The I. Reason, Deduced from Nouetty.

ALL Nouelty, and (as S. Gregory Nazianzen calleth it) new Inuen­tion, in euery Common wealth, but specially in matters of religion is to be shunned. Christiā Religion is a thing most ancient, solid, vnchangeable, and durable to the worlds end; it being the forme, vigour, and, as it were, the very life of Christs Church. For as flesh, by life, is quickened in a liuing man: euen so is the Assembly of men in Christs Church by religion (which otherwise of it selfe is only flesh) formed into a spi­rituall Kingdome. And againe, as the Church & kingdome of Christ is a thing most ancient and indeleble, Against which Church the gates of hell shall not preua [...]le:Matt. 16. & vlt.and to whome Christ prom [...]sed his assistance to the worlds end: Euen so is religion, vpon which the Church & kingdom of Christ doth stand firme & stedfast. Nouelty therfore is repugnant to the religion of Christ.

Now that these religions are [Page 76]new it is manifest. First, for that we can nominate and bring forth their first Au­thors, tyme, place and maner how they were brought first in, and who they were that opposed themselues against them: what great styrres and troubles also were raised euery where about them; and lastly how, and by whome they where condemned as noueltyes and heresies. And what can be a more mani­fest signe of nouelty then this? In like maner all other heresies, that haue byn brought in against the Apostolike do­ctrine of Christ are conuinced of no­uclty, for that we can shew what tyme euery one of them began, in what place, who was the Author, who were the opposers therof, and lastly by whome they were condemned of nouelty.

Secondly, before the yeare of our Lord 1517. Lutheranisme was neuer heard of in the world, nor likewise Cal­uinisme nor Anabaptisme, which are the daughters of Lutheranisme. For that it is manifest out of Authors that when Luther first began to peepe out his head, there was no other religion known to be exercised in the world (besides the [Page 77]Iewish, Mahometan and Pagan) but the Catholike, and that of the Hussites.

Thirdly, if yow say, that any of these Religions, for examples sake the Lutheran, alwayes was, but yet lay hid: then I aske in what place the same lay hid, in what kingdome or towne and who were the patrons & defenders therof? Againe how know yow, that this religion was before, when as the same cannot be knowne but by some authors, who do not so much as insinuate any such thing, but the quite contrary. Furthermore, wheras in euery age, and place there haue byn Inquisitours of he­reticall noueltyes; by what meanes then could this religion ly hid for so many ages, that it should neuer be discouered or that neuer any one of the followers or teachers therof should fall into their hands, and be punished? Surely neuer any hereticall Sect could yet ly hid so cunningly, but that she should often haue byn deprehended, and publikely called into examination and question. Moreouer if before Luther, that Religi­on had byn in the world, how chance that the followers therof, who had hi­therto [Page 78]layn hidden, did not then come publikely forth, when Luther began to preach, and acknowledge him for the Doctour of their faith & League-maker of their religion? How hapned it then, that they came not abroad in publicke, and imbraced him as their fellow, and Patrone, who had now at last set at li­berty this their Religion, so long before layn hidden and oppressed in secret cor­ners? But no such appeared that were euer followers of that Religion before, but that as many as ioyned themselues with Luther, De Missa Angulari lib. 2. cont. Zuingl. did professe Catholike religion before; as Luther himselfe was also Catholike before and a Friar, who for 15. yeares togeather had daily and de­noutly said masse, as himselfe confesseth.

By all which it is more cleere then the sunne, that Luthers Religion is altogether new, and was not know­ne vnto the world before his tyme: nor that there was any company of men, no not perhaps so much as any one parti­cular person before Luther, who profe­ssed the same Religion, that is to say, held all and euery of the same heads of beliefe, or the same body of doctrine, [Page 79]which Luther did. And although Luther tooke some of his opinions from the old heretikes, notwithstanding Luthera­nisme is not therfore the same Religion with that of the old heretikes, but only in part: for that a Religion is the imbra­cing and comprehending of al the heads of beliefe, which are ordayned and de­termined to belong to faith: but none before Luther did euer teach this imbra­cing of opinions.

The same is likewise conuinced by another reason: for that it is manifest, that the Ancient Fathers and doctors of all ages, were not of Luthers religion; seing they teach Frewil, necessity of good workes, Merit of life euerlasting, and possibility of the Diuine Law: They do also allow of the Inuocation of Saints, worship and honour of holy reliques & Images, sacrifice of masse for the quicke and dead, Order of ministers in the Church, monasticall vowes, Euangeli­call Counsells, the fast of Lent, and the like; all which things the Lutheran Religion doth reiect as superstitions, impious, and iniurious to God. Now that the ancient Fathers did professe and [Page 80]allow all these things before rehearsed, is most manifest out of their owne wry­tings: neyther can the Lutherans or Cal­uinistes deny the same; but only say that these things were moles, or blemishes amōgst the ācient Fathers. Goodly moles surely, superstition, Idolatry & Impiety! But if the doctors of former ages did not professe this religiō, but for the most part reproue and disallow it: then is it eui­dent, that the same is not ancient, but new. For no religion was euer accomp­ted in the Church for true, but that which the ancient Fathers & doctors of the Church did hold and professe.

Wherof it euidently followeth, that Lutheran religion is not Christs religion. For that Christs religion is not new, but ancient: but Lutheran re­ligion is new (as we haue shewed) and not ancient. Christs religion hath al­wayes florished in the world euer synce the Apostles tyme: but Luthers religion hath not so done, but began within these 100. yeares: and before that tyme we haue shewed that it was not. Againe, if Luthers religion be truely Christs religi­on, then is the visible company of men [Page 81]that imbrace the same, the true Church of Christ: Therfore Christs Church was not before Luther, because the Lutheran Religion which doth make the true Church, was not before Luther, as we haue demonstrated. For if yow say, that Luthers religion was in the Apostles tymes, and in some of the former ages; then must yow proue, that there were some men in those tymes, who imbraced and professed his opinions. Surely we easily proue the contrary: for that it is euident, that Masse for the quicke and dead, Order of Ministers in the Church, monasticall vowes, and the like which are repugnant to the Lutheran religion were in vse in the Church in the Apo­stles tymes, and the next succeeding A­ges.

But let vs grant, that Luthers religion was in the Apostles tymes, and somwhat after: yet at leastwise in the third and fourth age it began to fayle & fall quite away. Which thing the Luthe­ran Doctors themselues do also confesse, as may be seene by that great Centurian worke setforth by them, in the 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10. Century, or age, and 4. Chap­ter [Page 82]of euery Century. Therfore by this accompt the Church of Christ, at least for 1300. years hath fallen away & peri­shed: for that so long tyme at the least, it is euident that Lutheran religion was not, but the quite contrary to haue byn extant and florished. As also by this accompt, the true religion was extin­guished for so many ages, the Ghospell obscured, Christes Church ouerthrow­ne, vntil the Dutch Prophet Luther rose vp, and dispersed that lamentable dar­knes, through the light of the Ghospell, to the world, and reedified the ruines of the Church. This do the Lutherans often insinuate in diuers townes of Ger­many when as they wryte vpon the fore­fronts of their houses, in great Capitall letters, these, or the like words: Such a yeare &c. appeared the true light of Christs Ghospell to this Citty, Superstition put downe &c. But if the Church of Christ perished for so many ages, how then is it true, that she is built vpon a rocke, and not rather vpon sand? How then is it said, that the Math. 16. Gates of hell shall not preuaile againe her? How is she the house of God, the 1. Tim. 3. Firmament and Pillar of [Page 83]truth? How then is the Daniel 2. Kingdome of Christ (which is the Church) stable, firme, euerlasting, and neuer to be rui­ned?

Againe, if yow say that Luthers Church & religion was in all Ages from the Apostles tymes, but yet in secret and hidden: besides that such a fiction wanteth an Author, to affirme it, the same is voyd of all probability as we haue now shewed. But, be it so: The Church of Christ cā ­not be hidden. let vs grant that it was hidden all that while; but then was it not the Church of Christ: for that she is a Matth. 5. Citty placed vpon a mountayne which cannot be hidden: She is the Isa. 2. mountayne of the house of God, prepared in the top of mountaynes, and placed aboue the hilles, cleerly seene of all men, & to whome all Nations in the world haue recourse. She is the Kingdome of Christ, that rea­cheth from Psal. 71. sea to sea, and from the riuer to the bounds of the earth. She is that great Dan. 2. mountayne, that filleth the whole earth. For that the Church of Christ must be conspicuous & manifest to the world, that by her excelleny and comlines, by her manner and outward [Page 84]shew she, as it were, may intice Gentiles vnto her: so as they that will become Christians, may know whither to go, to whome to haue recourse, and from whome to receiue instruction.

Likewise her Doctrine and faith must needs be also manifest, or els the same would be vnprofitable to the world, nor could she conuert Gentiles. So as in the greatest persecutions that euer were, she neuer lay so hidden, but that she might be knowne to all, as out of the Ecclesiasticall historyes is eui­dent; wherby it came to passe that she had so many martyrs. Againe, if she had layn hidden for so many ages, she had byn altogeather vnworthy of the Name of a Church. For how may she be called the Church of Christ, that dareth not publickely to professe the true Doctrine of Christ? or that she should be so faint­harted & fearfull of death, as to hide her­selfe in a darke cormer, so many ages togeather and dare, to come abroad into the light, least she should be seene? And last of all, how can she be called the Church of Christ, that for so many ages hath not only hidden herselfe, and sup­pressed [Page 85]the true profession of faith; but hath professed also a false faith, to wit Papistry, adored Idols, and defiled her­selfe with a thousand superstitions and sacriledges? For that before Luther, all Christians did carry themselues outwar­dly in all points as Catholikes, or els straight would they haue byn apprehen­ded and accused by the Inquisitors and Bishops, and punished as heret [...]kes. And therfore should the Church of Christ haue byn more miserable, then the ruines of the Synagoge, or the lewish Sect, which alwayes in some place or o­ther had their Synagoges and free pro­fession of their Religion, nor was euer constrayned, at least generally, to the worship of Idols. She should, I say, haue byn more miserable then all hereticall sects and Conuenticles whatsoeuer. For that there was neuer any Sect of any name, which had not her temples, her religious houses, her Couuents, her Bishops, the forme and profession of her faith, that so she might be knowne of all.

Wherby it is manifest, that no­thing can be more absurdly said, then [Page 86]that the Church of Christ hath layen hid for so many ages: and therfore I do conclude with this Dilemma: That the Lutheran or Caluinian religion, was eyther before their Authors (to wit Lu­ther and Caluin) or it was not. If it were not, then is it altogeather new, and therfore cannot be the religion of Christ: which is anciēt. If it were before the Au­thor, then was it secret, & therfore cannot be the religiō of Christ, which is a wayes apparent & manifest. And whatsoeuer in this discourse hath byn said and proued concerning Lutheran religion, yow must vnderstand to haue byn said and proued also of Caluinisme and Anabap­tisme, for that the selfe same nouelty and reasons belong to all three, but that for perspicuityes sake, and not often to repeat with tediousnes all three names, we haue only nominated one.

Therfore do I conclude with the words of S. Hierome, Hier. Dial. contra Lucifer. in fine. who writeth thus: That I way set thee downe briefly and playnely any opinion. Thou must (saith hee) remayne in that Church, which was founded by the Apostles, and continueth vntil this very day. And if by chance thou shouldest he are those that be called Christians, [Page 87]to be named of some other, and net of Iesus Christ, to u it of the Marcionites, Valentiniās, Montanistes &c. know thou certainly that, that is not the Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Antichrist: for that because they were institued afterward, they do demonstrate themselnes to be those, whome the Apostle foretould &c. Nor let them flatter themselues, if out of certaine places of Scripture they do seemete affirme that with they say: for that the Diuell did also alleagde Scripture for his purpose: and the force of Scripture doth not consist in reading, but in vnderstanding. So S. Hierome. Nouelty therfore is a signe of heresy for­tould by the Apostle: denomination is a signe of nouelty: and the vsurping of Scripture, is common to the Diuell himselfe, and all heresyes.

The II. Reason, Taken from the defect of Succession.

ANOTHER reason why these reli­gions are not to be allowed of, is, The want of succession for that they want an orderly and conti­nuall Succession of Ministers in the Church, from the Apostles; which suc­cession is necessary, that any Religion [Page 88]or Church should be deemed Aposto­licall, for without the same it cannot be continued with the Apostolike. So as the Ancient Fathers for the most part teach, that they, who say, they haue the true Church of Christ with them, must bring forth the succession of their Bishops, and reduce the same vpwards to some one of the Apostles, by an or­derly continuation: which if they can­not do, it is an easy matter to conuince them, that the true Church of Christ is not with them. For so Optatus Mileuitanus in his second booke against Parmenian, when he would conuince the Dona­tistes, that they had not the true Church with them, said: Shew forth the origen or beginning of your sea, yow that wildaime the Holy Church to your selues. And Tertullian in his prescriptions againg heretiks, saith: Let heretikes shew forth the origen of their Churches, let them recount the order of their Bishops succee­ding from the beginning; that he who was the first should haue some Apostle or Apostolike man for his Author and predecessour. &c. The same argument do the rest of the Fathers commonly vse, as lib 3. cap [...]. Irenaeus, hoeresi 27.Epipha­nius,cont. Lucifer.Hieronymus, S. cap. 4. cont. Epist. Fundam.Augustine, and [Page 89]others.

Now it is well knowne, that neyther Lutherans, Caluinistes, nor Ana baptistes can with any the least co­lour do the same. For to whome, I pray you, did Luther, who for the most part was the Author and first parent of these new religions, succeed? Whose Chayre and authority did he occupy? who be­fore him was the prelate of the Luther an religion? as also before Caluin and Zwin­glius, who was their predeceslour? And if none can be assigned, it is cleere, that they want that succession which the Ancient Holy Fathers do require, that any Church should be ioined with that of the Apostles.

