to witt, that by eating the signe of life the body should be assured of resurrection, and imagineth an other shifte, that the soule being raised spiritually by eating the body of Christe, shall geue life to the body and raise it also. What wicked dreames and inuentions are these off proude and presumptuous heretikes? The promis of life and resurrection is made to the fleshe of Christ, [Page 228] not to the bread, nor to the soule. Thus lo it fareth with them, which content not them selues with the sure knowen doctrine of the Catholike churche, but by drifte of reason, or pricke off pride, and malice serch out newe inuētions of their owne.

It is the doctrine of Caluin and all the sacramen­taries, that in the celebration of oure Lordes supper be no cōsecration of the misteries. For that, they saie, the bread there is no other wise blessed thē other cre­atures of god are by the vertu of their creatiō. Caluin in his Institutiōs saith, that Christe in the benedictiō which he vsed, directed not his wordes to the bread, and that to blesse the bread is wich crafte and char­ming. The like he writeth in his cōmentaries vpon S. Paul to the Corinthiās. This doctrine lo is the very heresy of Faustus Manicheus. we (saith that Maniche) In 1. Cor. 10. vse the same religion in all creatures of god, as you vse in the bread and the chalice. Lo this heretike acknowledgeth noother kinde of religiō, in the holy misteries, then in other creatures of god. That is, that the one is as much blessed as the other. But what aunswereth he­re S. Augustin? Tom. 6. For he reporteth these wordes of the heretike in his bookes against him. Doth he ac­knowledge no other benediction in the Sacrament then in other creatures of god? Is he ashamed of the benediction vsed in the church of Christ? Doth he call it witchecrafte or charming? Lib. 20. cap. 13. Contra Faustū. Fit mi­sticus non nas [...]tur. See therefore what he awnswereth. Oure bread and chalice (saithe S. Augustin) is not cōmon: but by certaine cōsecration is made misticall is not borne so. And therefore that which is not so [Page] made (to witt by certain consecration) thoughe it be bre­ad and cuppe, it is foode for refection, not the sacramēt of ou­re religion, thoughe allwaies we blesse and geue thankes to god in all his giftes as well corporall as spirituall. Thus farre S. Augustin, declaring that in the misteries we vse a certain and propre consecration, whereby the miste­ries are made other then they were by nature. For he saith of the bread it is made misticall, non nascitur. it is not so by nature. geuing vs vnderstande that by ver­tu [...] of consecration the bread is made that, The communion o [...] the protestants is but foo [...]e for refe­ction. wiche by nature it was not: to witt, the body of oure Sa­uiour. Againe S. Augustin saith, that whiche lacketh con­secration is foode for refection, not the sacrament of oure reli­gion. So the Caluinistes in their communion by the iudgement of S. Augustin haue foode for refection, not the sacrament of oure religion. Finally S. Augu­stin confuting the olde heresy of the Maniches, dothe also confute the newe heresy of Caluin, yea and the order of oure communion, where no consecration, nor benediction is vsed.

Thus we see, Christian readers, what broken pittes and pudles Caluin hathe digged him selfe, and all sa­cramentaries are forced to lappe in, forsaking the fo­untaine of life Christ him selfe in this blessed sacra­mēt of the aultar. We see, who liste to be a scholer of Caluin, a ghospeller of Geneua or a Sacramentary protestant, he muste also be an Arrian, a Nestorian, a Sam [...]satenical, a Marcioniste, a Donatiste, a M [...]ni [...]he, and a Valentinian diuers waies. These heretikes with al the­ir doctrine were condemned aboue a thousand yea­res, [Page 229] in that state of the churche, whiche onely oure aduersaries approue for pure and vertuous. If that state had the right doctrine, those heretikes were by them worthely condemned. If they were worthely condemned, these sacramentaries can off no good Cristen men be allowed, folowed or supported.

As in our discours vpon Luther, beside a numbre of olde cursed heresies by him renewed and com­mon to al protestāts, we declared you one proper he­resy of his owne, for examples sake, euen so after the ranke of these olde condemned heresies, which Cal­uin hath incurred only in mistaking, or rather will­fully departing from the Catholike faith off the most blessed Sacrament of the aultar, I will recite you one most horrible and blasphemous heresy of his owne imagination, for examples sake of many more which might be brought, if we listed in this short discours, to saie all that might be saied. In his institu­tions vpon the article of our Crede Descendit ad infe­ros, He descended in to hell he teacheth, Cap. 7. that Christ the­re suffred the paynes of hell: and mocketh at the be­lefe of the Catholike Church teaching vs that then our Sauiour deliuered the soules of the fathers off the olde law, according as the scripture witnesseth, speaking by the prophet most euidently of our Sa­uiour, Tu quoque in sanguine Testamenti tui emis [...]sti vin­ctos tuos de lacu in quo non est aqua. Zachar. 9. that is, Thou also through the bloud of thy testament hast let thy pr [...]sonners out of the pitt, wherein is no water. Hierony­mus in Zachariam. 9. which [...]aying of the prophet the lerned fathers haue allwaies expounded [Page] of the descending of Christ in to hell, and deliue­ring there the soules of the fathers of the olde law. But as touching the heresy of Caluin, which in pla­ce of this receiued doctrine this presumptuous here­tike auoucheth, you shall heare his owne blasphe­mous wordes, and lerne of what a master our ghos­pellers of Geneua haue lerned their false faith. The­se be his wordes first in latin. Nihil actum erat si cor­porea tantum morte defunctus fuisset Christus: sed opera simul praecium erat vt diuinae vltionis seueritatem sentiret, quo & irae ipsius intercederet, & satisfaceret iusto iudicio, vt cum inferorum copijs aeternaeq [...]e mortis horrore quasi con­sertis manibus luctaretur: Correctionem pacis nostrae illi im­positam fuisse propheta docet, fuisse propter scelera nostra a patre percussum, attritū propter nostras infirmitates. Qui­bus significat in locum peccatorum sponsorem, vadem, adeo­que instar rei submissum ad dependendas persoluendasque omnes quae ab illis expetendae erant poenas, vno hoc duntaxat [...]x [...] pto quòd doloribus mortis non poterat detineri. Ergo si ad inf [...]res descendisse dicitur, nihil mirum est, cum eam mor­tem pertulerit, quae sceleratis ab irato deo infligitur. He­therto are his wordes as they lye in his institutions in latin. Now let vs see the english. Nothing had ben done, saieth Caluin, if Christ had dyed only by bodely de­athe. O hainous blasphemy of these cursed hereti­kes. What could be saied more blasphemously? Hath not now the death of Christ satisfised for our sinnes? Be these the ghospellers that sette forth and commend so much the passion of Christ? Is the bo­dely death of Christ nothing? Must his soule suffer [Page 230] also in hell? You shall heare forth the wordes of Cal­uin. But it was also requisit, saieth he, that Christ should fele the rigour of gods vengeaunce, whereby he might appea­se his wrath and satisfie his iust iudgment, that he should fight and combat with the Hostes of hell and horrour off eternall death. Lo he saieth Christ ought beside his bodely death, which was on the Chrosse, fele also the rigour of gods vengeaunce, satisfise also his most iust iudgment, and abide the horrour of e­ternall death. O horrible blasphemy, mete for a sa­cramentary ghospeller. For how then saied Christ in his Crosse, after all the bitter torments suffred for mankind and accomplished, Matth. 26. Consummatum est, It is fi­nished? Was he yet to suffer more in hell? And how cried he in his last most blessed wordes, Father in to thy handes I commend my Spirit? Was that to be tor­mented after of the deuils in hel? Dyd his Father ke­pe it no better, but let it be tormēted yet again? Final­ly how was that only sacrifice on the Crosse (as S. Hebr, 10. Paul saieth) a perfit cōsummatiō and sanctification for euer? Must he yet besides suffer torments in hell? So saieth Caluin, Master to all the Geneuian prote­stants of England, expresly against scripture, blasphe­mously against God, and heretically against the Ca­tholike doctrine. And where writeth he this? In his Institutions: a booke so precious in the eyes off some pretended bishops, that it is by them cōmaun­ded to be read of such, as haue charge of soules. May not we worthely crie with that holy father Policar­pus, O Deus in quae nos tempora reseruasti? Euseb. lib. 2. histor. O God to what [Page] times hast thou reserued vs? Do we yet looke whether these protestants tende, that so blasphemously write of the blessed passion of Christ, and commaunde such writings to be read of the vnlerned priests, which shall teache it againe to the simple and vn­lerned people? And yet Caluin will proue his blas­phemyes by scripture: truly euen as he proueth the rest of his doctrine. For lo these are his wordes fo­lowing. The prophet teacheth that the chastisement of our peace was layed on him, he was smitten of the father for our offences, and brused for our wickednes: by the which wor­des he signifieth that he was sent in to the place of sinners as a surety, a pleadg, yea and as a gilty person to paie and abide all such paines, as were to be required of them: only this excepted that he could not be continually staied with the sorowes of death. Therefore no maruail if he be sayed to haue descended in to [...]ell seing he suffred such death as God in his wrath punisheth the wicked withall. Thus farre you haue the wordes of Caluin, and his hainous he­resy therein contained. As for the saying off the prophet, which (as he and his felowes do in infinit other texts of holy scripture) he wresteth from the true meaning, the Catholike church hath allwaies taken it to haue ben fulfilled on the Crosse, in the bodely death of Christ. For there he was smitten off the Father for our offences, and brused for our wic­kednes, there the chastisement of our peace and at­tonement was layed vpon him. But Caluin, as if he were a man priuileged from God to saie and te­ache as he listeth, will haue it so ment, that Christ [Page 231] beside his bodely death on the Crosse, be sent in to the place of sinners, which is hell (for of Christes de­scending in to hell he now disputeth, vnlesse (as so­me protestants do) he make no hell at all, and saie that Christ descended no otherwise in to hell, but that he was tormented on the Crosse) Reade the preface of Staphilus pag. 18. and the leafe. 106. there to paie and abide all the torments of sinners, sauing that he suffreth it not eternally. This is lo the rewarde off heresy, and of such as forsake their faith: to fall in to most horrible blasphemies, such as a Turk would ab­horre: and yet to see them not, but persuade them sel­ues they haue the light of the gospell, and be only true Christians, and all the worlde beside blind, su­perstitious and idolaters, not only that now is, but that hath ben this thousand yeares. I will no more exaggerat the matter. I wish them amendment and knowledg of the truthe: and desire all other to bewa­re in time, of such perilous heresies, as these vngho­stly ghospellers of Geneua bring to our deceiued countre. We will now passe to the doctrine of Cal­uin, touching the sacrament of baptim and consider how pure and euangelicall his doctrine thereof is.

