The I. Part.

BEFORE we begin to vnfould the parti­cular doctrines and Positions of Purita­nisme, (all being euen great, and as it were in labour with Liber­tinisme in manners) I hould, it will not be reputed a superfluous [...], or By-matter (but rather a point much conducing to our proiect in generall) if I briefly touch vpon the necessiity of Holines of doctrine, in the fayth of [Page 2] Christ. For the better vnderstanding of which poynt, we are to conceaue, that Gods sacred Writ describeth two waies of a Christian man; the one it termeth The straite way (meaning of austerity and piety) which leadeth Math. 7. & Luke 13. to life. This isMath. 22. the way of God; Esay 26. The way of Iusti­ce; Hebr. 19. in which we ought to walke pleasing God. So deseruedly did the Psalmist ce­lebrate the doctrine of God touching manners, in these wordes of prayse:Psalm. 29. Lex Domini immaculata, testimonium fidele, praeceptum Domini illucidum. To this way the Scripture opposeth the way called, The broad way. This is thatMath. 7. la­ta porta, & spaciosa, quae ducit ad perdi­tionem: the broad and spatious gate which leadeth to destruction; [...]. Pet. 3. promising liber­ty; and Iude l. 4. transferring the grace of God into wantonnes. Thus we see, that the fayth and doctrine of Christ (by which we are to regulate and gouerne our cō ­uersation and manners) ought to be in it owne nature, most incontaminate, pure, and holy; voyding the soule of man, of vnlawfull concupiscence and desires.

That the Catholike Fayth of the Ro­mane Church teacheth this strayte way [Page 3] of vertue and piety, is most euident. For it teacheth her children to make resti­tution for wrongs committed; It tea­cheth, Confession of sinnes (most vngra­tefull to mans nature,) and tyeth the Confitent to sorrow for his sinnes, and to performe his enioyned Pennance; It tea­cheth the keeping of set Fasts, and of prescript tymes of Prayer; It teacheth the practising of all good workes; It teacheth the perfection of Euangelicall Counsells, to wit, voluntary Chastity, Pouerty, and Obedience; briefly, it teacheth and in­structeth her children in points, most opposite and contrary to all those li­centious Positions of Puritanisme, insi­sted by me in this ensuing Treatise: A course of life so peculiar to the mem­bers of the Catholike Church, as that some of our Aduersaries thus fully cō ­fesse hereof:Iacob. Andraea [...] in Con­cione 4. in c. [...]. Lucae. A serious and Christian discipline, is censured with vs, as a new Papacy, and a new Monachisme. And Caluin himself acknowledgeth no lesse of our Professours of former tymes, reprehending them for the same in these wordes:Calu l. 4. instit. cap. 12. sect. 8. Qua in parte excusari nullo modo potest &c. In which course (meaning a rigid course of life and pennance) the [Page 4] immoderate austerity of the Ancients can­not be excused, which did wholy differ from the Commandement of the Lord, and was also otherwise in it selfe most dangerous. Thus Caluin.

But now; if (on the contrary) we cast our iudgments to the behoulding of the many Theses, and Speculations of Puritanisme, (wherof I haue made choyce only of Twenty, hereafter layd open in this short Treatise) all which are euen fraught, and loaden with li­berty of doctrine; and withall, if we do obserue, how no meaner men, then the first broachers of them (as willing to be most firme, and true to their owne Principles) haue incorporated the said doctrines in their owne most wicked lyues (both which points are the Sub­iects of the two different Parts of this small Worke, and both proued from the Aduersaries owne expresse wor­des,) we shall rest euen amazed thereat: such a conformity and precise corres­pondency did their lyues beare to their doctrines.

We obserue, that Nature, which is Gods subordinate Instrument, or Lieu­tenant (as I may call it) gouerning vn­der [Page 5] his diuine Maiesty the Vniuerse of the whole world, is endued (among many others) with this one Priuiledge; to wit, that if no preueniency be made through the indisposition of the secon­dary causes, that the lyke in Nature euer produceth and begetteth the like. Thus ir­reasonable Creatures do ingender ir­reasonable Creatures, and men beget men; and this oftentimes with such a great resemblance & similitude in the particulars, as that we may easily glasse the Fathers eye in the Childs face. The like (by allusion) we may affirme of the Theoremes and Principles of fayth, whose immediate subiect is Morality or Conuersation of life. Yf the Theare­mes do resent of vertue, piety, and de­uotion; the fruites which they beget in mans soule belieuing them, are ver­tuousnes of life, Practise of good workes, Austerity in manners, and the like. But if the Theoremes be of such na­ture, as that they send & steame forth nothing els, thē sensuality, libertinisme, and voluptuousnes; then such as giue assent and beliefe to the said Theore­mes, do in their manners participate of the same prophane Qualities.

Touching the vertuous liues of Ca­tholikes in particular, proceeding from their doctrines teaching vertue, I will not heere in the displaying therof laboriously insist; since my mayne Pro­iect at this present is, to spend these en­suing leaues in this later point, to wit, to demonstrate first, that the Princi­ples of Puritanisme do inuolue in them­selues the warrāting of vice, falshood, and Impiety, and the dishonouring of vertue: And secondly, that the first In­uentors or coyners of them, sucking from their owne grounds & elements of doctrine (tanquam ex traduce) the se­cret poyson lying in them, haue beene men of most enormous, and facino­rous liues. And now to beginne with the doctrines.

1. First I will begin with their chiefe Principle of the Priuate Spirit, which they describe very gloriously to be,D. VVhitak. in contro­uers. 1 q. 5. c. 3. & 11. A persuasion of the truth from the Holy Ghost, in the secret closet of the belie­uers hart. With this I begin, in that it comprehendeth within it selfe (as a greater number doth many lesser) di­uers other positions of liberty. For first it begets an vnaccustomed pride, and [Page 7] elation of mind, in the belieuers of this doctrine; seeing it teacheth, that euery one; that enioyeth this spirit (as euery Puritane by his owne religion ought to belieue, that he enioyeth it) is to pre­ferre in exposition of Scripture, & de­termining points of fayth, Himselfe, aboue all other mens authorities of Gods Church whosoeuer. And there­fore Luther, as resting himselfe vpon this ground, writeth:tom. 2. contra Regem Angliae. fol. 344. Gods word is aboue all &c. I regard not, if a thousand Austins, a thousand Cyprians, a thousand Churches stood against me. And another, as presuming to enioy this spirit, thus condemneth all Generall Councels:Peter Martyr l. de votis. p. 476. As long as we insist in Generall Councels, so long we shall continue in the Papists er­rours. And the same priuiledge of this spirit doth euery obscure particuler Mi­nister (by the help of his owne spirit) challenge to himselfe. Now, what an insufferable pride is it for a fellow, be­ing but one, a man lately appearing, & for most part but meanly learned, to aduance his iudgment in matters of fayth and Religion aboue so many, so ancient, and so learned Doctours and Fathers of Christs Church, as haue [Page 8] flourished?

The second kind of Sinne flowing from this Principle, is Multiplicity of Heresyes; Seeing all Heresyes fortify themselues for the tyme, vnder the rampyer of this Priuate Spirit in inter­preting the Scriptures. And from hēce it is, that Vincentius Lyrinensis complay­neth of the Spiritualists of his dayes in these wordes:l. ad­uers. haeres. An Haeretici diuinis Scripturae &c. Do Heretykes cyte the diuine testimonies of Scripture? They do, and that most vehemently; but therefore they are so much the more to be taken heed of. And hence also ryseth that Hydra of diffe­rent Sects and Heresyes in these dayes, as the Moderate Protestant, the Puritane, the Brownist, the Anabaptist, the Anti-tri­nitarians, & others; all which Heresyes did first take their roote from each particuler mans priuate spirit, interpre­ting the Scripture in a different sense and construction from the rest of his Brethren. And hereupon it proceedeth that so many hundreds of bookes men­tioned by Coccius, and byCoccius in thesauro tom. 2. & Hospiniam in his Historia Sa­cramenta­ria parte altera. Hospinian the Protestant, are written by the Pro­fessours of the foresaid Sects, one a­gainst another; and often by men of [Page 9] the same Religion, euen against others of their owne Brethren.

The third current of this Reuea­ling Spirit runneth not only to inter­preting of passages of Scriptures, which meerely touch Speculation in mat­ters of fayth; but also to giue most sen­suall explications of such Texts thereof, as may best sort to liberty and sinne. Thus (but to instance in one, in place of ma­ny) the priuate Spirit hath cast such an exposition of these wordes:Matth. c. 5. qui di­miserit vxorem suam, exceptâ fornicatio­nis causâ, facit eam maechari: & Qui dimis­sam duxerit, adulterat. Whosoeuer shall dimisse his wife, except for cause of fornica­tion, maketh her to commit adultery: and he, that shall marry her that is dimissed, committeth adultery. As that it teacheth that in case of fornication on the wy­ues syde, the husband may marry a­gayne; and consequently if his future wyues should offend therein, might haue a dozen, twenty, or more wyues liuing all at one instant. Thus the Pri­uate Spirit for his better maintayning of his voluptuous doctrine of Polygamy referreth those wordes, excepta forni­catione, to be the cause of taking a se­cond [Page 10] wife, which are to be referred only to the cause of a mans dimitting, or parting with his wife, according to the exposition ofIn ex­posit. hu­ius loci. Ierome, & al­most all others.

2. In this next place I proceed to that doctrine of theirs, which teacheth that God is the Authour of sinne; seeing this blasphemy implicitly contayneth within it selfe (as a greater circle doth the lesse) diuers other strange Parado­xes, taught by the Puritans. And first we find Luther thus to teach:Luth. in asser­tion. dam­nat. per Leonem. art. 36. How can man prepare himselfe to good, seeing it is not in his power to make his wayes euill: for God worketh the wicked worke in the wicked? Againe;Vbi supra. Art. 36. Nullius est in manu &c. It is not in the power of any man, to thinke euil or good; but al things proceed frō absolute necessity. Swinglius heerto accor­deth saying:Tom. 2. de Proui­dent [...] Dei. fol. 166. sayth: Mo­uet Deus latronem ad occiden­dum &c. and there againe: Deo im­pullore la­tro occidit. and final­ly, Latro coactus est ad peccan­dum. God moueth the theefe to kil, & the theefe killeth, God procuring him. Yea, the theefe is enforced to kill. Melācthon thus affirmeth of the adultery of Dauid: In Rom. 8. The adultery of Dauid was the proper worke of God, as was the conuersion of Paul. Which sentence in Melancthon L. de vniuers. Grat. p. [...]09. He­mingius the Protestant reciteth, & vt­terly condemneth Melancthon for such [Page 11] his iudgement therein. Caluin sayth:Instit. l. [...]. c. 18. sect. 1. That God pronounceth Absaloms incestuous pollution of his fathers bed, to be his owne worke. And further Caluin layeth the foundation of this his doctrine in these wordes:Iustit. l. 3 c. 23. sect. 6. What thing soeuer God doth foresee, the same he willeth: and vpon this false ground concludeth, that God causeth sinne in man, because he fore­feeth it in him. Beza conspireth in iud­gement with the former Authors, thus playnely teaching:In his display of Popish practises. p. 202. God exciteth the wicked will of one theefe to kill another, guideth his hand and weapon, iustly en­forcing the will of the theefe.

Finally (to omit many others) D. Willet thus iumpeth with the former, saying:In Sy­nops. Pa­pism. pa. 563. God not only permitteth, but leadeth into temptation, with an actiue po­wer, and not permissiuely. Now, how­soeuer the fore-named Authours do seeke to auoyd in wordes, the scan­dall necessarily attending on this their blasphemous doctrine; yet they stand so iustly chargeable with tea­ching, that God is the authour of sinne, as that they are for their maintayning this their doctrine, written against by diuers other most learned Protestants, [Page 12] as by Osiander the Protestant, whose wordes are these:Enchi­rid. contra Caluinist. c. 7. There openeth a gulfe of hell of Caluinian doctrine, in which God is sayd to be the Authour of sin. By Castalio, thus inueighing against Caluin: Lib ad Calu. de praedest. By this meanes not the diuell, but the God of Caluin is the Father of lyes; By Iacobus Andreas, who thus playnly writeth;In epit tom. Col­loq. Mon­tisbelgar. p. 47. Deus est author peccati secū ­dum Bezam; finally byIn Ec­clesiast. Po­licy. l. 5. p. 104. M. Hooker, In his defence of M. Hooker. pag. 62. D. Couell, and diuers others for breuity heer omitted: so crasse and re­pugnant is this their doctrine to those wordes of holy writ: Non Deus volens iniquitatem, tu es; as also to the sentence of S. Iames the Apostle:Cap. 1. let no man when he is tempted, say he is tempted of God; for God is not a tempter of Euills, & he temptteth no man; but euery one is temp­ted of his owne concupiscence &c. Psalm. 55.

Now, admitting this doctrine of God, being the Authour of our sinne, to be true; how willingly is man drawne to Sinne by giuing assent therto? See­ing by this doctrine he may disburden himselfe of all fault therein, and trans­ferre it vpon God, as being the highest and most forcible cause or agent there­of: so strong a sanctuary he hath for [Page 13] his Sinne. And which is more, he may pretend, that if it be the part of a duti­full Subiect, officiously to performe, what his Prince commandeth; much more then doth that man deserue re­ward (rather then punishment) who with all sedulity, and readines of mind and will stands prepared (as an infe­riour and seruiceable Instrument) to put that in execution, which God) who is the supreme Lord of all) comman­deth, willeth, and euen forceth him to act, or doe. And yet more; this doctri­ne euen potentially commandeth vs to sinne; seeing the Scripture exhorteth vs in infinite places to doe good, & con­sequently to sinne; for sinne (if God be the Authour thereof) is good; for we reade:Genes. 1. Cuncta quae fecerat Deus, erant valde bona.

Lastly by this doctrine, we ought not to repeate that passager in our Lords Prayer: Forgiue vs our trespasses &c. by reason we doe not offend in commit­ting them; since not we, but God wor­keth them: yea, we should rather be blamed and rebuked for reciting of the sayd sentence; because it would imply that we had some penitency, and re­pentance [Page 14] of them; but it is a thing dis­pleasing to God, for man to haue a dis­like of that which God worketh in him, or to be refractory or stubborne to his will and disposall; since the same Lords Prayer teacheth vs, that we ought in all things to say, Fiat voluntas tua. Seest thou not (good Reader) not on­ly how potently this former blasphe­mous doctrine moueth man to com­mit any sinne whatsoeuer, as laying the fault thereof vpon God; but also how it freeth him from all future griefe or repentance therof; as presuming him­selfe to be but a naked Instrument, ne­cessarily concurring to the performāce of Gods will and pleasure in him? And thus farre of the working efficacy of this most impious doctrine, of God be­ing the Authour of sinne.

3. In this next place we will des­cend to the doctrine touching Good workes, first broached by Luther, and others, and now entertayned by the Puritans of these dayes; where we shall find, that in their depressing of them they are most luxuriant and plentiful; and consequently, that they beare a fauourable eye to vice and sensuality. [Page 15] And first I will display their doctrines of good workes in generall; that perfor­med, I will descend to good workes in particuler. Now for the greater vnder­ualewing of them, Luther thus endo­doctrinateth his followers.In his sermons englished 1578. pag. 47. Workes take their goodnes of the Authour; and Ibid. pa. 276. no worke is disallowed, vnles the authour thereof be disallowed Luther further thus teacheth:Lu­ther vpon the Ga­lath. en­glished. fol. 68. It is impiety to affirme, that fayth, except it be adorned with charity, iustifyeth not.

Swinglius expressely sayth (therby to deterre men from practising of good workes) that, quaecunque promissa operibus nostris facta sunt, Hyperbolae sunt; All promises made in the Scripture to our wor­kes: As, if thou wilt enter into life, keepe the Commandements &c. are but amplifica­tions of speach aboue the truth.

