¶ Of three Maximes, groundes or rules, whereby a man may iudge of the poyntes of religi­on which are in questiō. The first Chapter.

FOrasmuch as the whot Catholickes accuse the Religion of the prote­stantes, to be wicked, new, and heretical, and therfore cannot brooke the society of such as professe the same: we hope to shew them euidently, that it is not so, when we come to the scan­ning of euery poynt particularly that is in question. And for proofe and de­monstration of our sayinges, we will take for our grounde, three Maxi­mes, or generall rules, which are very certayne and true, whereby euery man shall easely be able to iudge whether y^e same religion, is to be reckned, wicked new, and hereticall or no.

The three Maximes are these, The first is that that doctrine of Religion whereby God is most honored, is the 1 best. The second is, that that Doctrine 2 which is best builded vpon the worde of God is the moste auncient and true. The third is, that the Romish Catho­lickes 3 [Page] cannot well accuse that doctrine, of heresie, which is approued by their own Canones.

Which three rules or maximes, be so cleere & euident of them selues, that (in mine opinion) the day, or the Sun is not clearer. For, seeing that Religiō is no other thing, than the duty which we owe vnto God. It doth folow, that that doctrine which teacheth vs to yeld vnto him all dutye and honour, and to rob him of no part thereof, is a good, and true doctrine, and that there can be no better.

Likewise it is certayn, that the do­ctrine which is builded vpon the only word of God, ought not to be called new, but that we may rather say, that it is as olde as the world it selfe. In so much, that they which doe call it new, may not nor cannot so call it, in respect of it selfe, but onely in respect of their own ignorance, for to the ignorāt, eue­ry thing that they vnderstand not, is new. Neither is it to be douted, but that it is most true, because that God (who is the author therof) is the truth it selfe, and the fountayn of light, and wisdome.

In like maner, I thinke that al mē [Page 8] will easily graunt, that euen the ear­nestest Catholickes of Rome, can not dispence so much with them selues, as to accuse that Religiō of heresie, which is approued by their own Canones, because the Canones be authorysed by the Popes themselues. For, the de­crees of Gracian (from whence I intend to draw the most partes of the Canōs which shalbe alleaged) were ratifyed & authorised by PopeThe decrees of Gratian authorised by the pope Euginie the third, who commaunded that they should be red in the Vniuersytyes,Annal. sur l. an. 1168. and vsed in iudgemēt as they haue bene euer since. So that to reiect and condemn the Ca­nons, were as much in effect, as to de­ny the Pope, and all the Romane Re­ligion.

But full well I know, that hereaf­ter when I shall alleadge the Canons, those passionate Catholickes will rise vp, and say that there be other canons contrary to these, and truly I will not deny but that the bookes of the Canon law, are ful of cōtraryeties. Yet dare I boldly say, and assuredly auow that those Canons which I will alleadge in this booke, are of the best and most auncient of al the Canon law,The old ca­nons are better thē the nevv. & which haue proceeded from the best springs & [Page] fountaynes, and from such authors, as were most principall in skill and holy­nes, as may easely bee iudged by those that will compare them with their bookes.

Hauing thus set downe these three Maximes (the truth whereof is easelie to be perceaued, by euery man of com­mon capacitie, (yea euen of the grossest sort) I am now to apply them orderlye to euery particular poynt. And first of all we will treate of Prayer.

❧ OF PRAYER. The second Chapter.

THe doctrine of the professors of the Gospell touching prayer, is verye playne. Their opinion is in effect, that we ought to offer our prayers vnto God our maker, who is able inough to geue vs whatsoeuer we aske, & gra­tious in harckening gentlye to our re­questes: Who also hath manifested his great goodnes, in giuing his euerlast­ing Sonne, to the end that by him, our manhoode might haue accesse to his Godhead.

And therefore they say, that in pray­ing to God our creator, wee muste al­wayes [Page 9] vse the credite and intercession of his Sonne our mediator, who may boldly goe to the Father because he is God as he is, in the selfsame God­head and being: and disdayneth not also to apply himselfe to men, and to be an intercessor for them, because he is man as they be.

Nether is this manner of praying vnto God altogether disalowed of the Romain Catholicks: but they wil needes adde thereunto, that we must haue also other Mediators and In­tercessors to God the Father, and to Iesus Christ himself: That is to wit, the hesaints and the shesaintes, which are many in number, & in their times haue done many a faire miracle. For (say they) if a man would be a suiter to a king, in any cause, or to his eldest sonne, he would not at the first dash preace to their presence, but goe to some of their seruants, or Lordes of their Court. And so it seemeth a thing very reasonable and meete, that when a man is minded to pray to god for a­ny thing, he go first to some of the Celestial court, to purchase acces to god, & to Iesus Christ his Sonne by their meanes: and that to doe otherwise, [Page] were a kinde of dispising of the saints who haue the charge from God, to pray continually for the Millitante Church, and euery particular person of the same.

Truely, it is not to be denied, but that these reasons haue some colour and shew of truth, if we shall iudge of God as of man.We must not iudge of God as of man. But hereunto the Protestants reply, that we may not iudge of God, as of a king, or as of another mortall mā, for there is great difference. God is altogether good, and inclyned to doe good: But men, (be they kinges or other) are natural­ly euill, and disposed to doe euill, both against God & their neighbors. God vnderstandeth our Prayers assoone as they be conceiued in our harts, and before our mouthes doe vtter them: But to cause a king to vnderstande our suites, we must put them in wry­ting, or tell them by word of mouth: and therfore we haue neede of Aduo­cates to lay forth our cases, & of Mai­sters of requestes to preferre our peti­tions to the Prince or to his councell, and of the fauor of great Lordes and councellours, to get vs audience and dispatch. All which thinges haue no [Page 10] place with God. So that to compare the maner of praying vnto God, with the preferring of suits vnto Princes, is a token that we slenderly consider the greatnes of God. And here wee haue to note a proper saying of S. Ambrose, Amb. in e­pist. ad Ro. c. 1. which he vttereth in these ex­presse wordes.