In the sacrament of baptim, Heresies of Caluin about the Sacramēt of Baptim▪ though the doctrine of Caluin be allmost of all protestants of our coun­tre, not onely the sacramentaries, receiued and em­braced, yet it containeth many straunge and horrible heresies. Which so in that man happened, bicause he serched all suttle shiftes, and pried out all the preuy fetches he could deuise, whereby he might defeate the doctrine of the Catholike church. For hereupon [Page] he vvttereth in his doctrine diuers hainous heresies o­ther ignorantly or malitiously. First therefore we wil discouer vnto you, such of his heresies as are taken off the olde condemned heretikes in the primitiue Church: Then such as he forged him selfe expresly against holy scripture, and yet defendeth them no lesse foolishely then wickedly, as allwaies the proper of heretikes is to do.

It was the heresy of Pelagius, as S▪ Augustin recor­deth, that children were not borne in originall sinne. His wordes of thē are these. Ad quod­uultdemn. H [...]r. 88. Paruulos etiam negant se­cundum Adam carnaliter natos contagium mortis antiquoe prima natiuitate contrahere, sic enim eos sine vllo peccati o­riginalis vinculo asserunt nasci, vt prorsus non sit quod eis oporteat secunda natiuitate dimitti, that is. The pelagians denie that children borne by fleshe after Adā be giltie of dea­the by their first natiuite. For they make them to be borne so withoute bonde of originall sinne, that they nede no remissi­on in their seconde natiuite or regeneration. Here the Pe­lagians make children to be borne in state off grace and not giltie of originall sinne. This these heretikes taught generally of all children. Caluin teacheth the same in children borne off Christen parents. 2. Cor. 15. Hea­re his wordes, oute off the 17. chapter off his In­stitutions towardes the ende. Infantes nostros ante­quam nascātur se adoptare in suos pronunciat Deus, cum se nobis in deum fore promittit seminique no [...]tro post nos. Hoc verbo continetur eorum salus, that is. God promising that he will be oure God, and oure childrens after vs, pronounceth that he adopteth and admitteth oure children for his owne, [Page 232] before they are borne. In this worde their saluation is conta­ined. And in an other place thus he writeth. In appendi­ce contra Interin. Sancta vi­delicet & c [...]te. The issue of Christen parents is borne holy bi­cause of the promis of God: and their children euen yet in the wombe before they come to open life, are admitted in to the le­age of life euerlastinge. Caluin here and the Pelagians agree in this, that children are borne withoute origi­nal sinne and in state of grace. The difference maie se­me to be, that Caluin speaketh this of Christen chil­dren onely whereas the Pelagians speake generally of all children. But you shall see that by the proufe whiche Caluin bringeth for this abominable doctri­ne, it shall stretche to all children. For what is the proufe he bringeth? Forsothe the promis of God. What promis is that? that whiche he made to Abrahan, saieng he woulde be his god and his sede after him. In this worde sa­ieth Caluin, their saluation is contained. Let vs thē sup­pose that by the warrant of Caluins mouthe all the realme of Englande being nowe Christian, shoulde leaue their childrē vnbaptised, bicause they are allrea­dy admitted in to the leage of life euerlasting. Those children coming to the age of mē, and hauing other children, muste they baptise their children, or must they not? If they muste baptise their children, then the promis of God reacheth not vnto them. For if it reached to them, it should ereache also to their chil­dren: In which case they nede not be baptised, but maie liue by the baptim of their grandfathers. If they may not baptise their children, but let them liue with­oute baptim, thē see what detestable enormites and [Page] hainous blasphemies will ensue thereupon.

First by this rule all the christening of children in England sens the faithe first planted there, and the re­alme thouroughely baptised, wiche pricketh nowe wel vpon a thousande yeares, hathe ben in vaine and to no purpose, for that they came of the issue and bloud of Christen parents.

Secondarely all baptim nowe maie cease in the re­alme, all fontes maie be shutt vp, and of two sacra­ments whiche onely remaine, they maie take away one, to witt baptim, and then talke no more of the Sacraments in Christ his churche, but of a sacramēt: whiche also in what pointe Caluin hathe lefte vs, we haue I truste sufficiently before declared.

Thirdly Christendome shall be no more a spiri­tuall matter, geuen by the administration of Sacra­ments, but a temporall benefit, entailed to the bloud of the parēts. And then greate questions might ari­se of bastards, being not the [...]ede of Christen maria­ge, but the frute of filthy fornication or sinnefull ad­uoutry.

Fourthely we muste put oute of the scripture the wordes of oure Sauiour, I [...]an. 3. Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex a­qua & spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum, that is, an. 1549▪ 1551. 1552. 15 [...]2. Onles a man be borne againe of water and the holy ghoste he shall not enter into the kingdome of heauen. And truly they drawe well towarde to do so. For looke in the Englishe bibles who will, printed of late yeares, and he shall finde the worde ( againe) to be lefte oute. And euen as nowe they haue lefte oute that one worde [Page 233] (by the which oure regeneration by baptim is moste necessarely imported) [...]o may they within fewe yeares leaue oute the whole sentence, and thē make a scrip­ture of their owne. For what other can we looke for of these impudent presumptuous heretikes, if they may be suffred to runne their race at will? Oure lorde staie it, if it be his pleasure.

Laste of all if Christendome so dependeth of oure parents, why haue all Christen men euer so charely baptised their children, as all stories do testi­fy? Was it as Caluin writeth, bicause they shoulde not departe withoute the signe or badge of a Christ­ian man? Truly he writeth so: and in so writing he holdeth the heresy of the Maniches, as in the other he dothe of the Pelagians. as ye shal anon see. But no­we harken what les [...]on S. Augustin geueth vs tou­ching the baptim of children. These are his wordes. Quisquis dixreit quód in Christo viuificantur paruuli qui sine Sacramēti eius participatione de vita exeūt, Epist. [...] 28. hic profecto & contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit, & totā condem­nat Ecclesiam: vbi propterea cum baptisandis paruulis festi­natur & curritur, quia sine dubio creditur aliter eos in Christo viuificari omnino non posse. that is. Whosoeuer shall saie that infants shall haue life in Christe which depar­te oute of this life withoute receauing baptim, truly that man bothe procedeth against the doctrine of the Apostles, and al­so condemneth the whole Churche: where men make haste and runne to baptise their infants for that cause surely, bicau­se vndoubtedly they beleue that other wise they can haue no life in Christ. Lo the testimony of S. Augustin a most [Page] assured witnes of antiquite, In institut. Cap. 18. and beste to be trusted in reporte of awncient belefe, by the verdit of Caluin him selfe. Let vs a litle considre the place. Caluin as you heard before, saieth that children of Christē parents are borne holy, and are admitted in to the leage of life euer­lasting being yet in the mother wombe. and that by the pro­mis of god they are all ready saued. S. Austen saieth with oute baptim they haue no life in Christ: and that who so saieth contrary (as Caluin dothe teaching them to be saued afore baptim) he procedeth against the doctrine of the Apostles, VVath the doctrine of Caluin is and condemneth the whole Churche. Lo nowe you see expresly, what the doctrine of Caluin is. It fighteth directly against the doctrine of the Apostles. It condemneth the whole churche. It is the heresy of the Pelagians. But some scholer of Caluin will saie that S. Agustin here speaketh of the children of hethē parents. No truly. For marke his wordes. He saieth. mē make haste and runne to baptise infants. What men tro­we ye were they? hethen? Would the hethen runne to baptise their children, being them selues vnchrist­ned, and detesting all Christendome? Or would Christen men runne with the children of hethen pa­rents? No that was against the lawe of the primitiue churche. For the childe coulde not be baptised or Christened, Thom. 22. q. 10. ar. 12 against the fathers will, vntel he came to full age and discretion. And therefore at this houre the practise is in Italy, where Iewes are cōmon, that the father remaining a Iewe, the childe vnder age can not be forced to baptim against the fathers wil. Els by this time all Iewes, had ben christned in Italy, and [Page 234] other where. By this testimony therefore of S. Augu­stin it is clere that Caluin by this detestable doctrine defendeth the cursed heresy of Pelagius. Nowe ye shall see he teacheth also as the Maniches dyd.

S. Augustin reakoning vp the sūdry and hainous he resies of the Maniches, amonge the rest reakoneth al­so their heresy against baptim, Ad Quod­uultdemn Haeres. 64▪ writing of them in these wordes. Hij baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam per­hibent salutis afferre: nec quenquam eorum quos decipiunt baptisandum putant: that is. These men affirme that baptime done in water bringeth no saluation to any. And thereupon such as they deceiue, they thinke they nede not be baptised. Let vs nowe heare whether Caluin saie not euē the sa­me of baptim. Cap. 17. In his institutions in the treatise of baptim, defining it to be but a signe and token, or bad­ge of a Christen man, he concludeth with these wor­des. Quis ergo aqua ista mundari nos dicat, quae certo testa­tur Christi sanguinem verū esse atque vnicum nostrum la­uacrum? That is. Who then will saie that we are clensed with this water, which dothe assuredly testifie, that the blou­de of Christ is oure true and onely cleansing? In the le­afe. 202. Of these wor­des we haue aboue disputed, and declared you the fal­shod and vntruthe of them. Nowe onely marke that he agreeth with the Maniches. For as they saie, that baptim done in water bringeth no saluation, so Caluin saieth that by the water of baptim we are not clensed. With the other parte of the Maniches saying he agre­eth as iuste as maye be, in the ende of the. 18. chap­ter of his Institutious, where he writeth thus. Non ideo baptisantur infantes [...]idelium, vt filij dei tunc fiant [Page] primum &c. that is. The infants of Christen men are not therefore baptised, that they may become the children of god, as thoughe they were before oute of the church, but rather they are with a solemne token receaued into the church, bi­cause they appertained before to the body of Christ, by the benefit of the promis. Therefore if we lette passe this token withoute contempt or negligence, we are safe from all daun­ger. This he writeth blaming the Catholike churche for suffring the midwiues and laye people in time of necessite, to baptise children: sayeng, they nede not so to do: but that withoute baptim the childe may be saued: euen as the Maniches thought: and there­fore estemed it nedeles, as Caluin dothe, to baptise those of their secte.