Againe, Want of Ordinati­on. they do not only want succession of Chayre and authority, but euen the ordination of degrees, descen­ding from the Apostles. For that there was alwayes requisite a double power in the Ministers of the Church, both of them by an orderly continuation deri­ued from the Apostles, as before we haue shewed in the 7. Consideration, to wit, Power of Order, by which Sacrifice is offe­red and Sacraments are made to sanctify [Page 90]the faithfull: and Power of Iurisdiction, by which the authority of gouerning and feeding the Church with the word of God, is giuen &c. But these new reli­gions, can reduce neither of them to the Apostles. Not the power of Iurisdiction, be­cause they want succession, as before we haue said: nor yet the Power of Ordinatiō or Order, for who ordained Luther or Caluin a Bishop of their Church?

And if they say that order is not needfull, they do contradict all antiquity and the perpetuall vse of the Church. For neuer yet was there Bishop in the Church, so as he had authority to exer­cise all Bishoply functions, but that he was ordained by some other Bishop, to whome by the Constitution of the A­postles themselues, must be adioined two other bishops, as is expressely commaun­ded in the first Canon of the Apostles, & fourth of the Nicene Councel: as also insinuated by S. Paul writing to Timothy a Bishop, 1. Tim. 4. and warning him thus: Do not neglect the grace which is in thee, which grace is giuen thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of Priesthood: that is to say, of those Bishops who togeather with the Bishop [Page 91]that doth ordaine, do lay their hands vpon him that is ordained, as the An­cient Fathers do expound it.

By which it is cleere and euident, that the Lutherans and Caluinists haue neither of these forsaid powers from the Apostles, nor can they deriue the same from the Apostles, and consequently in that they do not descend from them, they haue not the true religion and Church with them. For that the true Church, according to both powers ought to be deriued, and to haue conti­nued with them from the Apostles, as we haue shewed before: seing that all power spirituall ought to be deriued from Christ through the Apostles and their successours, by a continuall and orderly succession, and communication to other ministers of the Church, as the corporall life of man is deriued by cer­taine meanes, through a continuall suc­cession from our first parent Adam, to the last.

For euen as in the old Testament, there were no priests except those that descended from the Tribe of Leui▪ tho­rough Aaron: so in the new, there are no [Page 92]priests or Bishops, except those that descend in degree of Order, and power of Iurisdiction from Christ the chiefe Priest, through the Apostles and their successours. And therfore as the Sina­gogue could not be without priests, des­cending by a continuall succession from Aaron: so the Church of Christ cannot be without Priests, or Bishops, descending by the same continuall succession, from the Apostles and their successours. But the Congregation of Lutherans and Caluinistes, had neuer any such mini­sters; had neuer any Bishops-lawfully ordayned amongst them, descending in power of Iurisdiction from the Apostles or their sucessours, to gouerne the peo­ple. And therfore it is cleere, that the Church of Christ is not with them.

The III. Reason. From the defect of their Mission.

THE third reason is; because these Religions were brought in by them that were sent by no lawfull au­thority, but came of themselues: and for [Page 93]this cause are they and their Authors worthily to be suspected of errour, least perhaps they proue to be wolues, and seducers. For that no man may preach in the Church, vnlesse he be sent by lawfull authority, according to that of the Apostle: How shall they preach, Rom. 10.vnlesse they be sent? otherwise there should soone arise a great confusion in the Church, for that euery one might take vpon him the office of preaching and gouerning the Church, and sow abroad what errors he listed. And if in a temporall Com­mon wealth & humane Policy, no man may intrude himselfe, and take vpō him the office of a magistrate to gouerne the people in temporall things, only pertai­ning to this life, but that he must first be appointed therunto by the Prince: How much lesse then in the Church and spirituall kingdone of Christ, may any man assume vnto himselfe the office of Pastour to gouerne the people, in those things which belong to eternall salua­tion, but he that is ordained and ap­pointed therunto by the supreme rector of the Church, and Prince of Holyes? For that confusion in gouerment of the [Page 94]Church is much more to be auoided thē in Policy; when as the one threatens destruction to the soule, the other only losse of goods and fortune.

Againe, Ioan 10. he that entreth not by the dore into the theepfold, but climbeth vp some o­ther way, is a theefe and robber, saith our Lord. But he that taketh to himselfe the office of a Pastour in the Church with­out lawfull Mission and Auchority, he entreth not in at the dore, but climbeth vp some other way, as the holy Fathers do commonly expound the place, and is manifest of it selfe. For what is it, to enter in at the dore, but to enter by the lawfull way, and by lawfull authority? The dore is the ordinary way, and made of purpose wherby to enter into the sheep­fold, and wherby is designed that autho­rity, by which the Ministers of the Church are to be admitted into the sheepfold of Christ, to gouerne and feed his sheepe.

Furthermore, our Lord saith in S. Iohns Ghospell: Ioan. 7.he that speaketh of himselfe seeketh his owne glory: but he that seketh the glory of him that sent him, he is faithfull, and in him there is no iniustice. By which words we [Page 95]are warned not to belieue them, who are not lawfully sent, but come of them­selues, because they seeke their owne glory, and therfore they do not speake for truth, but for their owne praise and comodity, and thither do they direct all their doctrine.

And finally the Apostle in the E­pistle to the Hebrews, doth account this mission so necessary that he doth require the same in our Sauiour Christ, saying: Neyther doth any man take the honour to him­selfe, but he that is called of God as Aaron.Hebr. 5.So Christ also did not glorify himselfe, that he might be made a High Priest; but he that spake to him: My Sonne art thou, this day haue I begotten thee. Wherby our Sauiour did so often incul­cate to the Iewes his mission, to wit, that he came not of himselfe, but was sent of his Father; and confirmeth the same many wayes.

From whence it is cleerly dedu­ced, that Luther, Caluin, and the rest of these new Doctours are not to be heard, but their doctrine altogeather to be shunned: because it is manifest, that they were not sent by any lawfull authority, but came of themselues. It is also mani­fest, [Page 96]that they vsurped vnto themselues the offices of magistrates and Pastors, & the Authority of reforming the Church. It is manifest. I say, that they came not in at the dore, and by the lawfull way, but cl [...]mbed ouer some other way into the sheepfold: and therfore according to our Sauiours iudgment and sentence, they are to be accompted for theeues and robbers.

Perhaps they will say, that they were sent of Christ immediatly, as in old tyme the Prophets were sent by God in an extraordinary manner to reforme the people; and as the Apostles were sent by Christ our Sauiour to cōuert the world, and as S. Paul, after the Ascen­sion of our Lord, who was not sent of men, nor yet receiued the Ghospell from men but immediatly frō God himselfe.

To this I answere first, it is not inough to say, and stoutly to affirme but it must be proued, and conuinced to be true, least it may seeme to the people & ordinary pastors to reiect them as decea­uers, for a lawfull cause: as the Pro­phets and Apostles, did not only say that they were sent of God, but shewed [Page 97]the same also abundantly by heauenly signes.

Secondly all Archeretikes and false Prophets throughout euery age haue affirmed the same, to wit, that they were sent of God, & from him receaued their Authority. And therfore eyther we must receaue them all or none. For why should I (for example sake) rather belieue that Caluin was sent of God, then Luther, or Menno, or Munzer, Arius, or any other Archeretike, when as he can produce no greater signes or testimo­nies for his mission then they?

Thirdly, if Caluin were sent of God, then Luther was not sent of God; and so likewise to the contray. Because if two men do prophesy cōtrary things, and that the one doth condemne the others prophesy and doctrine of errour and heresy, the one doth so destroy the others religion: and therfore if they were both sent of God, it seemes that the spirit of God doth oppugne, deny, and ouerthrow it selfe, destroying by one, what he had built by another. But amongst the Prophets truly sent by God there hath alwaies bin a principal vnity [Page 98]and consent in doctrine.

Fourthly, if Luther or Caluin were set of God to reforme the Church, I demaund then what tyme, and in what place, God gaue them this Office? what words did he vse vnto them, cy­ther internall or externall? In what manner did he declare vnto them the chiefe heads and points of this Reforma­tion? what order and manner did he pre­scribe them? How, or in what forme did he appeare vnto them? Externally in a visible shape, as he did to S. Paul? or in­ternally by imaginary vision, in some extasis, as he did to the Prophets, & to S. Iohn Euangelist in the Apocalyps? For that he is wont to obserue al these things with those whome he sendeth. And the Prophets themselues presently in the be­ginning of their preaching did explicate and declare all these things to the people, that they might vnderstand of whome they were sent, or what comman̄dement was giuen vnto them to performe, as out of the Prophesyes of Isay, Ieremy, Ezechiel, Daniel, and others is manifest, that they were all wont to premit these things first of all. And so likewise is it manifest [Page 99]what tyme, and with what words our Sauiour sent the Apostles, and what he inioyned them to do &c.

But now these our new Prophets were so simple, that they did not thinke of feigning any such thing, if they would haue had themselues thought to haue byn sent immediatly from God: and therfore they made no mention at all therof; which is a most certaine and manifest token of lying and falshood, when of necessity they be driuen to say they were sent from God.

For who can doubt, but that, if they had felt the least semblance or shaddow of this Diuine mission, they would haue presently published the same in the first front of their writings, and haue manifested the same to the world, to wit, the expresse tyme, place, manner, commandement of God, and other circumstances belonging there­to?

Fifthly, I adde, that if they were sent of God, they were not only sent as reformers of Manners, as the Prophets were; but as reformers also of the whole doctrine and Religion: and therfore a [Page 100]most exact description of this mission & an expresse mention of such things as God would haue reformed, had by nalto­geather necessary: & that the same should haue byn propounded to the Church, in God his name, and in the very word [...] that he spake them, as the Prophets were wont to do when they did propound to the people Gods diuine cōmandements in his name. But these new Prophets haue not proceeded so, but haue gone from one opinion to another vpon mere chaunces, and as times and things haue so required: as it is wont to happen in contentious and debates, when mens minds be more and more prouoked to anger and reuenge; and as they learned by experience to preferre most their owne comodityes, and oppugne the Sea Apostolike, that condemned them. For whatsoeuer they thought might most endomage the Popes authority, or profit and confirme their owne, that they esta­bished as a point of faith, and the very kernell of the word of God, as afterward we shall shew.

Sixtly. In humane Policy and Gouerment it is not inough for a man [Page 101]that is sent from a Prince, who is far off, and cannot be spoken with, to say that he is sent from him to execute such or such Authority; but he must haue letters Patēts sufficient, sealed with the Princes seale, which are notwithstanding care­fully examined for feare of deceyt; and if by chance any signe of imposture be deprehended therin, he is not admitted vntill further testimony be produced. The same we see in like manner in the Popes Legates and Nuntij, who all must shew their Patents Authenticall, wherin their Mission & Cōmission is conteyned; or els they are not receyued nor haue Au­thority. What sottishnesse then is it to admit into the Church and Kingdome of Christ, not only new Pastors and Teachers, but Reformers also of the whole Religion, wheron the Church consisteth, vpon pretence and colour only, that they say they are sent of Christ, and haue the spirit God, not shewing their Patents, nor any other signe or token, wherby to confirme the same?

Seauenthly. The very computa­tion of tyme is also mightily against them. For if the Church from 600. yeares [Page 102]after Christ hath byn decayed and fallen away, and consequently byn made the Synagoge of Antichrist, as they say it hath: then how happeneth it, that the Mission of these new Reformers hath byn delayed vntill now? Why hath God forsaken his Church for whole 900, yeares, and suffered her to be thus ruina­ted, and swym in all Idolatry and super­stition, as though she did nothing belong to him: and now after all this tyme at last to send these new Reformers or Ar­chitects vnto her? Is this the loue of Christ, thinke yow, towards his Church, which he washed with his bloud, quickned with his spirit, and adopted to his Spouse? Far more louingly thē so, did he beare himselfe towards his hand mayde, to wit, the Iewish Syna­goge, to whome he sent Prophets, and did not forsake her, although she fell into Idolatry and wickednes, sonding vnto her continually, euen to her very last end and destruction, his seruants; and ende­auouring by al meanes possible to reclay­me her. And therefore if these men will needs seeme to be Reformers, they should haue feigned the Church to haue peri­shed [Page 103]a little before, and not to haue layne rotten and putrisyed in her fall, for so many ages; or els the great space of tyme betweene, doth confute their mission, and show it to be imprudently fei­gned.

Eightly, To these may be added other most certaine signes of their not sending from Christ: as for example, their bad life, their pride, their contempt of the holy Fathers, their errours and vntruthes wherin they are euery day de­prehended and taken, their inconstancy of doctrine &c. of which I meane to treat in the ensuing reason.

And last of all, they teach that nothing is to be belieued but what is in Scripture. Let them then shew vs out of Scripture that they were sent of God to reforme the Church; in what place and in what words the Scripture saith this Authority was graunted vnto Luther or Caluin; or otherwise we may not belieue them (themselues being witnesses) and much lesse accept them for Reformers of the Church.

The Lutherans indeed do go a­bout to establish the mission of their [Page 104]Prophet, by a certaine Chronographical prophesy out of S. Ambrose & S. Augustine insinuated in this verse of Te Deum: Tibi Cherubin & Seraphin incessabili voce proclamant. For that a few yeares agoe they set forth a picture of Luther cut in brasse with this inscription: Diuinum at (que) admirabile Vati­cinium D. Ambrosy & Augustini de tempore & aduentu S. Lutheri, quo contra Antichristum Romanum scribere coepit, vt in litteris huius ver­siculi numerum anni represent antibus continetur, quod est apud Christianos Fideles admiratione & notatu dignum. A diuine & admirable Pro­phesy of S. Ambrose & S. Augustine, con­cerning the tyme, and comming of Saint Luther, when he began to wryte against the Roman Antichrist, as it is conteyned in the letters of the verse following, representing the number of the yeares: a thing worthy to be noted and admired of all faithfull Christians.

tIbI CherVbIn & scraphIn InCe­ssabILIVoCe proCLaMant.