M. Fox recordeth, Tindall the Pro­testant to say:Act. Mon. pag. 1336. That there is no one worke better then another: as touching pleasing of God: to make water, to washe dishes, to be a Sower, or an Apostle, all is one to please God. These men yet proceed further: for Illyricus (the famous Lutherane) thus writeth:Il [...]yrie. in praefat. ad Rom. To affirme that good workes be in any respect necessary [Page 16] to saluation, (he meaning only, but by way of accompanying fayth) is a Pa­pisticall errour: he futher terming it: The doctrine of the new Papists. And Con­radus Slussemburg (the great Protestāt) writeth: thatIn Ca­talog. Hae­ret. l. [...]3. in epist. dedi­catoriâ. p. 22. Good workes are not ne­cessary (necessitate praesentiae) by way of presence to mans iustification. Yea Luther proceedeth yet further, teaching (marke good Reader and be amazed) that,Luth. tom. 1. pro­pos. 3. Fides nisi sit sine &c. Fayth, except it be without euen the least good workes, doth not iustify, nay it is not fayth. Which sayingIn his defence of M. Hoo­ker, prin­ted 1603. pa. 42. D. Couell, acknowledging it to be Luthers, termeth:In his defence of M. Hooker. pag. 42. Harsh, and iust­ly called in question by the Church of Rome. Vpon this former doctrine these men further teach,Luth. serm. de Moyse. that the keeping of the ten Commandements doe not belong to vs Christians. And the Deuines of Witten­berg (as also Melancthon) are also char­ged with this errour byHutte­rus in his explicat. libri Con­cordiae. printed 1608. art. 5. c. 1 pag. 478. Hutterus, publike Protestant Professour at Wittē ­berg: He calling the defendours of this position: Anti-nomi, that is, Enemyes to the Law.

The same doctrine is (to omit o­thers) taught by M. Fox, thus say­ing:Act. Mon. 1335. The ten Commandements were [Page 17] giuen vs, not to keepe them, but to know our damnation, and to call for mercy of God. With whom agreeth herein D. Whita­kers in these wordes:Contra Camp. rai. 8. Qui credunt, ij non sunt sub lege, sed sub gratia &c. They which belieue are not vnder the Law, but vnder Grace. What is more to be said? Christians are freed from the curse of the Law; meaning from the punishment, due for the breach of the Commaun­dements. I will conclude this point with D. Willets wordes:Synops. Pap. pag. 564. The law re­mayneth still impossible to be kept by vs, through she weakenes of our flesh, &c. Thus by these mens doctrine we sinne not in breaking any of the Commaun­dements, as in stealing, committing a­dultery, and the like; for man sinneth only in breach of those precepts which are giuen him to obserue and keep. To conclude this passage of good workes in generall, Luthers iudgment of workes is this:Luth. in Assert. Art. 32 [...] All good workes, God iudging them, are mortall sinnes, God resting propi­tious, veniall and more pardonable.

Now, if Luthers doctrine be here good, then followeth it, that who la­boureth to performe a good worke, is of the diuell: my reason is this: we read, [Page 18] that1. Iohn. 3. who committeth sinne is of the Di­uell: but who doth a good worke, sin­neth: because by the former doctrine of Luther, we are taught, that euery good worke is sinne. Thus according to Lu­thers doctrine, he sinneth, who prayeth, who practiseth the workes of faith, hope, and Charity, seeing all these in the iudgment of Luther, are sinnes. A­gayne, Gods word commandeth vs to flie sinne: Psal. 36. Declina à malo, Therefore we are commanded by God to flie the doing of any good worke; because euery good worke in Luthers iudgment, is sinne. See how forcibly this doctrine of Lu­ther by necessary sequels & deductions withdraweth vs from the practising of vertue, and exercise of Good Workes. Now to come to good workes in par­ticuler.

The three principall Good workes, which necessarily and essentially con­curre to the vowes of euery Religious order are; to wit, Chastity, by the which a man voweth perpetuall continency from the pleasures of the flesh, accor­ding to that,Math. [...]9. Sunt Eunuchi, qui seip­sos castrauerunt, propter regnum caelorum. Pouerty, by the which is voluntarily re­nounced [Page 19] the enioying in priuate of any temporall goods, as riches, ho­nours &c. only resting content with poore fare, or diet, and apparell;Math. 19. Si vis perfectus esse, vade, vende omnia quae habes, & da pauperibus, & habebis the sau­rum in caelo.

Obedience, through which the will & mind of one stāds, in all lawfull things subiect to the will and disposall of his superiour. Now marke, how these three vertues are betrampled vpon by our Aduersaries, with all indignity and scorne. Touching Chastity, D. Whitakers iudgment is, That Con­tra Cam [...] rat. 8. p. 15 [...]. Virginity is not sim­ply good; but after a certaine manner. But Luther proceedeth further, saying:Tom. [...]. VVit­tenberg. ad cap. 7.1. Cor. Yf we respect the nature of Matrimony, and single life, Matrimony is as gold, and the spirituall state of single life, as dung.

Concerning Voluntary Pouerty, D. Willets censure is this:In his Synops. pag. 245. He is an Ene­my to the glory, of God, who changeth his rich estate, wherein he may serue God, for a poore. Touching Obedience, you may see how they stand disaffected towards it euen out of their owne not practising of it, since they loath all Obedience with a most inexplicable dislike. I will [Page 20] close this point with their doctrine of fasting, to which vertue the Religious men of the Catholike Church are most deuoted; M. Perkins iudgment is, thatIn his reformed Catho­like. pag. 220. fasting in it selfe is a thing indifferent, as is eating, and drinking. And D. Willet accordeth thereto, thus writing:In Sy­nops. pag. 241. Neither is God better worshipped by eating, or not eating. And more particulerly touching the deniall of set tymes of fa­sting, appointed only for spiritual ends,D. Fulk against the Rhe­mish Te­stam. in Math. 15. D. Fulke is not ashamed to obiect and insist in the authority of the old Here­tike Montanus, for the deniall therof. And D. Whitakers blusheth not to call the Catholike Churches vse therein,D. VVhitak, cont. Du­raeum. l. 9. pa. 839. The doctrine of Diuells. Thus far of the former points, of Vowed Chastity, voluntary Pouerty, voluntary Obedience, and fasting; in the depressing whereof, our Aduersaries do withall depresse our Catholike doctrine of Euangelicall Counsels, which teacheth man to arriue to more high points of perfection in vertue, then the vulgar and common sort of Christians are accustomed to exercise. And vpon these grounds and doctrines they deny the lawfulnes of Monasteries, and other Religious houses; [Page 21] whitherunto men and women retire themselues, for the better seruing of God in austerity of life, & abandoning the pleasures of the world, so perni­cious and exitiall to mans soule.

4. In the next place we will touch a little vpon our Aduersaries doctrine, of Imputatiue Iustice; by which they teach, that man hath no true and reall Iustice contracted of fayth, hope, and charity, inherent in his soule, but that his Iustice is meerely relatiue, as being only an application of Christs Iustice vnto him. By the which neuertheles Caluin teacheth, thatL. 3. In­stit. c. 2. numb. 28.42. a man is as se­cure of his saluation; as if he did already enioy heauen. And accordingly hereto our Aduersaries further teach, that Illyri­cus in va­rijs libris de Origina­li peccato Calui. Insti. l. 2. c. 3. Kempnit. contra cens. Col. the Image of God is wholly obliterated in man; all his fayre impressions are so ex­tinct, as that the regenerate and Holy man is intrinsecally nothing els, then meere Cor­ruption or contagion. Now these doctri­nes are forged by them, therby to with­draw vs from seeking to be truly ver­tuous, (seeing by this their former do­ctrine, man is not possibly capable ther­of;) but that therby we disburdening our selues of keeping the Commande­ments, [Page 22] or exercising of vertuous actiōs, may only by fayth seeke to lay hands v­pon the kingdome of Heauen.

5. But now to cast our eye vpon the other end of the ballance, & as we haue here aboue seene, how our Aduer­saries haue depressed & beaten downe the worth of all vertue & good workes; so let vs a little consider, how they la­bour to extenuate, and lessen by their positions, the atrocity of all Vice and Im­piety, that so they may seeme lesse wor­thy of reprehension and dislike, for their imbracing of such courses. And first. Let vs take into our consideration, that Position of theirs, which teacheth, that all sinnes So teacheth Calu. in Antidot. Conc. Tri­dent. And Wickliff apud VValdens. de Sacram. c. 134. are equall, if so God, as Iudge, do weigh and ponderate them. Now doth not this doctrine much encou­rage that man, who is resolued to com­mit but any one lesser sinne, also to per­petrate the most sacinorous crime whatsoeuer, seeing he is herby taught, that the lesser sinne, and the greatest are alike, and of the same nature, in Gods iust trutination & weighing of them? But to proceed further. Touching the diuision of sinnes, they teach, that to the true Professours of the Ghospell, the [Page 23] most flagitious sinne that is, is onlyMus­culus in loc. com. de peccat. sect. 5. D. Fulk against the Rhe­mish Test. in epist. loan sect. 5 Calu. In­stit. l. 3 c. 4. sect. 28. Veniall: thus they, making the diffe­rence of sinnes not to proceed from their difference in their owne nature, but from the diuersity of the parties committing them. Now euery one of our Precisians is bound by the Princi­ples of his owne Religion, to belieue himselfe to be one of the faythfull: Therfore let him sinne in neuer so grie­uous a manner, such sinne in him is but veniall, and easily pardonable. O Phren­sy of Iudgment! And hence it is, that some of them do thus write:D. Wotton in his answer to the late Popish Articles. pag. 92. & 41. To the faythfull the sinne is pardoned, assoone as it is committed. And D. Whitakers accordin­gly teacheth, that,De Ec­cles contra Bellar. con­trou. 2 q. 5. pag. 301. Si quis actum fidei habet, ei peccata non nocent; who exerciseth an act of fayth (to wit, that Christ died for him) that man no sinnes can hurt. And hence further it is, that D. Fulke tea­cheth thatIn the Tower disput. with Edm. Cam [...]ian, the second dayes Confe­rence. Dauid when he committed adultery, was and remained the child of God: And againe, M. Fox thus writeth:Act. Mon. pag. 1338. When we sinne, we diminish not the glory of God, all the danger of sinning, being the euill example of our neighbour. Another saith: ThatVide Epitom. Colloq. Montis­belg. p. 44. & 48. He, who doth once truly belieue, cannot afterwards fall from the grace of [Page 24] God, or lose his fayth by adultery, or any o­ther like sinne: and accordingly, Beza af­firmeth, thatBeza in respons. ad Colloq. Montis­bel part. alter p. 73. Dauid by his adultery and murther did not lose the Holy Ghost, and fall from his fayth. And if Dauid still con­tinued in that happy state, why may not other Adulterers and murtherers enioy the same priuiledge and war­rant? To conclude, the last vp shot of them in this point is thus deliuered in Luthers wordes:Luth. in captiuit. Babilon. fol. 74. Ita diues est homo Christianus &c. A Christian man is so rich, as that he cannot lose his saluation, quantis­cunque peccatis, by any sinnes how great soe­uer, except he will not belieue. And for a close of all, he further thus teacheth:Luth. in loc. com. cl [...]ss 5 c. 17. p. 68. Vt nihil iustificat, nisi fides; ita nihil peccat, nisi incredulitas. As nothing iusti­fyeth, but fayth, so nothing sinneth, but vn­beliefe and incredulity. Thus far hereof.

Now to recapitulate a little. If a man cannot loose his saluation, but only by want of beliefe: if a Murthe­rer and adulterer, euen during the ty­me of perpetrating these acts, do not loose the Holy Ghost, but remayneth the child of God; if who once belieueth cannot after fall frō the grace of God; if one act of fayth taketh away all Sin; [Page 25] if sinne be pardoned to the faythfull, assoone as it is committed; if to the faythfull the most atrocious Sin is but veniall; if the greatest Sin be but equall to the least; To conclude, if we are to belieue, that not we, but God himself is the authour of our sinne, he forcing, and compelling vs to theft, murther &c. and that the Adultery of Dauid was Gods proper worke; I leaue to any indif­ferent iudgement, whether conside­ring how proue and propense Man is to Sinne of his owne corrupt nature, these Theoremes and Principles of our Aduersaries do not mightly encoura­ge men to commit Sinne, and this with all impunity, and want of feare of pu­nishment.

But I will conclude these two for­mer paragraphs of good workes, and sins, with some acknowledgements of the learned Protestāts touching these two former points; and how preiudiciall this doctrine of a Iustifying fayth is to vertue, and gratefull to sinners. Iacobus Andreas (that learned Protestant) spea­king in the person of these defendours of only fayth, with reprehēsion of them, thus discourseth:Con­cione 4. in c. 21. Lucae. We haue learned to [Page 26] be saued only by fayth, we cannot satisfy by our Almes, fasting, prayer; therfore permit vs, that we may giue ouer these thinges, seeing that we may be saued otherwise by the grace of God. And further the same Pro­testant thus writeth:An­draeas, vbi supra. That all the world may know them to be no Papists, nor to trust in good workes, they take course to put none in practise. Whereunto M. Stubs the Protestant, thus accordeth:In his Motiues to good workes, printed 15 [...]6. pag. [...]2. The Protestant trusteth to be saued by a bare and naked fayth (deceauing himselfe) without good workes, and therfore either careth not for them, or at least setteth little by them. Who further thus writeth: There are (I feare me) mo good workes done daily by the Papists, then by the Protestants; he giuing his reason thereof in his former words: so euident it is, euen by the confessions of the learned Protestants themselues, that the doctrine of only fayth, of disua­lewing the worth of good workes, and of lessening the grieuousnes of Sinne, ope­neth a fludgate to all Impiety whatsoe­uer, and precludeth or shutteth vp the way, for the exercise of Vertue, and Piety.

6. In this place I will treate of Free­will. The which our Aduersaries deny [Page 27] to be in man, The Protestants are so full and confessed in the deniall of free­will, as it would be but superfluous to amasse together the many such their aknowledgments. Therefore I will content my selfe with Luthers doctrine herein. His wordes are these:Luth. in asser­tion. Art. 36. Th same do­ctrine is taught by Caluin Instit. l. 2. c. 3. sect. 11. by M. Willet his Sy­nops. pag. 808. 810. & by all o­ther Pre­cisians. Free­will is a fiction in things, or a title without substance, because it is in no mans power to thinke any thing euill or good, but all things &c. happen by absolute necessity. And thereupon in hatred of freewill, Luther did write a booke, entituling it, de ser­uo arbitrio; in one place wherof he thus further teacheth: The foreknowledge and omnipotency of God fighteth agaynst our freewill. So forgetfull it seemes was Lu­ther of those wordes of our Sauiour: Math. 23. How often would I haue gathered thy chil­dren togeather &c. and thou wouldest not?

Now doth not the denyall of Free­will become a Sanctuary for all Sinnes whatsoeuer? May not the thiefe say in his owne defence by force of this do­ctrine; that it is not in his Freewill or choyce to forbeare stealing, the Mur­therer to forbeare Homicide & Mans­slaughter, the Fornicatour and adul­terous man or woman to forbeare A­dultery [Page 28] or Fornication, the traytour to forbeare committing of treason against his Prince or common wealth? & are they not all secured and iustly exempt frō al punishmēts for such their sins, ad­mitting (as they are catechized by this their denyall of Freewill) that it was not in their power to abstaine from the per­petrating of the forsaid sins? Since pu­nishmēt is due only to such transgressi­ons, which are in the power of the trās­gressor to performe, or not to performe.

7. I wil next come to our Aduersaries doctrine of Reprobation and Predestina­tion; since they chiefly depend vpon the denyall of freewill. Touching Repro­bation they thus teach. Caluin thus wri­teth of this point:Calu. Instit. l. 3. c. 23. sect. 6. Cōsilio nutu (que) &c. God doth ordaine by his Counsell and de­cree, that among men some be borne desti­ned to certaine damnation from their Mo­thers wombe; who by their destruction may glorify God: and this without any respect had to their workes good or euill. And Beza further in defence hereof maintayneth thatIn res­pons. ad act. Colloq. Montis­belg. part. alter. pag. 215. & 221. God did not suffer death for those men, so ordained to destruction.