An other olde heresy Caluin by his doctrine off baptim consequently defendeth, when he writeth that after baptim, we nede no other penaūce, all oure life time, but when we fall, haue a recourse to oure baptim. His wordes in his Institutions the. 17. chap­ter are these: Sic cogitandum est quocunque baptisemur tempore, nos semel in omnem vitam ablui & purgari. Ita­que quoties lapsi fuerimus, repetenda erit memoria baptismi, & hac armandus animus, vt de peccatorum remissione sem­per certus securusque sit. that is. So we ought to thinke whensoeuer we are baptised, that we are clensed and purged for all oure life time. therefore as ofte as we fall we must re­membre oure baptim, and arme oure minde therewith being sure of forgeuenes of sinnes and carelesse. By this doctrine Caluin wipeth awaie the sacramēt of penaunce: and therefore in the wordes folowing, he teacheth that [Page 235] the absolution geuen by the churche is referred to baptim. Nowe to take awaie penaunce after baptim and to denie the second table of repētaunce, after the shipwracke of oure former renewing in baptim by deadly sinne (which in the 19. chapter of his instituti­ons he calleth a wicked doctrine) is an auncient he­resy of the Nouatians, as in S. Ciprian euery where it appereth, and in S. Ambrose, who wrote a lerned wor­ke against them. Lo the laudable and sounde doctrine of Ihon Caluin, a man called of the deuil to raise vp olde carren heresies, and to infect therewith the well disposed hartes of good Christians.

Truly if Hercules was a man muche renouned and of great fame and reputation, for that he drewe oute of hell (as poetes do faine) the great helhownde Cerberus with is thre ougle heads, of what fame and reputation trowe we, ought Caluin to be, who hath plucked oute the deuill him selfe oute of hell with three times three hainous and horrible heresies (whiche aboue these thousand yeares haue ben tied to the deape dongell of hell) and hath lette him lose againe, to walke at his will, and preache at his pleasure aboute the worlde? In the doctrine of the blessed sa­crament of the aultar he raised vp, as you haue hear­de, the heresies of Arrius, of Samosatenus, of Nestori­us, of Faustus Manicheus, of Valentinus, and of Mar­cion. In this sacrament of baptim, he teacheth as the Pelagians, the Maniches, and the Nouatians, all famous and notorious heretikes taught aboue a thousand ye­ares paste.

[Page] It shall not nede to discusse or examin any farder his doctrine defending these heresies. It suffiseth for any Christen man to knowe that they are olde con­demned heresies, and accompted for suche of the church of Christ. And with this reason concluded S. Augustin his litle treatise of heresies, hauing rea­koned vp all suche as had ben from Christes time to his. I wil geue you here his conclusion and doctrine, for a good holesom triacle, against the poisons off Caluin aboue recited. His wordes are these. Quid con­tra ista sentiat catholica Ecclesia superfluo quaeritur: cum propter hoc scire sufficiat eam contra ista sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam debere recipere. Sed multum ad­iuuat cor fidele nosse quid credendum non sit, etiam si dispu­tandi facultate id refutare non possit. Omnis itaque Chri­stianus catholicus ista non debet credere. that is. It is but in vaine to require what the Catholike church teacheth against these heresies: it is inoughe to knowe that she dothe teache a­gainst them, and that no man ought to beleue any of all these. But it auaileth muche to the faithfull and true beleuing harte to knowe, what oughte not be beleued, though by drif­te of reason it be not able to refute it. Therefore euery Christi­an Catholike man ought in no wise beleue these thinges. Lo we haue a good holesom lesson of this most reue­rent and lerned Father. I beseche god geue vs all gra­ce to folowe it, and to detest al suche doctrine and doctours, as forceth vs to embrace suche olde cursed heresies by their newe deuised fantasies, and to forsa­ke the Catholike churche of more then fiften hun­dred yeares, to folowe the trace of newe and olde heresies [Page 236] patched together, and blasted abrode scant yet halfe one hundred yeares.

His heresies forged of him selfe aboute baptim are these. In institut. Cap. 17. In commē ­tar. in. 1. Cor. Cap. 10. First he teacheth that the baptim of S. Ihon and the baptim of Christ was all one. Then that the Ie­wes were no lesse baptised vnder Moyses in the clou­de and in the read sea, then Christen men are nowe in the fonte. And that equall grace was geuen in bothe. These are two heresies expressely against holy scripture.

As touching the firste S. Ihon in the ghospell put­teth a most manifest distinction betwene his baptim and the baptim of Christ, Mat. 3. saying thus of him selfe. I baptise you in water to repentaunce, but he that shall come after me is of more power, then I am, he shall baptise you in the holy ghoste and in fire. In these wordes S. Ihon decla­reth that he baptised in water onely to repentaunce, preparing the hartes off men and disposing them to receaue the Messias Christ him selfe, who should baptise them, not in water onely as Ihon did for re­pentaūce, but in the holy ghoste also and fire, that is, geuing to those which by Christ were baptised the holy, ghoste, as a full pleadge and assuraunce of re­mission of oure sinnes, and the fire of burning and feruēt charite, whereby al vanites and pleasures of the worlde shoulde be quenched and consumed.

Againe if the baptim of S. Ihon were all one with the baptim of Christ, thē we must correct holy scrip­ture saieng of S. Ihon, praeibis ante faciem domini parare rias eius, thou shalt go before the face of oure Lorde to praepa­re [Page] his waies, and saie with Caluin that he Christned mē as well as Christ dyd, and was the Lorde him sel­fe, that should weane vs in to the faithe by his bap­tim.

Thirdly the baptim of S. Ihon is called in holy scripture no other, but baptismus penitentiae the baptim of repentaunce. For repentaunce was the waie that S. Ihon made to bring men to Christ. Nowe the bap­tim of Christ is called lauacrum regenerationis & reno­uationis spiritus sancti, Tit. 3. the fountaine of regeneration and renewing of the holy ghoste. Be these all one? Is there not a farre passing difference betwene them?

Laste of all we reade in the actes of the Apostles euidētly, that suche as were baptised before of Ihon, were after baptised againe by S. Paule. Acto. 19. The wordes of the scripture are these. Paule coming to Ephesus founde there certain disciples (that is suche as bore them sel­ues for Christians) and he saied vnto them, haue ye recei­ued the holy ghost and do ye beleue? but they saied vnto him. We haue not so muche as heard if there be any holy Ghoste. Then he saied. Wherein then are ye baptised? which awn­swered vnto him, In the baptim of Ihon. Then Paule saied Ihon baptised the people with the baptim of penaunce, telling thē they should beleue in him that should come after him, that is, in Iesus. This being heard, they were baptised in the name of oure Lorde Iesus. Hetherto the wordes of holy scri­pture. Nowe if the baptim of Ihō and Christ were al one, as Caluin saieth, why dyd S. Paule baptise them againe as the scripture here declareth? Doth Caluin allowe rebaptisation? Is he an Anabaptist? Or were [Page 237] they baptised againe bicause they were not instructed before in the holy ghoste? This were in dede a good reason for the furious Anabaptistes to make vs all come to the fonte again, bicause when we were ba­bes, we vnderstode nothing of the holy ghoste. What shift then hath Caluin here to defeate this most ex­presse text of holy scripture? Truly he laboureth im­pudently to defeate in it his institutions: but with no lesse foly then impudency. For whereas it is writen they were baptised in the name of Iesus, Caluin denieth scripture. Institu. C [...]p, 17. that is saieth Cal­uin, they receaued visible and sensible graces of the holy ghost they were not baptised again. Lo the scripture saieth, they were baptised in the name of Iesus. Caluin saieth they re­ceaued visible graces of the holy ghoste. Maye not a mā by this meanes come and denie baptim vtterly and saie that after the ascension of Christ none were bapti­sed? For in all the newe testament after the ascension of Christ we reade of no other baptim, but that men were baptised in the name of Iesus. So we reade in the first sermon of S. Peter made after the coming dow­ne of the holy goste. Baptizetur vnusquisque vestrum in nomine Iesu Christi. Acto. 2. Let euery one of you be baptised in the name of Iesus Christ. And of the Centurion and all his house it is writen, Acto. 10. they were baptised in the name of oure lorde Iesus Christ. Nowe all this by Caluins doctrine was no baptim, but onely a receauing of visible gra­ces from the holy ghoste. For why maye it not as well meane so in other places as here? shall scripture meane sometime one thinge, sometimes an other as it pleaseth Caluin?

[Page] Againe many were baptised, that receaued not tho­se visible graces. Or els Caluin must saie there is no baptim nowe in the worlde nor hath no ben these many hundred yeares. Cornelius also and his family receaued those visible graces before they were bapti­sed. Acto. 10. Whereby we lerne it is not al one to receaue tho­se visible graces, and to be baptised.

But what nede we farder refute this impudent he­reticall shifte of Caluin? It foloweth immediately in the text aboue recited. Et quum imposuisset manus eis Paulus, venit Spiritus Sanctus super eos & loquebantur lin guis & prophetabant. that is. And when Paule had laied handes ouer them the holy ghoste came down vpon them and they spake with tongues and prophecied. Lo these vi­sible giftes were geuen them after they were bapti­sed by laieng on of handes. For the scripture telleth vs, that first S. Paule baptised them, and after layed handes on them, which being done the visible graces were geuen them.