The numbers of the letters of this verse, they say do make M. CCCCLL. VVIIIIIII. or 1517. in which yeare of our Lord Luther began to preach.

But this verse doth little help the [Page 105]pretended cause of Luther. For first no certanity can be gathered by such num­bers, as by many examples in former yeares of the euent of thinges hath byn seene. And then secondly let vs graunt it to be a prophesy insinuated of Luther by the number of these letters; yet therby should not be signified a reioyeing and exultation of heauenly Spirits for Lu­thers preaching, as his Sectaryes would haue it; but an excecation or blinding rather of Luther, & of althose which were to imbrace and follow his Doctrine: like as in the 6. of Isay, where the Seraphim do cry in the same manner, Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Sabaoth, all the earth is full of thy Glory (out of with place these verses were taken, and put into the Hymne of Te Deum) is designed the excecation of the Iewes, as is gathered out of that which followeth in the same place. For that God is there prouoked in such sore that he reuengeth with condigne pu­nishment so great wickednes & impiety, shewing by the beauty of his sanctity how greatly all kind of synne doth dis­please him. And in like manner shall the Seraphim thunder out reuenge towards [Page 106]the end of the world. Apoc. 4. And last of all if we wryte these Names, accor­ding to the Hebrew, by M. and not by N, to wit CherubIM & SeraphIM, as they are truly to be written, then will there arise out of that verse Three thousād fiue hundred and 17. yeares: which being ended notwithstanding shall the Cheru­bims & Seraphims cry Holy, Holy, Holy; but yet this voyce shall not be a reioycing or exultation for the increase of Luthers Ghospel, but rather an appro­uing or approbation of the iust punish­ment, wherwith he and his followers shalbe tormented for all eternity.

The IIII. Reason, From the want of Miracles.

THESE new Religions togeather with their authors are to be su­spected, Miracles necessary. because they were brought in without any miracles: which miracles were very necessary, and that for many reasons.

First, that they might shew they were not falsifiers, but true Pastours sent from [Page 107]God, and therby conuince, that the Church ought to receiue them. For wheras it is manifest out of Scripture, that many false prophets were to come into the world in these last dayes, Matth. 24. Marc. 13 1. Tim. 4. who should bragge that they were sent from God, & of whō our Sauiour did warne vs to beware, 2. Tim. [...]. 2. Pet. 3. Matth. 7. & 24. therfore no new teacher is to be admitted but rather to be suspected, that cānot giue a ful testimony of his do­ctrine: which full testimony can not any way be giuen, but by diuine & heauenly signes, as are, for example, Miracles, fortelling of things to come, reuealing of mysteries, and the like: which things, for so much as they do exceed the force of humane power, it is mnnifest that they are from God; and are as it were Patents and witnesses signed and confir­med by God, wherby this diuine mission is approued.

Heerhence it is, that so many as euer haue byn sent of God immediately to teach or instruct the people, haue come endued from him with miracles, or other supernaturall signes, wherby their Mission hath byn made manifest to the people. For so did Moyses, when he [Page 108]was to bring the children of Israel out of Egypt, and to giue them a Law, come with a mighty power of mira­cles, and wrought very many either himselfe, or God by him, as often as he appeared vnto him in a visible shape. So did all the Prophets confirme their mission, eyther with miracles, or with reuelation of mysteries. The same also the Lord of Prophets himselfe, who al­though he might haue cleerly conuin­ced out of Scripture, that he was the true Messias, and that by the testimony also of S. Iohn Baptist: yet notwithstanding presently in the begining of his prea­ching, he shewed by many miracles, that he was sent from God the Father, for the saluation of men; in so much as he said vnto the Pharisies who for hate and malice belieued him not, that if they would not belieue him for his owne sake, yet at leastwise being con­uinced which the greatnes of his mira­cles, they should belieue him. In like manner did all the Apostles confirme their mission with miracles amongst the Iewes and gentles: as also did the first preachers and Apostles of diuers nations [Page 109]who brought them from Paganisme to our faith & religion. Wherfore let these new Prophets brag neuer so much that they be sent immediatly from God, ex­cept they confirme the same with mira­cles and supernaturall signes, as all those who were sent indeed inmediatly from God, haue done, they be not any way to be heard or regarded.

Nor doth that argument any thing auayle against vs, that S. Iohn Bap­tist wrought no miracles; because God did many & supernaturall things about him, which wel witnessed his mission. Besides the austerity and sanctity of his life was no small miracle; so as no man can doubt, but that he was sent of God.

Secondly: Miracles were very necessary to haue proued, that they were not only sent as correctors of manners, but also as reformers and correctors of the whole religion, to build vp a new the Church that was fallen, to raise to life the kingdōe of Christ that was dead & to make all things new againe. What great miracles had there needed to haue byn; to haue conuinced the world to beleeue these meruailous and wonder­full [Page 110]things; and to haue receiued the wor­kers therof for such? For although they had raised a thousand dead men, and had cūred an hundred thousand lame, blind, and diseased, yet had it scarse byn in­ough to haue giuen credit to so great an innouation. First because the Apostle saith: Gal. 1. Although we, or an Angell from heauen do euangelize vnto yow any other doctrine then that which we haue euangelized vnto yow, let him he accursed. And repeating the same againe for greater confirmation, he addeth: As we haue said before, so now I say againe: If any do euangelize vnto yow besides that which you haue receiued, let him be accursed. And if we should not belieue an Angell, that should preach any least thing against the receaued saith & doctrine of the Church, what great need of miracles should there be to giue credit to any man that should preach so great matters as these, to wit, that the Church of Christ is [...] ru­inated, full of Idolatry, her saith extinct, al her children in the state of domination; that the principall heads of religion are to be reformed;, & that [...]ut her or Caluin were sent froth God to make this refor­mation? Should it not be [...] (thinke [Page 111]yow) that all the miracles of the Apo­stles, yea of Christ himselfe, should be renewed againe in such a reformer?

Secondly, for so much as the Catholike religion, which now flori­sheth, hath byn in possession for more then a thousand yeares (which our ad­uersaries do also confesse) in such sort that the same is accompted throughout the whole world for the true religion, and those that depart from her are held for heretickes: therfore without very great and most euident signes it be mani­fest that this possession was wicked and vniust, it cannot now be thrust out and owerthrowne. Againe these signes must be so perspicuous for the conuincement of mans vnderstanding, that there be left no place of doubt or tergiuersation; for els their be not boūd to belieue, but rather still to adhere to this so long possession and no wayes to forsake their religion. Moreouer seing that the Catholike reli­gion hath shined with the greatest glory of miracles, of wisdome, and of sanctity of her followers throughout all former ages, and doth at this day also shine: it is needfull therfore of greater and more [Page 112]euident miracles now, wherby lawfully put her out of possession and reiect her; as also there is more need of greater knowledg, sanctity, and publike fame in the followers of these new religions now, then euer was in the old.

And lastly: if the religion of the old Testament amongst the Iewes was to be changed, and that they were to passe from a shaddow to the truth, or from a type or patterne to the true sam­pler it selfe; although our Lord might most clerly haue conuinced and shewed out of the Scriptures that this mutation and change was to be made, and that himselfe was sent of God for the same purpose he thought good notwithstan­ding to cōfirme the same with very māy & most wonderfull miracles, that there might be left vnto them no occasion of doubt or turning backe: how greatmi­racles then shall we thinke to be needfull now for the changing of religion in the new Testament, when as the Scriptures do cleerly denounce that there thalbe no more changes made but that God wilbe present with her, for her assistance to the worlds end, and that the gates of hell [Page 113]shall not preuaile against her. For what wisdome were it for any man to belieue so great a thing, so new and paradoxicall so much against Scripture and iudgment of all the ancientt Fathers, without ex­traordinary great miracles? Nay, what miracles can there be great inough to make a man at least probably to belieue so strang a thing?

Heerhence it is manifest, that we haue great cause to require of them such miracles, and that they deale perfidiously with vs when as they would haue vs to giue them credit in matters of so great importance, without miracles; and vn­lesse we do belieue all vpon their bare word, they presently raise vp grieuous presecutions against vs.

But they will say. Whether do they proue ther do­ctrine out of the Scriptu­res. We proue our opinions and doctrine out of the Scri­pture. Be it so; but yet according to your owne sense and iudgment, and not ac­cording to the consent of the Ancient Holy Fathers, and the receaued Doctors of the Church, who liued before these our controuersies, & so could not be any way partial therin.

Againe, their arguments like vnto [Page 114]spiders webbs are very easily dissolued by Catholike Doctors: besides that there are so many new Reformers sprong vp within these 80. or 90. yeares, so many repayrers of the decayed Church, so māy reniuers of the extinct Religion, who also be most contrary one to anothers: and what one buildeth vp, another pul­leth downe: yet notwithstanding do they all confirme their opinions out of the Scriptures, all do rest vpon her testi­mony alone, all do make Scripture the only foundation of their building: and therfore, the proofe of all is to be admit­ted, or of none.

And lastly, seing that nothing is to be belieued vnlesse Scripture say it: Where I pray yow, doth it say, that you, or he, or such a one was sent of God for the reforming and restoring of the de­cayed Church and Religion?

They will say, Whether it be a miracle to haue ma­ny follo­wers. perhaps, that they want not miracles; for that it is a very great miracle, that in so short tyme, so many haue imbraced this new Ghospell. And this perhaps might haue some co­lour, if their religion were more austere, and strict vnto the flesh, then is the [Page 115]Catholike. But seing that this their new Doctrine doth banish all austerity and sharpnes of the Catholike Religion, and giue all liberty to the flesh, what miracle is it, if many follow and imbrace the same? what meruayle is it, if weighty things fal to the ground, when as their props be takē away, or that riuers run into the sea, their dāmes & stops remoued? our corrupt nature doth most of all incline to liberty, which it findeth in these new re­ligions, and therfore we do the soner im­brace and follow them, not because we being persuaded by the force of reason, do belieue that they are more holy; but because we find in them, that which we sought for, and that which without feare we might enioy, vnder the colour of religion and piety.

Moreouer this miracle may aswel be brought on the behalfe of all the Se­ctes of all these new Reformers, as of one: for that many haue ioyned themsel­ues not only to the Caluinists, but also to the Lutherans and Anabaptistes; and therfore they must be all holy and come from God as their Author. But God cannot deny himselfe, nor destroy that [Page 116]which he hath established, and therfore cannot be Author of so contrary religi­ons, & the one damning the other to the pit of hell.

The V. Reason, From the Conditions of their Liues and Manners.

THE fifth reason is, because that these Religions were brought in by men of bad life, and such as were noted of in­famy, pride, enuy, and notorious de­traction, giuing shew of nothing lesse then an Apostolicall Spirit. For as for Luther, we know, that he was somtymes a professed Monke and Priest, & thet by bound with a double vow of continen­cy. We know also, that leauing his Monastery, and casting of his habit and profession, be returned to a secular life againe, where ioyning himselfe to a professed Nunne whome he enticed out of her Cloister, he liued dayly in her company; by which fact in the iudg­ment of all the world, he committed a [Page 117]twofold synne of Sacriledge, and did alway reiterate the same as often as he abused her body: What manner of life can be more scandalous then this?

Moreouer we know, that he was so exceedingly giuen to good cheere and lust, that he was dayly occupied in ban­quetting and drunkennesse, lib de vita con­iugali. affirming that a woman was more necessary then, to eat, drinke, or sleep: & that it was Serm. de matri­monio. lawfull to vse the maid, if the wife refu­sed to do her duty.

The life of Caluin is written by Hieronymus Bolsecus, Iulius Brigerus, and o­thers, being full of most notorious wic­kednes, to wit, false accusations of o­thers, murthers, robberyes, filthy and lewd behauiour: all which things haue byn obiected against him by diuers wry­ters, wherunto I could yet neuer see any answere.

Of Luthers infamy it is manifest to all the whole world, that wheras he being a professed Monke and a Priest, he ioyned himselfe to a professed Nunne: which fact by the iudgment of all learned Doctors purchaseth infamy. For if by the Emperours lawes, that man be [Page 118]infamous, who is taken in adultery (L. Palam. S. Quiin adulterio. ff. de ritu nuptia­rum) how much more is he infamous, that hath twice contracted sacrilegious mariage, and dayly vseth sacrilegious copulation? For that it is a far more filthy thing to be an Adulterer of Christ, then an Adulterer of the wife or hus­band.

The infamy of Caluin is also manifest out of the Iudiciall Actes and processe of the Citty of Noyon in France, Bolsecus in vita Calui. ni cap. 5. Iul. Brige­rus pag. 59. that he was conuicted of a wicked crime, and by sentence condemned to haue byn publiquely burned, if by the intercession of the Bishop of that place, that punishment had not byn changed into whipping and burning vpon his backe with a hoat iron. Wherby it is cuident that both by law & deed he was infamous. L. 1. ff. de his qui not antur insamia. and L. Quid ergo. §. Ex compromisso. ff. de his qui not antur infamia.

Of the pride and rayling of Lu­ther it is euident. First, because from this fountaine, to wit of pride, all his do­ctrines toke their beginning. For when as certayne Indulgences were to be pro­mulgated [Page 119]in Germany, and that the office therof hauing heertofore belon­ged to the Augustine Friars, now they being at this tyme pretermitted, the same was giuen in Commission to the Dominicans. Which thing Luther taking in very ill part, began with a splene to preach against Indulgences: and though he were therof admonished, and repre­hended, notwithstanding by little and little he not only continued the same, but adioyned heerunto many more and greater articles of faith against the Au­thority of the Pope; wherby he caused wonderfull troubles and garboyles throughout all Germany, as largely wry­teth Ioannes Cochlaeus (that was an eye wittnes of all these things) in the Acts of Luther an. 1517. This pride and anger then was the first origen, and ofspring of all Luthers doctrine, without which perhaps Lutheran Religion had neuer byn, nor, so many other new sectes nei­ther, which since that tyme haue sprong vp, and risen from thence.