The same Beza further yet procee­deth herein, thus saying:Beza vbi supr. in praefat. p. [...]1. et. p. 123. Many In­fants [Page 29] (of belieuing Parents) being bapti­zed, are notwithstanding damned though the secret decree of God. And hee [...]pon he most blasphemously thus concludeth:Bez. in his Trea­tise Engli­shed and entituled the display of Popish practises. pag. 17. & 31. God createth some to destructiō, createth to perdition, predestinateth some to his ha­tred & destructiō. So litle Beza regardeth those words of holy writ:Ezech. 33. As I liue, saith the Lord, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turne from his waies, & liue. And againe:2. Petr [...] 3. & 1. Thessal. 5. God is not willing, that any perish, but that all returne to pennance.

8. Now, touching the doctrine of the Certainty of mans saluation, or Predestination, thus our Aduersaries teach. Luther affirmeth, thatTom. [...]. epist. Latin. fol. 334. ad Philipp. no sinne can draw vs from Christ, although we should commit fornication, or kill a thousand ty­mes in one day. And Iacobus Andraeas confirmeth the same in these wordes:In epi­tom. Col­loq. Mon­tisbelg. pag. 48. & 44. He who once truly belieueth cannot af­terwards fall from the grace of God by his adultery, or any other lyke sinnes; And heerupon (as aboue it is set downe) they teach, that Dauid, when he did commit murther, was, and remained the Child of God, and consequently, he was certaine of his saluation. To which [Page 30] end of certainty of Saluation, D. Whi­takers thus writeth: Fides D. Whitak. contra Camp. rat. 8. aut perpe­tua, aut nulla est. And hereupon they conclude, that euen during mans com­mitting of Sinne, he is certaine of Sal­uation, seeing it would otherwise fol­low, (which our Aduersaries will not admit) that his former certainty was no certainty at all: so crosse these men tread to the steps of the holy Scripture:Ezech. 18. If the iust man do turne away from his righteousnes &c. in his sinne he shall dye. And,Rom. 11. Yf we abyde in his goodnes, other­wise we shalbe cut of.

Well now, to look backe vpon these two doctrines of our Aduersaries, tou­ching Reprobation, and Predestination or Election: marke, how forcibly they in­cite a man to all turpitude in manners: may not any man belieuing the same doctrines to be true, thus dispute with himselfe? Either I am already vnalterably and infallibly reprobated to Hell, or prede­stinated to Heauen, and this without any reference or foresight of my workes, good or bad. (this the former alleaged Protestants teach me to belieue, & this I am to belieue) Yf I be reprobated, let me exercise neuer so many good workes, and liue piously in the [Page 31] highest degree, yet certaine it is, I shalbe damned. Yf I be predestinated to Saluation and Heauen, then cannot any sinnes commit­ted by me (though neuer so great and enor­mous, seeing my predestination is without preuision of workes) hinder my Saluation, but certainely and assuredly I shallbe saued. Seeing then a bad life cannot hinder my saluation, nor a good life preuent my Repro­bation, I will during the tyme I liue, enioy all pleasures whatsoeuer (though neuer so vnlawfull and prohibited in the Holy Scrip­ture) without any remorse of conscience. Vpon these said grounds the belieuers of them may, in this former manner discourse, and I probably assure my selfe, that many hundreds in England belieuing our Aduersaries doctrines therein, do vpon such their beliefe, in­gulfe themselues in all wickednes, and dissolution of life and manners. Thus farre briefly of this point.

9. I proceed to their deniall of Pur­gatory. By the deniall therof men are taught, that let them practise all wic­kednesse whatsoeuer, either in mur­ther, adultery, fornication, Robbery, extorsion or any otherwise, yet if at the houre of his death, a man haue but on [Page 32] act of fayth, he is certaine to go imme­diatly to Heauen, without suffering any temporall paynes for his former Sinnes, or without making restiturion for the iniustice, losses, and wronges by him proffered to others. Now this doctrine (I say) much encourageth men to Sinne; and the rather, seeing their finall Saluation resteth only but vpon a bare act of fayth and beliefe, which they maintayne, euer to be in the power of the faythfull to per­forme: So little eare they giue to those wordes of Holy Scripture, spoken of the state of the man cast in prison, wherby is shadowed the soule in Purgatory: Math. 5. Non exibis inde, donec reddas nouissimum quadrantem.

10. The deniall of Auricular Con­fession of our sinnes, in like sort much harteneth a man to sinne, seeing by that doctrine he is taught, that it is suffi­cient to confesse them in hart only to God: whereas on the contrary, to be­lieue, that God hath appointed, that there are certaine men allotted by him in his Church, to heare all particular sinnes of others, much deterreth and withdraweth vs from sinning, conside­ring [Page 33] that shame is a great hinderance of sinnes, and how vngratefull and vn­pleasing it is to mans nature to reueale euery secret sinne, euen in expresse and particuler wordes (or els not to haue thē remitted to him) to another man. But we must rest contented with the Institution of Christ: Ioa [...]. 20. Whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen; and whose you shall retayne, they are retayned. But how shall it be knowne, what sin­nes are to be forgiuen, and what sinnes to be retayned, except it be first know­ne, what the particular sinnes are?

11. Our Aduersaries deniall of the necessity of Baptisme, causeth (no doubt) that many Children borne of Puritaine Parents are not baptized at all, but re­maine during all their life in that Hea­thenish estate, subiect to eternall dam­nation. That the necessity of this Sa­crament is not required, is taught by Luther, who thus teacheth:Lib. de captiu. Ba­bylon. Yf thou hast receaued Baptisme, it is well, if thou wantest it, no losse: Belieue, and thou art sa­ued before thou be baptized. That Baptis­me of Children borne of the faythfull, is not necessary, is further taught (as appeareth from thePag. 105. Suruey of the [Page 34] booke of Common Prayer) byIn his medita­tion vpon the 122. Psalme. pag 92. M. Wil­let, and most resolutely by Caluin, and Beza in many places ouerlong to reci­te. But we fynd Gods Holy Word to teach the contrary:Ioan. 3. Vnles a man be borne agayne of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdome of God.

12. Touching the licentious do­ctrine of diuorce in case of any impo­tency, or otherwise, Luther thus tea­cheth:Serm. de Matrimo­nio. If the wyfe will not, or cannot (to wit, performe the act due to Ma­riage) let the mayde come. Of which sen­tence D. Whitak. was so ashamed, as that he thus writeth:Contra Camp. rat. 8. Luthers iudgment in this kind of diuorce, I do not defend. Yet Luther further teacheth thus:Luth. in Proposit. de Big [...]m [...]a edit. 1528. propos. 62. 65. 66. Poli­gamy, or hauing many wyues at once, is no more abrogated, then is the rest of Moyses Law; and it is free, as being neither com­manded, nor forbidden. Bucer is as indul­gent and full herein as Luther, for Bucer teacheth diuorce, and marying agayne with another, in case thatBucer in Script. Anglic de regno Christi. l. 2. c. 26. c 37. c. c. 42. one depart from the other, in case of Homicide, or theft, or but in repayring to the Company or banquets of immodest persons; or in case of incurable infirmity by Childbirth, or of the mans falling into Lunacy, or other­wise. [Page 35] And further it is taught expresly byBeza lib. de repu­dijs & di­uortijs. p. 1 [...]3. Beza, In Sy­nops. of the yeare 1600. pag. 685. M. Willet, In partition: Theolog. pag. 739. Aman­dus Polanus, and others, that in case but of the husbands departure, he might becaused by his wyfe to be proclaimed, & if he did not returne within the time appointed, that thereupon the Minister might giue the wyfe licence to marry agayne. I assure my selfe, there are many hundred wiues in England, who would be glad of their husbands long absence, and not returne, and of the execution of this doctrine, therby to satisfy the flesh by marying agayne; So dangerous is this Position of diuorce (if full practise thereof were made, as in part it is) to the state of wedlocke, & to the inuiolable bond of chastity, which the one party in mariage oweth to the other. But let vs remember, that we read:Math. 19. Which God hath ioyned to­geather, let no man separate.

13. Touching the authority of Princes and all Magistrates, our Aduersaries do strangely dictate. And first Luther thus teacheth:Luth de secular. po­test. in tom. 9 German. Among Christians, none can, or ought to be a Magistrate; Luth. vbi suprà. ech one is to other equally subiect. And yet more:In se [...] mons En­glished, & printed. 1579. p. 97. As Christ cannot suffer him­selfe [Page 36] to be tyed by lawes &c. so ought not the conscience of a Christian to suffer them. With Luther agreeth Swinglius in thus betrampling all soueraignty:Tom. 1. in explana. Art. 42. When Princes do euill, and contrary to the rule of Christ, they may be deposed. Caluin is no lesse sparing in censuring Princes, for thus he writeth. [...]n Da­niel c. 6. Earthly Princes de­priue themselues of authority, when they erect themselues against God &c. and we are rather to spit vpon their faces, then to obey them. I will close this Scene with Beza, who did write a booke entituled, de iure Magistratuum in subditos: A boo­ke so destroying all obedience to the Prince and Magistrate, that D. Sutcliffe thus censureth thereof:In his answere to a cer­taine Li­bel sup­plicatory. p 75. Beza in his booke of the power of Magistrates, doth arme the Subiects against their Prince, in these cases &c. And further saith there­of:Vbi sup. p. 98. It is a booke, which ouerthroweth in effect all authority of Christian Magistra­tes. But here I would demaund of these men, how do they answere those diui­ne Testimonies?Rom. c. 13. Who resisteth the Power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, purchase to thēselues dāna­tion. And agayne:Rom. vbi supr. We ought to be sub­iect euen of necessity, & for conscience sake.

But now let vs contemplate a little vpon the dangerous effects ordinarily ensuing of this doctrine of deniall of the authority of Princes, and Magistrates. And first if Luthers doctrine be true, that ech one is equall to another, and that there ought to be no Magistrates: This be­ing (I say) once granted, what an insuf­ferable confusion, and Anarchy would there be in the society of Christians? seeing from hence it would follow, that there should be no lawes to keepe men in duty, no Magistrates to punish the delinquents, no rewards for well-deseruing men, no chastisement for malefactors. Would there not be in such a State daily perpetrated all ho­micide, theft, rapine, incest, Adultery, fornication, and all other most flagi­tious crimes whatsoeuer, and all this with all impunity, and without the least feare of any castigation▪ Were not this a Common wealth fitting to be instituted rather by mans Ghostly E­nemy, as being the high way to lead soules to Hell, then by Christ, who suf­fred death for our sinnes?

Agayne, admit that the subiects might rise at their pleasure in armes [Page 38] against their King, as the former sen­tences of Swinglius, Caluin, & Beza do warrant; what tumults, what intestine seditions, and simulties, what insurre­ctions would there be in euery Monar­chy, and absolute State? finally what vtter euisceration and disbowelling (as it were) would be made in euery such nation euen by it owne borne subiects? And were it not far better, for such Princes rather to hide themselues in solitude and obscurity, and to liue vn­der the hatches of a priuate state, then to be placed vpon this glorious (yet most dangerous) Theater, or Stage of supreme soueraignty and domination?

14. To this former may be adioy­ned their doctrine, of Parity of Ministers in the Church, by the which they teach, that there ought not to be any Bishops, but that euery Minister should haue equall authority and Iurisdiction. All the Puritanes are so precipitate and headlong in this doctrine, as that it would be needles to set downe their many sentences thereof: Therefore I will content my selfe with the wordes of our English Puritanes, who thus write:This is to be seene in the booke en­tituled: Constitu­tions and Canons Ecclesia­sticall, printed 1604. The gouernment of the Church [Page 39] of England by Archbishops, Bishops, and Deanes, is Antichristian, and repugnant to the word of God.

Now if all Ministers should haue one and the same authority, and that there should be no subordination a­mongst them, what a distraction and confusion would follow to be in the Church? And how ready would eue­ry illiterate Minister be to vēt out new doctrines and Heresies, without all controule; & such Heresies, as would not only infect the vnderstanding with falshood and errour, but also the will with Sinne and wicked conuersation? Againe, who then would there be to chastise the Ministers thēselues for their great dissolution of life, touching drin­king, fornication, & adultery, too much vsed by many of thē at this day in En­gland, to the great disedifiing of many more sober and temperate Protestāts.

15. To the former I may range their doctrine of extraordinary calling; by the w^ch they teach that there is extraordina­ry of calling Ministers immediatly frō God himselfe, without the concurrency therto of mā, or imposition of any Bishops hand. And accordingly we find Caluin thus to writ [Page 40] of himselfe and other first Preachers of the Protestant Religion:The Protestant Lascitius reciteth this saying of Caluin. l. de Russor. Muscouit. &c. c. 23. Quia Papae Tyrannide &c. Because through the tyran­ny of the Pope, true Succession and Ordi­nation was broken of, therefore we stood in need of a new Course heerin; and this fun­ction or calling was altogether extraordina­ry. To which accord the wordes of M. Perkins, saying:In his workes printed 1605. fol. 916. The calling of Wickliffe, Hus, Luther, Oecolampadius, Peter Martyr &c. were extraordinary. As also those of D. Fulk [...]: Against Stapleton, Martiall. &c. pag. 2. The Protestāts, who first preached in these dayes, had ex­traordinary Calling. But how repugnant is this their calling, to the calling of the ministery mentioned in holy Scrip­ture?Hebr. 5. No man taketh the honour (vz. of Priesthood) to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was. And agayne:Rom. 10. How shall they preach, except they be sent?

But now heer I vrge, that as Caluin and the rest, by challenging to them­selues an extraordinary Calling, broached the former new doctrines, touching li­berty and licentiousnes of life, neuer before heard of; so why may not o­thers in like māner heerafter, as of late the Libertins, the family of loue, and other [Page 41] sectaries haue done, aryse, and assu­ming to themselues the like priuiledge of Extraordinary Calling from God alone, dogmatize other new doctrines, as per­nicious to manners, vertue, and good life, as these former wicked doctrines are?

16. In this place I wil touch the string of the most wicked doctrine of Swingli­us, & other his fellow-Ministers, who teach plainly, That Heathens, not belie­uing in Christ (and so euer continuing) may yet be saued. For first Swinglius doth thus gentilize:Swingl. in l. epist. Oecolamp. & Swingl. l. 1. pag. 39. Ethnicus, si piam mentem domi foueat, Christianus est, etsi Christum ignoret. A Heathen leading a good life, is a Christian, though he know not Christ. And Swinglius further particularly writeth: thatSwingl. tom. 2 fol. 118. Hercules, Theseus, Socrates &c. are now in the same Heauen with Adam, Abel, Enoch. Finally Swinglius proceedeth al­so further teaching thus:L. epist. Oecolamp. & Swingl. l. 2. p. 513. Gentilium liberos nulla lex damnat. No law damneth the Children of Gentils. This Opinion of Swinglius is also defended (and himselfe for teaching the same highly extolled) byVid. Swingl. tom. 2. fol. 550. Bullinger, as also by [...]n vita Bullingeri. Symlerus, the Protestant, and others. This do­ctrine is so resolutely maintained by [Page 42] Swinglius and others, that Echarius (a learned Protestant) thus by way of complayning therof, writeth:Echa­rius in his fasciculus Controuer­siarum, printed Lipsiae. an­no 1609. cap. 19. Quòd Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Camillus, Her­cules &c. Swinglius writeth to the King of France, that Socrates, Aristides, Numa, Ca­millus, Hercules, the Scipions, the Catoes, and other Gentills are partakers of eternall life. And Swinglius is defended for tea­ching this doctrine, by the Tygurine Diui­nes, Bullinger, Gualterus, Hardenbur­gius, &c.