What thinke ye now? did Caluin trow ye reade so farre? In institut. Cap. 17. yes sothely. And yet goeth he forth to defend impudently that which he had ones wickedly affir­med. For he saieth, all this was but one action though it be diuersly tolde, for two seuerall actions. and he saieth so onely. But by what authorite, by what reason saieth he so? He telleth vs, it is the maner of the hebrew phrase to speake first the matter shortely, and after to sette it forthe me­re at large. What if it be the maner of the hebrew phrase? Is it so allwaies, or sometimes onely? If it be so all waies, then shoulde he at leste haue brought here one [Page 238] example. Nowe he bringeth none at al. Beside that he shooteth very wide of the marke. Quinquar­boreus in Operegrā. No tounge auoi­deth more idle repetitions of one thinge, no tounge affecteth more breuite and speaketh more in fewer wordes, then the hebrew dothe: and therefore it is called of al other most chaste, frugall, and lesse ryo­tous in lāguage. I reporte me herein to the skilful the­reof. If he meane it is the hebrewe phrase sometimes to speake so, what of that? so is it the greke phrase, the latin phrase, and the phrase of all tongues someti­mes to do. What then? Bicause it dothe so sometime, ergo dothe it so in this place?

But where trowe ye was Caluins witt and re­membraunce when he wrote this? An impudent fo­ly of Caluin. What meaned he to bleare oure eyes with the authorite of an hebrew phrase in this place, whiche nother was writen in the hebrew tongue nor of any hebrician? For whose wordes are those we alleaged you before? Be they not writen in the Actes of the Apostles the .19. chap­ter? Was the Actes of the Apostles euer writen in the hebrewe tongue? we neuer heard yet, that any parte of the new testament was writen in the hebrewe ton­gue, except S. Matthewes ghospell onely and the epi­stle vnto the hebrewes. Againe who wrote the Actes of the Apostles? Was it not S. Luke the Euangelist a greke borne, to witt at Antiochia? To what a misera­ble shift trowe ye was this willfull proude heretike driuen, when to vpholde his heresy against the ex­presse wordes of scripture, after all other shiftes, he was glad at the length to flie to the succour of an he­brewe [Page] phrase, in suche a text as neither was writen in the hebrewe tongue, neither of any hebrewe borne? But what will not an heretike do, rather then he will acknowleadg the truthe? We reade that onely Christ was able to put the Pharises to silence, and stoppe the mouthes of the Sadduces: two hereticall sectes of the Iewes as the Lutherans and the Caluinistes are no­we of the Christians. We haue peraduēture ben ouer longe in this one point. But it was necessary that the suttle shiftes of that wily heretike, shoulde be discoue­red. This perilous booke of his Institutions, is (as I vnderstande) in oure englishe tongue, and commaun­ded to be reade of the simple and vnlerned priestes. Let these fewe pointes, that by occasion in this oure discours we haue discouered, be a lesson and charita­ble aduertismēt vnto them, what to iudge of the rest. Truly it were better for them, being vnlerned, to nou­rishe a serpent at their table, then to reade this peri­lous poisonned booke: whereby the olde serpent is euer at hande to seduce them, in to most hainous: heresies, and most horible blasphemies, as we haue before in parte touched.

The seconde heresy that Caluin vttereth and for­geth himselfe aboute this doctrine of baptim is, that the Iewes were baptised in the cloude and in the read sea, as we are in the fonte. He teacheth this doctrine in his cō ­mentaries vpon the first to the Corinthiās the tenth chapter, and concludeth that & in spirituali substantia & in figura visibili bothe in the spirituall substaunce and in the visible figure, their baptim in the cloude [Page 239] and in the read sea, agreeth with oure baptim in the fonte. And therefore he teacheth the Iewes to haue had the sacramēt of baptim no lesse then we. And this he dothe, bicause he woulde bringe oure Christen faith to mere figures, signes, and shadowes, in the whi­che the Iewes in the olde lawe were traded to a bet­ter perfection vnder Christ, as S. Paule teacheth. But let vs see howe hereticall and false this doctrine is.

First it repugneth manifestly against holy scriptu­re. For S. Paule after he had saied, the Iewes were bapti­sed in the cloude and in the read sea, he saieth euen imme­diately after Hec in figura facta sunt nostri, these thinges were done in the figure of vs. and againe after a fewe lines, Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis. all these thin­ges happened to them in figure. And thus do all holy fa­thers expoūde this place. Homil. 23. in 1. r. 10. tract. 11. & 45. in Ioan. Chrisostom saieth. Veritatis nominibus vsus est in figura. the Apostle vsed the names off the verite in the figure. S. Augustin sayeth: their passing throughe the read sea, whereby the escaped the Aegyptians, In com. in 1 Cor. 10. figu­red the deliuraunce of vs from the deuill throughe baptim. Theodoret writeth, that the cloud ouer shadowing them from burning heates figured the grace of the holy ghoste ouersha­dowing vs from flame of concupiscence and sinne. Ibidem. S. Hie­rom likewise writeth that these thinges happened vnto them in vmbra & typo, non in veritate, in shadowe and figure, not in verite. Onely Caluin against expres­se scripture, and so many lerned fathers, impudently, as his maner is, defendeth that the cloude and the read sea was as true a baptim to the Iewes as the holy fon­te is to vs. But let vs see what absurde inconuenien­ces [Page] depend of this doctrine, thoughe nor scripture, nor authorite of holy fathers made against it.

If the children of Israel were baptised bothe in the read sea and in the cloude, with the like perfection as we in the fonte, then they were twise baptised: and our baptim may be double not withstanding the perfecti­on of it. Which being so, we must chaunge the scrip­ture in S. Paule, saying there is vna fides, vnum baptisma but one faithe and but one baptim. Ephes. 4. Caluin here awnswe­reth that these are two different signes, making but one baptim, awnswering to oure baptim. But see I pra­ie you what a sory shifte this is. For first by the do­ctrine of Caluin, Iustitut. Cap. 17. (as you haue heard before) baptim is nought els but a signe of the remission of sinnes, by the which we are admitted in to the felowship and societe of Christen men. Nowe if the Iewes had two suche different sig­nes, had they not two baptims? or els if those two signes made but one baptim, then in the clowde they were not baptised, vntell they had passed the read sea, which was afterwarde. Nowe S. Paule saieth, they we­re baptised in the cloude, and in the sea. Iff the worde Bap­tised, as Caluin will haue it, be ment of true baptim, suche as oures is, then were they truly baptised bothe in the cloude and in the sea: whiche were two diuers actions, and at two sundry times.

Againe if the children of Israel were baptised in the cloude and in the sea, with the like perfection as we are in the fonte, howe will Caluin auoide the sus­picion of an Anabaptiste, seing they were baptised be­fore in their circumcision by the doctrine of Caluin? [Page 240] For Caluin in his Institutions, in his chapter of bap­tim teacheth that circuncision was to the Iewes as baptim was to vs: the onely difference being in the outwarde signe. to witt, that by circuncision they had remission off sinnes, life euerlasting, and were admitted in to the leage of god. And oure baptim (as you haue heard) Caluin defineth to be naught els, but a sure token or warrant that we be admitted in to the societe and number of Christen men ioyned in leage to god. Nowe if the Iewes by Circumcision had their perfit baptim, and yet in the cloude and in the sea were bap­tised again as perfitly, dothe not this doctour of Ge­neua teache vs diuersite of baptims? Caluin furdereth the cause of the A­nabapti­stes. Dothe he not muche furder the cause of the Anabaptistes? Seing it is but a matter of signes by Caluins doctrine, haue not they greate occasion to crie vpon rebaptisation? It is not muche to be maruailed, if so many Sacramen­taries be also Anabaptistes, as experience doth showe in all those countres, where Sacramentaries do swar­me. The doctrine of Caluin dothe minister right good occasion thereunto, as you shall see yet by one consequence more, deducted of this his heresie.

If the Iewes were baptised in their circuncision, in the cloude, in the sea, and receaued the same baptim as Christen men do in the fonte, howe saye we to the baptim of S. Ihon? Why dyd S. Ihon baptise the Iewes being baptised before with the very same baptim? For if (as Caluin here saieth) the Iewes were baptised in the cloude, and in the sea, no lesse then we are in the baptim of Christ, and againe the baptim of S. [Page] Ihon be, (as you hearde him saie before) the very sa­me baptim, that Christ his baptim is, why, I saie, dyd S. Ihon baptise them againe? Dothe he not here te­ache plaine rebaptisation? Let vs yet go one steppe farder.

The Iewes, saieth Caluin, were baptised in the cloude, and in the sea, in their circuncision, in the baptim of S. Ihon, euen as we are in the water of ou­re baptim. Why then dyd S. Peter at his first sermon made to the Iewes exhorte them to baptim againe? And those of the Iewes whiche beleued in Christe, why were they baptised, as the text saieth they were? For it is writen. Acto. 2. Qui receperunt sermonem eius baptisati sunt, they that receaued the worde of Peter, were baptised. And why dyd Ananias baptise S. Paule? If the Iewes were as verely and as truly baptised in the clowde, vnder Moyses, Acto. 9. (whiche Caluin most impudently af­firmeth) as we are in the fonte vnder Christ, and his minister, why were they baptised againe of S. Ihon, or of the Apostles, when they came to the faithe of Christ? What a numbre of baptims dothe Caluin tea­che vs, beside the one onely baptim of Christ, whi­che the Catholike church hathe lerned in holy scrip­ture? Circuncision, the clowde, the sea, the baptim of S. Ihon, and al these the very same and of the selfe sa­me effect, and force, as the baptim of Christ. Is not Caluin trowe ye a ioyly Anabaptiste? Nay dothe he not farre passe the Anabaptistes? They go aboute to repete one twise. Caluin maketh vs fyue for one: off the which euery Christned Iewe by his doctrine, ha­the [Page 241] foure. and euery vnchristened Iewe hathe three.