Secondly, for that Luther in his Epistle to those of Strasburge writeth, that he would gladly deny the Reall [Page 120]presence of Christ in the holy Eucharist, therby to trouble & vex the Popedome, if the Scriptures were not cleere against the same to the contrary. And in another place he writeth thus: If a Councell should appoint, or permit the receyuing of the Sacramēt vnder both kinds; lib. de for­mula miss.we by no meanes would vse both; but in despite of the Councell and appoint­ment therof, would eyther vse one or neyther; cursing all such as by order of that Councell should vse both kinds &c. Heere yow see he tea­cheth vs to abstayne from a thing nece­ssary for our Saluation, and that only in despite of the Councell that should comand or appoint it: when as notwith­standing we may and oftentymes ought to obay euen a Tyrant, when he co­maundeth things lawfull. Wherby we may see with what spirit he was caried way. For what may be compared to this fury of his? The same Luther in his booke against K. Henry the 8. of En­gland wryteth, that Kings, Princes, Popes are not worthy to loose the lachet of his shoe, and that himselfe will be accompted for a holy man, whether men will or no. Also, that he cares not for a thousand Cyprians, nor a thousand Augusti­nes. Also, Christian Princes, Kings, and Em­perours [Page 121]he calleth Tyrants, Idiots, fooles, simple fellowes, wild beasts, hangmen, nittes, bubles, enemyes of God, most wicked knaues; & inuen­teth scurrilous songes and rithmes a­gainst them.

Of Caluins pride and rayling be­sides that which D. Bolsecke hath a­boundantly written, the same is most euident in lib 2. Inst. c. 14. §. 3. lib. 3. c. 4 §. 10. lib. 4. c. 12. §. 20. & alibi. Caluins owne books also: for that he doth euery where contemn al the holy and ancient Fathers of the Church and male partly accuseth them of errour. The Schoole doctors he calleth So­phistes. In his Sermons he oftentymes brake forth into these, and such like words: I am a Prophet: I haue the spirit of God: and if I erre, God hath deceyued me, and brought me into errour for the sinnes of the people &c. He wrote also diuers letters and pamphlets of his own praises, dignity & merit in the Church, which he alwaies published, eyther in other mens, or some feygned name, as D. Bolsecke and others do wryte. Many the like trickes might I alledge aswell against these as against o­ther Authors and defenders of the new Religions of this Age, but that I am very vnwilling to occupy my selfe in [Page 122]such affayres. He that will see more in this kind, let his read the life of Beza, written also by D. Bolsecke, Flores [...]ulij Brigeri, Surius his Comentaryes & others.

Now then, considering these things, who can once thinke with him­selfe, that God would choose and vse such men as these were (to wit infa­mous by all law and iudgment of the whole world, of a most filthy life, of an vnbridled and rayling tongue, of a proud, ambitious, angry, and enuious mind) to be the reformers of his Church? Who euer noted any such conditions or qualityes either in the Apostles or Pro­phets, who were all most humble, and no wayes infamous for any wickednes? And although they were vnlearned and simple, notwithstanding vpon a sud­daine the were indued with admirable wisdome, sanctity of life, and grace of miracles. They were wonderfully lowly of mynd, of wonderfull meeknes, they contemned the pleasures of this life, and the earthly delightes of all thinges; they were indued with wonderfull charity towards their neighbours; they were wonderfully modest and circumspect in [Page 123]all their words and actions. These and the like conditions and qualities we fee, to haue byn in all such, whome God hath vsed for the Conuersion of Nati­ons, and reformation of Christian people. As for example in S. Augustine the Apostle of the English, in S. Bonisace the Apostle of the Germans, in S. Adalbert, S. Etto, S. VVillebrord, S. Eloy, and other Apostles of other Nations. Also in S. Benet, S. Bernard, S. Romuald, S. Dominike, S. Francis, and others, by whose exam­ple and doctrine, very many haue byn stirred vp to the contempt of earthly and transitory things, and loue cele­stiall.

And if God did vse such men as these to the Conuersion of any Nation or Prouince, or to the reformation or correction of manners in any people, whose life was admirable to the world who notwithstanding did not receiue their mission immediatly from God, but from the Pope, by whome they were sent to do and execute these offices: then I pray yow, what manner of men had it byn fit that these should-haue byn, who are said to haue byn sent inmediatly frō [Page 124]God, and this not only for the refor­mation of the chiefe heads and points of religion; but also to the reedification & instauration of the whole Church and Kingdome of Christ now ruined? And although al the sanctity and excellency, all the vertues, and spirituall giftes, which were eyther in S. Iohn Baptist, or any of the Apostles, had byn all heaped togeather in one, and had byn all infu­sed into these men; yet had the same not byn sufficient, to warrant their Autho­rity of so great a busines. And shall we be so sottish then as to belieue, that God would euer vse such men, for so meruaylous and high an enterprize, as were not only not endued with any holines of life at al, but rather to the con­trary, full of all infamy, impurity, pride, reueng and rayling? For to what end had this byn els, but to giue occasion to such as haue but the least dram of wis­dome not to admit them, but as false im­postors to auoyd and detest them? For if those, who be infamous, may not by the Cap. in­famibus li. 6. L. Qui accusare ff. de accusat. l. 1. ff. de postulā do. law be admitted to any dignity, or to any office eyther Ecclesiasticall or se­cular, no, nor to accuse, or demaund: [Page 125]How then shall such be admitted as re­formers of religion, as chiefe architects or heads of the Church, or as Iudges of Bishops, Popes, and generall Coun­cells?

The VI. Reason, From their errors and inconstancy in Doctrine.

THE sixth reason is, for that the Au­thors of these new religions haue manifest errors, and are very inconstant in their doctrine; which is an euident signe, that they haue not the infallible direction of the Holy Ghost, and ther­fore are not sent immediatly from God, nor any trust is to be giuen vnto them.

For how many soeuer haue byn sent of God to teach, and instruct the people were so gouerned by his heauēly assistance and direction, that they could not be deceaued in anything, eyther in their teaching, preaching, or writing. So as there was neuer any the least error found in the doctrine of the Prophets or Apostles; which our Sauiour insinuateth, [Page 126]saying; Iota vnum, aut vnus apex non praeteribit à lege, donec omnia fiant. One iote, or one tittle shall not passe of the law, till all be fulfilled. Matth. 5. Epist. 19. The same thing doth S. Augu­stine teach largely in his Epistle to S. Hierome, where he sayth: That if in any writer one fault only should be found, it were inough to discredit the whole authority of that wryter. For he that is deceaued in one, might be deceaued in more, and therfore we may not firmly rely vpon him. Luther himselfe also tea­cheth vs the same thing in many places of his workes, Lib. contra Empserū. whose words are these: Si semel deprehenderer &c. If I should be once foūd so lying, false, and grossely ignorant, then should all my learning, honor and fidelity vtterly haue an end,In assert. Teuton. art. 25.for that euery man, as reasen requireth would account me for a lewd and infamous knaue. And againe: Qui semel mentitur &c. whosoeuer is once taken in a lye, know most certainly that he is not of God, but ought to be suspected in all things &c. Which thing [...] inculcateth in six other seuerall places of his workes. Nay moreouer our Sauiour himselfe gaue vnto vs this signe in the Scripture, that if a tany tyme we deprehended a Prophet fortelling any thing that was false, we [Page 127]should certainely know that he was not sent of God.

This being layed as a sure foun­dation, I make this argument: Whoso­euer in his doctrine doth erre but in any one point, he is not sent from God: but Caluin and Luther in their doctrines do erre in many things; Ergo it is certaine that they are not sent of God. The Mai [...]r is already sufficiently proued: which our Aduersaries themselues do also confesse. The Minor I proue thus. For to omit all those things which they do falsely obiect to Catholiks, and which they do falsly affirme to be noueltyes in our Doctrine, and vnknowne to the ancients: To omit also all historicall and chronographicall errors, I wil lay forth only two of theirs of most moment which are common to then both. The one, That we haue no fre­will, but all things do happen through an ineui­table necessity. The other, That God is no lesse the Author and sorcer of euill works, then of good.

That these be most manifest and pernicious errors, is euident, because they take a way all policy, all good coun­sell, all lawes and preceptes, all Iudges and Tirbunales. For that all these are in [Page 128]vayne, if there be no frewill in man. Moreouer the punishing of all kind of wickednes shalbe vniust also: for that whatsoeuer is not free of it selfe, & what soeuer is done by God as the author and compeller therof, deserueth no punish­ment. And finally by this meanes they take away hell it selfe, and all punish­ment of the life to come, and bring in a most profuse liberty to all kind of vice and sinne, as before we haue shewed in the second Consideration.

These very two opinions, haue giuen occasion to many, to go frō Calui­nisme to Turcisme, or els to Atheisme. For that it is much better to haue no God, Flores Calu. pag. 49. then such a one, who is compeller and Author of all wickdnesse.

Now as concerning the incon­stancy of their doctrine, euen in most speciall things, the same is incredible. Since the world began, there was neuer found a writer so inconstant, so forgetful and so contrary to himselfe and ouer­thrower of his owne doctrine, as Lu­ther. For that he doth no lesse impugne himselfe, then the holy Fathers and Councells, & that almost in all the chiefe [Page 129]heads of faith, as In oper [...] inscripto Lutherus Septiceps. Ioannes Cochlaeus and others do shew at large. And about that only controuersy of the Eucharist, out of Luthers owne workes, himselfe be­ing yet aliue, were noted 36. manifest contradictions by one Gaspar In ta­bula con­tradict. Lutheri.Querha­mer a lay man of Saxony, and published to the world, to Luthers vtter confusion, and no small cracke of his credit. In like manner about Communion vnder one kind, were noted by Cochlaeus seauen different heads contradictory one to the other. And finally the whole booke of Cochlaeus intituled Lutherus Septiceps, conteyneth no­thing els, but Luthers contradictions, and contrary opinions, almost of euery article in controuersy, set downe and expressed in his owne very words. And in euery contradiction yow know, it is necessary that one part be falst.

Of Caluins Contradictions, 24. are set downe by Coccius in his owne words: two wherof will be sufficient to set downe in this place. Of Gods om­nipotency in one ad cap. 1. Lucae. place he saith: Verbo Dei &c. There is no impossibility to be obiected to the word of God: And in ad Cap. 2, I saiae. another place he saith: Illud somnium &c. That dreame of [Page 130]the absolute power in God, which the deuynes haue introduced, is an execerable blasphemy. And de prae­destinatio­ne. againe. Ego detestor &c. I do detest this doctri­ne, wherewith the [...]apisticall deuines do please themselues, when they feigne a certaine absolute power in God &c. About the diuinity of Christ, in one ad cap. 1. loan. vers. 1. place he wryteth: Christum esse verum Deum &c. That Christ is true God, & of the same substance with his Father. And in Cont. Gentil. re­futat. 10. another place: Nomen dei &c. The Name of God by excellency doth pertayne only to the Father: and he is only & properly the Creatour of heauen and earth: Nay more the Sonne is subiect to the Father also accor­ding to his Diuinity. Againe in the same place: Impropriam & duram &c. That is an improper & hard speach of the Nicene Creed, God of God, Light of Light. And in his 2. Epistle to the Poloniam, he affirmeth, that Christ according also to his Diuine Nature, is inferiour to the Father. Behould then whither this nouelty is come at last.

These things being considered, what wise man can euer be brought to belieue, that these men were sent of God to reforme the Church? For how should they repayre this ruined Church, who so shamefully destroy their owne do­ctrine? [Page 131]Who can be thought so simple, and of so small wisdome and circumspe­ction, that he cannot auoyd so manifest contradictions, in matters of so great moment? Certainly whosoeuer is con­trary to himselfe, and what he now esta­blisheth, by and by destroyeth againe, he without all doubt doth not speake from the spirit of God. For if I build (saith the Apostle) the same things againe, which I haue destroyed, I make my selfe a preuaricatour. ad Galat. 2. The spirit of God cannot be contrary to it selfe, nor deny it selfe.

Wherunto is added, that although they contradict themselues in many thinges, and ouerthrowe their owne pleas, yet notwithstanding they are so bold & malepart, that they dare affirme themselues to be certaine of their owne Doctrine, and the same to be most true, and the very Doctrine it selfe of Christ. For so saith Luther: Certus sum quòd &c. Contra Regē An­gliae.I am certayne that I haue my Doctrine from heauē. And, I am most certaine that my Doctrine is not myne, but of Christ; and that my doctrine cannot be contrary to it selfe, seing that it is the Doctrine of Christ. And in another place he saith. Se ita esse &c. that hit Doctrine is so [Page 132]certaine that he will not haue it iudged of,Contra Statum Ecclesiast.or contradicted by any man, no not of the Angels. And, that no man can be saued, vnlesse he re­ceyue, and imbrace his doctrine.

In like manner Caluin was wont often to exclayme in his sermons, that he was a Prophet, and, that be could not be decey­ued, vnlesse God had deceyued him &c. as before in the 5. Reason we haue shewed.

By which it is manifest, that these men did not only, not speake out of the spirit of God, when as they are so full of errors and contradictions; but that they be impostors also & deceyuers of the people. For whosoeuer affirmeth his Doctrine, wherin there be so many errors and contradictions, to be of God; is presumed not to deale sincerely, but to speake against his conscience, and to beguile the people: seeing that it is eui­dent that he that doth so, can haue no in ward light frō God, wherby to make him certaine of the verity of his do­ctrine, or the testimony of God, because God cannot witnesse or reueale Do­ctrines contrary or repugnant one to the other. With what force then do they so bouldly affirme, that their Doctrine is [Page 133]of God, or the Doctrine of Christ? therfore they do not deale vprightly in this affayre, but would only deceyue the world.