Thus farre the foresayd Echarius. O, what Scholia or Paraphrase can Swin­glius and his compartners cast vpon those choaking wordes of diuine Scri­ture?Acts. 4. There is not any other name vn­der heauen, giuen to men (then that of IESVS) wherein we must be saued. AndIohn. 4. Christ is the Sauiour of the world: 1. Ioan. [...]. The reconciliation for our sinnes; and not onely, but also for the sinnes of the whole world.

But now what indignity to the Re­deemer of the world, and to all Christiā Religîon, doth this former most blas­phemous doctrine of Swinglius and his fellowes exhale and breath forth? Are they Christians, who teach thus? Were [Page 43] the many Prayers, watchinges, whip­ping his most sacred body, crowning his reuerend head with thornes, buffe­ting of him by the Iewes, and finally his most painfull and pretious death and passion (of all which paines euery litle touch, in regard of the impretiable and infinite worth of the person so tor­mented, was able to redeeme thousands of worlds) so needles and superfluous, as that Prophane Heathens (who only belieue in generall (if so much) that there is a God, or a Diuine Prouidence,) though wholly disclayming in the be­liefe of Christ, and treading all Christian fayth and Religion vnder their feete, can neuertheles be saued?Hier. c. 2. O you Hea­uens, be astonished at this, be afrayd, and vtterly confounded.

17. Here may occurre the Aduer­saries doctrine touching their deniall of all Miracles since the Apostles tymes: A doctrine which secretly leadeth the way to Atheisme. For the greatest rea­son that the Atheists alledge in de­fence of their blasphemous Atheisme, is, that they hould Nature (that is, the connexions of Physicall causes with the effects) to be the supreme cause of all [Page 44] thinges, and therefore these incredu­lous persons desire nothing more in tryall of this their misbeliefe, then to see any thing performed aboue the or­dinary, and vsuall course of nature; which they absolutely deny, that it can be performed. And accordingly here­to, I know a man (witty inough, but dissolute in manners, and partly suspe­cted of Atheisme, but in externall show a Protestant) who is accustomed to say, that he would gladly see the diuell, be­cause he would gladly see something aboue the ordinary course of nature. I beseech God, that his desire in the end of his life be not accomplished.

Now, how forward our Precisians are in denying all Miracles since the Apo­stles tymes, may appeare from the li­berall Confessions in this point of D. Fulke, who thus acknowledgeth:Against the Rhem. Testamēt. in Apoca­lyps. p. 13. It is knowne, that Caluin, and the rest, whom the Papists call Arch-Heretikes, worke no miracles. And of D. Sutcliffe: In his Exam. of D Kelli­sons Sur­uey, prin­ted 1606. pag. 8. We do not practise miracles, nor do we teach, that the doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles.

Thus we see, that these men are in their Iudgements so strongly persua­ded, [Page 55] that all Miracles (by the which God suspendeth stupendiously the working of nature) are so fully ceased, since the dayes of the Apostles, as that they free­ly confesse all want of working Mira­cles to haue beene in the plantation of their owne Religion; directly impug­ning that course of working Miracles granted by our Sauiour to his Apostles, at the first preaching of the Gospell:Math. 10. As you go, preach, heale the sicke, cleanse the leprous, raise vp the dead, cast out the Diuels &c.

18. Our former Aduersaries do in great riot of splenefull acclamations, cry out in their Pulpits and writings against Holy-dayes, (the Sabaoth day only excepted) with great auersion & dislike of them. This their so much af­fected doctrine wholly introduceth a forgetfulnes of the Misteries of Chri­stian faith: for those daies were institu­ted by the Church of Christ, in her Primitiue tymes, to put vs in mind of the misteries of our Fayth. As for example, Christmas day, in remembrāce of Christs birth and Natiuity; Innocents day, or Childermas day (as it is vulgarly called) in remembrance of the slaugh­ter [Page 46] of the Infants, at the tyme of our Sauiours birth; New yeares day, in remem­brance of our Sauiours Circumcision; Epiphany, or Twelft day, in remembrance of the Comming of the three Kings with presents to our Sauiour. The An­nunciation day, in remembrance of the Angels salutation of our Blessed Lady, & bringing her that most ioyfull mes­sage, that she shall bring forth the Sa­uiour of the world; Good Friday, in re­membrance of our Sauiour Christ his death & passion on that day; Easter day, in remembrance of our Lords resurre­ction from the graue; Ascension day, in remembrance of his ascending in Soule and body into Heauen; Pentecost, or Whitsuntide, in remembrāce of the des­cending of the Holy Ghost; Trinity Sun­nay, in honour and remembrance of the most Blessed Trinity: finally Corpus Chri­sti day, in remembrance of our Sauiours Institution of the most blessed Sacra­ment of the Holy Eucharist.

Now, most of these great festiuall dayes are much neglected and vilifyed by our Aduersaries: nor for the most part do the Puritane Ministers instruct their Proselites, and followers, why [Page 47] those Feasts, and vpon what occasion, they were first instituted: which want of care in the Maisters, and ignorance in the Schollers, do beget a great for­getfulnes of our Christian Mysteries. And this my Assertion is warranted with all experience. The like we may proportionably conclude of our Ad­uersaries small respect they beare to the Feast dayes of the Apostles, or of di­uers other great Saints: For example the ignorant Protestant knowes when Midsomer day (as they call it) commeth, but that that day was instituted in the honour of S. Iohn Baptist, as being the Precursor of our Sauiours comming, few of them know.

In like sort our Aduersaries reiect with full mouth all Ceremonies in Fayth, (styling them, superstitious, and Idola­trous) though the said Ceremonies were first instituted, and are still vsed, the better to recall to the mind of the ig­norant, the Mysteries of Christian Re­ligion. And vpon the same ground they mainely vociferate, and cry out against the true vse of Pictures, which serue on­ly to put vs in mind of the vertues, and liues of the Saints, of which they are [Page 48] the Pictures. Neither can they endure the sight of the Crosse, though it be on­ly to put vs in mind of our Sauiours death and passion, suffered vpon the Crosse: so willing they are to extinguish and wholy blot out all remembrances, prints, and cognizances of Christian fayth. Thus we see, that our Aduersa­ries proceeding herein finally tends to the obliterating & cancelling of most of the chiefe Mysteries of our Christian fayth and Religion, and of the most godly Professors of it.

19. The Aduersaries acknowled­ged doctrine of the Inuisibility of the Pro­testant Church, hath induced many to forsake the Christian Religion, and in lieu thereof to become Arians, Iewes, or Turkes. For first, seeing the Old Testament is most full in its authorities, for aEsay 60. Dan. 2. Psal. 28. Continuall splendour, and visibility of Christs true Church: and further, seeing, that this exacted visibility hath bene wanting in the Protestant Church by their owne Confessions, whereof I will heere for breuity alledge the ac­knowledgment of Sebastianus Francus (a learned Protestant) who thus con­fesseth:In epist. de abro­gandis in vniuersum omnibus statutis Ecclesiasti­cis. For certaine through the worke [Page 49] of Antichrist, the externall Church together with the fayth and Sacraments vanished a­way presently after the Apostles departure, and for these fourteene hundred yeares the Church hath not bene externall and visible.

To whose iudgment D. Fulke subscri­beth in these wordes:In his answer to a Coun­terfeyt Catho­like. p. 1 [...]. The true Church decayed immediatly after the Apostles. And lastly seeing such Protestants, as ac­knowledge the want of the visibility of their owne Church, will not acknow­ledge the Catholike Roman Church to be the true Church of God, though they do acknowledg, that that Church hath beene euer visible for these four­teene hundred yeares: Therfore diuers of the said eminēt Protestants through the want of fulfilling of the Prophecies touching the Churches visibility in their owne Protestant Church, haue there­vpon Apostated from Christianity, some of them imbracing the doctrine of the Iewes, others of the Turkes, and therupō haue employed all their dayes after, with infecting other Christians with their new imbraced doctrines, wherby they haue secretly instilled in­to their followers minds and wills the poyson (both for doctrine, & impious [Page 50] conuersation of life) which Iudaisme or Turcisme do teach and warrant.

Many examples of diuers learned Protestants, forsaking their Christian Religion, through the acknowledged doctrine of the Inuisibility of the Prote­stants Church, may be alledged. As ofSo witnes­seth Beza in epist. 65. p. 308. Alamannus a great Protestant, who be­came a Iew. OfIn hi­storia Da­uidis Geor­gij, prin­ted at Antwer­pe. 1568. Dauid George once Professour at Basill, who became a blas­phemous Apostata. Of Ochinus, who first brought Protestancy into En­gland, with Peter Martyr in King Ed­wards dayes; who finally turned anAs witnesseth Zanchius in his booke, de tribus Elohim and Con­radus Slussen­burg (a Calui­nist) in Theol. Caluinist. l. 1 fol. 9. Apostata. Neuserus chiefe Pastour at Heydelberge, who became aSo witnes­seth O­siander the Prote­stant. Cent. 16. part. 2. p. 818. Turke; and diuers others here for breuity o­mitted: So certayne and vndoubted it is, that the confessed doctrine of the Inuisibility of the Protestants Church hath caused diuers to forsake the Christian fayth, and wholly to dis­clayme from our Sauiour; ingulfing themselues into all those wickednesses and Impieties, which Iudaisme or Tur­cisme at this day maintayne & defend.

20. The last doctrine heer to be al­ledged (to omit thatVsury is defen­ded by Bucer, in Script. Anglican. p. 789. 790. 791. By Gene­ua it selfe, for M. Wotton in his se­cond part of the Answere, &c. in his preface to his fellow Brethre [...] thus wri­teth. Two Ministers at Geneua were depo­sed and ba­nished, for speaking against Vsury, al­lowed in that state. Defēded also by Mathew V [...]rell in his princi­pall grounds of Reli­gion, en­glished & printed 1595. pag. 148. & 149. As also de­fended by many o­thers, mentio­ned by D. Pye in his epistle dedicat. in his Answere written against a Treatise in de­fence of Vsury. pa. 20. & 22. Vsury is de­fended by our Aduersaries) which re­sulteth [Page 51] necessarily out of some of the premises, is, that our Aduersaries (howsoeuer they make shew, to pra­ctise in some sort the contrary) do take away all Prayer, (as is aboue intima­ted) as a thing needles, vnprofitable, and superfluous. This I proue seuerall wayes. And first our Aduersaries teach, that only fayth iustifyeth: then if fayth only iustifyeth, it iustifyeth without prayer, or any other good workes. Yea it iustifyeth according to Luther and o­thers aboue cyted, being accompanyed with the greatest sinnes; seeing they teach (as aboue is shewed) that no­thing looseth their fayth or hope of salua­tion, but only infidelity, or want of fayth.

Secondly, they teach, that there is no merit in any of our good workes, ther­fore not any in Prayer; for if our Pray­ers do nothing merit, they nothing ob­tayne: because impetration and obtai­ning doth import some desert (at least de congruo:) if then our Prayers do ney­ther merit, nor satisfy for the offence, nor for the punishment due to the of­fence; to what end then are Prayers to be powred out?

Thirdly, to what purpose should we [Page 52] pray (for example) that we shall not sinne heerafter: seeing God (as Luther, Caluin and the rest aboue specifyed do teach) so forcibly impelleth vs to sinne, as that it is not in our power to resist his ordinance and decree therein? But who dare pray to resist, what God hath infallibly appointed shalbe?

Fourthly, it is shewed aboue, that according to our Aduersaries Princi­ples and Theses, Fayth consisteth, in that a man firmely belieueth, that his Sins are already forgiuen him, that he is one of the Elect, & that he shall infalli­bly obtayne saluation. Now, this fayth preuenteth, & taketh away all Prayer for remission of Sinnes, and mans sal­uation. The reason is, in that Fayth doth precede all this prayer, according to that, Quomodo inuocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? Rom. 10. Therefore it followeth, that we are assured by faith of our saluation, and eternall life, and this before we pray for it.

Fifthly, Prayer is euer for the ob­tayning of that, of which who prayeth, is (though hopefull yet) partly doubt­full and vncertayne of his obtaining of it. For if he be certayne before his [Page 53] praier, that he shal obtaine his request, to what purpose thē are his Prayers made? and to pray for that, which we eyther already haue, or are certayne that heerafter we shall haue, is most ridi­culous and absurd. Now, from this ground it riseth, (as in part aboue is intimated) that we cannot, nor ought not to pray for the remission of our Sin­nes, or for obtayning of eternall lyfe: seeing our Fayth (according to our Aduersaries former doctrines) instru­cteth vs, that we are aforehand assured of both. And thus vpon this ground, he no more foolishly prayeth for the re­mission of his Sinnes, or for eternal life; then a man should pray, that the Sunne might shine to day (seeing that already it hath shined) or that it would shine to morrow, of which he is assured, that it will shine.

Thus according to the force of these reasons, ineuitably rising out of our Aduersaries former doctrines, no man ought to pray, or so much as to re­cite (by way of Praier) our Lords Praier, Our Father which art in heauen hallowed be thy name &c. Thus far now of these former twenty seuerall doctrines of our [Page 54] Aduersaries, displayed in the prece­dent leaues: all which (we see) breath nothing but Sensuality, Enormities, & Sinnes, in the wills of the belieuers of them.

Now, here we are to conceaue, that these former Positions (as they are do­ctrines) do consist in speculation, and rest in the Vnderstanding; yet because the Obiect of most of them is manners, vertue, vice, and the like; therefore the beliefe of them is the more dangerous for mans will. For the better vnderstā ­ding whereof we are to conceaue, that there is such a strayt entercourse bet­weene the Vnderstanding and the Will in mans soule, that the will worketh not, but as the Vnderstanding out of its owne receaued Principles, doth dictate to the Will, as true, or false; and so the Will puts in execution those said Princi­ples in its operation in manners. Yf the Theories and speculations be true, then the Will by working accordingly, wor­keth well and laudably. Yf false, then the Will worketh viciously: and of this nature are the former aboue recited doctrines of our Aduersaries; so as they being most false & wicked, as tending [Page 55] to extirpate all vertue, and to plant impiety in mans soule, they most forci­bly beate vpon the Will, & neuer cease their battery, till they haue forced the Will to exercise all its operations and actions touching manners & conuer­sations of life, according to the said false doctrines: and therefore the Will of man is so much the more endange­red by such impious and blasphemous Principles and doctrines: but other­wise, and in this respect, with lesse, or no danger, it falleth out in those merely speculatiue doctrines (though false) which haue no necessary reference to the working of the Will according to them. Such were the Heresyes of Origen, who taught that the Diuels should in the end of the world be saued; of Cy­prian, in defending Rebaptization, and the lyke; from which (though erroneous) the Will sucketh no poy­son.

But to passe on further in the specu­lation of these former doctrinall Posi­tions; let vs by way of recapitulation see, how potent and forcible they are for the patronage and defence of the most flagitious crimes and sinnes; as al­so [Page 56] on the other syde, for the preuenting of all good workes of Vertue and Piety, though both these points haue in part, beene aboue touched. And as concer­ning the first, I will exemplify it in the most facinorous crimes that may be, as Sodomy, Adultery, Fornication, Mur­ther, Theft, and the like. May not the Workers of such Impieties, and parti­cularly these Sodomits, or Gomorreans of London, thus apologize for themsel­ues, euen from the Principles of their owne Religion, and this in their chiefe Maysters owne wordes?

First, may they not thus reply: We want Freewill in all our actions, and therefore what we haue committed, we could not but commit: but punish­ment is not in any sort due to actions, proceeding from an absolute Necessity, or Stoicall fatum: for we read,So Lu­ther a­boue in assert, dam­nat. per Leonem. Act. [...]6. It is not in our power to thinke euill or good, but all things proceed from absolute necessity.

Secondly, Luth. aboue in sermone de Moyse. the Ten Commandements appertayne not vnto Christians. And ther­fore though what we haue committed be prohibited by the Commandements; yet we Christians are not commanded to forbeare the violating of the said [Page 57] Commandements, vnder any penalty or punishment.