I woulde nowe passe from his heresies to his con­tradictions. But I muste nedes put you in minde off one ioyly tricke of Caluin which he practised in the planting of this heresy. In his commentaries vpon S Paule where he teacheth this doctrine, after longe labour and strife, seing he coulde bringe forthe no true childe, but that it proued to a mōster, and ougle vnnatural thinge, and perceauing one foule faute in it which he thought most of all those of his genera­tiō would abhorre, he goeth aboute to cloke it and colour it, as wel as he maie. The greate faute that he espied him selfe in this doctrine, is, that it had no ex­presse scripture for it. You shall heare him finde the faute and see howe he will remedy it. These be his wordes. Sed rursum obijcitur: Caluin a­uoucheth doctrine of his ovvne vvit­hout scripture. nullum de his verbum ex­tare. I d ego fateor: sed neque dubium hoc est quin Deus spiritu suo defectum externae praedicationis suppleuerit. that is, But they will obiecte againe. That there is no worde ex­tant hereof. That do I confesse, but it is not to be doubted but that God by his Spirit hath supplied the lacke of external preaching. Lo Caluin nowe is glad to runne to the refuge of the holy ghoste for his doctrine whē scri­pture faileth him. But when the Catholike churche, Caluin­vvil not allovve the doctrine of the church vvithout scripture directed allwaies and assisted by the holy ghoste, te­acheth vs any thinge, that is not expressed in holy scripture, Caluin can not abide it. Hereupon in his Institutiōs he raileth at the adoratiō of Christ in the blessed sacrament, bicause in holy scripture, saieth he, Nulla eius mentio ostendi potest, quae tamen non fuisset [Page] pretermissa si deo accepta foret, that is. No mentiō there of cā be showed, which notwithstāding had not bē omitted, if it had liked god. And in the matter of reseruatiō, though he graūt that the primitiue church vsed it, yet bicause it is not expressed in scripture, he wil none of it. Thus whē it pleaseth Caluin, scripture is requisit, and whē it pleaseth him not, scripture may be lacked and the spirit of god maie supplie it. In like maner though he crie vpō scripture alwaies, and (as we noted you befo­re oute of his Institutitiōs) wil not allow the church no farder, Cap. 8. de side. thē she bringeth expresse scripture for her, yet not only in this place he teacheth beside scriptu­re, and cōfesseth it to, but also in many other places.

In the matter of the blessed sacrament of the aul­tar, you haue sene in howe many and sundry poin­tes, his doctrine repugneth to holy scripture, while he laboureth to persuade men, that to be but bread and wine, which oure Sauiour pronounced to be his body and bloud. It cometh nowe to my minde, ho­we impudenly he shifteth awaie the authorite of ex­presse scripture, where with he sawe him selfe pres­sed. You shall heare his wordes. In his Institutions the 18. chapter thus he writeth. Vtcunque verborū Chri­sti tangi se religione quiritentur, Caluin requireth to be he­arde, thou ghe scrip­ture be plaine a­gainst him. quo minus figuraté intel­ligere ausint, que sunt tam aperté dicta, non est tamen hic sa­tis iustus praetextus, cur omnes quae contra obijciuntnr ra­tiones ita respuāt. that is. Howesoeuer they crie and cōplai­ne that for the reuerence of Christ his wordes they dare not take it for a figure which was so plainly spoken, yet this is no sufficient pretēce why they shuld refuse al such reasons, as we [Page 242] bringe against thē. This he writeth against the Luthe­rās, which will not go frō the real presence of Christ in the Sacramēt. And see we not here the vncredible arrogancy of this proude heretike? Doth he not sho­we him felfe to be a very Antichriste? Caluin is an Anti­christ. For what can Antichriste require more off men, then to haue the expresse wordes of Christ yelde to suche reasons, as he will obiect against? And dothe not Caluin re­quire the very same? Doth he not bidd the Luthe­rans beleue his reasons, against the expresse wor­des of Christ? And where as the Lutheran al­leageth that bicause the wordes of Christ are plaine saieng. This is my body, he can not be brought to ma­ke it a figure, as Caluin dothe, what other shifte ha­the Caluin, then to saie that this is no sufficient pre­tence, why they shoulde refuse his reasons for the contrary? Which is as much to saie. Though Christ speake plainely, yet you must harken also what we can saie against it: and ye must geue eare to suche re­asons, as we can laie against him: and then folowe my reasō, what soeuer Christe or the ghospel telleth you. Nowe what cā Antichriste require more? Verely as S. Iohn saied of the heretikes of his time, 1. Ioan. 2. Antichristi multi sunt, there are many Antichristes, so may we most truly say of our time. there are many Antichristes: but no­ne a more righter Antichrist, thē this heretike Calui.

You haue sene good readers, what heresies and howe diuers Caluin hathe partely renewed, part­ly forged of his owne, in his doctrine aboute these two Sacraments, which onely he acknowleadgeth, [Page] and taketh for Sacraments. If we woulde vse the li­ke diligence in other points of his doctrine, we coul­de be longe, and should be, I feare, tedious. And truly it were to be wished, that neither the heresies of this man, neither any heresie at all were knowen to the common and vnlerned people. But bicause this sut­tle heretike hathe so wined him selfe in to mens har­tes, that he hathe trained them not onely from the Catholike churche of Christ, but also from the Lu­therās, and Melanchthonistes, which before bore all the swaie of this new gospell, I thought good to dis­couer his heresies, and other abominable doctrine aboute these two Sacraments, as two of the waigh­tiest articles nowe in controuersy, and most of all other touching oure saluation: to the entent that not onely the Catholikes, and suche as god of his goodnes hathe hetherto staied in the faithe of the churche, may (as they do) vtterly abhorre his doc­trine, neither yelde by the wickednes of the time, to any one point thereof, but also oure dere deceiued countremen, that so gladly reade his workes, and so gredely deuoure his diue lish doctrine, maye lerne of these fewe, what to iudge of the rest, and by the sou­re taste of these mislike the remnant of his vnpleasant and most poisonned doctrine. For if in these two blessed Sacraments, the one being the gate and entry of saluation, the other being a most heauenly foode to preserue vs therein, he sticketh not to vtter so har­nous heresies, and setteth him selfe so wickedly aga­inst the church of god, what conscience trowe ye is [Page 243] he like to take in other pointes of oure Christen re­ligion, lesse necessary, and of lesse importance? well: Though he were in al the rest sounde and withoute blot, yet these his heresies of vs recited, of him vttered and taught, maye be sufficient to discredit him in the cōscience of any Christien harte. For I thinke, and trust verely, there is no Christen man in all the real­me of England, be he neuer so farre waded in heresy, but that he dothe reuerence the primitiue church of Christ, of the first fyue or six hundred yeares, and will be ready to condemne all suche heresies, as were in that time and age cōdemned. Nowe the Maniches, the Ariās, the Valētinians, the Marcionistes, the Nesto­rians, the Nouatians, the Pelagians, the Samosatencall, and other, whose heresies Caluin hath renewed we­re in the compas of those fiue hundred yeares condē ­ned. If we woulde come downe lower, we coulde re­cite a number more of heretikes, condemned also in Christ his church, with whose heresies the doctri­ne of Caluin dothe agree. But in consideration of the impudent bragges made nowe in euery pulpit, that all is reduced to the state of the primitiue chur­che, I haue chosen oute suche heresies in Caluins doctrine, as were in that time condemned: geuing you to vnderstand that all is not the gospell which is there spoken: vnlesse perhaps by reducing all to the state of the primitiue church, they meane renewing of olde heresies condemned in the primitiue church. And truly so must they meane if they saie truly. But let vs returne to Caluin.

[Page] In the doctrine of free will, Contra­dictions of Caluin aboute the doc­trine of free vv. l. I will make no espe­ciall recitall of his heresies: But note you his con­tradictions, of the which euer one part is an heresy. In his Institutions the .14. chapter, he writeth, that God did not only foresee the fall of the first man Adam, and in it the fall of all his posterite, but also it was his will, it should be so. Pag. 57. pag. 132 & 136. Againe in his booke of predestination against Pighius he hath the same doctrine, saying that God would not haue suffred Adam to fall, but that he would haue it so to be. Also that God so determined it and ordained it. Now in his booke of free will a­gainst Pighius also, he saith in two places these wor­des. I confesse with Origen that those which take away free will from Adā before he sinned, be heretikes. Pag. 67. 68. How agree these sayings of him? If it were not only the will of God that Adam should fall, but also that he deter­mined and ordained it so to be, then he fell of neces­site. For the determined will of God can not be frustrated. Adā therefore could not, if he had would continewed in his innocency. And yet had he free will? If hotte and colde be all one, then is this do­ctrine vniforme.

Againe in his booke of predestination he saith. All wsuchickednes as man committeth by malice of his ow­ne, pag. 243. procedethae so of God, and that not without good reason, although we knowe it not. And to make his opinion herein most clere, in the same booke he saieth. It is a fonde solution of S. Paules saying, Esadu odio habui, I ha­ted Esau, to saie that the reprobats do worke their owne de­struction by their owne malice. And yet see what he [Page 244] saith in his institutions the .2. chapter. Man, saith he, can not impute the hardnes of his hart to any other cause, then to him selfe. This lo is most true. But why then saied he before, the wickednes of man procedeth of God? Why reprouueth he that solution, which he now maketh him selfe?

Farder Caluin in his booke of predestination, going aboute to mitigat his former doctrine, whe­re he taught that the reprobats could not chose, but do euill, Pag. 156. saieth afterwarde, he meaneth not of euery particular worke. for a litle before he confesseth Saul had do­ne certain thinges well. But directly contrary to this shift is an other expresse doctrine of his in the very same booke, Pag. 154. where he saieth. Men can not possi­bly haue any affection to do well, vnlesse they be of the cho­sen and elected. such as reprobats neuer be. For of Iu­das a sure reprobat Caluin him selfe pronoūceth: Certum est Iudam nunquam fuisse membrum Christi: In eom. in 6. Cap. I [...]n. Cer­tain it is that Iudas was neuer any membre of Christ.