Those which in steede of resorting vnto God, repayre vnto creatures, are wont to colour their contempt of God, with this miserable excuse. That by the me­nes of those to whō they haue recourse they may attayne to the presence of God, as men attayne to the presence of a king, by meanes of his officers. But I pray you, is there any man so mad, or so careles of his owne life, that he dareth yeald the honor to any of the kings ser­uantes or officers, which belongeth to the king himselfe, specially seeing we finde that such as dare but speake of the like matters, are by the law, gilty of high tresō? No. And yet these that yeld to the Creature, the honor that is due to the name of god, & which letting god alone do worship their fellow seruaunts, think not themselues blame worthy at all: as who should say, they could reserue any greater honor vnto God.

Now the reason why men make their suites to Princes, by the meane and fa­uor of Noble men, Captaines, and Offi­cers, is, because the king is borne a man, and knoweth not in whom to repose his trust and confidence for the ordering of his publick affaires. But as for GOD, from whom nothing is hidden (for he knoweth euery mans desertes) vnto him we haue no need of an Aduocate, but of a deuout hart. For wheresoeuer such a harte speaketh vnto him, he wil answere him.

By which sayings this good doc­tor S. Ambrose, by good and apparant reasons confoūdeth the doctrine of y^e Romish Catholicks touching the in­tercession of Saints: So as, to vse a­ny other mediator to Godward, than our Lord Iesus Christ, is a distrusting of his fauor, and of the goodwill he bea­reth vs, as though he were like vnto some rough and vncurteous prince, y^t wold take displeasure if a mā preaced to his presence, not being presented by some officer of his court. For (say the Protestants) are not we certayn and well assured of the clemency & good­nes of our Sauior that doth inuite vs to come directly vnto him? Is not he [Page 11] our good Shepheard, our Redeemer, our attonementmaker, our reconciler and our brother? Wherfore hath he taken vpon him our flesh? borne our in­iquities? fulfilled the law wherby we were condemned? shed his most pre­cious bloud? and suffered death and passion vpon the crosse? Is it not for vs that he hath done all these thinges to purchase our saluation and reconciliation with God his Father? For neither for himselfe, nor to increase his own glory, needed he to humble and imbase himselfe so much. And there­fore it is not to be douted, but that he doth discharge his office of Mediator­ship, much better than all the saintes can doe: specially, seeing that he is the only meanes that they be saints, and without him they could not so be.

Now, as it is not to be douted, but he hath great good will to do the office of a Mediator for vs: so must we beleeue, that he will not consent that any other should take vpon him to doe it, but is and will be the onely obtayner of our saluation, and of the heauenly blessinges which God shall geue vs.

These be the reasons which the [Page] Protestants do alleadge for the maintenaunce of their doctrine touching prayer. Whereby it doth plainly ap­peare, that their doctrine is the best, according to our first maxime, because that the honor which belongeth to Iesus Christ our Lord, is therby better, and more soundly and wholly with­out diminishing rendered vnto him, then by the doctrine of the Romish catholicks, who would haue so great a number of Mediators, as they seem to leaue to Iesus Christ nothing els but onely the name of mediator, & doe attribute to the saints, both the name and the effect.

Secondlye, this doctrine of the Protestants, is perfectly groūded vp­on the word of God, as all men may know, by considering as well the pre­cepts, as the examples which are in the bible, concerning prayer. For, first of all, the holy Scripture teacheth vs, to put all our trust in the goodnes of God, and to pray onely vnto him, as­suring vs that he will geue care vnto our prayers,Math. 7.18 saying: If you being euill, can skill to geue good thinges to your children, how much rather will your Fa­ther which is in heauē, geue good things [Page 12] to those that aske of him? And agayne, it exhorteth vs to vse the credit of Ie­sus Christ our Mediator to God the Father, saying: If any man haue sinned we haue an aduocate with God the Fa­ther, euen Iesus Christ the righteous. 1. Iohn. 2.1. And to the end we should not doubt of the power and good will of our Media­tor towards vs, it doth assure vs of two thinges: The one, that he sitteth in his Maiestye and might on y^e right hand of the throne of his Father: And the other that he doth pray and make intercessiō for vs.Rom. 8.32. He is saith S. Paul vpon the right hand of God, and ma­keth intercession for vs.

And for y^t we should not abuse our selues in seking many mediators vn­to god: y^e holy scripture doth also teach vs, that as we haue but one God to whom we ought to pray: No more haue we but onely one Mediator sai­ing, For there is but one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man, the mā Iesus Christ. 1. Tim. 2.5.

And because we should not doubt that God is our Father, and that we may vse him as a Father: we are taught that those which beleeue in the Mediator, are made the children of [Page] god, by the same faith & belief, saying: to all those that haue receued him,Ioh. 1.12. he hath geuen priuiledge to become the Children of God, that is to say: To those which beleue in his name. So as Iesus Christ himself teaching vs how we should pray to God,Math. 6.9. hath willed vs to call him our Father.

Moreouer, in the Psalmes of Da­uid, and in the other bookes of the Bible, there are infinite numbers of ex­amples, which proue that all holy mē haue alwaies made their prayers vn­to God, and neuer vnto dead mē, nor called vpon them to be their meanes and Intercessors vnto God.

Wherupon it followeth apparant­ly, that the doctrine of the Protestāts touching prayer, is the most auncient and true, according to our seconde Maxime.