Some perhaps may answere her­unto and say, that now and then they erred in the beginning when as they had not as yet fully the spirit of God; but afterward they neither erred, nor chan­ged their opinions. But this answere hath no colour of truth. For whosoeuer haue byn sent immediatly from God to teach and instruct the people, they had presently in the very beginning of their mission an infallible assistance and di­rection from God, so as they could ne­uer erre the least iote in their Doctrine, as it is manifest of the Prophets and A­postles. Nay in that beginning, they had most of all need of that direction, because then euery thing is more nar­rowly sifted and looked into, and their authority and mission is compared with other learned men and their Doctrine▪ For if they had byn taken in any error or contradiction, all their credit and au­thority had byn lost, and they had wor­thily byn reiected as false impostors and [Page 134]deceyuers of the people. And so if Caluin and Luther had byn sent from God to repayre and reedify the Church, it had byn specially necessary that straight in their begining, their Doctrine had byn solide, and without all contradiction, least they might haue byn reiected and contemned as deceyuers, and that wor­thily. Againe I demaund, of them, when and at what tyme did they at length re­ceyue that fulnes or plenitude of spirit, that they could not erre any longer? How should this be manifest to the world, that men might know when to belieue them, and when not, to wit not in the beginning, but yet in the later end? For if this were not knowne, they might presume, and that worthily, that they would erre as wel after, as they had done before.

And finally it is euident, that in all their life, they were variable, chan­ging, correcting, or contradicting themselues almost in euery booke and worke they set forth; as before we haue shewed by that little we haue alleaged, and may do much more out of the many places produced by Cochlaeus, Coccius, and [Page 135]others, out of their owne words and wrytings. For the further they went, comonly the more bitter they were; and what they spake but mildly in the be­ginning, that they eyther exaggerated, or changed it into some contradiction in the end.

The VII. Reason, Taken from the fraudes and de­ceipts which the Sectaries commonly vse.

THAT Religion is alwayes to be had in suspition, whose Authors & mantayners do vse guile, deceyts and lyes to vphold and establish the same. For that true Religion doth not need any such helps, but false Religion; which when she is destitute of true and solid reasons, she must necessarily place all her hope in lyes. But now the Au­thors and mantayners of Lutheranisme and Caluinisme do vse many fraud [...] and lyes, wherwith to propagate their reli­gion; Ergo, they are worthily to be sus­pected.

[Page 136]That they vse deceyts, it is ma­nifest. Heretiks impose false doctrine vpon Catho­liks. First, for that they do falsely charge the Catholikes with many ab­surdityes, wherby they may more easily impugne and defame their Religion: as for example, that the Papistes do worship images wood, stocks & stones, euen as Ethnicks do adore their Idoles: so as whatsoeuer they find in Scripture that is against the worship­ping of Idols, that they bring in against the veneration of Images. In which case they deale not sincerely. For they know wel inongh, or may know if they will, that in the Catholike Church I­mages of Saintes were neuer adored as Gods, or with any worship that is due vnto God alone, as Idols are adored by Ethnickes: Nor that this worship is in that manner done to Images, as though there were any excellency in thē; but so as the same doth passe to the first pattern therof, to wit to the Saints themselues raigning with Christ in heauen. For that the externall signe of adoration, Which is made before an Image, is the worshiping of the first patterne or pro­totype therof. As for example to errect a [Page 137]Statua or Image to a King, and to do reuerence therunto; now this reuerence is done to the Image materially only; but the honor it selfe redoundeth to the King, whome the Image representeth.

That this honour which is thus done to Saints, is not the worship proper vnto God, is manifest; because we do not worship any Saint as supreme Lord & Author of things, but only as a friend of him who is supreme Lord. For that we do so highly respect God, that we thinke those whome he hath so highly exalted in glory, to be worthy also of some honour. Which thing truely doth not any way redound to the iniury, but to the honor of God: euen as it redoun­deth to the honor of a Prince, when we honour his Nobles & Courtiers for the respect we beare vnto the Prince; to wit because they be his domesticall seruants, friends &c. And this I haue heere spo­ken, because that many simple people are beguiled, and misled about this point.

Secondly, they say, that Papists do adore bread as God, and therfore they be Ar­tolatrae, which is as much to say, as Bread­worshippers; [Page 138]by which name Caluin often­tymes calleth Catholikes. But in this also they vse deceit. For they know well inough that Catholikes do not belieue, that in the Eucharist there remayneth bread, but that there is present truly, really and substantially the body of Christ, togeather with his soule and di­uinity; and so do not adore bread, but the whole body of Christ there present.

Thirdly, they affirme, that Papists do not put their trust in the merits of Christ, but in their owne, and the merits of Saints.

Fourthly, they say, that Papists do teach, that men be not iustified through the faith of Christ, but by their owne merits, and the like: which are nothing els indeed, but mere impostures and deceytes, inuented to defame the Catholike doctrine. I could produce more then an hundred of like articles, falsely imputed eyther to the whole Church, or to Catholike Doctors therof. And now, who will say, that in such men as these be, there is the spirit of Christ; or that they do proceed sin­cerely in this busines, and go about to establish the Truth?

Moreouer, these fellowes do not [Page 139]only impute vnto Catholikes these and such like absurdityes of opinions, They ob­iect fal [...]e crimes to Catho­liks. but they lay to their charge also false crimes especially to such men whome they most feare will withstand their wicked ende­auours, to wit, Murders, Treasons a­gainst Princes, and diuers kinds of such like villany. Good God! How many libels and pamphlets haue byn set out these yeares past by the Caluinists and Lutherans, & do dayly at this day come abroard, wherin they accuse Religions men (innocent God wot frō such crimes) of most outragious and filthly wicked­nes? But these wily deceyts are easily discouered. For eyther the innocency of these men is wittnessed by the publike letters of Magistrates, and the others falsity made manifest: or els their accu­sations are cleerly refuted by the manner of their relation, & the circunstances thē ­selues. For in some of their Accusations there haue byn noted aboue 50. most manifest vntruthes: In others 12.15.20. &c. so blynd is that their feruent hatred, that they care not with what probabi­lity they charge their Aduersaryes, so they may hope to hurt them therby. But [Page 140]this hurt they do, is but for a little while; for after that the impudency of their ca­lumniations is once discouered, it re­doundeth to the great comendation of those who were accused, and shame vnto them that were the plotters and abbet­ters therof.

And finally for confirmation of their absurdityes, Their corruptiō of Autho­rityes. they vse egregious fraudes and deceyts, eyther by adding, taking away, or altering somthing in the allegations of Scriptures & Fathers; or els by omitting the plaine words, and producing those that seeme obscure, therby to make them seeme to fauour their Doctrine. For Luther, to establish his opiniō of Iustification by only faith, cyting the words of the Apostle to the Rom. 3. Arbitramur hominem iustificari per fi­dem, we do thinke that man is iustified through faith; he addeth of his owne the word solam, Epist. ad amicum devoce SOLA. only. And when he was demaunded why he did so, he made ans­wore thus: Situus Papista &c. If thy Papisti­call friend be froward, and hard to please concer­ning the word (only) presently tell him, that a Papist and an Asse is one and the same thing: Sic vole, sic iube [...], sit pro ratione voluntas: I will [Page 141]haue it so, I comaund it so, let my will be a rea­son. For, we will not be schollers vnto Papists, but their maisters. And we will this once glory in our pride against such like asses. &a little after: I pray thee giue no other answere to these asses con­cerning the word (only) but tell them, that Lu­ther will haue it so, & that he is Doctor of all Do­ctors in the Popedome &c. Behould the mo­desty of this Prophet in excusing that fraud.

The same Luther in the second E­pistle of S. Peter, translating this sen­tence, Quapropter fratres &c. wherfore bre­thren, labour the more, that, by good workes yow may make sure your vocatiō & election, lea­ueth quite out the words, per bonaopera, by good works, because they were plainely against his Doctrine, who taught that good works nothing auailed to faluatiō.

In the 75. Psalme, & 12. Verse, where it is sayd: Vow, and render vnto your Lord God &c. Luther maketh therupon this glosse in the margent, contayning a threefold fraud and deceyt: Quòd pro Deo vero illum habere velitis, quemadmodum requirit primum praceptum, & nolite vouere Sanctis, vel alia vota. Because yow will haue him for your God, as the first Commandement doth [Page 142]require; therfore do ye not vow vnto Saintes, nor make ye any other vowes.

In the 31. of Prouerbes, where it is said: Mulierem fortem quis inueniet? who is he that shall find a constant Woman? Luther vpon these words putteth in the margent a Loue-song in rithme, to this sense: Nothing is more amiable on earth then the loue of a woman, to him that hath the fortune to obtaine it.

1. Corinth. 9. where it is sayd: Num­quid non habemus potestatem mulierem sororem circūducendi? Haue we not power to lead about a woman-sister? Luther addeth heer unto of his owne, in vxorem, for our wife; as though the Apostles lead wiues about with them, for coniugall vse.

Zwinglius in place of those words Hoc est corpus meum, This is my body: a­gainst the truth & authority of a Greek and Latin Copyes, in the Dutch Bible, translateth it thus: Hoc significat Corpus meum: This signifieth my body.

In the 2. Act. 27. where it is said: Non derelinques animam meam in inferno: Thou wilt not leaue my soule in hell. Beza translateth it thus: Non relinques cada­uer meū in sepulchro: Thou wiltnot leaue my [Page 143]carcasse in the graue; changing the greek word [...] (which signifieth animam) into cadauer, and [...] orcum, into sepul­chrum. And is not this, thinke yow, to corrupt Scriptures?

Caluin doth so expound almost all the places of Scripture, wherby the An­cient Fathers dyd proue the Trinity of Persons, and the Diuinity of the Sonne, or the Holy Ghost, that he doth eueruate all the force therof; wherin he doth not alittle symbolize with the Iewes, Sabellians, Arians, and Macedonians.

Againe, the 53. whole Chapter of Isay, which is manifestly meant of the passion, death, and satisfaction of Christ, Caluin expoundeth it metapho­rically of the griefes and molestations which the Iewish people, by their sinnes did cause vnto Christ. And what can be more violently or absurdly spoken? or what can be more fitly accommodated to the Iewes perfidiousnesse?

Matth. 19. vers. 17. where it is said, Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serua mandata: If thou wilt enter into life, keep the Comaundements: Caluin will haue this speach to haue byn vttered by Christ [Page 144]in a scoffing manner, or mockingly.

Allo ad Hebr. 5. vers. 7. Exauditus est pro sua reuerentia, He was heard for his reuerence, Caluin expoundeth the greeke word [...], to signifie metum, or du­bitationem, feare, or doubtfullnes: and saith, that hereby is signified, that Christ was stroken with so horrible a terrour of death, that he was ready to fall into del­peration of his eternall saluation, I omit many other places.

Monsieur du Plessis a principall Cal­uinist in France, in a little booke of his which he published Of the supper of our Lord hath corrupted more then an hundred testimonies of Fathers & Doctors, partly by cutting of and mangling their words, and partly by adding therto of his own. As also in this booke of his, he produceth many arguments, which by Schole do­ctors, as the manner is, are obiected a­gainst the truth, and afterwards solued and answered by themselues, as if they had byn set downe expressely by them for their owne doctrine and opinions. Of which fraud he was, these yeares past publiquely conuinced, in presence of the late king of France, and many of his no­bility, [Page 145]by the Bishop of Eureux, now Cardinall: as is well knowne to all France. And the very same deceypt and craft do all their writers vse, when they go about to proue their opinions and do­ctrine out of the Fathers.

Moreouer, Their al­leaging of obscure Autho­rityes. this is another comon tricke amongst these men, to wit, that in citing the Fathers opinions, they do alwayes omit their cleere & perspicuous sense which may explicate and plainely declare their mind, and insteed therof they produce commonly some obscurē and darke sentences of theirs, were they do but by chance, and as it were by the way, touch the controuersy in hand. Of which fraud very many testimonies are alledged, not only against the Reall pre­sence of Christs body in the Eucharist, but against many other euident articles of Catholike faith also; as for example against free wil, against internal lustice, against merit of good workes, against the Authority of Councells &c. And there is nothing so cleare and euident in our faith, which by certaine obscure places of Scripture, or Fathers may not seeme to be impugned; nor is there any [Page 144] [...] [Page 145] [...] [Page 146]thing so absurd which by that meanes may not be defended. For what is more absurd then to say, that Christs body is euery where, alwel as his Diuinity? And yet do these men go about to confirme the same by many restimonies both of Scriptures and Fathers. What is more absurd, then to say, that God is the Au­thor of all synne? Or that man hath not free will? And yet do they alleadg many obscure places, both out of Scriptures & Fathers to establish those their fancies.

Y [...] they seeke for truth, why then do they omit those places which be plaine and perspicuous, and fly vnto such as be obscure and darke? & why do they not stand to the iudgment of the ancient Fathers and Doctors, for explication therof, who were long before our tyme, but will only rely and rest vpon their owne sense and interpretation? When as any obscure speaches of the Fathers do but seeme to f [...]uour them, those they do diligently and readily produce, and do indeauour to confir me their Doctrine therwith: but when Catholikes to the contrary do alledg any thing out of the Fathers, which is euidently against [Page 147]them, then they make answere presently, and say [...] that the Fathers were me [...] and consequently subiect to error, but they rely vpon the word of God, which can­not err [...].