Caluin yet for the better auauncement of his wicked doctrine against free will, pretendeth to fo­low S. Augustin in all pointes. And therefore in his booke of predestination, he saieth, he varieth not from S. Augustin so much as one sillable in this question of prede­stination. Pag. 18. Notwithstanding in his Institutions he saieth, Cap. 2. that S. Augustin was sometime scrupulous, and would not tell the truthe of predestination roundely. as when in his booke De praedestinatione & gratia he sa­ieth, that the induration and blinding of the reprobats is not to be referred to the worke and operation of God, Cap. 6. but [Page] only to his foreknowleadg. Here in this most gracious doctrine of that good Father, Caluin chargeth him with scrupulosite. And yet he will beare vs in hand forsothe, that he agreeth euen in euery sillable with S. Augustin. Where in the one he declareth him selfe a praesumptuous heretike: in the other a false contra­dictour of his owne sayings.

Finally Caluin as in wordes and doctrine, so in doings and behauiour contrarieth his owne self. Cap. 8. In his Institutions he wrireth: It was neuer permitted to preachers of Gods worde to adde any one sillable to holy scri­ptare, or diminish from thence, but to preache the only bare worde, as it lieth. Now as in all his doctrine he talketh more then halfe beside holy scripture, so in this mat­ter of predestination he is not afeard to adde to the very text of S. Paule, wordes of his owne, for the ma­intenaunce of his wicked doctrine. For in his Insti­tutions labouring to refer the induration of the re­probats to the proper and eternall will of God, as a superiour cause, then their owne deserts and malice, thus he talketh. Cap. de pre­destinat. Restat nunc vt videamus curid Domi­nus faciat, quod eum facere palam est. Si respondeatur sic fie­ri, quia sic impietate, nequitia, ingratitudine sua meriti sunt homines, bene id quidem & vere dicetur. Sed quia nondum patet istius varietatis ratio, cur alijs in obedientiam flexis isti obdurati persistant, in ea excutienda necessario ad illud, quod ex Moyse adnotauit Paulus, transeundum erit. Nēpe quod ab initio eos excitarit Dominus, vt ostenderet nomen suum in vniuersa terra. Rom. 9. That is. It remaineth nowe to see why God doth that, which it is nowe clere he doth. If ye an­swer [Page 245] that so it is done, bicause men by their owne wickednes, malice, and vngratefulnesse haue so deserued (to be forsa­ken of God) that shall be well and truly answered. But bi­cause yet we see not the reason of this variete, why some being brought to obedience, other continewe indurated, in the dis­cussion of this doubte, we must nedes haue recourse to that w­hiche S. Paule noted oute of Moyses, to witt that from the beginning the Lorde had stirred them vp to showe his name through out all the worlde. Caluin addeth to the text of holy Scripture. Now these wordes, from the beginning, are not in S. Paule, nor Moyses in any text, latin, greke, or hebrewe, but are the wordes of Iohn Caluin added to the text of Gods worde for a vaun­tage, to witt, to make vs beleue, that from the beginning euen before the fall of Adam, God was the cause off induration aud harde hart of reprobats. For he is not you see, cōtēted to attribut it only to their owne de­serts and malice, but seketh a superiour cause in God, and that by the wordes of S. Paule from the beginning, which he nor none of all his scholers are euer able to showe vs in any text of S. Paule, that is. This is lo the plaine dealing of these ghospellers and refourmers of Christes Church: These be the chalengers of Gods worde. This is the pure text they vaunte and boaste of. They pretend to couet after the pure text and ba­re letter. But as the poet saied, ex vno disce omnes. By Caluin lerne what the rest are. And Time Danaos & dona ferentes. trust not an heretike though he bringe you scripture it selfe.

What false tricke is there, The de­meanour of Caluin, touvard holy scripture. that Caluin hath not plaied? He hath corrupted the text with false transla­tion, [Page] as we showed you in the 9. chapter, of Salo­mons prouerbes. He belieth holy Scripture, as yow heard in the S. chapter of S. Paull to the Romans. He denieth expresse scripture, as we declared you in the 19. chapter of the Actes of the Apostles. He requireth to be heard against expresse scripture, as we recited you oute of his Institutions. And nowe you see he addeth to holy Scripture. If this archeprotestant and greate ghospelling doctour, behaueth him selfe so in his printed workes, which remaine to be vewed of all lerned men, what will the nouices of his religion, and young prinking preachers sticke to do in pulpits, where they knowe their audience to be not allwaies lerned: and of the lerned, some of a presumed preiu­dice to take all for good, other to winke at all & vti foro?

Albeit the doctrine of Caluin (as you haue partly sene) be stuffed with abhominable heresies and most absurde contradictions, yet in all his doctrine he tal­keth peremptorely. He matcheth him selfe with the Apostles. He condemneth and reprouueth at his ple­asure all holy fathers. Whereby his pride and presum­ptuousnes sure mates of heresy vttereth it selfe. I will for example note you a fewe of his sayinges, where you shall see howe proudely he demeaneth him selfe and howe courteousely he ordereth the holy, aunci­ent, and lerned fathers.

First as touching his contradictions about free will, witting and feeling him selfe very well, that he might wottly be charged therewith, in one place of [Page 246] his booke of predestination he vtereth his feare, and with a worde of his mouthe thinketh to make all the matter smothe. pag. 61. These are his wordes. I saie again I am not ignorant what apparent absurdite and contradi­ction this doctrine hath with prophane men, and dispisors of God. But whatsoeuer they bable or barke, our conscience ought to serue vs for a thousand witnesses. A soluti­on of Caluin to de­fend his coutradic­tions. Is not this a gaie solution trow ye? hath he not geuen vs a substā ­tiall warrant of the vniformite of his doctrine? For what saieth he? Forsothe whatsoeuer contradictions we see and beholde with our eyes, yet we must trust Caluins cōscience, that he is so honest a man, that he would neuer saie or vtter any such thing. Now reade againe those fewe of his contradictions that we ha­ue recited, who list, and let him iudge in his owne conscience, what the consciēce of Caluin is, and ho­we farre it is to be trusted.

Againe as touching the singularite off his doctri­ne, which he knoweth and confesseth to be contra­ry to the olde fathers, what reason, thinke ye, brin­geth he for the defence off it? In his treatise of bap­tim, the 17. chapter of his Institutions, he expoūdeth the wordes of Christ to Nicodemus, Vnlesse a mā be bor­ne again by water and the holy Ghost, he shall not enter in to the knigdō of heauen, Ioan. 2. to be but an allegoricall speache against the whole practise off Christes church, and consent of all holy fathers, and lerned writers expo­unding the wordes off Christ literally as the text hath, for necessite of baptim. This Caluin knewe and confessed. But how then thinke you doeth he [Page] excuse the matter? what cl [...]ke hath he for his sin­gularite? Ye shall heare. After longe talke thus he concludeth. Scio alios aliter interpretari, sed hunc esse germanum sensum non dubito. that is. I knowe that other men haue otherwise expounded this, but I doubt not but this is the right sence. Lo Caluin doubteth not, and there­fore we must beleue him more thē all the church be­side. What is arrogancy, if this be not?

Likewise in his doctrine and booke of predesti­nation, Pag. 164. & 165. such as finde fault with his doctrine, he sa­ieth they blaspheme God: and crieth vnto them, as S. Paul did to such as Caluin is. Rom. 9. VVhat arte thou man which disputest with God? Now what the doctrine off Caluin is, you haue sene partly by this our simple discourse, and more especially it appeareth in the third parte of this Apologie. Yet he matcheth him selfe with God, In the lea­fe 112. and vaunteth the cōptrollers of his hereticall doctrine with the check of S. Paul, as curi­ous serchers of Gods depe secrets. And therefore no maruail iff he sett light by the holy Fathers off Christes church and reuerence them no deale at all.

In his treatise of baptim, Institut. Cap. 27 labouring to promote his heresy, touching the baptim off S. Ihon, that it should be equall with the baptim of Christ, remem­bring that the Fathers of the church laie in his waie and withstode him, Caluin disprou­ueth the lerned fa­thers. to make the restafeared, he ge­ueth the venter vpon S. Augustin, and saieth. Nec recipienda est illa Augustini argutia in spe dimissa fuisse peccata Ioannis baptismo, Christi baptismo reipsa dimitti, [Page 247] that is. Neither is that sutteltly off Augustin to be admit­ted, that by the baptim of Ihon sinnes were forgeuen but in hope, by the baptim off Christ they are forgeuen in dede. In other places he calleth S. Augustin, Cap. 18. de cena domi­ni. in dogmatibus ec­clesiae fidelissimū vetustatis interpretē a most trusty repor­ter of antiquite in doctrines of the church. But when it pleaseth M. Caluin, S. Augustins doctrine is but a suttelty. Likewise reprouuing the doctrine of penaunce, where it is compared to the borde after a shipwrac­ke, which is a vsuall similitude off all lerned writers, Cap. 19. de peniten. he writeth thus. They saie it is the similitude of Hierom, whose so euer it be, no doubt but it is a wicked similitude. Againe in his treatise of predestination, where as S. Gregory (as all other Catholike writers) teacheth that no man can be assured off his election, Cap. 14. de predest. & prouiden­tia. he vaun­teth proudly that lerned Father with these wordes. Pessimé & perniciose Gregorius &c. that is? worst of al and wickedly taught Gregory &c. In his commentaries vp­pon the sixt of Iohn disprouing the interpretation of Chrisostom, whom Theophilact, Euthymius and diuers haue coueted alwaies to folowe, Fallitur saieth he, meo iudicio Chrisostomus, Chrisostom in my iudgement is deceiued. What thinke you would Caluin feare to vtter, that setteth so light by these lerned fathers, whom the church so many hundred yeares hath re­uerenced and folowed? May not we saie to Caluin and al such presumptuous preachers of new doctrine, we knowe S. Augustin, we reuerence S. Hierom, we credit Gregory and Chrisostom: but you M. Caluin what are you, as it was saied to the vnbeleuing Iewes [Page] attempting to worke miracles vnder the name of Iesus and Paul, Acto. 19. Iesum noui, Paulū scio, vos autē qui estis? that is, Iesus I knowe and Paule also, but who are you?