Thirdly, what is committed, is no Sinne in vs, for we know we are of the number of the faythfull, therfore we are good: for Luther teacheth vs,Lu­ther in his sermons englished. pag. 178. that a faythfull man worketh nothing, but good workes; neither can it be but good, which he being good bef [...]re, shall do. Agayne, we be­lieue, and therefore we cannot sinne; for Luther hath taught vs, that, as nothing iustifyeth but only fayth; so nothing sinneth, but want of beliefe.

Fourthly, Admit it be a Sinne, yet it is no Sinne in vs but in God; and therfore we are wholly excused therein, as be­ing but Gods bare Instruments there­in; for we are taught:Lu­ther a­boue tom. 1. de proui­dentia Dei. pag. 166. That God mo­ueth the these to kil, & the theefe is infor­ced to sinne. And further, that (i) The adultery of Dauid, was the worke of God. Now if these actions be of God, So Me­lancth. aboue in Rom. 8. they are so farre from being Sinnes, as that they are good: Genes. 1. for all things which God made are good.

Fiftly, admit it be a sinne in vs, yet it is no greater, then any other Sinne, though it be tragically amplifyed by our Enemies; for Caluin teacheth, and [Page 58] we belieue, That Caluin supr. in Antidot. Concil. Trident. All Sinnes are e­quall.

Sixthly, if there be any Sinne in vs, yet it is but a veniall sinne in vs, and therefore easily pardonable; for we are taught, thatD. Wotton aboue in his Ans­were to the late Popish Articles. pag. 92. 841. to the faythful (of which number we assuredly are) the sinne is pardoned, assoone as it is committed.

Seauenthly, admit our sinne be a mortall, or grieuous Sinne in vs; yet it is in no sort preiudiciall to vs; for ey­ther euery one of vs is already without preuision of any workes, euen from our mothers wombe, reprobated to dā ­nation, or predestinated to saluation, asCaluin [...]boue [...] Instit. l. 3. cap. 13. & sect. 6. Caluin assureth vs: if reprobated, then this our Sinne no way furthereth, or causeth our damnation; seeing that was decreed from all eternity without any respect of our liues and conuersation. If pre­destinated, then can neither this our Sinne, nor any other how flagitious Sin soe­uer, hinder or preuent vs of our salua­tion.

Eightly, admit it to be a Sinne in vs, yet we are more to be pittied, then re­buked; seeing we are taught, that theIllyric. aboue ci­ted. de O­rigin. pec­cati. Kemni­tius aboue cited. Image of God is wholly obliterated in vs, & all our fayre impressions are extinct, [Page 59] and that euen the regenerate and holy man is nothing els, but meere Corruption and contagion. Now here then, can any man expect to gather grapes of thornes, or figges of thisteles? Matth. 7.

Lastly, let our Sinne be what it wilbe, great or small; yet no detriment (tou­ching our saluation) can it bring to vs, (who are true belieuers) for our perpe­trating of it: Seeing we are taught, that aLuth. vbi supr. in captiuit. Babil. fol. 74. Christian man is so rith, that he can­not lose his Saluation by any sinnes how great soeuer, except he will not belieue. And fur­ther it being in our power at any tyme to exercise an act fayth; how can ey­ther this, or that Sinne hurt vs, seeing D. Whitakers assureth vs; thatD. Whitak. aboue in l. de Eccles. contra Bellar. cōtrouers. 2. q. 5. pag. 301. Siquis actum fidei habet, ei peccata non nocent. Sinnes cannot hurt him, who produceth an Act of fayth. So certaine it is, (as our owne brethren do teach) that See Acts and monu­ments printed anno 1563. pag. 488. We cannot be damned, except Christ be damned with vs. And as for suffering any tem­porall paines for the expiating of sinne after our death before we come to Heauen, it is but a iest to surmize any such thing; since we wholly account the doctrine of Purgatory, a meere for­gery, or fable.

Thus far now may the greatest sin­ners that are, proceed in defence of their wickednes, euen from the head-Theoremes, and Principles of their owne Religion. O execrable Monsters! did Christ (thinke you) incarnate himselfe and suffer death for the taking away of the Sinnes of the world; and yet would institute and leaue behind him a Religion for all men, vpon their sou­les saluation, to follow, which should patronize villany and Sinne in the highest degree?

But now let vs cast our eye vpon some other of the premises mentioned in the beginning, and recall to mynd, what is, aboue deliuered by our Aduer­saries touching the depressing and vili­fying of vertue and godlines of life. And heer now I demand, that considering, it is a most nauseous, and vngratefull thing, and naturally crosse to mans disposition to spend his tyme in labo­rious and painefull workes of vertue, if so there be no rewards (as pleasing Allectiues) proposed to him for such his endeauours: Heere I say, I demand (as aboue in part I did, though I heer iterate it, for the better imprinting of [Page 61] it in the memory of the Reader) how such a man belieuing the former do­ctrines, can with any alacrity practise good workes, or be sollicitous to lead a regular and pious life: when before hand he is persuaded by his owne do­ctrines, viz.

1. That Read the Au­thorities aboue set downe touching all theese seuerall branches of this Periode, or Para­graphe. Prayer is needles, and vn­profitable. 2. That a man (labour he neuer so much in vertue) cannot be­come truly vertuous, but onely imputati­uely lust, or vertuous. 3. That the practise of Chastity, Pouerty, Obedience, and fa­sting are not pleasing to God. 4. That all good workes) God iudging them) are mortall sins. 5. That we are not obliged to keepe the Ten Commandements. 6. That, Good workes are not only not necessary to fayth, and saluation, but hurtfull thereto. 7. That one worke is not better, then another; and that to wash dishes, is as good, as to be an Apostle. 8. That these workes, which we call good workes, are not our workes (seeing we want freewill to performe them) but that God only vseth vs as dead Instruments (or as the writer vseth the pen, as an insensible Instrument, wher­by he writes) in all such operations-To conclude, 9. That all the Rewards in [Page 62] Holy Scripture proposed for the exercise of good workes, are not truly and since­rely intended by God, to be giuen to the practizers of the said good workes; but are only amplifications of words, aboue the reall, and true measure of Gods meaning.

Thus we see how our Aduersaries do­ctrines, by disualewing the dignity of good workes, are no lesse potent in the belieuers thereof, to induce them to forbeare the practise of vertue, sanctity & piety, thē they are forcible (through their lesning of the atrocity of Sinne) to encourage men to the perpetration of all abominable and most detestable Sinnes, & crimes, that can be imagined.

Now, who shall deeply consider the different Natures of these two different doctrines of our Aduersaries (I meane of blandishing Vice, and dishonouring of Vertue) will the lesse maruaile, how Lu­ther and other first broachers of their Religion, could in so small a tyme in­uade with these their most pestilent Heresyes so many Countries in Europe. The reason hereof is, in that their do­ctrines in respect of their multiplicity, may well be compared to a Magazine or great Warehouse, furnished with all [Page 63] diuersity of merchandise, and wares, sorting to ech mans state or condition of life to buy; as of Silkes, Cloath, Wines, Oyles &c. So Luthers doctrine is so various, so choyce, and so select, as that it was made fit and apt to meet with euery mans different humour & appetite. For example: 1. Is he a Prin­ce, King, or State, that would aduance by any vniust meanes the greatnes of his Signiories? Then is he by our Aduersaries taught, that he may take into his hands all Bishoprickes, Eccle­siasticall liuings, and lands of Mona­steries, and other Religious houses, as ourGen. 10. Nemrod of this age (I meane King Henry the eight) and some other Protestant Princes following, haue done. For this King Henry made ac­cordingly, an vtter depredation, and spoile of Monasteries, impropriating their liuings to himselfe and his Para­sytes.

2. Is he a dissolute religious man, and weary of performing the rigid austeri­ty of his vndertaken life? Then may he by these mēs doctrine, breake out of his Cloyster, and cast of his habit, and in­world himselfe agayne in all tempora­lities. [Page 64] 3. Is he a loose Priest, and will not lead a chast and continent life? He is heer catechized, that he may lawful­ly mary. 4. Is he marryed, and yet ey­ther the Husband or the wyfe (as be­ing weary one of the other) would seeke to be diuorced? Then may he, or she lawfully pretend diuers impedi­ments, as of impotency, incontinen­cy, absence, and others aboue men­tioned for diuorce, and presently mary agayne.

5. Is he of the Laity, & of that height of pride, and elation of mynd, as that he cānot, or will not brooke to liue in sub­iection, or to acknowledge any soueraingty? He is aboue indoctrinated that now a­mong Christians, there ought to be no Magistrates or Princes at all. 6. Is he of the Protestant Clergy, and yet scornes to be vnder his Diocesan, or any other? He is thereof disinthralled, by the do­ctrine of the Parity of Ministers. 7. Is he a Man Theathralis, that affects to haue many followers, for stamping & preaching of strange and new doctri­nes, and this without any controule? He may then alledge the priuiledge of the reuealing Spirit, and Extraordina­ry [Page 65] Vocation.

8. Is he of a couetous and muddy dis­position, not caring by what iniust and base wayes he may increase his stocke, and siluer? Then he may be warranted to practise Vsury, and so to breed vpon siluer. 9. Is he of a fearefull conscience, and resteth doubtfull of some tempo­rall punishment to hang ouer his head, for his former finnes, though forgiuen him? He may be freed from all such feare, by the denyall of the doctrine of Purgatory, and by belieuing that no tē ­porall punishment is reserued for man, after the Sinne is once forgiuen. 10. Is he willing to wallow in al turpitude of wic­kednes and enormous life, whyles he breatheth in this world; and this with­out all feare and change of colours? He may by the doctrine of his iustifying fayth, & certainty of Predestination assure himselfe (as is aboue sayd) that he cannot be damned, except Christ be dam­ned with him.

11. Finally, is he so plunged in sinne by a continuall custome, as that by reason of the infinitenes of his sinnes, he may doubt himselfe to be of the number of the Reprobate? Let him for [Page 66] feare he should forsake sinning, re­member, that he is taught, that a chan­ge from a vitious to a vertuous life, cannot hinder Reprobation. So crafty (we see) was the serpent (for from him all the former Theoremes originally streamed) so to poyson Luther, and the first Gospellers with such choyce and variety of Heresyes, as might seuerally suite to seuerall mens estates, condi­tions, & dispositions. And thus accor­dingly we may heere obserue, that the foresaid doctrines of Luther and his Compartners speake to euery man in that Dialect or language, in which he would haue them.

O, had Sardanapalus the King, who became a prey to all sensuality, or Epi­curus the Philosopher, who theorically placed mans chiefest felicity & good, in voluptuousnes and pleasure, liued in this our age; how much by imbracing of many of these former Principles, might they haue better warrāted their proceedings? So true is that censure of Osiander the Protestant, saying:This is reported by Sley­dan, en­glished l. 22. Anno 1550. fol. 3. 58. Lu­ther and Melancthon haue compiled a Di­uinity, which sauoureth more of the flesh, then of the spirit.

Now if by way of recrimination, following this methode, it be obie­cted by any (as by diuers Puritanes it already hath beene obiected) that the Papists teach, that the Pope can afore­hand giue pardon for the most atroci­ous Sinne, as for murthering heerafter of Princes; or by his Indulgences can pardon any Sinne, before it be commit­ted: Which doctrines (say they) much open the way for the perpetration of many most great Sins; seeing the wor­kers of them are by thes doctrines assu­red, that such their sinnes are forgi­uen them, before they be commit­ted.

To this I answere, that heer is won­derfull mistaking, proceeding eyther from ignorance or malice; for not any Catholike doth so teach, or belieue. Ther­fore to take away this foolish & absurd stumbling blocke, let the Puritan and all others know; that the Catholike Reli­gion teacheth, that the Pope can no more giue liberty to a man hereafter for to sinne, or can aforehand forgiue a sinne hereafter to be committed, then he can create a new world. For the Catholike doctrine is, that the Obiect [Page 68] of the Sacrament of Penance, is a Sinne already committed; the guilt of which Sinne (I meane the eternall punishment of damnation) is taken away only by force of the said Sacrament; and yet the Penitent must confesse such his Sinne with an absolute determination not to commit it, or any other Sinne hereafter; and must haue Contrition (or at least Attrition, and sorrow, for his committing his said Sinnes; or els the very confession of his said Sinnes is so far from affording him any absolution of them, as that by such kind of confes­sing his Sinnes, he committeth a new sinne.

Agayne, where it is aboue obiected, that the Pope by his Indulgence, can par­don the greatest Sinne that is: heere a­gayne I say, is the lyke ignorance, or malice. For the eternall damnation for any mortall Sinne (though of the least) cannot be remitted by any In­dulgence, but only (as is sayd aboue) by the Sacrament of Pennance and Con­fession. The reason hereof is, because the Obiect of an Indulgēce is only a tem­porall punishment, due for the guilt of Sinne, already remitted by the Sacra­ment [Page 69] of Confession; & therefore it fol­loweth, that no mā can take the benefit of any Indulgence, but at the same time he must be in state of grace, to which state he is brought by the vertue of a sincere and sorrowfull Sacramentall Con­f [...]ssion, with a resolued purpose neuer to sinne more. Now this being the true & acknowledgedSee S. Thom. Aquin. 4. sent. dist. 10. art. 5. Sotus 4. sent. d. 21. Bellarm. de Indulg. &c. doctrine of the Ca­tholi [...]e Church herein; I refer to any in­different Reader, whether this our do­ctrine doth not rather much deterre a man from sinne, then inuite and impell him thereto?

But to returne to the deformity and vglines of these former doctrines of the Puritans; It is to be obserued, that commonly the Professours of them are the only men, who vsually haue in their mouthes (so wickednes m [...]sketh it selfe in wordes of deuotion)Math. 5. the sauing fayth, Abba Rom. 8. & Ga­lat. 4. Father, the Vnction 1. Ioan, 2. of the Holy One, and other such passa­ges of Scripture, wherewith they may the better varnish ouer the foule graine of these their documents, that so they may appeare in other mens eyes more specious and regardable. From hence now may the Reader discerne, what [Page 70] he is to conceaue of other doctrines, different from the fayth of the Church of Rome, maintained by Luther and o­ther his Brethren aboue alledged. For if they did grosly erre in these their posi­tions, touching Vice and Vertue, why may they not also erre in other specu­latiue articles of fayth taught by them, which do not concerne Morality, or conuersation of life; seeing the certain­ty of erring in one point, necessarily implieth a possibility of erring, in any other point.

And from the mature consideration of all the former passages it may be further irrepliably inferred, that once granting the former Theses and Tenets of Luther and the other Protestants to be false, that the Protestant Church is not the true Church of God: since we read,Ephes. 4. Vna fides, vnum baptisma. And ther­fore Christs Church is one, entyre, and per­fect in fayth; not brooking the entertai­nemēt of any one dogmaticall Errour:De vni­tate Ec­cles. post initium. Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi (sayth S. Cyprian) incorrupta est, & pu­dica. And with this, I close the first part of this Treatise.

THE SECOND PART. Touching the vvicked liues of the first Broachers of Puritanisme.

IN the precedent Part (good Reader) there is layd be­fore thee, a Synopsis of the Theory, or Speculation of such Puritanicall doctrines, which in­uite man to vice, and deterre him frō vertue: In this Section now, we will shew how the first stampers of the for­mer doctrines haue incorporated the sayd doctrines, in their owne liues and actions; I meane, how they haue giuen themselues ouer to al dissolutiō in manners, and so haue caused their owne vitious liues, and deportment to comment their owne doctrinall Po­sitiōs. [Page 72] Thus they beare themselues like to honest and well meaning Phisitians, who are loath to giue any thing to their Patients, either good or euill, but themselues afore will tast it.