Y [...] yow reply and say, that the Fathers do also rely vpon the word God: they answere, that the Fathers haue not at­tayned to the vnderstanding of the Di­uine word, and therfore were deceyued. Y [...] yow aske them how they know that the Fathers haue not attayned to the true sens [...] and vnderstanding of the word of God, & themselues haue: they answer [...], that [...] is euident out of the word of God. But how is it euident, seing there beso many, and so diuers interpretations amongst them; and that all the ancient Fathers haue interpreted otherwise them they; and the Lutherans otherwise then the Caluinists, and they againe otherwise then the Anabaptists? The interpretation (say they) is euident to him that hath the spirit, but to others not. And thus do the Patrones of euery Sect answere, and reduce their final iud­gement of euery controuersy to a prin [...] spirit.

[Page 148]Therfore the Caluinists say; that all the ancient Fathers, all the Doctours of the Church, all generall Councells wanted the true-spirit of vnderstanding the Scriptures, as also do the Lutherans and Anabaptists at this day want the same: only themselues haue the true spi­rit, and to them it is specially graunted from aboue: and therefore to them [...]n is spirit is manifest, in so much that what­soeuer they teach, that is the pure Word of God. The very sume thing say the Lutherans, to wi [...], that the Councells Fathers; & Doctours of the Church did want this true spirit, as also the Calui­nists, & Anabaptists do: only to them it is graunted and therefore say they, it is euident and certaine, that our doctrine is agrable to the Word of God. And fi­nally the Anabaptists do take away this spirit from all others, and clayme it as proper only to themselues.

But how absurd (thinke you) & voyd of reason are al these things? How incredible is it, that all the Catholike Doctours, and Fathers of the Church, should want the true spirit of vnder­standing Scriptures, and that it should [Page 149]begiuen now to the Caluinists only, or to the Lutherans only, or to the Ana­baptists? How vaine and friuolous is it, that euery sect should challeng this spi­rit as proper only to her followers, and haue no other proofe thereof, then that the same is manifest to him that hath the spirit, and he, to whome it is not manifest, hath it not? And is not this now to walke round in a circle, run­ning to the beginning, and reuoluing e­uery controu [...]sy to that which is most obscure, and knowne to no man els? For now should I know, that you haue this spirit? When did euer the Doctors of the Church proue their assertions on this fashion? Euery proofe ought to be made by that, which is most manifest to the Aduersary, so as it may be therby the more easily graunted by him: but this proofe of theirs, whereon all their opinions are foūded, doth proceed from that which is most obscure, and only re­lyeth vpon the iudgement of a priuate man, who is both a party and an accu­ser in the cause. For you cannot proue vnto me, that you haue this spirit, but only by your owne testimony, which [Page 150]you giue of your selfe: Ioan. 8. But he which giue [...] testimony of himselfe, his testi­mony is not true, to wit, it is not to be accoumpted true, vnlesse it be witnes­sed other wayes. But they (to wit the Caluinists) cannot proue themselues to haue this priuate spirit by other wayes, but would haue vs to beleeue them on their bare word and asseueration, be­cause they say, that they are certaine thereof. Therefore there is no reason why we should beleeue them; but great reason father to the contrary not to be­lieue them at all. For that the spirit of God cannot be contrary to himselfe: but these men are most contrary to them­selues: Ergo, they are not gouerned by the spirit of God.

To this now I adde (and it be­longeth to no small deceit, and guilefull machination of their that seeing these men haue forsaken the ancient fayth, which hath florished for so many ages, and imbraced now a new and vpstart Religion, when Catholike Princes, ac­cording to the receaued custome from the tymes of Constantine the Emperour, do go about to compell them to returne [Page 151]to their ancient Religion, which once they professed, and forsake their new, then they complaine grieuously, and ac­cuse them of tyrany, calling them ene­mies of the Ghospell, and stir vp the whole world in hatred against them, as though they offered violence to their consciences against their eternall salua­tion: and withal vnder pretence of this their liberty, they raise vp tumults and seditions against them. But when they haue once gotten the vpper hand (God so permitting the same for our sinnes) they will not graunt any liberty to Ca­tholikes, but stir vp most sharp persecu­tion against them, and force them with diuers torments, and losse of goods to forsake the old Religion, and imbrace their new, which they neuer learned, neuer heard of in former tyms, to which they haue no obligation, which is con­firmed with no sound arguments, and which by my most graue & weighty rea­sons they see condemned of the Catho­like Church throughout all Christen­dome. Is this then to deale vprightly, and with a sincere mind & equal right? Is it not rather a kind of lionish society, [Page 152]whose right consisteth in strength and power of armes, and which doth make and repeale lawes for it owne interest? And what greater tyranny can be vsed ouer mens consciences then this?

In the Catholike Church, none are forced to imbrace her fayth, but those that sometymes haue professed it, and now forsaken it, and this neither, vntill it be fully proued that they haue so done, and cannot deny it. But these our new Maisters do force and con­straine men to imbrace their Noueltyes, who neuer before professed the same, and this also before they can conuince them of errour. In which point they do also against their owne doctrine. For that they teach, that man hath no free­will, but that he doth all things by the decree and impulsion of God, whereto he cannot resist; and that God doth in­fuse his fayth only to the elect. By what right then do they force Catholikes to imbrace their fayth, which is not in their owne power to do? And againe seeing that their whole forme of fayth is reduced to the testimony of euery ones priuate spirit; they do most wic­kedly, [Page 153]in compelling Catholiks to be­leiue, not only against the testimony of their priuate spirit, but also against the publike testimony of the spirit of the v­niuersal Church. For it is most certaine out of the holy Writ, that the Church is gouerned by the spirit of God, and therefore cannot erre, which notwith­standing is not any way certaine in pri­uate men.

The VIII. Reason, Drawn from the ouerthrow of good Workes.

THAT religion, that taketh away all affection and loue of good works, is not to be attributed vnto Christ, who euery where recomendeth good workes, & the obseruatiō of Gods comandments: but the Religion both of Luther & Calum taketh away all care of good workes, therefore neither of them is to bee dee­med Christs Religion. And that these two religions take away the study and care of good workes, is manifest. First, for that the one and the other teacheth [Page 154]that a man by all his good works is made no whit the more iust before God, meri­teth no euerlasting reward, shall haue neyther lesse nor more reward in heauen whe her he do few good workes, or many, or none at all. For as much as, say they, sole faith is esteemed of with God; and that in fayth alone is all iustice con­tained. For so affirmeth Luther in these words: De decem praecept. c. 1. I would not giue an halfe penny for S. Peters merits for helping of me, because it is not in him to helpe himselfe, but whatsoeuer he hath, he hath it of God by faith in Christ. Where he plainely teacheth that S. Peter was not the iuster, or receiued the more good in heauen for his good workes, but that his faith alone was crowned. And els where: So you see, how rich a Christian man, or he that is baptized is, De captiu. Babil. c. de Baptismo.who though he would neuer so fayne, cannot debarre himselfe of his sal­uation by neuer so great sinnes, vnles he will not be­leeue. For no sinne can damne him but his vnbe­le [...]uing alone: all other sins, if his sayth returne, or stand stable vpon gods promise, be in an instant ab­sorpt by the same fayth. Againe in another place: De votis monast. Good workes cannot be [...]aught vnles you preiudice and hurt saith: sith saith and good workes bee in matter of iustification most con­trary, [Page 155]whence it is that the Doctrine of workes is necessarily the doctrine of the diuell, and a reuolt from the saith.

The same is the opinion of Caluin, Lib. 3. c. 13. as appeareth in his Institutions, where he sayth: That iustice of fayth can in no sort haue any association with the iustice of workes: and that not onely the workes, that bee effected by the onely forces of nature, Lib. 3. c. 16. § 2. & se­quent. &c. 19.6.2.4. & 7.but all other also vnder what specious title soeuer, bee excluded by the iustice of fayth. And the same he teacheth in many other places. If then there bee no merit at all in good works, if they make vs nothing the more accepted to God; nor wee for them shall receiue any reward in heauen; wherefore should we weary our selues in exercising them? Wherefore should wee spend our goods in workes of mercy towards the relie­uing of the poore? why should wee in­sist, and spend houres in prayer? wherfore should wee fast or punish our bodyes? It is a folly for vs to weary our selues out in them, & to be sollicitous about the exer­cising of them if no fruit returne vnto vs by them. Who seeth not that by this do­ctrine all desire, and care of good works is extinguished, and cleane taken away?

[Page 156]Secondly, for that both these Re­ligions teach, that all our good workes do not onely merit no good at all before God, but further then this bee also syns, and that indeed of themselues mortall, though for their fayth they bee not im­puted to the beleeuers. And Luther in many places teacheth no lesse. As when he sayth: In reso­lut. contra Eckium, & in assert. art. 31. The iust sinneth in euery good work. Againe In as­sert. art. 32. a good worke done in the best māner, is according to gods mercy a veniall sinne, but ac­cording to his iudgment a mortal sin. In another place: In as­sert. art. 29. Our best works whereby wee labour to procure of God grace, help & comfort is to bee re­puted vnto vs for sin, as the Prophet sayth, Psal. 108. And his prayer be vnto him to sin. The same he inculcateth in māy other places.

Caluin deliuereth the same doctrine. For this he saith: Lib. 3. In­stit. c. 12. §. 4. All the workes of men if they bee censured as they deserue, bee nothing but foule staines, and filth. Neyther can any work proceed from holy men, that deserueth not the iust reward of reproach. The same he teacheth c. 14. & els where. Lib. 3. c. 14. § 9. If all our good workes bee truly sins, foule staines, and filth that merit Gods ire, who seeth not that it is much better to abstaine from them, then to do them? For by forbearing them we sin not, but by doing them we sin: and much [Page 157]better it is not to sin then to sin. We must ther­fore abstaine from giuing of almes, and from doing other works of mercy, yea we must cease to pray, because all these, as they are done of vs bee sins. And how may all study and desire of good workes be better ouerthrowne then by teaching that they do not onely make vs nothing the more iust or better before God, but that they bee further silth, foule staynes, and syns indeed.

Neither maketh it to the purpose that they so oftē say that God requireth good works for a testimony of faith, Whether good works be required as the si­gne of faith. or as signs of faith, sith they affirme it least they may seeme to the people to take away al good works cleare. But this their pretense is vaine. For how doth God require them if they be syns, which, vnles he of his mercy should not impute, thē he should punish with euerlasting paine? how doth he for a testimony of faith require those things that do rather giue a testimony of want of fayth? For those who bee fol­licitous about the doing of good workes do ther by testifie that faith sufficeth not. For if faith were inough, as they will haue it, and good workes auaile nothing [Page 158]at all, how bee good workes a signe of faith? Therfore the study of good works is not a signe of that speciall faith wher­of they speake, and whereunto they ascribe all; but of the Catholike faith, whereby wee beleeue that faith is not inough, but that workes bee further re­quired that bee meritorious of euerla­sting life: with which faith they haue nothing to do at all but reiect it wholy. By what hath been sayd, most euident it is, that by those Religions all study and care of good workes is taken away and banished quite.

The IX. Reason, Deduced from the liberty of life, which they yeald vnto.

THOSE Religions cannot possibly bee thought to haue been instituted by Christ, that do vtterly spoile mens minds of the feare of God, and do open a most wide gate to all wickednes, and to all māner of impurity of life. For holy writ doth euery where inculcate vnto vs the feare of God, neyther it there any [Page 159]thing that is more often repeated & more recomended vnto vs, syth therof espe­cially dependeth all goodnes & honesty of life. But the Religion of Luther, and Galuin both do quite thrust out of mens minds the feare of God, and yeald a li­berty to all manner of wickednes, as far as doth Atheisme: therfore neither the one nor the other can pretend Christ to bee the Author of their Religion.

That they do this, and that by foure different and diuers wayes, hath beene by vs most plainely set downe, & declared in the second consideration be­fore, & now I will in few words againe manifest & proue the same by these rea­sons following. First, for that the Lu­therans Religion teacheth, that the de­calogue, or ten Commandments apper­taine not to the faythful, as neither the ceremoniall and iudicial lawes also. For thus he sayth in his sermon of Moyses: By the Text it euidently appeareth, that the ten pre­cepts also do nothing concerne vs: for as much as our Lord brought not vs, but the lewes only out of Aegypt. Moyses is not held in the new testament: for if I should obserue him in one article, I should be bound to the obseruation of the whole Law. [Page 160]The same be teacheth in many wordes▪ c. 4. Epist. ad Galat. & in c. 20. Exodi, If the ten Commandments bind vs no more, then the cerimoniall laws, as he expres­ly teacheth, c. 4. ad Galat. therefore as I am not bound to keep the cerimoniall law, for example to circumcise the flesh, to eate the Paschall [...]ambe, to obserue the Sabboaths &c. so neither the morall law, or the ten Commandments. If I be dispensed from obseruation of the ten Commandements, what may it not be lawfull for me to do? I may then in out­ward shew adore Idols, contemne pa­rents, make no reckoning of Magistrats, commit murthers, adulteryes, robberyes giue false testimouies, and such like, that be prohibited and forbidden by the de­calogue, euen as I may do those thinges, that haue repugnance with the cerimo­niall law.

And though Caluin doth not in ex­presse māner delyuer the same Doctrine couching the cōmandements, yet vnder­hand he sufficiently infi [...]uateth it. Lib. 2. In­stit. cap. 7. §. 5. First, when he teacheth, That it is impossible also for holy men to keep Gods law. For if it be impossible, it bindeth not at [Page 161]all: sith none is bound to what is impo­ssible. No Tyrant euer bound his sub­iects to impossibilityes, and should God do it, from whome so barbarous cruelty is most far? wherfore for this very thing, that the ten commaundements began to be impossible to be kept, they ceased also to bind, and therfore they appertaine nothing vnto vs. Further, because Cal­uin teacheth, that al our works be fowle staynes, filth, and synne before God: but none cā be bound to commit sin: therfore we are not bound euen to labour, or ōce put our hand towards the fulfilling of the decalogue, or of any part of it. The same I might confirme by other reasons, but these may serue the turne: by which it is also manifest out of Caluins doctrine, that the dealogue appertayneth nothing vnto vs.