Finally, the sayd Romish Catho­licks ought not to charge the Religi­on of the Protestants with heresie, by the which they say, there ought to be no praying to the Saintes which are out of this world: for there is no man of so simple iudgement, but he will confesse it to be meere madnes, to pray to them which cannot heare him, as [Page 13] questionles those which be dead can­not vnderstand the prayers which we make vnto thē in this world,Sayntes can not heare the prayers that are made to them. because (as witnesseth the Canon) they know nothing of the things which are done in this world, except (sayth the same Canon) that those which die, doe cary them newes of the things which they haue seene and vnderstoode before their death. These are the very words of the Canon.c. fatendum 13. 4, 2. We must needes confes (according to the trueth) that those which are dead doe know nothing of that which is done here vpon earth: but they may well be aduertysed of them by such as die and goe vnto them, and yet not of all thinges, but onely of such thinges as are lawfull for those that be heare to beare in memory, and expediēt for the others to know.

Thus by this Canon, it is most euident that we ought not to pray vnto Saintes, seeing they be dead and cā neither heare nor see nor know any thing that we doe here vpon earth, but by messēgers. And who so should say, that this doctrine is hereticall, must say also that the Canones and Popes be heretickes, which (as I take it) the Romish Catholickes will [Page] be loth to confes. This Canon is also confirmed by y^e holy scripture, which beareth witnesse to vs that there is none but god onely, that knoweth the secrets of mens hartes, and so conse­quently that it is he onely that can vnderstand our prayers, which come rather from the hart than from the mouth.

The protestantes say furthermore, that there are so greate numbers of Sayntes regestred in the Letany, of whose Canonysing men doe doubte, (for as sayth a good auncient Doctor, the bodies of diuers are honoured on earth, whose soules are buried in hel) that in reason we ought to refuse the number of intercessors, and contente our selues only w^t Iesus christ, which is the true and pure doctrine that we ought to hold, and the Catholicks cā ­not iustly accuse it of herisy, according to our third maxime.

And hereupon I adde this more, that as the protestantes doe hold opi­nion that we ought not to attribute the title nor the office of mediator to any other thā to Iesus christ: no more ought we to do in his other titles and offices, as of his priesthood, his medi­atorship, [Page 14] his spirituall reigning, & his chiefe shepheardship. For these be the titles of honor which belong vnto Iesus Christ, and are not to be cōmuni­cated to others, how great or excellēt personages so euer they be. And true­ly herein all the world must needs cō ­fesse, that the protestants do shew thē selues to bee best Christians, in that they attribute onely to our Lord Ie­sus Christ the titles of honor that are his, and will not communicate them to any other creators, what so euer they bee, for if they would dispence w^t their consciences in this behalfe, they know right well they might soone be at a poynt with the Romishe Catho­licks, and shunne many miseries and persecutions which they now indure. For there wanteth no more, but that they would allow the Sayntes to be partners of the title of mediator, & the maspriestes to be parteners of the ty­tle of Sacrificers, the doers of good workes of Supererogation to bee parteners of the title of a propitiator, And the Pope himself, to be partaker of the title of Spyrytuall Kinge and soueraigne Sheaheard: And then by and by there would be a peace cōclu­ded [Page] determined and established, be­twixt the protestants and the romysh Cacholicks. But the protestants will by no meanes, nor for any cause, di­minish any part of the titles of honor which belong vnto the sonne of God, nor attribute them to any other crea­tures. Whereby it appeareth euident­ly, that men do them great wrong, in defaming their doctrine to the King, as though his permitting of them to excercise the same, were a mean to dis­posses him of the title of moste Chry­stian king.

For in asmuch as the name of chri­stian commeth of Christ, out of doubt they be worthiest of that name, which yeld Christ his due honor and glory.

¶ Of fayth and good workes. The third chapter.

THe doctrine of the Romishe Ca­tholickes concerning faythe and good workes, differeth greatly from that of the Protestantes. For the Ca­tholicks hold opinion, that only faith without good workes doth not iusti­fie [Page 15] a man: but that it is needful y^e faith be ayded by good works. Contrary­wise the Protestants hold, that onely faith doth iustify a man without good workes.

That is to say, y^e faith is the onelye instrumēt wherby Iesus Christ (who is the true and efficient cause of our iustification) applieth his righteous­nes vnto vs, and maketh vs to be ac­counted iust before God his Father, through his owne merit, without the helpe of our good works. Neuerthe­lesse they confesse that good workes are acceptable vnto God: but yet they affirme that good workes are not of such power, as to iustify vs before the face of god, or to make vs capeable, either in part or in al, of euerlasting life And they say also that they be not all good works, which the catholicks do take for good works.

For as touching the firste poynte, you must consider that the doctrine of the protestants doth tend, to attribute the honor of our saluation all wholly vnto our Lord Iesus Christ, as vnto him, who is the true and onely cause thereof. For although we haue neede of fayth, whereby to receiue the bene­fit [Page] of Christ, who imputeth and appli­eth his owne righteousnes to all such as beleue in him: yet neuertheles, he doth remain the onely and altogether true cause of our saluation, forasmuch as it is he himselfe, which doth also geue vs fayth.

So as he doth not onely geue vs y^e drinke of immortallity, that is to say, his owne righteousnes which he al­loweth vs, but also the cup to receyue it in: yea, and he geueth vs both of thē freely and for nothing, but onely of his owne liberalitye and grace, with out asking or receiuing of vs, any re­compence for the same.

And truely if we would goe about to recompence so great and excellent a benefit, as is euerlasting life, tho­rowe our good workes: it were as much as if a man would purchase a great and rich inheritaunce, with a smale summe of bace mony, such as in reason should rather be cried downe, than allowed. For our good workes of themselues, bee so vnpure and vn­perfect, mingled with Ipocrisy and other ill affections, that they are not worthy to be presented before the face of God, who doth not esteeme such [Page 16] vntoward payments, in recōpence of eternall life. Notwithstanding, when they be done through fayth, hee doth accept them, in fauour and for good will to his sonne our Lord Iesus Christ, vpon whose only desertes our fayth resteth, because in that respect, they proceeded from the good tree, which is Iesus Christ, who worketh all our good workes in vs.