I will not heer expatiate into any long discourse by alledging the liues of many of the former Protestants, whose names are aboue mentioned. I will content my selfe by displaying, (though in part) the liues of sixe of them, to wit, Luther, Zwinglius, Iaco­bus Andraeas, Ochinus, Caluin, and Be­za. Of these I particularly make choice because these men were chiefly, and with greater bent & endeauour busied in first planting the sayd former Para­doxes; and the rest of the Authours a­boue cōparting with these in their do­ctrines were but their Schollers (as it were) & followers. But by that, which heerafter will be deliuered of these mē we shall haue full reason to recall to our memory those wordes of Christ:Math. 7. Beware of false Prophets, which come to you in sheepes cloathing, but inwardly are rauening wolues.

I will begin with Beza, and so as­cend higher. And first that the Reader [Page 73] may see, how some of our first Publi­shers of this their new Ghospell and fayth (wholy different from the an­cient fayth of Rome) did practise the most execrable Sinne of Sodomy, and therein led the way to other Sodomi­ticall persons; I wil set downe certaine verses made by Beza himselfe, tou­ching a boy called Andebertus (which Beza kept as his Adonis, or Ganimede, by abusing the boyes body) and his whore Candida. In which verses he cō ­pareth the pleasure of the one with the other Sinne; and in the end preferreth the sinne with his boy, before the Sinne of fornication with his woman. This Epigrame of Beza touching his Ganimede Andebertus, and his whore Candida, is extant among other of his Epigrames, printed at Paris in the yeare 1548. by Robertus Stephanus. The verses are these following, which shame forbids me to English: but euery one that vn­derstandeth Latin, may pick out the sense.

Next there followeth.

Then next after followeth.

That Beza did write this Epigram, is auerred by Conradus Slussenburg (the great Protestant) thus charging Beza herewith:In Theolog. Caluin. printed 1594. l. 1. fol 93. Constat & hoc &c. This also is euident, that Beza did write obscaenissi­mos versus, most obscene and filthy verses to Andebertus at Orleans, whom Beza kept as his Adonis. And Heshusius (another Pro­testant) chargeth Beza with this his Epigram in these wordes:In his booke entituled verae & sanae Con­fessionis. Beza ne­fandos amores, illicitos concubitus, scortatio­nes, faeda Adulteria sacrilego carmine de­cantauit orbi. Beza did publish to the world in sacrilegious verse, his beastly and in­humane loue, his vnlawfull pleasures, his whoring, and filthy adultery. Thus Heshu­sius.

The same is confessed byIn his answere to M. Iohn Al­bins, prin­ted 1592. D. Spar­kes, De Turca. Papism. printed 1599. l. [...]. cap. 10. D. Sutcliffe, andIn A­polog. Ca­thol. part. 1. l. 2. [...]. 21. D. Morton, though weakely excused. And lastly confessed by Beza himselfe; who being charged therewith, thus excuseth the writing of the formes Epigram: See this confessed, in these words by the Au­thour of the Ans­were for the tyme to the de­fence of the Censure. printed 1583. fol. 99. Also the same Au­th [...]ur in his said Answere relateth, How Beza ma­keth m [...]n­tion of his Epigrams, and testi­fieth, that there were many things in them, for which he was har­tily sory. Indeed Andebert was a yong man most deare vnto [Page 76] me &c. to whom being at Vezel, I wrote triflingly certaine verses, wherein I did de­clare my singular desire of seeing him. But let any man vnderstanding the Latin, giue his true Iudgment, whether these verses do not import more, then his only seeing of Andebertus. And further touching his woman Candida, the fore­said Protestant Schlussenburg Schlus­senb. in Theolog. Calu. l. 1. fol. 92. writeth, that Beza kept her foure yeares, as his whore, before he would marry her.

I heere will not much insist, how Beza sold his Priory for ready money then receaued, and after leased it to o­thers for fyue yeares then to come, with receauing money aforehand for such his leasing. Vpon which occasion there began a suite (presently vpon his secret stealing away) betweene the two seuerall parties, with whom he se­uerally had contracted, which suite de­pendeth on Record in the Court of Pa­ris.

Also I pretermit his getting of his mayd with child at Geneua, at what time he feigned himselfe and his maide to be sicke of the Plague, to preuent that any should come to them; and thereupon intreated, that he, and his [Page 77] maide might be lodged in two cham­bers of one Petrus Viretus, in an out­ward garden, where he caused a Sur­geon to let the woman bloud, who presently after was brought to bed of a dead Child. I say I will not peremp­torily insist in these points, (though I assure my selfe, that they are most true, as being circumstanced with time, place, witnesses, and other proofes of Morall certainty, and all written and published in Beza his owne life time) in that they are written by one Hierome Bolsecke, a Catholike Doctour of Phy­sick, to whom the Surgeon confessed the deed. Because I here chiefly tye my selfe to the Testimonies, and acknow­ledgements only of the Protestants (& none others) in relating the deport­ment and conuersation of Beza, and the other fyue aboue specifyed. Thus far touching Beza his Sodomy, and in­continency of life.

Now to obserue Beza his conscience (or rather want of conscience)In his Suruey cap. 8. pag. 127. D. Bancroft (Archbishop of Canterbury) char­geth Beza with dissimulation in Religion, thus saying: Beza was a busy body against the lawfulnes of Bishops calling &c. And [Page 78] yet (forsooth) he can write to other men, and pretend quite the Contrary. In like sortCent. 1 [...]. l. 3. cap. [...]8. p. 657. Osiander (the Protestant) accu­seth Beza most highly with his dissi­mulation, touching the doctrine of the Reall presence; he maintayning different doctrines thereof, according to the dif­ferent places he came vnto. But no Christian fearing God, or hauing any Conscience would, for a thousand worlds, dissemble his Religion.

Touching Beza his pride; he is char­ged therewith by the foresaid Arch­bishopIn his Suruey. c. 3. p. 54. D. Bancroft. And his pride more fully discouereth it selfe, in his contemning of all the Ancient Fathers and Councels: for thus we fynd Beza to write in his ballancing of the ancient Fathers with the Protestants of this age: to wit, that the Fathers had (to vse his owne wordes)Beza in [...]pi. Theo­log. prin­ted 1572. Epist. 1. pag. 5. plus conscientiae, scientiae minus: more conscience (then the Protestants) but lesse learning. And as touching all the Generall Councels of the Primitiue Church, Beza thus be­trampleth them:In his epistle de­dicatory to the Prince of Condv set before his new Testa­ment. In the best times a man may plainly see, that Sathan was Presi­dent in their Assemblyes and Councels.

In this last place I will come to Beza [Page 79] his Insolency and boldnes with the holy Scriptures; which insolency proceeded from the authority of his assumed re­uealing Spirit: I will touch a Text or two of Scripture, depraued by him in his Translation of the New Testament; & then I will conclude with the Censures of learned Protestants passed vpon his said Translation. And first in that sen­tence,Heb [...]. 13. Honorabile connubium in om­nibus; Let mariage be honourable in all: as­much to say, Let mariage be inuiolably preserued in all points. Now Beza transla­teth, Mariage is honourable (inter quos­uis) in all men; so he, adding in defēce of Priests Mariage, these two wordes, Is, and men, contrary to the Translations of his owne BrethrenIn om­nes Pau [...] epist. Hebr. 13. Caluin, andIn Ca­stalio his great Bi­ble dedi­cated to K. Ed­ward the sixth printed at Basil. 1573. Castalio (the learned Protestant) who translateth thus: Honestum esto matrimonium in omnibus; so retayning the Imperatiue moode and Neuter Gender, wheras Beza vsed the Indicatiue moode, and Masculine Gender.

For a second example of this kind; whereas the Text in S. Luke 22. Hic ca lix in sanguine meo pro vobis [...]ffusus, is in these expresse wordes according to all Greeke copies whatsoeuer: by which [Page 80] Grammaticall contexture of the wor­des is shewed, that bloud is in the Cup. Now to preuent this so necessary a Cō ­struction,Beza in nouum Testam. pag. 317. Beza is not afrayd to say, that S. Luke committed a manifest Sole­cophanes, and incongruity of speach; or els, that it is a corruption, crept out of the Margēt into the Text, in defence of the Reall Presence. Now in regard of these and many other corruptions in his Translation, had not Molinaeus (a lear­ned Protestant) iust reason to say, thatSee Molineus in Testam. part. 20. 30. &c. Beza, de facto mutat Textum, actually changeth the Text? AndIn his defensio suarum Transla­tionum. printed at Basill, per Ioan­nem Opo­rinum. pa. 182. 183. Castalio to auerre, That he might gather a long Regi­ster of Beza his errours out of his whole worke (meaning, touching his Tran­slation of the new Testament) for Beza oftentimes erreth (sayth the foresaid Ca­stalio) not only in wordes &c. But also in thinges, and the same most weighty. And yet further the said Protestant thus chargeth Beza his said Translation:Castalio vbi supra. pag. 170. I will not set downe all Errours of Beza his Translation, for that would require too great a volume. Thus much briefly (lea­uing out much more for greater expe­dition) of Beza his carriage, and com­portment.

To come to Caluin, who (as it should seeme) was the first of his Tribe, that did lead the dance in this Gomor­rhean and abominable Sinne. Caluin li­uing in Noyon (a Citty in France) was charged with the crime of Sodomy; and thereupon was burned on his shoulder for the same crime; vpon which occa­sion he presently fled to Geneua. That this is most true, appeareth (besides from the life of Caluin, written by the aboue mentioned Bolseck) from the Te­stimony of the foresaid learned Prote­stantIn Theolog. Caluinist. l. 2. fol. 7 [...]0. Schlussenburg, who auerreth the same to be iustifyed by publike records and Testimonies yet extant; as also by the yet common report of the Citty of Noyon; which Citty did testify the said sinne of Caluin, & his punishment inflicted vpon him for the same, to Monsieur Bertilier (Secretary to the Councell of Geneua) vnder a publike and sworne Notaries hand; which Te­stimony is yet extant, and hath beene seene by diuers men. This Crime of Caluins Sodomy is so true, as that the for­said Schlussenburg sayth in plaine ter­mes:In Theo. Calu. vbi supra. I do not yet see any sound and cleere refutation thereof; and as, that it being [Page 82] obiected against him (by that blessed Martyr, Father Campian) D. Whitakers in his Answere thereof, denieth not the fact, but lesneth it in these wordes:Con­tra Camp. rat. 3. Si stigmaticus fuit (Caluinus) fuit etiam Paulus, fuerunt alij: So most prophanely and impiously the Doctor comparing Caluins burning on the shoulder for So­domy, with S. Pauls like punishment, for the profession of the name of Christ.

I will let passe his lesser Sinnes of Incontinency, as his stealing away of a Gentil-woman of Mongis, who priua­tely departing from her husband at Lausanna, kept company with Caluin at Geneua; as also his attempting of the wife of Iames Bourgoigne, Lord of Fal­laice. In like sort I passe ouer, how Cal­uin contracted with one Brule, and his wyfe, that the said Brule should coun­terfeyte himselfe dead, that in the sight of many people, he might seeme to be restored to life by Caluin. But this Brule, so coūterfeiting in the beginning, was found to be dead indeed. At the sight whereof Brules wife was so astonished, as that she exclaimed publikely against Caluin, and reuealed the whole matter to many.

I finally pretermit, how Caluin was so curious and choyce in his diet, that when he went abroad to dyne, his owne wine was caried about with him in a siluer Pot; and his bread was made of fyne flower, wet in rose water. All this (I say) I forbeare to insist in, (though I presume they were most true) because they are recorded by the foresaid Bolseck a Catholike, (who did write also the life of Beza▪) for my me­thode here vndertaken, is to charge Caluin and the rest with such Crimes, as are reported of them, by the learned Protestants, their brethren.

Therfore I will next come to vn­fould his great Sinne in detorting and misconstruing diuers Texts of Holy Scri­pture, from whence all the Ancient Fa­thers and learned Doctors euer main­ly insisted vpō, for the proofe of Christs diuinity: and yet Caluin hath corrupted them in the behalfe of the Arians, for the impugning of Christs diuinity. The places among others, are these; I and the Father are one. Iohn 10. Caluin thus sayth hereof:Calu. in Ioan. 10. The Fathers abused this place, to proue Christ to be of the same sub­stance with his Father; for Christ speaketh [Page 84] not of the vnity of substance, but of Con­sent: contrary to the iudgment euen of Zanchius, Detri­bus Elo­him, part. 2. l. 5. c. 3. the great Protestant.

Agayne, That Text: Thou art my sonne, this day I haue begotten thee: Psal. 2. which Text is alledged euen by the Apostle in proofe of Christs-Diuinity, asL. de filio Dei, printed 1586. Simlerus a Caluinist confesseth: Yet Caluin thus disualeweth this place to the contrary:Calu. in Psalm. 2. I know this place to be expounded by many of Christs eternall ge­neration &c. but the reason of Austin is friuolous, who by the word, Hodie (this day) feigneth Eternity. Briefly (to omit his blasphemous Construction of ma­ny other Texts against the Diuinity of Christ, wherin he comparteth in the Constructions of the same Text with the Arians,) that other passage: The Lord rayned vpon Sodome fyre from the Lord &c. Gen. 19. D. Willet thus writeth hereof:In Ge­nes. c. 19. This place is well vrged by the Fathers, to proue the Eternity of Christ: Yet Caluin thus writeth to the contra­ry:Caluin in Genes. cap. 9. Whereas the Fathers laboured to proue Christs Diuinity from this testimony, it is nothing firme.

I will contract this point of Caluins Arianizing in his Construction of [Page 85] Scriptures, against the Diuinity of Christ, with the Testimonies of learned Protestants charging him with the same. For according hereto I find, that Hun­nius (the great Protestant, and publike Professour in the Vniuersity of Witten­berge) hath digested Caluins exposi­tions of Scripture of this Nature, into threeOne of them is intitu­led: Calui­nus Iu­daizans &c. 1595. Another Antipa­raeus. prin­ted Wit­tenbergae, 1063. The third, en­tituled: Antipa­raeus alter printed vt supra. seuerall Treatises.

Touching Caluins false translating of the Scripture to serue his owne turne, I will content my selfe with the iudg­ment of Molinaeus heerein, (a learned Protestant.) His wordes are these:In sua Translat. Testam. Noui. part. 12. fol. 110. Caluin in his Harmony maketh the Text of the Gospel to leape vp and downe; he vseth violence to the Letter of the Gospel; and be­sides this, he addeth to the Text.

Touching Caluins peremptory pride with the Ancient Fathers: And first tou­ching the doctrine of Freewill, Instit. l. 2. sect. 4. Caluin chargeth, and reprehendeth the Fa­thers therein. Touching Grace and Iu­stification, Calu. Instit. l. 3. c. 11. §. 15. Caluin betrampleth S. Austins authority. Concerning the Reall-Presence, L. epist. & respons. printed 1597. epist. 208. he opposeth himselfe against Hilary and Cyrill. Caluin Instit. l. 4. cap. 13. §. 17. in like sort reprehendeth Nazianzen, Ba­sil, & Ierome, for their commending, & [Page 86] defending of Monachisme, and austerity of life.

I will omit all other Controuersyes between the Catholikes and the Prote­stants, in all which Caluin opposeth himselfe to the ioint consent of all the Ancient Fathers of the Primitiue Church, and I will conclude with his reprehension of Chrysostome, Austin, E­piphanius, and others, concerning the doctrine of praying and offering vp Sacri­fice for the dead: his wordes for close of all, are these:In Tract. Theolog. de ver. Ec­cles. re­form. pag. [...]94. Fateor eiusmodi preces &c. I confesse, that the custome of these prayers was ancient; and that such prayers were allowed by Austin, Chrysostome, and Epiphanius, as receaued by succession from their Ancestours; the vsage wherof the a­forenamed Fathers followed without reason &c. Thus we see, that Caluin doth fully parallell, and equall Beza in contempt of the Fathers of the Primitiue Church: such a fastidious Magistrality, & pride in the highest degree, do their former doctrines of their Reuealing Spirit, and extraordinary Vocation, beget in the mindes of the belieuers thereof.