Secondly, these two Religions make no difference of good and bad works before God, but only before men. For as the works that are said to be euil, haue their manifest malice, euen so to the good workes of the iust they attri­bute a secret malice in regard of the in­ternal concupiscence, by reason of which [Page 162]malice they will haue them to be mortal syns before God. And if it be so, wher­fore should I rather attend to good works with the affl [...]cting & punishing of nature, & with the wasting of goods, then to bad that go accompanyed with great pleasures, & oftētymes with profit and commodity also. For sith both be bad before God, wherfore should I not prefer those, in which there is a tem­porall both pleasure and ga [...]ne, before them which are not done without mo­lestation, trouble, and losse.

Thirdly, for that both Religions teach, that a man is by speciall fayth a­lone iust before God, without any good work; of his part: and that to him who hath this fayth, no syn is imputed. So teacheth Luther in very many places, as hath been declared before. Of which Doctrine he inferreth, l. de libert. Christ. & de capt. ba­by [...] tib. [...]. Instit. c. 8. § 68. & l. 3. c. 4. § 28. That incredulity a­lone is syn, and that the incredulous, and vn­beeleuing alone are to be damned: and that he, who retayneth his fayth, cannot be damned at all. The same teacheth Caluin, when he sayth. All syns be to vnbeleeuing mortall: to the beleeuing all be veniall. He calleth them venial, because God imputeth them not [Page 163]vnto them, but in what they are done, pardoneth and forgiueth them. And to is doctrine plainely followeth of this principle, wherby they conclude, that speciall fayth alone is the cause of iusti­fication, that is, that a man is iust before God by this alone, that he firmely be­leeueth, that Christ hath fully satisfied for his syns, for that by this faith Christs satisfaction is applied vnto him, and is made as it were his own, so as by it be is reputed iust before God, though he find no change of will at all within. And therfore, while this fayth continueth, no syn can hurt him, because he abideth in Christs iustice, & he firmely ret [...]yneth it by fayth. And if we ground our selues vpon this doctrine, we haue no cause to feare the committing of any wickednes whatsoeuer. For no punishment, nor vengeance is for it to be feared at Gods hands, sith God imputeth it not for a fault, by occasion of Christs satisfaction communicated vnto vs by fayth. And can Atheisme giue greater liberty to all manner of wickednes, & to all impurity of life?

Some Caluinist Ministers in En­gland [Page 164]confesse it plainely inough, who of that opinion of Caluin touching the iu­stification of fayth, Refert ex Foxo Guil. Reginaldus l. 4. pag. 1020. among others do de­duce, and man tayne these conclusions. 1. All those do erre, who thinke, that they are to be saued, when they shall haue done many good works. 2. It is nothing necessary for vs to lavour for the purchasing of life euerlasting by our good works, sith we haue it euen now. 3. This is one of the principall errors▪ that beareth sway in the Christian world, to thinke, that good works profit any thing to Saluation. 4. Our syns withdraw nothing from Gods glory, for as much as all the burt of syn consisteth in the scandall of our neigh­bour. 5. Christ h [...]th with his bloud redeemed, and deliuered vs from all s [...]ns, and lawes, in so much as from this tyme forward no law bindeth vs in conscience. (Heere we are in expresse words freed from the decalogne, and from all precepts of Sacraments.) 6. You owe nothing vnto God but fayth, that you confesse Iesus Christ, and beleeue that he is risenfrō death: for so you shall be saued. In all other things God leaueth you in your liberty to follow your own will. For you may do all things without scruple of cons­cience: for you cannot perish, nor be damned, whatsoeuer you shal outwardly do, or leaue vndōe. All this they deduce (and that most [Page 165]rightly) out of that foundation of Iustifi­cation by special fayth, first laid by Luther and Caluin, in whose writings also all these former grounds almost are expre­ssely had. Who now could wish, or ima­gine greater liberty to all wickednes?

Adde hereunto what hath been said before in the second Consideration, where we laid down three other man­ners, by which this liberty is graunted. I omit to speake of that window, that Caluin hath opened, when he taught, l. 2. Inflit. c. 25. §. [...]2. That the paine of the damned is nothing els, then to feele God an aduersary, and to be put in feare by him, though that paine be represented vs by things cor­porall, as by darknes, weeping, gnasshing of teeth, the inextinguible fire &c. By which words he plainely insinuateth, that hell is no­thing els, but vaine terrors. For if God inflicteth not any paine, but only affrig­teth the damned, certainely vaine is that terrour and to be laughed at, vaine be the paines of hell, and nothing to be weighed, or regarded at all.

The X. Reason, That they renew old Heresies.

EVERY Religion is to be auoyded, that contayneth heresyes formerly condemned by the Catholique Church, which haue euer been held and reputed for heresyes: But these new Religions contayne such heresyes; yea they seeme to be nothing but a masse, and heape of diuers heresyes, in scueral ages taught by diuers arch heretiks, & in former tymes by the Catholike Church condemned: therefore they are to be shūned. We are to proue our minor: and therfore let vs con­sider the principall points of doctrine, that these religions maintaine.

1. Both, as well Luther, as Caluin teach, that there is no liberty of will And Lu­ther in his 36. article affirmeth, that it is the principall soundation of his religion. But this was long agoe the heresy of Simon Caluin l. 1. Recog­nit.Ma­gus, and Valentinus, as testifieth S. Augustine haer. 11. and of the Aug. haer. [...]6 Hier. in prlog contra Pelag. Manichies, and of in [...]ont. Constant. sess. 8. VVicliffe &c.

[Page 167]2. Both do teach, that God is the instigatour or mouer to all wickednes; and that all euylls be done by vertue and power of Gods decree. And this againe was in tymes past an he­resy of Simon Vincēt. Lirin.Magus, and of Eusebi­us l. 5. c. 20. Flori­nus.

3. Both teach, that good works be not necessary to saluation, and that fayth is ynough. But this was an heresy of the same Si­monIren. l. 1. c. 20 [...]Magus, and of Aug. haer. 54. the Eunomians about the yeare of Christ 360.

4. Both also teach, that syns, though neuer so many and great, do not hurt him who hath fayth, for that the malice of them is not im­puted to him who beleeueth. And this was also in tymes past an heresy of the Aug. haer. 54. Eu­nomians, and of Basilides, and Carpocrates, as witnesseth Irenaeus l. 1. c. 23. & 24.

5. Caluin denyeth the reall presence of Christs body in the Eucharist. But this was againe an heresy of Berengarius, about the yeare of our Lord 1051. Where it is to be noted, first, though some priuately before Berengarius doubted of that matter, and moued the question about it, yet none was so hardy, as to professe it in publike, as testifieth Hugh of Langres, and Adelman of Bressia in their epistles to Beren­garius, [Page 168]and Paschasius in his booke of the words of the Institution of this Sacra­ment. In so much, as this was the con­stant and vniforme doctrine of the Church, not opposed against by any arch-heretike vntill the tyme of Beren­garius. Secondly, that Berengarius his opi­nion was, whiles he yetlyued, condem­ned in fiue Councells, and that Berenga­rius himselfe thrise abiured his opinion, and in conclusion died very penitent in the Catholike fayth. He being dead the same heresy lay buried vp welneere two hundred yeares, vntill the tyme of the Lollards, who brought it to light againe, as is gathered out of Trithemius in his Chronicle about the yeare 1315. After this againe VVicliffe held the same, as ap­peareth by his third article. After his death againe there was a deep silence of that matter for the space of an hundred yeares, vntill Swinglius renewed it, and Caluin, and some others after him. Whe­reby it euidently appeareth, that this o­pinion was euer in the Church held for a manifest heresy: & therfore eyther the Church hath euer erred in a principall article of fayth, and so consequently it [Page 169]was neuer Christs Church, or that opi­nion which abrogateth, and disclay­meth from the Reall presence of Christs body, is an heresy indeed.

6. Both take away all traditions, and would haue all things to be compre­hended in Scriptures alone. The same was the heresy of the Arians, as is recor­ded by S. Augustine: also of Nestorius, l. 1. contra Maxim. c. 2. & vlt.Diosco­rus, and Eutiches, as is declared in the sea­uenth Synod, Act. 1.

7. Both deny the Sacraments of Penance, and of Confirmation. The No­uatians taught the same opinion long a­go, as witnesse S. Cyprian, l. 4. epist. 2. l. 3. baer. fabularum. and S. Theo­doret.

8. Both teach, that the Church consisteth of good alone, and that the Church in former tymes visible, peri­shed notwithstanding for many ages, & that in this tyme it only remayneth in their congregations. The very like was the heresy of the Donatists, as testifieth S. Augustine, l. de vnit. Eccl. c. 12.

9. Both of them teach, that prayer is not to be made for the dead; that [...] fast of Lent, or any other stable fasts be not to be keep, but euery one is then to [Page 170]fast, when it shall to him seeme good. The Aerians taught the very same in for­mer ages, if we beleeue Epiphamus haer. 75. and S. Augustine l. dehaer. c. 33.

10. Both deny the veneration of holy Reliques, of Christs and Saints I­mages, and call it Idolatry. Vigilantius did no lesse many ages past, as witnesseth S. Hierome. The same did the Image breakers, as testify Zoneras, Cedrenus, and Nicephorus touching them who made war against Images.

By these it is more then manifest, that the chiefest opinions, whereof Lu­theranisme and Caluinisme consist, be anci­ent heresyes, long since condemned by the Church, and that the same were al­wayes held in the Church for heresyes, The same may we easily exemplify and declare touching the rest. Vide Bel­lar. de no­tis Eccl. c. 9. & Coc­cius de si­gnis Eccl. l. 8. art. 3. Wherehence it followeth, that these Religions be no­thing but the very sincke of heresyes of old, longe ago put to silence, and now in these latter dayes brought to light a­gaine.

The XI. Reason, From the want of a Rule of Faith.

THESE new Religions haue no cer­taine rule of Faith to follow; ther­fore they are not to be receyued. For the principall heads of Religion must be de­termined, certaine, and withall immu­table. And that they haue not any cer­taine rule of beliefe, whereby it may be resolued what is necessary to be belee­ued, and what not, is euident. First, for that they admit neyther the traditions of the Church, nor the authority of gene­rall Councells, nor the iudgment of the ancient Doctors of the Church, and of those who flourished and liued before these our Controuersies.

Luther reiecteth all traditions in c. l. 4. c. 8. §. 6.7 8 in Antid. ad 4. fes [...]. Conc. Tri­dent. 1. ad Galatas, as doth Caluin also l. 4. Instit. and they teach that nothing is to be be­leeued, nothing to be receyued an holy Scripture.

Luther so contemneth Generall Councells, which haue hitherto had [Page 172]most great authority in Gods Church (for they be as it were the Parlaments of Princes, In art. 115 & sequen­tib. & Peers in Christs Kingdome) as he will haue the definitions therof subiect to the iudgment and censure of euery priuate person. And he further sayth, that it is a mad thing, that the Councells will conclude what is to be beleeued. And in the same place, he tea­cheth that what is to be beleeued, what not, is to be left to the iudgment of eue­ry spirituall man.

Caluin insinuateth no lesse, l. 1. c. 7. § 1.2. & 4. when he sayth, that it is not for the Church to iudge what books be Canonicall, but that appertayneth to the inward spirit alone.

Finally as touching the Fathers, Luther careth not for a thousand Augustines, l. contra Regem Augiae.a thousand Cyprians. Caluin also in very many places contemneth them, and affirmeth that they erred. Wherefore none of all these is vnto them a rule of fayth.

But say they: The Scripture it selfe is vnto vs a rule of fayth, & it cānot erre. But it is an easy matter [...]o shew, that this rule serueth not the turne. First, because we by this rule cannot iudge of the Scripture it selfe, and so the rule it selfe will remayne vnto [Page 173]vs vncertain, which yet should haue the greatest certitude of all. For by the Scrip­ture it cannot come to be knowne for certaine, that such a book is truly Scrip­ture, is not Apocripall, nor composed. by some deceiptfull person: that this, or that sentence is not peruerted, northrust in. Finally that nothing is added, or ta­ken away, that maketh to the substance of doctrine. All this cannot to be known by Scripture, but proued only by cer­taine humane weake coniectures, if you take away the traditions of the Church, and so the whole foundatiō of our fayth shall rely vpon vncertaine coniectures. Moreouer the vertue and efficacy of the Scripture consisteth not in the sound of the words, but in the sense & meaning, which is the life and soule of the Scrip­ture. But there may be a thousand con­trouersies about the sense, which cannot in any sort be decided by the Scripture it selfe, if you take a way Traditions, and the exposition of the Fathers, as expe­rience teacheth. For about the sense of these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, and of many more, there is most eager disputa­tion betwene the Lutherans and Caluinists [Page 174]&c.

If you say with Caluin, that the iudgment touching the Scriptures, and the vnderstanding of them, belongeth to an inward spirit, this is nothing but the dictamen of an internall spirit, that is, for the priuate iudgment of euery particular person to set down the first rule how to beleeue. For euery one may say, that he hath the spirit, and by the inspiration therof can iudge and deter­mine, that this part, or booke is holy Scri­pture, and not that: that this is the sense not that. So a [...] Lutheran out of his spirit giueth iudgment, In prologonou [...] Testa­mer. ti. that S. Iames Epistle is a strawy Epistle, and the Apocalyps of S. Iohn, of doubtfull authority. But the Caluinist out of his soiri [...] iudgeth the one and the other to be the word of God. So Luther out of his spirit iudgeth, that this false opinion is to be abolished, that there be foure Gospells: for that S. Iohns Gospell is but one, faire, true, and principall, and to be far preferred before the other three. In like manner S. Paules and S. Pe­ters epistles do sar go beyond, sayth be, the three Gospells of Mathew, Marke, and Luke. He would willingly haue reiected them, [Page 175]because they plainely proue & establish the merit, and necessity of good works, and the obseruation of the commaunde­ments, and do recommend chastity, and pouerty. But when he durst not cleane reiect them, he would extennate their authority, and insinuate, that they were not written with the spirit of God.