So as the workes of fayth be good and acceptable vnto god, for that they proceed from Christ, as from the effici­ent cause which worketh them in vs; but they are full of vncleanes, & wor­thy to be reiected, in respect that they proceed from vs, who serue but as instruments (howbeit yet vncleane in­strumentes) to do them. And therfore are they alwayes defyled & spotted in some sort: for Iesus Christ who worketh them in vs, doth make thē good and pleasing to God his Father: but yet they doe gather somwhat of the filthy and naturall infection of vs, who are the vessels wherin they be made.

Neuertheles, God is so good and gratious, that he not only admitteth them as done by Iesus Christ his sonne, but also for his sake, doth wipe away [Page] the spots and vncleanes which are in them, and crowneth them with many blessinges: as with prosperitie of chil­dren, temporall wellfare, help of frēds in aduersitie, moderation in prosperi­tie, discretion, happy succes in affairs, & with many other his benefits, wherin he doth more and more shew his great bounty & gratious goodnes by heaping vpon vs his blessings, as it were in recompence of y^e good works which he himself hath wrought in vs, and in making vs to reap the fruit of his own labor, and to receyue the re­ward which he himself hath deserued.

But touching the great and incō ­prehensible benefit of the gifte of eter­nall life, and of knitting vs vnto him selfe in euerlasting happines, he doth not geue it vs in any other respect, or consideration, thā only for the loue of his welbeloued sōne Iesus Christ. That was the cause why he wold haue him to come down into this base world, and to take our nature vpon him, and to fulfill the law for vs, and to beare our iniquities and greefes, and (at a word) to be our Mediator, our redee­mer, our high priest, our Shepheard, and our spirituall king.

All which titles he hath taken vp­on him, to saue vs and to be the onely cause of our euerlasting felicitie, and to knit and incorporate vs vnto him­selfe, and to make vs partners for e­uer of his heauenly glory.

Yet may we not hereupon con­clude, that we should not doe good workes, as though they stoode vs in no stead to saluatiō: for they be fruits of faith: and whosoeuer hath the true faith, doth incontinently shew it by the good fruites and effectes which it bringeth forth in him.

And he that doth no good workes, cannot saye that hee hath true fayth. Besides that, we also are sufficiently led to doe good workes, by the great number of other benefites and bles­singes wherwith God crowneth thē, as we haue sayd before. This is the sūme of the doctrine which the Pro­testants do hold concerning faith and good workes.

Whereby they yelde wholly vnto God, and to our Sauiour Iesus Christ, the honour which belongeth to hym, as to the true & onely cause of our sal­uatiō, & of all the good things which we haue and receiue, aswell Spiritu­all as Temporal whatsoeuer they be.

We are sa­ued only by God with­out any help of our selues.It followeth then acording to our first Maxime, that this doctrine is better thā the doctrine of the Romish catholicks, who affirme that by theyr good works, they deserue Paradise, & all the other good things which God geueth them: & that these good works do partly proceed of themselues, and of their owne free will, and partlye of Gods grace: as if God alone coulde not saue them, if they helped not the matter by their owne good workes, which they hold to be part of the cause of their saluation: which doctrine all men may easely perceiue to be repug­nant to the nature of God. For seing that he is altogether and perfectlye mercifull: it must needes follow, that those that be saued, be saued wholly (and not in part) by his onely mercy: which should not be perfect, if y^e effect thereof were not perfecte and entyre. Notwithstanding, the Catholickes holde opinion still, that their good workes are part of the cause of theyr saluation, and that they be not saued by the onely mercy of God.

Yea there are monkes which take themselues to haue such aboundance of good workes in store, that they not [Page 18] onelye haue ynow wherewith to me­rite their owne saluation, but also a great masse of ouerplus (which they cal works of supererogationWorkes su­peraboun­dant or of supereroga­tion.) to pur­chase the saluation of other men, but chiefly of such as do them good, and geue them liberally of their temporall goods: which doctrine (in very truth) all such as loue y^e name of God ought to reiect. For it is an vtter defacing of the benefit of our lord Iesus Christ, & an attributing of the honor of our sal­uation, to the vncleane works of sin­ners, whereas in deed, we ought to attribute the same to the death and passiō of the son of god who is with­out sinne.

Also it is to be discerned by Gods word, which of the two doctrines is the truest and most auncient. For the Scripture doth playnelye teache vs, that we be iustified by fayth, without the workes of y^e law, & so consequent­ly by fayth onely, when it sayth,Ro 3.20.23. Wherfore no flesh shall be iustified before him by the workes of the law. And it sayeth in an other place, for you are saued by grace through fayth, and not of your selues: it is the gifte of God: Not for workes, Eph. 1.8.9. leaste any man should boast of [Page] himselfe. And in an other place it is sayd:Tit. 3.4.5. He hath saued vs, not by the works of righteousnes which wee our selues haue done, but of his owne mercy. And Saynt Paule sayeth in an other place: I esteme all things as doong, so I may gain Christ, Phil. 3.8.9 and be found in him, not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the law, but the righteousnes which cō ­meth by beliefe in Christ.

Now, as there is no comparison betwixt the desertes of Iesus Christ our sauiour, and the desert of mens good workes, no more than is betwixt the brightnes of y^e Sun, & a litle sparke of fire: so must we needes confesse, that our consciences do finde without all comparison, far greater and excellen­ter quietnesse in the righteousnesse of fayth, thā in the righteousnes of good workes. And in that respect doth S, Paule say:Ro. 5.1.2. Beeing then iustified by fayth, we haue peace with God, through our Lord Iesus Christ, By whom we haue also accesse through fayth, to this grace wherin we stand, and reioyce vnder the hope of the glory of God.