But to conclude with relating of Caluins death, which was most sutable [Page 87] to his life, (forPsal. 33. Mors peccatorum pes­sima) Conradus Schlussenburg the fore­said Protestant, deliuereth it in these wordes: [...]n Theolog. Caluin printed 1594 lib. 2. fol. 72. Deus manu sua potenti &c. God in the rod of his fury visiting Caluin, did punish him before the houre of his death, with his mighty hād: for he being in despayre, and calling vpon the Diuel, gaue vp his wicked soule, swearing, cursing, and blaspheming. He dyed of the disease of lyce and wormes, increasing in a most loathsome vlcer about his priuy parts, so as none pre­sent could endure the stench. These things are obiected against Caluin by Publike wri­tings, in which also horrible things are de­clared concerning his lasciuiousnes, his sun­dry abhominable vices, and Sodomiticall lusts, for which last he was burned by the Magistrate at Noyon, where he liued, being branded vpon the shoulder with a hoat bur­ning Iron. Thus far the foresaid Slussen­burg, an earnest Protestant, and as great an Enemy to the Pope, as Caluin euer was, and therfore his Testimony is to be reputed lesse partiall, and more in­different.

The foresaid miserable death of Cal­uin is confirmed with the vnanswera­ble Testimony of Herennius (a Caluinist [Page 88] Preacher, and therefore the rather heerin to be credited.) His words are these:In li­bello de vi­ta Caluini. Caluinus in desperatione siniens vitam &c. Caluin ending his life in despaire dyed, being consumed of a most filthy and loathsome disease; and such as God is ac­customed to threaten to the wicked, and such as be rebellious against him. This of Caluin I dare testify to be most true, because I my selfe being there present, did behould that calamitous & tragical end of his, euen with these mine owne eyes. Thus the said He­rennius, and thus far of Caluin, though most briefly. This one obseruation tou­ching his death I will add, to wit, that it is the lesse to be wondered, that Cal­uin should dye despayring of his Salua­tion, seeing it may wel be thought, that Christ by way of speciall punishment (in withdrawing his grace from Cal­uin,) did inflict this particuler kind of death vpon him, because Caluin taught, that Christ himselfe was for the timeCaluins words in Latin are these in Math. 27. Sed absur­dum vide­tur Christo elapsam esse despe­rationis vocem: So­lucio facilis est &c. and in the same place thus more: Sic videmus (Christum) omni ex parte vexatum, vt despera­tione obru­tus, ab in­uocando Deo absi. steret. in despayre, and as being ouerwhelmed in desperation, gaue ouer prayer. O mon­strous (and neuer afore heard of) Blas­phemy!

The next shall be Ochinus: This man with the helpe of Peter Martyr, first [Page 89] broached Protestancy heer in Englād in K. Edwards the sixth reigne; asOsiander Cent. 16. l. 2. c. 67. Osi­ander witnesseth, and the whole world knoweth. Ochinus was first a Religious mā of the Catholike Romane Church; but being weary of seruing God in that austerity of lyfe, left hisSo sayth Sleydan, l. 9 at anno 1547. fol. 297. Monstery, with breach of all his former vowes of Religion. This Ochinus did write a bookeLaua­ther. in hi­stor. Sa­crament. fol. 50. against the Masse; and him Caluin thus exalteth in these words:Lib de scandalis. extat in h [...] Tract. Theolog. printed 1597. p. 111. Whome can Italy oppose (for they were both Italians) against Peter Martyr, and Bernardine Ochine?

There is not written against Ochinus so much touching his extraordinary li­centiousnes of lyfe, as touching his do­ctrines: for first he began to defend (by wryting of certayne Dialogues) the doctrine of Polygamy, or hauing many wyues at one and the same tyme; of which DialoguesBeza in lib. de Po­lygamia. p. 4. Beza maketh mention. But Ochinus did not content himselfe with this; but proceeded to the height of all Impiety; For he con­fessing the doctrine of the euer neces­sary Visibility of Christs true Church, grounding himselfe (and but truly) vpon the predictions thereof in the [Page 90] Old Testament; and on the one syde, not acknowledging the Catholike Roman Church to be the true Church, though in it he could not deny, but that it euer enioyed a continuall visibi­lity: and on the other syde, seeing the predictions of the Churchs vninterru­pted Visibility were not accomplished in the Protestant Church, did heerupō wholy forsake Christ and Christian Reli­gion, and betooke himselfe to the im­bracing of Iudaisme.

That Ochinus became an Apostata, is witnessed by Beza, who calleth him thus:L. de Polygam. p. 4. Ochinus, impurus Apostata. And further Beza more fully enlargeth himselfe thus writing:Beza in epist. 1. pa. 11. Ochinus, A­rianorum clandestinus fautor, Polygamiae defensor, omnium Christianae Religionis dogmatum irrisor. Ochinus is a secret fauou­rer of the Arians, a defender of Polygamy, and a scoffer of all the doctrines of Christian Religion. The Apostasy of Ochinus, is further witnessed byIn his booke de [...]ribus Elohim. printed. 1594. l. 5. c. 9. Zanchius (the Protestant) & by Conradus Slussenburg, the afore mētioned Protestāt, writing heerin agaynst Ochinus most particu­larly; the title of which passage in this Protestants booke, is:In Theolog. Caluinist. l. 1. fol. 19. Responsio ad [Page 91] Ochini blasphemiam.

Thus farre touching Ochinus his Apostasy, & of his imbracing Iudaisme, and finally dying therein One thing chiefly I referre to the iudgment of any indifferent Reader: seeing this Ochinus was one of the two Apostles, who first planted Protestancy in England; to wit, whether it sorteth with the accu­stomed proceeding of God (who euer vseth meanes proportionable and suta­ble to their ends) to vse as his Instru­ments, for the planting of true Chri­stian Religion (suppose Protestancy be such) a man, who should afterward turne his pen to the absolute denyall of the Redeemer of the world, reputing him to be a Seducer, to the imbracing of Iudaisme, and to the vtter renun­ciation of all Christianity? And conse­consequently whether it be not a great dishonour to England, to ascribe her first plantation of Protestancy to such a Man?

I come next to Iacobus Andraeas. This Andraeas was Luthers prime scholler & a great spreader of Luthers doctrine. He was for his presumed worth madeOsiand. Cent. 16. l. 1 cap. 7. pag. 13. Chancelour of the Vniuersity of Tubinge, [Page 92] and was as famous and eminent inSo sayth O­siand. vbi supra. l. 4. c. 43. pag. 1084. Germany, as euer Beza or Caluin were in Geneua.

Now, concerning the comport­ment of this presumed worthy man, charged euen by his owne Brethren, read what followeth. First,In Zanchius in his e­pistles printed 1609. l. [...]. pag. 340. Lauater (a Protestant) auerreth, that he was taken in publike Adultery: and that certaine verses were made against him, vpon this occasion by certayne Calui­nists. But to proceed. Hospinian (the Protestant) thus blazeth him:Hos­pinian in Histor. Sa­crament. fol. 389. An­draeas nullum omnino habuit Deum, si Mā ­monem & Bacchum excipias &c. & quan­do cubitum iturus, vel de lecto surrecturus &c. Andraeas had no other God, except Mammon & Bacchus &c. And when he went to bed, or rose from thence, he was ob­serued neuer so much as to recite the Lords prayer, or to make any mention of God. And in the whole course of his life and actions he shewed no sparke of piety and vertue, but extraordinary great lightnes. Thus Hospi­nian.

The same Hospinian speaking of the wonderfull Inconstancy of Andraeas in matters of Religion (from which point may be gathered, that he prized [Page 93] no Religion at all) thus writeth:Hospi­nian, vbi supra. Ia­cobus Andraeas doctrinam, & sententiam suam de Religionis capitibus mutauit sae­pius; vnde Anhaldini promittunt se ex eius autographis demonstrare posse, ipsum octidui spacio, ter suam de Controuersis ca­pitibus, fidem & Confessionem mutâsse. Ia­cobus Andraeas often changed his iudgement in points of Religion, in so much, that they of Anhalt did vndertake to shew, out of his owne handwrytings, that in the compasse of eight dayes, he changed three seuerall times his confession of fayth, touching some heads of Religion then in controuersy.

To conclude, the said Hospinian thus further discourseth of the pride & dis­position of Andraeas, saying:Ho [...] pin. vbi supr. Conui­tijs, calumnijs, mendacijs &c. Andraeas did striue to abound in reproaches, deceits, lyes, and impudent taunts and iests. He thought very highly of himselfe, and contemned all others. And yet more.Hospi­nian vbi supr. Selnecerus and Musculus (sayth Hospinian) haue tear­med Andraeas to be erronem, leuissimum scurram &c. A wandring fellow, a most giddy and light gester or scoffer, and One that neuer had any religion. Thus far Hos­pinian of this Andraeas, & with this I end.

Now in this next passage, Swinglius presenteth himselfe Whose doctrines tending to liberty and licentiousnes of life aboue alleaged, I will here passe ouer. This Swinglius did take his degrees of Schooles in Basill, and thereupon was madeHospin. vbi supra fol. 22. Priest; but after he inten­ded to reuolt frō the Roman Church, he chiefly laboured to impugne the Masse, and this from an apparition in his sleepe, which Swinglius calleth his Monitor, saying:Swingl. tom. 2. in subsid. de Eucharist. printed 1581. Ater fuit an albus, nihil memini. Thus did Swinglius first forsake the Masse, doubtlesly from the instruction of the Diuell [...] for his owne Brethren censure it to be no lesse, then a meere illusion, asTract. de Eccles. printed 1598. pag. [...]8. Benedictus Mor­gensterne, In Swenkfel­dio Calui­ [...]ismo, printed 1597. in praefat. Iacobus Heilbrunerus, and others. And the words ofIn Theolog. Caluinist. printed 1594 in prooem. Conradus Slussenburg, of this vision of Swinglius, are these: Sole meridiano clarius est, non Deum verum, sed ipsissimum Diabolum Swinglio per somnium &c. It is more cleere then the Sunne, that not the true God, but the Diuell himselfe inspired Swinglius in his dreame. Neuertheles Swinglius so re­sted vpon the force of this his diuelish apparition, as that being warranted therewith (most irreligiously and im­pudently, [Page 95] and the rather the better to impugne the Sacrifice of the Masse,) he dared to alter the very wordes of Christ saying, This is my body; and in lieu there­of, did translate in his owne printed Bibles (as though they had beene the very wordes of Scripture)Swingl. in his new Testamēt in Latin dedicated to the French King. This sig­nifyeth my Body.

But to proceede to Swinglius his behauiour: for the better apprehension whereof, we are to conceaue, that Swinglius and other certaine Ministers in Heluetia (all which afore were deuo­ted Priests) vpon their forsaking of the Roman Religion, and vndertaking to plant their owne new Gospel; did first make a generall petition to the Helue­tian Common-wealth, within which state they liued, that they might be suf­fered to take wyues, and marry. The title of their petitiō is this:Swin­gl. in tom. 1. fol. 11 [...] Pietate & prudentia insigni Heluetiorum Reipu­blicae Huldericus Swinglius, alij (que) Euange­licae doctrinae Ministri, gratiam & pacem à Deo. The Petition beginneth thus: Hoc verò summis precibus contendimus, ne ma­trimonij vsus nobis denegetur &c. We ear­nestly contend, that the vse of Mariage be not denied to vs, who feeling the infirmity [Page 94] [...] [Page 95] [...] [Page 96] of the flesh, perceaue that the loue of chastity is not giuen vs by God. For if we consider the words of Paul, we shall fynd with him no other cause of Mariage, then for the lust­ful desires of the flesh; which to burne in vs, we may not deny, seeing that by meanes therof, we are made infamous before the Congregations.

And then Swinglius proceeding for­ward, thus expresseth the burnings of the flesh: Aestu verò libidinis &c. By Swin­glius vbi supra. the burning of the flesh, we vnderstād those de­sires of the flesh, wherwith a man being in­flamed, tosseth in his mynd the studies of the lustfull flesh; in these only he spendeth all his thoughts, vpon these he meditateth, and is wholly busied in this, that he may satisfy the fury of the flesh. Thou seest here (Good Reader) how lustfully, and goatishly Swinglius, with his fellowes, writeth of this subiect.

But to proceed in this their suppli­cation. They further thus write: Si carnis Swingl. vbi supra. licentiam quaerere &c. Yf we res­pected the liberty of the flesh, who seeth not, how much more commodious it were for vs, that we should forbeare the lawes of Ma­riage, as hitherto we haue done? &c. For we haue knowne, how easy in this free and loose [Page 97] estate, being glutted with satiety, we might change. Wherefore for the loue not of lust, but of Chastity, and the soules to vs com­mitted, we desire marriage; least that the soules committed to our charge, by example of our sensuality (diutius offendantur) should be any longer offended. And yet more: Quare Swin­glius vbi supra. cùm carnis nostrae infirmi­tatem &c. We haue proued, that the weaknes of our flesh hath beene (proh delor!) O for griefe! cause of our often falling. Thus far in the petition of Swinglius, and the rest to that State.

Now in another epistle to the Bishop of Constance, written and subscribed vnto, by Swinglius, and twelue more Ministers there named, Swinglius thus confesseth and sayth:Tom. 1. fol. 121. 122. 123. Hactenus ex­perti, quòd &c. Hitherto we haue tryed, that this gift of Chastity hath bene denied vs &c. We haue burned (O for shame!) so great­ly, that we haue committed many things vn­seemely. To speake freely without boasting; We are not otherwise of such vnciuill man­ners, that we should be euill spoken off, a­mong the people to vs committed, for any wickednes (hoc vno excepto) this one point excepted. Thus far Swinglius with his Complices.

By this now we may coniecture of the extraordinary sensuality of Swin­glius, and of his incredible thirst after a woman. For heere we see, how him­selfe with the rest, are not ashamed to confesse themselues to haue liued (till that day) most incontinently & disso­lutely: a course little sorting to those, who vndertake the first planting of the true Religion and fayth of Christ; which Religion vtterly forbiddeth all vnchast and lustfull actions:Ga­lat. 5. The workes of the flesh are adultery, fornication &c. Who do these, shall not inherite the Kingdome of God.

I here passe ouer Swinglius his tem­porizing liberty in writing of matters of Religion. For speaking after, of cer­taine of his writings some yeares afore penned, he thus blusheth not to say: That when he did such and such thin­ges before,Swing. tom. 2. de vera Re­ligione, fol. 202. Tempori potiùs scripsimus quàm rei, sic iubente Domino &c. We rather fitted our writings to the tyme, then to the truth of the matter, God himselfe so com­manding vs &c. A most irreligious and heathenish saying; and so disliked, that at the Alphabeticall table there vnder the letter z. it is said: Swinglius docendo ser­uiuit [Page 99] tempori, Swinglius in his teaching, serued the tymes. The death and end of Swinglius was so calamitous, that diuers most markable Protestants do write, that he was infallibly damned. For first Luther thus censureth thereof, by the testimony of Hospinian. Hospinians wor­des are these:In histo. Sacrament. part. 2. at anno 1544. fol. 187. Lutherus dicit Swin­glium miserrime in praelio à Papistis inter­fectum, ideò in peccatis suis mortuum esse. Luther sayth, that Swinglius was miserab [...]y killed by the Papists in warres, and that he dyed in sinne. And agayne the said Hos­pinian thus further writeth:Vbi supra. Luthe­rus se &c. Luther sayth, that he wholly des­payreth of the saluation of Swinglius soule. And Gualterus speaking of the iudgmēt of diuers Protestants herein, thus wri­teth:In A­polog. fol. 30. & 31. Nostri illi &c. Those our men are not afrayd to pronounce, that Swinglius died in Sinne, & the sonne of Hell. Thus much of Swinglius.