In like maner Caluin out of his own sense iudgeth, that these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, haue this meaning, This breed is the figure of my body: and Luther will haue it; This bread is truly my body. I omit other thing without nūber, by which it appe­areth, that euery ones priuate iudgment is proposed for arule of beleefe, or which is the same, that the Scripture it selfe is expounded and interpreted according to euery ones priuate iudgment.

Secondly, that is not any fit rule of beliefe, that is a like accommodated to contrary doctrines: but the scripture is accommodated to contrary Religions and doctrines; for as much as all the Sects of this time, though they do in an hostile manner dissent and contend in very many, and those the most inportant heads and grounds, do neuertheles make [Page 176]this rule to serue their turne, and doe vse it for the mantayning of their opinions and heresyes. For the Lutherans say they rely vpon Scripture: the Caluinists affirme the same: the Anabaptists also are nothing behind them in auerring, that the Scrip­tures be for them. And no meruaile, be­cause euery one of them taketh and inter­preteh the Scripture, not conforme to the comon vnderstanding of the Church or the common exposition of the Fathers as do the Catholikes, but according to the sense of euery priuate spirit: in which sort it may bee easilie accommodated to all heresies. Whence it is euident that this rule so taken, serueth not the turne, whiles all is reduced to the iudgment of euery ones priuate spirit.

Thirdly, if there were some iudge who in euery Controuerly, wherein he were to giue sentence, should so doe it, as it could not be certainly vnderstood for whether party he pronounced the sen­tence, but both partyes should contend, that the matter were adiudged and de­termined on their side, and that the sen­tence of the Iudge was expresly & plainly pronounced for them, such an one in the [Page 177]opinion of all men could not be thought a competent Iudge, sith no matter in cō ­trouersie could bee determined or ended by sentence giuen by him. For after sen­tence, there would bee as greata conten­tion about the sentence it selfe, whether of them it might seeme to fauour as there had been before about the right that ech party had. And such a Iudge is Holy Scripture, if you take away the Churches interpretation and declaration, and the exposition of the holy Fathers; for as much as the sentence therof is euer such, as it cannot bee euident to both parties, whether of them it fauoureth whiles the one and the other doth stifly main­taine, that it is most plaine, that it hol­deth and standeth for them. And hence it is that controuersies bee neuer ended: and therefore it is not onely a vaine, but also a ridiculous thing to appoint the Scripture alone for Iudge. For in euery controuersy there ought such a Iudge to be designed, who may so giue sentence, as it may be manifest to all, and most of all to those parties, on whose behalf the cause is adiuged, otherwise such a con­trouersy can neuer be ended.

[Page 178]Wherfore those, who make the Scripture alone the Iudge of matters in question, do therin plainely manifest, that they admit not any iudge at all, by whome the cause may be determined, besids their priuate iudgment alone. For they do, as if Titus and Caius hauing a suite at Law, would not haue any other Iudge in the matter but Iustinian his Code, together with the Pandects, without ha­uing any thing to do with the interpre­tation of Doctors: and Titus producing for his owne right some law, should by it maintayne that the cause was mani­festly adiudged for him. And Caius a­gaine should deny it, who by citing an other law for himselfe should say, that it was cleare, that that law fauoured & made for him, which Titus would in lake manner deny; and so they should both depart without any decision of the cause or controuersy in hand: would it not be a matter worthy of laughter? and all would say, that neyther of them desired the determination or decision of the cause? And that neyther admitted other Iudge, then his owne iudgment? In the very like manner, in this, that they wil [Page 179]not haue any other Iudge then Scrip­ture, and euery one reserueth the inter­pretatiō thereof to his owne spirit, they plainely shew, that they haue no will, that the cause should be decided or defi­ned by any lawfull way, nor to admit any Iudg, but their owne iudgment.

Fourthly, how very insufficient this rule of beliefe is, experience it selfe plainely teacheth. For we see, that there is not any end of controuersies among them, euen about the greatest matter of fayth, sith at this very tyme the Lutherans, Caluinists, and Anabaptists are at bitter wars one with another about many points of fayth, and do impeach one the other of heresy. The Lutherans do dissent both a­mong themselues in many things, and from Luther himselfe, [...]heir Father and Apostle: in so much as at this tyme there be reckoned thirty one principal Sects of Lutherans, different in name, and disagre­ing in many points of doctrine. The Caluinists be at variance among themsel­ues, especially in the Article touching the head of the Church. For a great part of them giueth that power to the secular Prince, though she be a woman, and [Page 180]these be called Protestants. Others of them hold the same for impiety, and blasphemy, and those they call Puritaus. The Anabaptists differ among themselues in very many things, so as of them there be numbred 14. diuers Sects, distinct both in names, and in points of do­ctrine.

Finally, it is now come to this, that where euery one followeth this rule of Scripture alone, and relyeth vpon it, there be almost as many heresyes, as there be heretiks. For the greater part of them, especially the more simple, affirme that they little regard, or care what Luther, or Caluin taught, sith they cleaue fast to the holy Scriptures, and recur to the word of God, in which there cannot be any errour; and so they thinke themselues very secure. And euery one vnderstan­deth the Scripture according to his own capacity and sense. Wherhence it fol­loweth, that where they thinke they haue the Scripture for an infallible rule of their beliefe, insteed of Scripture they haue, and follow their owne imaginati­on. For whatsoeuer they imagine to be signified & meant by the words of scrip [Page 181]ture, they take for the true fense of Scri­pture: and so, lookehow many diuers imaginations of men there be, so many rules there be of beliefe.

But whence is it, that to euery one his owne imagination should seeme the most true verity, and the very fense of Scripture? It procedeth partly of a cer­taine exceeding selfe-pleasing lone, and estimation. For he, who maketh any great reckoning of himselfe, easily per­swadeth himselfe, that all his owne in­nentions, and conceipts of mind be great and extraordinary: partly by working of the Diuell, who doth in wardly per­nert mensphanfyes, so as what they ap­prehend, they forth with, for euery most light and idle poore reason, thinke to be most cuident truth. For whiles men wearied with the auncient Religion, & loathing it, do auerse the truth, & longe to heare nou [...]lt yes, they are by Gods iust iudgment suffered to be begnyled by the Diuell. Whereupon, whiles he worke the inwardly in their senses, they thinke themselues to haue recevued the light of Gods spirit, and vnto it they referre all iudgment touching matters of fayth. [Page 182]Hence it is, that to euery sect, & almost to euery priuate man their owne appre­hension seemeth to be the pure word of God, neyther care they for all the rea­sons, that are brought to the contrary. The Apostle insinuateth no lesse, when he sayth: 2. Thes. 2. For that they haue not receyued the Charity of truth, that they might be saued, there­fore God will send them the operation of errour, that they may belieue lying. He shall send, not by way of commaund, but by giuing more power to the Diuell for the decey­uing of them, who haue contemned the truth, or ancient Religion, and the thru­sting of them into a thousand errors.

But the most of them, especially the simple, say: God will not permit them to be deluded, who search the truth with an humble hart: for the hath promised, that, he will giue a good spirit to them who aske him. And this do I: for I make my petition to God, that he would please to illuminate me, & open vnto me the true sense of the Scriptures, and I cease not continu­ally to search them. This is a great de­ceipt of the Diuell. For how do they with an humble hart search out the truth, who contemne & makeno esteeme [Page 183]of the iudgment of the Doctors of the Church, of the interpretation and expo­sition of the holy Fathers, and of the de­finitions of Generall Councells? who refuse to vse the way appointed, and shewed by God, and require vnnecessary reuelations? For from them they might vnderstand the truth, and exempt them­selues from all errour: but they haue not a will to submit themselues vnto them, thinking that they may by their owne industry, their owne wit, and priuate spirit, with a more facility, and certai­nity find the truth out of the bare & naked Scriptures. As though the holy Fathers, Doctors and Prelats of the Church, did eyther not search the Scri­tures, or wanted the spirit of God, and sound iudgment, so, as it passed their skil to ariue to the true vnderstanding ther­of? What greater pride can there be thought, then that a priuare person, and comonly an Idiot, ignorant of all anti­quity, and good literature, should prefer himselfe before so great authority and holynes, and so great a number of Do­ctors? And therfore they must not thinke, thatso longe as they be of that [Page 184]mind, they shall obta [...]ne any thing at our Lords hands, because they aske both yll, and prowdly, but that they shall rather be deceyued by the spirit of pryde and of lying, whereunto they are by Gods iust iudgment for so great a cryme delyuered.

This is that spirit, whereof all heretiks, though they be neuer so diffe­rent in Doctrine, haue their part, and vaunt themselues, and of which euery one thinketh the truth to be reuealed vnto him: which, certes, he that is not blinde, may casily obserue and see, be­cause Gods spirit reucaleth not contra­ryes. Moreouer, the holy Scrip [...]ure no where remitteth priuate men in doubts of fayth to the fearch of the Scriptures, but to the Church, and to them who be the Prelats of the Church. So in Deu­ [...]eronomy c. 17. in matters of doubt, they are remitted to the Priests, who haue charge and rule for the tyme: whome he, that shal refuse to obay, is sentenced to dy. Therfore hath God appointed pa­stors, & doctors in his Church: therfore would he haue it conspicuous to the whole world: to be the pillar and firma­ment [Page 185]of truth, that all might with case make their recourse vnto it, and most se­curely repose vpon the determination of it. There is not giuen to all the spirit of vnderstanding the Scriptures, as is plaine by testimony of the Apostle: 1. Cor. 12. 1. Ioan. 4. 2. Cor. 11. We are not to giue credit to euery spirit; but the spirits are to be tryed, if they be of God. Wherfore though your spirit sug­gest vnto you something, you are not therefore secure: for you are not sure, that it is of God. For it is certaine, that infinite numbers haue been, and are de­ceyued, & cuery heretike vaunteth him­selfe of this spirit. The Angell of Sathan oftentymes transfigureth himselfe into an Angell of light. Wherefore by what hath been said it is most euident, that a priuate spirit cannot possibly carry it selfe for the rule of beliefe.

The XII. Reason, Drawne from Absurdity.

IF any of these new Religions, for ex­ample that of Caluin, were Christ [...]true Religion, besides other absurdities in­sinuated [Page 186]before, this would further fol­low that all Catholikes, which haue byn from the Apostles tymes vntill this pre­sent, be damned, and adiudged to paines cuerlasting: for as much as according to a principall doctrine of the Caluinists, they wanted iustifying faith, and there­fore iustice also before God: whence it is, that they continued in their syns, and died in them. For faith necessary to iusti­fication, as this religion holdeth, is that whereby a man stedfastly beleeueth, that himselfe is iust before God for Christs satisfaction, which is to him by this faith applyed, and imputed. And cer­taine it is, that this faith was vnknown to the world vntill Luthers tyme: neyther doth he deny it but gloryeth rather, that he notified and reuealed to the world the true manner of iustification, obscured by antiquity.

The same is manifest by the wri­tings of all the ancient Fathers, both for that besids faith, they require an inward chaung of the will, and purpose of kee­ping the whole law; and also for that they condemne that security of saluation, and will haue a man to worke his salua­tion [Page 187]with feare and trembling, and to be alwayes sollicitous and carefull: and therefore they do all with one consent reiect that speciall. Fayth, by which a man certainly beleeueth himselfe to be iust, as meere presumption. For though we are to bel [...]eue, that Christ hath on his part most fully satisfied for vs, yet it is not manifest vnto vs, whether we haue done all that which is on our part necessary for the making of ourselues par­takers of this satifaction, and whether we haue not at one tyme or other lost our part in it.

Manifest therefore it is, that all those of former tymes wanted this fayth and consequently they are all dam [...]ed so many holy Fathers, so many [...], so many Virgins, and Saints; Irenaeus Iustine, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Nazianzen, Basill, Chrysostome, Damascene Hilary, Ambrose, Hierome, Augustine, Martin, Nicolas, Antony, Benedict, Bernard, Dominicke. Francis, Lau­rence, Vincent, Sebastian, Catharine, Cecily, Agnes, and infinite others, who were ad­mirable to the world, eyther for their sanctity and miracles, or for the glory of martyrdone. Finally all, that haue [Page 188]been before vs euen from the Apostles tyme till now, be damned. And to vse Tertullians words: l. de praes­cript. ad­ue [...]sus hae­reticos. In vaine hath the Gospell byn so many ages preached: in vaine haue so many thousands been baptized: in vaine haue so many works of saith been exercised, so many vertues, and so many gifts of grace to no purpose wrought: so many priesthoods and so many offices admitted in vaine: and to be short in vaine haue so many martyrdomes been crowned.

But how past beliefe, absurd, and blasphemous a matter is this? How con­trary and repugnant to the iudgement of the whole world, and of all ages past? Neither can it be sayd, that their igno­rance excused them, because none can be saued without faith, without the iu­stice of Christ, without the participation of Christs satisfaction, without the re­mission of sins, as the Scripture, especially of the new Testament, euery where tea­cheth: no ignorance can make or cause, that any may be saued without them. Wherefore there is no ouasion heere: for they eyther be all damned, or els Luthers and Caluins Religions be false, and im­pious in their principall doctrine tou­ching Iustification.

[Page 189]Loe heere 12. Reasons, by which it is made plaine, that these new Religions be to be shunned, as false & pernicious: and now we come to our last Conside­ration.