But yet this fayth which doth iustifye vs, may not be void of good wor­kes, for then it were like the fayth of [Page 19] deuils: who beleue that God hath commaunded the contentes of the tenne commaundementes, but doe quite contrary. For such a faith wyll not iustify vs as S. Iames Iam. 1.12. doth teache vs. And wheras the Catholicks hold opinion, that we are iustified by the grace of Christ and our good workes both together:Rom. 11.6. S. Paule doth answere them thus: If it be of grace, then is it no more of workes, for then grace were no more grace. And if it be of workes: It is no more of grace, for thē were works no more workes.

And whereas the Monkes beare men in hād, that by their good works of Supererogation, they deserue Paradise for themselues and for theyr bene­factors: Iesus Christ doth aunswere them himselfe, and vtterly cast down their pride and ouerwéening, in that he sayth,Luk. 17.10. Psalm. 143 when you haue done all the things that are commaunded you, say vnto your selues, we are vnprofitable seruauntes, we haue done no more than we ought to do. Neither may we say, that Iesus Christ doth commaūd vs to say so, to make shew of humility: for he who is y^e truth it selfe, doth not cōmaūd vs to lye for any intent, good [Page] or euil. And therfore it followeth, that seing he commaundeth vs to say, that though we haue done al the cōmaun­dements (which neuer any man did but onely Iesus Christ:) yet were we but vnprofitable seruauntes and god were nothing in our dette for it, be­cause we haue done nothing but that whereunto our duety bindeth vs: I say it followeth that the same is cer­tayne and true.

Dauid also doth witnes that no mā liuing can be iustified before God. And therefore it may bee rightly sayd to these iolly doers of works of super erogation, as Christ sayd to the Pha­risies.

It is you that iustify your selues before men, Luk. 16.15. but God knoweth your hartes. For that which is highly esteemed amonge men, is abhominable before God.

I knowe right well, there are many textes in the holy Scripture to proue, that who so will enter into e­uerlasting life, must keep the cōman­dements of god, and that those which haue kepte the commaundementes, shal possesse the kingdome of heauen: and y^t those which haue not kept them shall goe into euerlasting damnation. [Page 20] But it is not to be inferred vpō these textes, that a man may be instified by his good workes, for no man at any tyme doth performe Gods comman­dements to the full: But euen the best of all doe breake them euery day many times. For what man is so ar­rogant as to challenge to himself such sincerity of life, that he loueth, and hath alwayes loued God with all his hart: and his neighbour as himselfe, or hath not wished somewhat that was an other mans?

To be short, there needeth no great disputation vpon this poynt: for our conscience doth here accuse vs, and of it selfe condemne vs.

Now then, if no man can fulfill the commaundements, It followeth that no man can haue euerlasting life by his owne workes, but must seek some other iustification than by workes, if hee will be iustified before the face of God. And in seeking an other iustifi­cation, he commeth to the righteous­nes of fayth, which is by imputation, through the free bestowed benefite of Christ. For, like as if a poore detter that were vnable to pay, were kept in prisō for a det of ten thousād crowns, [Page] and his creditor should tell him, that if he paid the debt, he would set him at liberty, or els he should rot in prison: he had no redier remedy, than to get such a surety, as would be so fauoura­ble and frendly to him, as to pay the det for him, without trusting to his own substance, which is vtterly vna­ble to discharge such a dette. In like sort, man, knowing on the one side, that without performing the Law throughout, he is in danger of dam­nation: and on the other side, that he is not able to perform it, hath no other shifte, but to repaire to Iesus Christ, to take holde of his righteousnesse by faith, to the end that the same may be imputed vnto him, and that by this meanes, his sinnes may be wyped out, and himselfe made capable of e­ternall life.

And as it may truely be sayd, that that detter hath well payd his dette, when his surety hath payd it for him: euen so may a Christian say, that he hath kept and fulfilled the commaun­dements of God, when he doth assure himselfe through faith, that Christ hath fulfilled them for him. Thus should be vnderstoode those textes of Scrip­ture, [Page 21] which inioyne vs to obserue the commaundements, to haue therby e­uerlasting life. And after that sort we should make them to agree with the textes before alleadged, which say that we cannot be iustified but by faith on­ly. By which saying, euery man of sound iudgement may easely know, that the doctrine of the Protestants is builded vpon the pure word of God: and consequently, that (according to our secōd Maxime) it is the most true and auncient, and not to bee called new, but of such as do not vnderstād it. Neither may the Catholicks call this doctrine hereticall, according to our third Maxime, because it is ratifi­ed, euen by their owne Canons.c. Aduocae­uit &c. v­bi saua. 24. q. 1. For thus sayth one of the Canons. Ciprian did call vnto him the Byshoppe Satyrus, and did thinke that there was not any true grace, sauing that which commeth by fayth. &c.

And an other Canon sayth thus: Looke where is no fayth, there can be no righteousnes, for the righteous liueth by faith. &c.

There is another taken out of S. Augustine, which speaketh yet more plainly, saying thus:c. Vt euiden ter. 1. q. c. The Lord purpo­sing [Page] to declare playnly, that mens sinnes are forgeuen by the holy Spirite, which he hath geuen to the faithful, and not by their own merites, sayth thus in a cer­tayne place: Receiue the holy Ghost. And immediatly he addeth, whose sins ye remit, their sinnes shall be forgeuen. As if he should say it is y^e holy Ghost that forgeueth sinne, and not you,

Which Canon doth shew playnly, that the merites of good workes, do no whit iustify vs: and so consequēt­ly, that it is fayth onely w^tout works which is y^t instrumentall cause of our iustification, & the very efficient cause therof is Iesus Christ, working by y^e holy ghost. And if the Romish catho­licks themselues did wel vnderstand what they ment when they say & cō ­fes y^t they be saued by the grace of our redeemer: they would neuer depend any more vpon their good workes & merits.c. Gratia. 1. q. 1. For, (as sayth an other Can­non) Grace is not grace, if it be not freely geuen and receiued.