Now to conclude this Scene with that Prodromus of Antichrist, I meane Luther, who first layed most of the chiefe corner stones of Puritanisme: Lu­ther was first a CatholikeLuth. in his Epist. to his Fa­ther, extat tom. 2. VVitten­berg fol. [...]69. Priest & Monke; during which his state of life, he thus writeth of himselfe:See Luthers words hereof in in his Commēt vpon the epistle to the Gala­thians, englished in cap. 1. fol. 35. I then [Page 100] honoured the Pope of meere conscience, kept chastity, pouerty and obedience; and what­soeuer I did, I did it with a single hart, of good Zeale, and for the glory of God; fearing grieuously the last day, and desirous to be sa­ued from the bottome of my heart. Of whose pure and sincere intention at that tymeIn epist. ad Tho­mam Car­dinalem Eboracens. Erasmus speaketh fully; & Simon Voyon more particularly thus di­lateth thereof:Vpon the Ca­talogue of the Do­ctors of the Church, [...]nglished, pag. 180. Luther in his Mona­stery punished his body with watching, fa­sting, and prayer. But after he had once apostated from the Church of Rome, and cast of his Catholike Religion; then he began to speake in another Dialect, and thus writeth of himselfe: (marke here good Reader, the difference of one and the same man, when at one tyme he is Catholike, at another, Prote­stāt:)Luth. tom. 1. epi. Latin. fol. 334. ad Philip­pum. I am burned with the great flame of my vntamed flesh; I, who ought to be fer­uent in the Spirit, am feruent in the flesh, in lust, sloth &c. Eight dayes are now past, wherein I neither did write, pray, nor stu­dy; being vexed partly with temptations of the flesh, partly with other troubles.

Agayne the same Luther thus ac­knowledgeth further of himselfe: I am almost mad through the rage of lust, & [Page 101] desire of women. And yet more:Luth. tom. 5. VVitten­berg. serm. de Matri­monio, fol. 119. As it is not in my power, that I should be no man: so it is not in my power, that I should be without a woman &c. It is not in our po­wer, that it should be stayed or omitted; but it is as necessary, as that I should be a man; and more necessary, then to eate, drinke, purge, make cleane the nose. And yet he ceaseth not, but further sayth:Luth. in Pro­uerb. 31. addeth these words in Ducth, which are englished, as are here set downe. No­thing is more sweet, then is the loue of a woman, if a man can obtaine it; and finally:Luth. tom 7. VVitten­berg. epist. ad VVol­phangum. fol. 505. He that resolueth to be without a wo­man, let him lay asyde from him the name of a man, making himselfe a playne Angell or spirit. And according to these his spea­ches, he hauing cast of all his former Religion, tooke Catherine Bore out of a Monastery, and maryed her.

Behold here (good Protestant Reader) and blush at the Primitiae of that Spirit, which in this age first sowed Protestan­cy, or our new reformed Religion. For where are now those former wordes of Luthers keeping his chastity, pouerty, and obedience? and what he did, he did with a single hart, to the glory of God, and desi­rous to be saued from the bottome of his heart? &c. So iust reason had euen Cal­uin himselfe to say of Luther: These words of Caluin are allea­ged by Schlussen­burg. in Theolog. Calu. l. 2. fol. 126. magnis [Page 102] vitijs abundat. As also so fully is war­ranted, from Luthers sensuality, that phraze vsed among many of his fol­lowers, who when they would giue as­sent to the prouocation of nature, by accompanying lewd women, were ac­customed to say amongst themselues:This Benedictus Morgen­sterne the Protestant (in tract. de Ecclesia, printed Franco­furti 1 [...]98. pag. 22. affirmeth that the Caluinists were ac­customed so to say. Hodie Lutheranicè viuemus: to day we will liue Lutheranlyke. And here now the lesse wonder it is, that Luther (for the patronizing of his owne most sen­suall and lasciuious life) did vent out such his fleshly doctrines, mentioned in the first part of this discourse; as Yf the wyfe will not, let the Chamber-mayd come, besydes many others. But let vs pro­ceed to other Actes of Luthers Scene.

And touching his pryde; Where first we will speake of his presumed cer­tainty of his owne broached doctrine, proceeding from the pride of his owne priuate Spirit, of which point he thus vaunteth:Luth. aduersus falso no­minatum Ecclisiasti­cum sta­tum. I would haue you to know, (speaking to the Ecclesiasticall state) that I will not hereafter vouchsafe you so much honour, as to suffer eyther you, or the Angels to iudge of my doctrine &c. For seeing I am certaine of it, I will iudge of you, and of the Angels. And more:Tom 2. VVittenb. fol. 333. I [Page 103] am certaine, I haue my opinions from Hea­uen &c. they shall continue. And yet more fully:Swin­glius chargeth Luther with say­ing these words. to. 2. ad Lu­ther. Con­fess. res­pons. fol. 478. If I be deceaued, God hath decea­ued me.

Touching Luthers pryde of censu­ring Moyses, and the Apostles, he thus speaketh of Moyses: Luth. Tom. 3. VVitten­berg. in Psalm. 45. fol. 423. Moyses had his lip­pes full of gall and anger &c. Away there­fore with Moyses. Touching S. Peter, Lu­ther thus writeth:Luth. in epist. ad Galat. c. 1. Peter (the chiefe of the Apostles) did liue and teach (extra verbum Dei) besides the word of God. S. Iames the Apostle is thus charged by Lu­ther, touching Extreme-vnction: Luth. l. de Capt. Babil c. de extrema vnctione, in tom. 2. VVittenb. fol. 86. I further say, if that in any place it be erred, in this especially it is erred. But though this were the Epistle of S. Iames, I would an­swere, it is not lawfull for an Apostle (by his authority) to institute a Sacrament.

Touching Luthers pryde in con­trowling, or rather reiecting the Holy Scriptures, it is euident, that Luther de­nyed for Canonicall Scripture, theAs witnesseth Bullinger vpon the Apoca­lyps. En­glished. 1573. c. 1 [...] [...]rm. 1. fol. 1. Apocalips, Luth. in praefat. in epist. Ia­cobi, in edi­tione Ie­uensi. the Epistle of Iames, As witnesseth Oecolam­padius in epist. ad Hebraeos, printed Argent o­rat. 1534. the Epistle to the Hebrews. Touching Luthers pryde in condemning all the Fathers, reade what heer is set downe:Luth. lib. de seruo arbitrio, printed anno 1551. pag. 434. The Fathers of so many ages haue beene plainely blind, and most ignorant in the Scriptures; [Page 104] they haue erred all their life tyme; and vn­les they were amended before their deaths, they were neyther Saincts, nor pertayning to the Church. Thus he.

To [...]hing Luthers proud boldnes in translating the Holy Scriptures, one place shall serue insteed of many. Where S. Paul sayth:Rom. 3. A man is iu­stifyed by fayth, without the workes of the Law: Luther in his Translation thereof translateth: Man is iustifyed by fayth alone: & being expostulated for adding the word alone, he insteed of any other answere sayth:Luth. tom. 5. Germ. fol. 141. 144. I am sorry, I did not translate it worse: and a little before the sayd wordes: sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ra­tione voluntas. Thus much touching Lu­thers deportment: of which Subiect I doe assure the Reader, I relate not the sixt part, contenting my selfe to picke heere and there, where I thinke most conuenient, and suting for the present.

If now it be heer demaunded, that seeing Luther was in the beginning of his tyme a Catholike Priest; and (as it should seeme) deuout and religious in his fayth; how came it to passe, that he first altered his Religion? To this is answered, That he had a true & reall [Page 105] disputation with the Diuell, and vpon the force of the Diuels reasons, he re­nounced (first) priuate Masse: and then after by degrees, and through the violence of his owne sensuality, he proceeded further in forging the rest of those voluptuous Paradoxes, aboue as­cribed vnto him.

That Luther had this disputation with the Diuell appeareth from Luthers owne wordes deliuered thereof, for he writeth:Lu­ther. tom. 7. VVit­tenberg. printed anno 1558 lib. de pri­uata missa. &c. vnct. sacerd. fol. 228. Contigit, me sub mediam noctem subitò expergefieri: ibi Satan me­cum caepit eiusmodi disputationem: Audi (inquit) Luthere, Doctor perdocte &c. It hapned, that about midnight, I awaked, and Satan then begun with me this kind of disputation: Heare (sayth Sathan) O Lu­ther most learned Doctour &c. And the Diuell proceedeth to his arguments; to the strength wherof Luther finally sub­scribed. And thus Luther did first leaue the saying of Masse by the persuasion of the Diuell. And which is worthy of obseruation: Luther writing after this disputation, against the Masse, is not ashamed to vse all those particular rea­sons and arguments against the Masse, which the Diuell afore had vsed to him.

This disputation of Luther with the Diuell, is so certaine, as that (besides it is testified from Luthers owne words, a­boue alleaged) it is acknowledged, (though most weakly auoyded) byIn his reply to the Cen­sure, prin­ted 158 [...]. fol. d. 5. & d. 6. Mr. Charke, In his Treatise against the de­fence of the censure, prin­ted by Thomas Thomas. pag. 234. D. Fulk. Sutcliff. de vera Ca­tholica Christi Ec­clesiâ printed 1592. l. 2. c. 4. p. 298. D. Sutcliff, D. D. Mort. in his Apo­log. Catho­lica. part. 1. printed at Lōdon. 1005. l. 2. c. 21. pag. 351. Morton. Balduinus in his booke intituled de disputatio­ne Lutheri cum Dia­bolo, prin­ted Islebij. 1605. c. 4. & pag. 81. Balduinus, and others. All which seuerall particular Prote­stants do giue seuerall answeres here­to, (a point, which deserues chiefly to be noted) so little confidence did each of them, for the auoyding of this most foule blemish to Luther (and indeed to Protestancy) put in one anothers Ans­were.

And with this I will conclude with these former sixe most remarkable and eminent Reformers, assuring the Rea­der (as afore) that I haue related scarse the sixt part of their licentiousnes and impieties, with which most of them stand iustly charged by the pennes of other Protestants, their owne Brethren, hauing for greater expedition conten­ted my selfe (as aboue I said) with dis­cerping here and there such their ack­nowledgments herein, as might seeme best to sort to my present proiect, and intention.

Only here I will demand, if it can sinke into the brayne of any iudicious indifferent man, but to weene that God would euer suffer the true fayth and Religion of Christ (admitting it had vanished away for many ages afore, as is pretended) to be restored to Chri­stians, by the instruments and meanes of such most prophane, sensuall, bea­stly, and flagitious men, as these for­mer six Authours are cōfessed by their own Brethren to haue beene: their ve­ry soules being become euen the sinkes or channells for the receite of all or­dure and filth of Sinne and abominable impiety? No: it is impossible, it should be so. Let no man therefore thinke his diuine Maiesty, would euer for the re-establishing of his Church (the most su­preme end, that can be conceaued) make choyce of a company of obscure petty Doctours, and these but few, la­tely stept vp, but competently learned, iointly broching in their doctrines sen­suall liberty, and finally in their con­uersation most wicked, prophane, and execrable: so certayne it is, that the wine euer tasketh strongly of the vyne, the water of the fountaine, the fruite of [Page 108] the tree, and the life, of the Doctrine.

But now (good Reader) to reflect backe. Heer thou may see, what Puri­tanisme is eyther in speculation, or in the practise or execution. Yf then whe­ther we respect the doctrine, or the cō ­uersation in life of such men, as were the first Institutours thereof, we do find all to be seated, (or rather grounded) vpon sensuality and impiety; how cāst thou be persuaded that Puritanisme is a Religion, wherewith God himselfe will be honoured? To the which thou canst neuer giue thy full consent, ex­cept thou be first persuaded, that God is a Patron and defendour of Sinne & im­piety: Therefore least any such pro­phane conceite should by the sugge­stiō of the Enemy seize vpon thy soule: I will (for the close of this Treatise) partly display the vglines and deformi­ty of Sinne, and consequently the infi­nite and invtterable hatred which God beareth to Sinne, & Iniquity.

My first proofe hereof shall be taken euen from the Nature of sinne in it selfe, to the which God beareth an infinite hatred. Which infinitenes of hatred is proued by this reason: To wit; euery [Page 109] offence committed against another, is the more great, by how much the Per­sonage, against whom it is committed, is greater: but God, against whom ech Sinne is perpetrated, is of infinite Ma­iesty, worth, and dignity; therefore it followeth, that euery Sinne committed against God, deserueth infinite hatred; and consequently deserueth to be pu­nished with infinitenes of paynes. A­gayne; by how much God doth trans­cend man in goodnes, by so much he loueth goodnes, and hateth Sinne, more then man doth: but he surpasseth man infinitely in goodnes; therfore his loue to goodnes, and hatred to sinne is infi­nite. And more, we may obserue, that euery tyme a man committeth a mor­tall Sinne, there passeth through his iudgment a practicall discourse, by the which he compareth together God, and the pleasure of the Sinne which he is to commit, and thus in this trutination and ballancing, he finally preferres the pleasure before God; and therfore the wrong done to his Diuine Maiesty, by making choyce of a base fading plea­sure before him, is infinite and inex­plicable.

The second Reason, shewing the atro­city of Sinne, may be taken from Gods comminations, and thundering of pu­nishments most aboundantly in his holy Scriptures against Sinne, and the perpetratours thereof. As where we read:Esa. 1. Behold, I will be reuenged vpon mine enemies (speaking of Sinners) and will comfort my selfe in their destruction. Agayne:Psalm. 91. Sinners and workers of ini­quity do perish euerlastingly: Psalm. [...]. God shall rayne snares of fyer vpon sinners; brimstone with tempestuous wynds shall be the portion of their Cup. Eccle­siastic. 40. Death, bloud, contention, edg of sword, oppression, hunger, contrition, and whips; all these things are created for wicked sinners. Pro­uerb. 14. Sinne bringeth all men to misery. Eccle­siastic. 21. Flie from sinne, as from a ser­pent: Eccl. 20. the end of a wicked mans flesh, shall be fyre, and vermine: And to conclude (omitting infinite other passages, all seruing to denounce Gods future reser­ued punishment for Sinne (and conse­quently his hatred thereto) that most dreadfull relegation of Sinners: Math. 25. De­part from me, you accursed, into euerlasting fyre.

The third Reason, which setteth out the hainousnes, and atrocity of Sinne [Page 111] (and that more fully, then either of the former two) is, the consideration of the mistery of the Redemption of man­kind. Which God in the inscrutable A­bysse of his wisedome, would not other­wise performe, then by descending so low, as that himselfe (being of infinite power and Maiesty,Esay 66. Whose seate is Heauen, and the earth his footestoole; and,Iob. 9. vnder whom do crouch and trem­ble, euen they, that do beare vp and sustayne the world) should be content to become Man, to conuerse here vpon earth thir­ty-three yeares, to tast in the meane tyme all kynd of afflictions, griefes & indignities, and in the end to suffer at the hands of most base and vnworthy persons, vpon the Crosse, a most igno­minions and dishonourable death: and all this for the expiating of our sinnes, and Redemption of mankind: He is Iohn. 4 [...] the Sauiour of the world; 1. Iohn. 2. the reconci­liation for our sinnes; and not for ours only, but also for the sinnes of the whole world (sayth the holy Scripture.)

But now to wind vp in few wor­des (and so to giue the last stop to my pen) the force of the necessary infe­rences and deductions, resulting out [Page 112] of all the former Reasons of this whole discourse. Thus then I conclude: Yf on the one syde, Puritanisme be a Religion defending all turpitude of Sinne and Vice, as also wholy discouraging men from the exercise of all Vertue; and that the first broachers thereof haue beene men of most flagitious conuersation, incorporating in their vitious liues their owne positions and doctrines: And if on the other syde, the atrocity of Sinne be such, and the hatred of God to sinne so infinite, and inexplicable, as that the vnderstanding not only of Man, but euen of the Angels cannot comprehend it, (much lesse in words vnfold it) what then can follow, but that Christ, should sooner cease to be Christ then resolue first to institute Pu­ritanisme, and the former doctrines therof aboue mentioned, and willin­gly to suffer himselfe to be truly wor­shipped therewith, and to ordayne, (as a meanes necessarily conducing to mans saluation) a fayth, or Religion, so prophane, vicious, and blasphemous? And with this I end this short Treatise.