Caluin yet staieth not here, he is not contented to reiect certaī of the Fathers the most lerned and most approued, in certain pointes. He goeth farder. He cō ­dēneth the whole primitiue church in the whole maner of the worshipping of God. For disputing against the blessed sacrifice of the Masse, he chargeth it with Iuish superstition: and thus he pronounceth off the whole order of the speciall and most principall ser­uice of the primitiue church. Cap. 18. de cena domini. They folowed rather the Iuish maner of sacrificing, then as Christ had ordained, or the order of the ghospel required. Thus saieth Caluin, not speaking of these late yeares, but euen of the primiti­ue church, Caluin condem­neth the primitiue church, of the first six hundred yeares, vnto the which time our Caluinistes at home dissenting in this point from their Master (at lest as they pretend) do referr all their doings and make the people beleue that the primitiue Church vsed that order of Cō ­munion as they do now, telling them withall that the blessed sacrifice of the Masse and the maner the­reof hath ben vsed onely sence these later hun­dred yeares. Notwithstanding Caluin their ma­ster acknowledgeth that maner off sacrifising in the primitiue Church, longe before that time, which bicause off the ceremonies thereof he calleth Iuish.

I wote not herein what more to maruail at and la­ment, other the vntolerable pride of this presumptu­ous [Page 248] heretike condemning the very primitiue church and therefore leauing vs no church sense the depar­ture hence of our Sauiour, or the wicked guile of our newe preachers, which doing no lesse then Caluin doth, sett yet a better coulour thereon, to entrappe thereby the readier the vnlerned and well meaning people in to their schismatical communion. For they condemne not openly the primitiue church of Iuish sacrifising, as Caluin doth, but denie stoutely that any such sacrifice or cerimonies was then vsed, Iuell. and offer to yelde if we can proue it. Let them now lerne off their Masters owne confession, that such there was, and let them lerne off their Crede, where they saie they beleue the Catholike church, not to condemne the primitiue church therein, which if they denie to be the Catholike and true church of Christ, they may as wel denie Christ him selfe head thereof, and frustrat the whole, mistery of his blessed Incarnati­on, as you heard before Dauid George did, and many Lutherās and Caluinistes do now in diuers partes of Germany to the great grief of al good Christē hartes

But to returne to Caluin, what may not he or any other heretike do, condemning and set­ting light by the fathers of the primitiue Church? For by them we haue not onely the true and right interpretation of holy scripture, but the scrip­ture also it selfe: which without their testimouy we could not be assured of. Wherefore S. Augustin after he had left the Manichees, and cleaued to the Catholike church of Christ, writing against thē, and commending [Page] vnto them the authorite thereof, he saieth. Euangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoueret au­thoritas. I would not beleue the ghospell, vnlesse the authorite of the church moued me thereto. Now Caluin is nothing moued therewith, but leaneth mo­re to his owne iudgement then to al the lerned wri­ters, and holy Fathers of Christes church beside. Whereof he was worthely ones checked of Bucer, telling him quod iudicaret prout amaret, amaret autem prout libet. that he iudged as he loued, and loued what him pleased. In Epist. a familiari. And truly the only cause whereby Caluin in his Institutiōs, in his commētaries vpō holy scriptu­re, and in other his workes abuseth the reader and de­ceiueth the vnlerned is, that he feareth not expoun­ding scriptures boldely to preferr his owne iudgemēt eloquently sett forth before the iudgement of S. Augustin, Hierom, Chrisostom, Ciprian, Gregory, Ber­nard and all the other holy lerned men that euer wrote. Now what arrogancy is this? If euery lerned man may sette forthe his iudgement to the worlde as the true meaning of Gods worde, and condemne the allowed doctours of so great antiquite, lerning, and vertu, as the holy Fathers are, who seeth not that euery countre in Christendom, euery vniuersite of the countre, yea and euery lerned man of eche colledg in the vniuersite may plante from time to ti­me new doctrine, make new expositions off holy scripture contrary to all other, and teache daily a new faith? especially in this our time, whē lerned mē such as Caluin was, lacke not in al coūtres. Howe bitterly [Page 249] wrote Luther against Zwinglius, Melanchthō against Illyricus, VVestphalus against Caluin, Brentius against Peeter Martyr, and all the other against these? Eche of them by lerning laboureth to drawe the worlde to their owne iudgement, while they all condemne all other mens iudgements. You will saie. We must cleaue to scripture, and leaue al partes aside. Truly al do so. And that is not the controuersy betwene these men, nor betwene thē and the Catholikes, which of them cleaue to scripture (For al do so as fast as is pos­sible) but whether of them all do rightly expounde, and truly vnderstande holy scripture. For the Calui­nistes do otherwise vnderstand holy scripture, then the Melanchthonistes: The Melanchthonistes otherwise then the Saxon Lutherans: The Saxons otherwise thē the Osiandrins: The Osiandrins otherwise then the Suenckfeldiās and they otherwise then all these. Tho­se whiche haue read their writings, can not be igno­rant thereof. I will make you here a brief note of the speciall matters now in controuersy betwene them, Caluinus in postre­ma admo nit. ad Io­ach vvest. phalum. Melanch­tion in li­teris ad Electo­rem Rhe­ni. and so make an ende with Caluin.

The Zuinglians and Caluinistes agree with the Ci­uill Lutherans, the Melancthonistes, in the article of good workes, that they are necessary to saluation: and in the Supper of the Lorde, that the figure on­ly, not the true body of Christ is there geuē. Againe these two sectes in diuers other articles vary out off measure: As in originall sinne, in free will, in bap­tim, and in Penaunce. For Caluin denieth all these as the Church teacheth: whereas the Melanchthonistes [Page] acknowleadg them. Nicol. Gallus in thes. & hypothes. Illyricus in infor­mat. De quibusdā articulis.

The Lutherans of Saxony, to witt, the zelous Lu­theraus agree with the Caluinistes denying free will: and braule with the Melanchthonistes for allowing free will against the doctrine of their Father Luther. Yet againe these zelous Lutherans in the article of ori­ginall sinne, agree with the Ciuill Lutherans, and de­fie the Caluinistes. Callus con­tra acta Adiapho­ristarum. But in the articles of Iustification, of good workes, of the Supper of our Lorde, and how the lawe and the ghospel ought to be distingui­shed, in these the zelous Lutherans dissent bothe from the Ciuill Lutherans and from the Caluinistes. For they teache good workes to be pernicious to saluation, they acknowleadg the reall presence, which bothe the other sectes denie.

The Osiandrins agree with the zelous Lutherans of Saxony in the article of the Supper of our Lorde, with the Ciuill Lutherans in the article of free will, Vide Osi­andri con­fessionem fidei suc & libellum de imagine Dei. with the Caluinistes in the article of good workes. But these againe dissent from all those three sectes in the article of Iustification, and diuers other speci­all pointes of doctrine.

The Suenckfeldians agree with the Osiandrins in the article of Iustification, Swenckfel dius in lib. de vsu euā gelij: & in excusatione sua contra VVitten­berg. mā ­datum. with the Melanchthonistes in the article of free will, with the Caluinistes, that euill men receiue not Christ in the Sacrament. But with all other sectes they disagree in the doctri­ne of baptim, and of al the Sacraments, of preaching the worde, of faith, of the church, of the humanite of Christ, and of diuers other.

[Page 250] Thus you see brefely sett before you the vnite, consent, and agreement of this late ghospel. You see what man Luther was, what Melanchthon, what Cal­uin, the three cursed springs of three most wicked sectes swarming now in Christendom, where this new ghospel hath spred his branches: to witt, of the zelous and vpright Lutherans, of the Ciuill and confor­mable Lutherans, and of the Caluinistes or Sacramenta­ries. You may iudge by the heads, what the ofspring is: by their frutes, what their sprits be: by these par­ticulars of their doctrine (which for a taste only we haue discoursed vpon) what their whole ghospell is.

These are the blinde guides, and lying Masters, whom in place of all approued writers in Christes church, a numbre of deceiued persons haue folowed. In stede of holy Hierom, lewde Luther, of lerned Augustin, inconstant Melanchthon, of blessed Am­brose, proude Caluin. In place of sounde religion, ol­de condemned heresies: of constant faith, contrary opinions: of vniuersall belefe, priuat imaginations: of Gods holy worde, mens deuises. A great shame to forsake auncient belefe. A hainous offence to make partes in Christes church. A wicked impiete to de­parte from Christ and his dere spouse, Ephes. 4. the grounde and piller of all truthe. But a farre greater shame to em­brace the lewde liberte of Luther, to folow the varia­ble brayne of Melanchthon, to cleaue to the cursed heresies, fonde absurdites, and clere contradictiōs of Caluin. The heresies of Marcion, Valentinus, Arrius [Page] Nestorius, and other had coulour of lerning. The Montanistes, the Tatiani, the Manichees, the No­uatians had pretence of holynes and vertu. These two conditions were vehement persuasions to drawe the worlde vnto them. But the heresies of our ti­me be grosse, blasphemous, and dissolut. The denial of the blessed Sacraments and right vse thereof pro­cede of ignoraunce in true diuinite: The deniall off free will, and wicked assertion of fatall destine vnder the name of Gods forekuowleadge is a horrible blas­phemy. The breach of ecclesiasticall authorite, do­ctrine of only faith, contempt of all good order, and constitutions, is a mere licentious liberte and wantō dissolutnesse. How then happenteh it that men are so abused? that the lerned are drawen, the vnlerned deceiued? Wil you haue the truthe tolde? Peccata no­stra diuiserunt inter nos & Deum. Our sinnes haue di­uided betwene God and vs. The gate of his grace is shutt from vs. And why? We loue the worlde, we let slippe our faith: we be nailed to our tēporal trash: we make it our God. We will rather become hethen then suffer for our conscience. Otherwise if we fea­red God, we would mistrust this dissolut religion: if we were not blinded with selfewill and hardnesse of hart (the plage of former sinnes) we should espie the absurdite and fondnesse off this vpstert ghos­pell.