Basil. lib. 1, de humilitate. And hereunto accordeth the saying of Saynt Basile: A man (sayth he) doth then glory whollye and throughlye in God, when hee doth not vaunt of hys owne righteousnesse, but acknowled­geth [Page 22] himselfe destitute of the true righ­teousnesse, and that hee is iustified tho­rough his onely fayth in Christ. After the same manner speaketh Saynt Am­brose, Ambrose. in Psal. 32. & ad Ro. c. 3.14. saying: Dauid calleth them right happy, whome God hath determined to iustify by fayth onely, without any paynes taking, or without their kee­ping of the law.

And in an other place, in expoun­ding these words of the Apostle, free­ly iustified by his grace, he sayth thus: They be iustified freely, because that hauing not done any thing, nor requited like for like, they be iustifyed by faith onely, which is the gift of God.

I coulde to this purpose alleadge many other canōs & aūcient doctors, but these may suffice. For my purpose is not to build the doctrine of our re­formed Religion, neither vpon Doc­tors, nor vpon Canons: but onelye to rehearce and alleadge some of them, to shew vnto the Romish catholicks, that in condemning the same so bold­ly of heresy, by the same meanes they vnaduisedly condemne their own ca­nons and doctors. And because they doe so greatly brag, that they hold the fayth of the Romish Church: I mean [Page] to proue that they do not so,The aūcient church taught no other doc­trine than that of the Apostles. c. Rogamus. 24. q. 1. euen by their owne Canons. Harken now, what a Canon sayth, in an Epistle written by Pope Marcell to the bishop of Antioch. We beseech you deere be­loued brethren (sayth he) that you nei­ther teach nor allow any other doctrine, than that which you haue receiued of S. Peter, and of the other Apostles and Fa­thers. For hee is the head of the whole Church, to whom the Lord sayd: Thou art Peter, and vpon this stone will I build my church, the seate whereof was first established in your Countrey, and after­ward remoued to Rome by the com­maundement of the Lord. &c.

Hereby it appeareth, that the fayth of the Romish Church ought to bee grounded vpon the pure and onely doctrine of the Apostles our true Fa­thers: And that as many as intend to follow that fayth, must neither teach nor beleue any other doctrine. The Catholicks then of these daies, which still imbrace so many doctrines in­uēted by the Popes of our times, and by other superstitious men long time after the Apostles and after Pope Marcell, (as Purgatory, & the Mas, & an infinite nūber of other traditions) [Page 23] doe no whit followe the fayth of the Romish thurch: which thing is moste certayne and true if ye haue an eye to the church of Rome that was in olde time. For as for the church which is now a dayes, wherin the Popes haue patched vp so many decretals and ca­nons, and brought in such an infinite number of new doctrines, not onely differing, but quite contrary to the word of God: I will not deny, but that the Romish Catholickes of these dayes, doe follow the fayth of that Church.

¶ Of the things which the Romish Catholicks do rec­ken and esteeme to bee good workes and are not. The fourth chapter.

I Haue could you here before, that the Romishe Catholickes and the Protestantes, doe disagree about the defining of good works. For the pro­testants accoūt those onely to be good workes, whch concerne the obaying of Gods commaundements. But the Catholicks do not onely recken those [Page] to be good works, which concern the obaying of the commaundementes of God, but also those that concerne the obaying of the traditions & comman­dements of mē. Of which traditions (say they,) some haue bene instituted by Iesus Christ and his Apostles.

And because there is no mention made of them in the holy scriptures, they haue recourse to a distinction inuented by the Sophisters, saying y^t there are two sortes of the worde of God, the one written, and the other vnwritten.The sophi­sters make a double worde of God, the one written and the o­ther not written.

And vnder this kind of the vnwritten word of god, they would compre­hēd the most part of their traditions. But this distinctiō is very easely an­swered: Namely, that those traditi­ons which they call the vnwritten word of God, (as holy water, Lent, the worshiping of the crosse, the hal­lowing of altars, and such other like) be repugnant to the written word of God: And that if there be any vn­written word of God, the same can­not bee repugnant to that whych is written, as these traditions be.

Also, it is to bee found by the wry­tings of Historiographers and other [Page 24] Authors, who they were that first did set forth such traditions: and ther­fore they are not to be fathered vpon the vnwritten word of God.

Thirdly, it is not to be denied, but that the written word of God is per­fect, and sufficient to saluation: And therfore that no article of fayth ought to be fathered vpon y^e vnwrittē word, but only (at y^e most) some such points as concerne the order and gouernmēt of the Church. But yet vnder pretēce of the same distinction, the Papistes thinke that to say and heare Mas, to sing and say Suffrages for the dead, to geue legacies and Offerings vnto Priestes, to goe on Pilgrimage to Saints, to offer Candles vnto them, and to fall flat before the Images of them, to abstaine at certayn times in the yeare from eating of flesh, to liue solitarily within a Cloyster, and to weare their Garmentes after some straunge fashion, and other such like things, be good workes, and merito­rious to gayne Paradise. And the reason why they doe recken all these thinges to be good works: is partlye because they do pretend that god hath commaunded them by his vnwritten [Page] word, (as before is sayd:) And partly, for that (say they) it is a work of per­fection, when one doth not onely all that which God commaundeth, but also more than he doth commaund. For, by this meanes they do so aboūd in good works that many of them do more than are needfull to saluation, & may therfore spare some part of them to other good Christians, which do to few, in recompence of their temporall gooddes which they receyue of them. But hereunto the protestants do an­swere, that it is sufficient for a man to do the commaundements of God w^t ­out charging himself farther, sith ther yet was neuer man, that could per­forme them throughly, much lesse doe more. Notwithstanding, the Prote­stants graunt it to be true, that com­monly men doe more than they are commaunded: but their so doing is but sinne, and in the mean while they leaue the commaundementes of God vndone. And therefore, this doing of more than God commaundes, is not so great a vertue, as the Romain Ca­tholickes esteeme it to be.

For, seeing it is not to be denyed, but that the commaūdements of God [Page 25] are perfect, as the Author of them is perfect: so it must needes follow, that they comprehend al good works, and so consequently that all such workes, as are repugnaunt to the worde of god and hys commaundementes, are not good.

Agayne, it is good reason, that we should esteeme all things to be good, whiche God commaundeth, and ac­count those thinges for ill, which hee forbiddeth, w^tout going any farther. For it is he that hath set the difference betwixt good and ill, and betwixt vice and vertue, and which hath imprin­ted the knowledge thereof in mans vnderstanding, euen from hys creati­on. By reason whereof, whereas we deeme it good, to honour one God, to loue our neighbor, & not to do other­wise then we woulde be done vnto: these & such lyke do proceed & depend vpon the ordinaunces of God,The destin­ction of good works dependeth vpon Gods ordinaunce. which hath set that order, and distinction in the things of the world.

So as by consequēt, vertue is good, and vyce is yll, because that God hath so ordained, & stablished that or­der in the nature of men. And there­fore we cannot call those good works [Page] which appeare not to be good works by his word and ordinaunce: neither may mans iudgement so much pre­sume of it self, as to terme that a good thing, which he is not sure to be so, by the ordinaunce of God. For, to be de­sirous that God should allowe those things for good, which our fancy dre­meth to be good, without hauing any warrant thereof by the ordinaunce of God: were an imbasing of the Crea­tor beneath the Creature.

By the doc­trine of the Pope, the richmen may better gayne Para­dise then the pore sort.Moreouer the protestants do say, that if a man might win heauen by these pretended good workes (as the Romish Catholickes hold opinion:) it would then be much more easy for the rich men to attayne to it, than for for the poore. For the rich haue bet­ter wherewith to cause Masses to be sayd, and to be liberall in giuing to priestes, and to mayntayne long ior­neys on pilgrimage, and to buy good fish that they may the better forbeare flesh in the lent tyme, and to doe such other like workes.

So as by this reckning the gates of heauen should be open to the riche, and shut against the poore: by reason whereof, the wealthy men should bee [Page 26] happy both in this worlde and in the world to come: and on the contrarye part, the poore should bee vnhappy, but that were agaynst reason. For cleane contrariwise, it is certaine that heauen is open rather to the poore than to the rich, and that it is a harde thing for a rich man to enter into hea­uen.

And therfore the inuention of these pretended good workes (whereof doe follow so many & greate absurdities) is in no wise to be allowed: But wee must holde our selues to the onely or­dinancee of God, to whom we ought to yeld such honor, as to beleue that onely those be good works, which he alloweth for good by his commaun­dements, and that those are not good works, which he alloweth not. For in so doing we shall follow the best doc­trine, which yeldeth God his honour due vnto him.

As concerning the other sort, It is easy to be proued by one onely argu­ment which cannot be gaynsayd, that those workes which are not agreable to the commaundements of god, and to his word, are sin: & then muchlesse are they good workes. For al workes that are done without faith are sinne, [Page] saith saynt Paule because it is impos­sible to please God without fayth.Rom. 14.15 Hebru 1 [...].6 Rom. 10.17. Now it is certayn that fayth must be grounded vpon the worde of God. Whereupon it followeth playnly that those workes which haue not theyr foundation in the worde of God, are sinne, and so by consequence are no­thing worth.

And therefore it standeth the Ro­mayne Catholickes in hand, to shewe that their pretended good workes are allowed by the word of God, if they intend to proue thē to be good works in deed: Which thing they cannot doe. Nay rather clean contrariwise, a man may well proue that the scripture cō ­demneth them As touching the mas, purgatory, and praying for the dead, we will speak of them els where, and shew that the doctrine of the Romish Catholickes in those pointes, is con­trary to the word of God.

As for pilgrimages, seeing the end of them is to pray vnto Saints, it fol­loweth that they also are condemned by the worde of God, which teacheth vs to call onely vpon God, by the meanes of Christ our Mediator, as we haue shewed before. Likewise, to [Page 27] knele down before Images of saints, and to make offeringes vnto them, is condemned by the second commaun­dement, which forbiddeth all kinde of Images, or to do vnto thē any kinde of honor or seruice.

As touching monasticall vowes,Vowes of pouerty. which cōsist in purenes, chastity, and obedience. It is also very easy to bee proued, that they bee such workes as are disalowed by the word of God, at the least, in such sort as the cloysterers do vse them. For, as for pouertye the most part of them haue but the visor therof: for euery body knoweth, that the fayrest, and richest possessions be­long vnto their Monasteries. And the prouerb which sayth, (he is as fatte as a Monke,) doth wel shew, that pouerty hath no harbor among them. But ad­mit that some of them (as the begging friers, called also Limiters) make pro­fession of wilful pouerty in good ear­nest, and that they liue altogether by begging, yet is not that vow of theirs allowed of God For, first of all,Deut. 15.4. God forbiddeth men to beg, and therfore in begging, they breake his commaun­dement. I know they will hereunto reply, that they be forced to make ne­cessitie [Page] a vertue to liue by, because that otherwise, they should starue for hun­ger, and so be murtherers of them­selues, wherin they should breake the commmaundement of God, which forbiddeth to murther.

But y^e answere hereunto is, y^t their vow of pouerty hath brought them to both those two extremities, that is, either to beg, or to suffer themselues to die for hunger. And because in both these cases, there is a working against the commaundement of God, it fol­loweth, that that vow is nothinge worth, forasmuch as it leadeth them to the offending of God.