Howe were it to be wished that at the entry of these newe preachers and planters of straunge doctrines, we had had a Pacuuius amonge vs? I will recite [Page 251] you the story of him. It is writen first of Liuy, Lib. 1. cap. 47. and re­peted of Macchiauell in his discourses. After the greate bartaill lost by the Romains at Canne, al Italy allmost forsaking their allegeaūce to the cyte of Rome, and trēbling at the power of Hanniball, the cyte of Capua misliking the gouuernement of their Senatours and Counsellers (as it fareth in time of calamite and di­stresse, that the faulte is layed to the Rulers) concei­ued a great hatred against them, and deliberated to murher them euery one, and to place other in their rowmes, which they thought should better direct their cōmon welthe, and more to their cōtentation. This Pacuuius being then the chefest Ruler of the cyte, perceauing well the peoples furious intention, and the daunger the whole Senat stode in, deuised with him selfe a witty policie, both to appease the people, and to saue the Senat. He calleth the Senat toge­ther: Declareth them the intent of the people: ope­neth them his meaning, and saieth. My aduise is you suffer your selfe to be shut vp in the palace, in my cu­stody. I will assemble the people, and showe them what case you stande in. For the rest if you dare trust me, I will take such order that no harme shall befall you. They trusted him. He calleth the people, and sa­ieth vnto them. People: the time is now come that you may order the Senatours, as you desire without any farder tumult. But yet bicause I know well, you wil not leaue the cyte withoult a Senat, and counsel, you must nedes, if you will destroye the old, make a new. And therefore lo here the names of all the Se­natours. [Page] As I name you one to deliuer vp in to your handes, so you must name me an other to succede him. This being saied, he opened the scrolle, and na­med an auncient and graue Senatour. The people hearing his name cried straight, he was a proude and cruell man, and not worthy to beare rule. Well then, quod Pacuuius, Who shall succede him? Here the pe­ople was at a staie: and looking one vpon an other knewe not a longe time whom to name. At the length one being named, some began to smile, some to laugh, other to disdaine. All perceiued well (as Macchiauell wittely noteth) that the fault appearing in the Senat vniuersally, when it came to particular examination, was no faute in dede, but a missecon­struing and wronge iudgemēt of the people. By this meanes the people knew thē selues: the Senatours re­mained in authorite. Particular fautes were redressed, the whole order and estat remained. Sucha Pacuuius I say, was at the entry of these heresies to be wished: and presētly may also be heard. For although that which is past, cā not be reuoked, yet it may be amended. Let vs then with Pacuuius demaunde of such, as lothe their auncient and receiued belefe, what newe faith will they embrace? For without some faith, I thinke none yet that beare the name of Christians, will li­ne. Will they be right and zelous Lutherans, taking Luther for the very man of God, and vndoubted prophet to reuele his holy worde in these our later dayes? Will they reiect all Fathers, all Councells, all that Christendom hath hetherto beleued, as you ha­ue [Page 252] heard before Luther doth? Then beside all that we haue saied of his doctrine and behauiour, sufficiēt I trust to proue him a right heretike, if an heretike may be knowen by his frutes, let them satisfie the ciuill and disordrely or repining Lutherans: let them accrode with the Sacramentaries, the Anabaptistes, the Osiandrins, the Swenkcfeldians and all the rem­nant of Luthers branches: as you may see and vew in the petigrew of his ofspring drawen out by Staphylus. If they set light by that fonde frier, as the more part of protestants do, to the great grief and bitter com­plaining of all zelous Lutherans, what secte wil they be of? Will they ciuilly beleue at pleasure, as Melāch­thon did, and be euerlerning (as S. Paule of heretikes pronounceth) but neuer attaining to the truthe? Who laugheth not at so fonde a chaunge, if in so waighty a cause any Christen hart can laugh, and not rather lament such willfull blindnesse or blind willfulnesse, as in these ciuil Lutherans appeareth? Will they forsake Luther vtterly, and become Sacra­mentaries? Yet then we may demaunde of what se­cte of Sacramentaries they will be: For Caluin and Bullinger, Geneua and Zurich agre not. But if they will be Caluinistes as most parte of Sacramentaries are, who yet will not disdayne there at, knowing the pride of Caluin setting light by the holy Fathers, his corrupting of holy Scripture, wicked renewing of olde condemned heresies, fonde auouching off most clere contradictions, rashe teaching of moste absurd doctrine in that article where he we was thought [Page] moste to haue excelled? All which (and much mo­re) we haue in this simple discourse discouered vnto you, gentle Readers, to the entent that you may see what an euill chaunge you make, to leaue the aunci­ent fathers, the Catholike and vniuersall belefe, the faith you were baptised in, and in the which all our forefathers these thousand fiue hundred yeares and vpwarde haue serued allmighty God, and liued as Christen men, and true membres of Christes church, to leaue, I saie all this, and to become protestants or new ghospellers, that is, men of a new faith and re­ligion, which you must lerne of some one of these three, Luther, Melanchthon or Caluin, or of such as haue lerned it of them. By this consideration I trust, you shall pereiue that though the vniuersall name of refourmed ghospellers and chalengers off gods worde haue pleased you, though the generall name of papistry haue displeased and misliked you, yet the particular being now discouered, as well off the persons, as of the doctrine, you will either incon­tinently returne from whence you departed, or at lest deliberat thereof, and of these fewe lerne to mis­trust the rest.

Fridericus Staphylus, whose Apologie we haue he­re translated you, being a Lutheran many yeares, and so farre in credit, with the protestants, that he might haue ben a doctour of diuinite amonge them, also a Superintendent at Augspurg, at Brunsuick, Lubeck and Hamburg, by this very consideration became a Catholike. For hauing many years ben a Lutheran [Page 253] and a familiar frend of Melanchthon, Vide Ioan nem Lyre sium Cle­uensem in vita Sta­phili. aduised with him selfe to write also in defence of the Lutheran doctrine. He had not yet at that time read the aun­cient fathers: but had heard them much alleaged of Luther and Melanchthon, and trusting to their allegations, thought vndoubtedly that the doctrine of Luther was agreable with the lerned fathers and the primitiue church. Hereupon he diuised, after the imitation of the Master of the sentence and other schole men, to set forthe in one volume the whole effect and summe of Luthers doctrine. This booke he intituled. Corpus doctrinae Lutheranae: the body or sum­me of Luthers doctrine. For this purpose he began to [...]eke the doctours, and serche the original of Luthers and Melāchthons allegatiōs. But here lo in this par­ticular serche and examinatiōhe found the doctours and auncient writers to condemne directly the doc­trine of Luther. At this he was maruailousely aston­ned, brake of his enterprise, began with priuat study to peruse him selfe the aunciēt and approued writers in Christes church, as well the grekes as the latins, and to conferre with them these new writers of our time. See in the leafe 56. In the le­afe, 28. About this study he bestowed (as he writeth in this very Apologie) two and twēty yeares, not med­ling with any other ciuil or worldly matters in al that time. By this meanes though slowly and slackely (as in the preface of this Apologie he complaineth him selfe) he shifted at length him selfe out of the ca­ptious cōtrouersies of this time, and became not on­ly a right good Catholike, priuately and in cōscience, [Page] but opēly also to al the worlde he declared it, and dis­couered more thē any of our time hath done, bothe the false grounde of all their pretended doctrine ( that is, the bare title of gods worde without the right vnderstan­ding of the same) and also their variaunces, sectes and dissensions amonge them selues. Whereby in diuers partes of Germany especially in the territory of Ba­uaria, many haue returned from the dissolut heresy of Luther, to the holesom discipline of the Catho­like church. This he did to his dere countre of Ger­many in this Apologie, writen of him in his mother tongue. This I haue made now common to my dere countre also, hauing no lesse nede thereof, then that miserable countre of Germany hath. I trust here­in I shall offende none, but suche perhaps as firste muste be offended, before they can be amended. Heresy is compared to a cācre. 2. Tim. 2. Vnlesse it be launced, it festereth, and groweth to the corruption not only of it self, but of other. To make an ende, I desire the protestant to make the example of this lerned and vertuous mā Fridericus Staphylus, to reade this his la­bour, to consider the groūde of false doctrine taught by Luther and his successours, to vewe the diuersite and contrariete of his scholers, the numbre of sectes, the blasphemies of eche one, to waigh the issue off this doctrine, the dissolut life and contempt of order, the countres of Hungary, Lifland and Prussia lost by Luthers heresy, finally to beholde the olde heresi­es renewed by Luther, and other his behauiour re­sembling heretikes, the incōstancy, variete, and wil­fulnesse [Page 254] of Melanchthon, the fonde absurdites, clere contradictitions, and most hainous heresies of Ihon Caluin. I besech the Catholike that nedeth not this eure, and instructions, to thanke allmighty God the­refore, to praie for the protestant, and all deceiued persons in matters of conscience and soule helth. 1. Cor. [...]. Vt idipsum dicamus omnes, & nō sint in nobis schismata, simus autem perfecti in eodem sensu & in eadem scientia, that is, that we may say all one thing, and that there be no schismes amonge vs, but that we be perfit in one self vnderstanding and in one self knowleadg. Such perfectnes of vnite and agrement, with amendment of life and true repentaunce, our Lorde for his ten­dre mercy graunt our countre and all Christēdom, through the merites of his dere Sō, our Sauiour and Redemer Christ Iesus. To whom with the Father and the holy Ghoste, be all honour and glory now and euer. AMEN.