And, to speake of their vow of cha­stitie,The vow of chastity. which consisteth in not being marryed: the same is also repugnant to the word of God. For, God hath deliuered vs this generall rule, from the creation of the world, that it is not good for a man to be alone. Gen. 2.18. Mat. 19.11. I will make him a help fellow to be with him, (saith God.) And Iesus Christ his sonne hath taught vs, that fewe folke can liue vnmar­ryed, because all men haue not the gift of chastitie, but only those to whom it is geuen of God.

And therefore Saynte Paule [Page 28] commaundeth all those which haue not the speciall gift of this chastitie,1. Cor. 7. to take wiues. The Monkes then, and all the Romayn clergie (of whom, a­mongst a thousand, there is not one that hath this gift of chastitie) doe o­penly transgres Gods commaunde­ment, through this vow of chastitie, wherby they haue infected the whole world with all maner of whoredome, and villany. But herof we wil speake more heareafter, in intreating of Ma­riage.

And touching the vow of obedyenceThe vow of obedience. it were very good, if they mente it of obediēce to the cōmandments of God. But they do not so vnderstand it, (for to obserue that vow, y^e neded not to se­parate them selues from other Christi­ans, nor to shutte vp themselues in Cloystars.) But they refer this vow of obedience, to they precepts contay­ned in their own orders. The most part of which precepts, consist in these poynts following. That is to say, In wearing of strange fashioned Gar­ments, much differing from the com­mon sort: In abstayning from cer­tayn kindes of meates: In occupying themselues in contemplations: And [Page] in chaunting of mattinnes, and euen­song. All which things haue no foun­dation in the word of God.

For, as touching the Monkishe weede, we finde not, that Iesus Christ or his Apostles, were apparrayled af­ter any other fashion, than other mē. It is therfore playn, that the diuersity of the fashions of Monkes garments was the deuice and inuention of those who were the first founders of their orders, and therfore is not allowed of God.Math. 15.9. For, Iesus Christ doth teach vs, that it is a vayn seruing of God, by obseruing the commaundementes of men.

Coloss. 2.20.S. Paule also, doth openly con­demne all those traditions, which be of mannes own growing, and name­ly, those that concerne abstinēce from certain meates, notwithstanding that they haue some outward shew of wis­dome, deuotion, humilitie, and strait­nes of life: For thus he saith, If then you be dead with Christ, as in respect of the trainments of this world, why doe they burden you with such obseruatiōs as though you liued to the world, saying vnto you: Eat not, tast not, nor touch not All which things being ordayned by the [Page 29] commaundements and doctrine of men do go away with the vse of them, not­withstanding that they haue a kinde of outward pretence of wisedome and of willing deuotion, and a certayne humi­lity of mind for that they punish the bo­dy, & haue no regard to the cockering thereof.

As concerning the contemplations of the religious sort: they are cōdem­ned by the fourth of the ten comman­dementes, which enioyneth euery mā to labor and to get his liuing with the swet of his browes. And if the Mon­kes reply, that by their contemplatiue life,Moonkish contempla­tion. they gayne the knowledge of ho­ly scripture: S. Paule answereth them,1. Cor. 13.2. that it is to no purpose, to haue the vnderstanding of all secretes and all knowledge, vnles it be matched with charity.

And as for charitye they can haue no peece thereof by doing nothing els but study, w^tout making their neigh­bors partakers of the giftes that god hath bestowed vpō them. And if they reply yet again and say, that there are many moonkes which geue themsel­ues to preaching and teaching of the people: I answere therunto, first that not one among a hundred of thē doth [Page] so: and secondly that such of them as preache, doe agaynst the profession of moonkes:Moonks are forbidden to preach. for by the Canōs, a moonk ought to bee alwayes shut vp in his cloyster, and not in any wise meddle with preaching or teaching. These are the very wordes of the Canon.C. Mona­chus. C. Iuxta. 16. q. 1. The office of a Monke is to weep and not to teach: for he ought to look for the com­ming of the Lord with feare, mourning for himfelfe and for all the world. And in an other place it is sayd thus: Ac­cording to the tenor of the good coun­sel of Calcedon, we geue cōmādement as well to the Moonkes of S. Benets order, as to other religious persones, to keepe themselues within their cloysters, that they stray not abroad in Cities, Castles, and Townes: and we charge them to forbeare preaching to the people in any wise, sauing onely to such as are willyng to take their habit vpon them for the re­medying of their soules health.

Seeing then that it is agaynst the profession of Moonkes to preache, it followeth, that they cannot iustifie their contemplations to be good, vn­der pretence that some of them doe deale with preaching, for as much as in so doing, they doe against their ge­nerall [Page 30] profession. And, as for their watchinges, Mattines, Euensong, and such other Seruices, wherto they binde themselues by their vow of obeoience: we will speak of them hereaf­ter. It is inough for me at this presēt, to haue shewed in few wordes, that the works wherunto the Monks do binde themselues, as well by their vow of obedience, as by their other vowes, cannot be called good works, because they be to farre of from the word of God.

It is also to be prooued by the Ca­nons, y^t these pretended good works, be neither good, nor merytorious. And first, as touching their garmēts, the Canons doe cursse and ban all such as repoze any holynes in them.The habit of Moonkes hath no ho­lines in it. So that by the sayinges of those Ca­nons, we ought to abhorre all kind of Moonkes: For all of them accompt themselues to deserue somewhat at Gods handes, by theyr wearing of y^t kind of apparell, and of those shirtes of heare next their skinne: and that they should do ill, if they should wear such garmentes as other men doe. These wordes here following be the very wordes of the Canon, which is [Page] a chapter of the counsell Grangrene. If any man thinke him selfe to be the bet­ter furthered to chastity, by his wearing of the Moonkes cowle, or take himselfe to be the more righteous for it, and ther upon holde scorne of such as modestlye weare hoods and other attyres after the common fashion, Cursed be they.

And touching their vow of absti­nence from meates, the auncient Ca­nons speake thereof in such sort, as generally they alow of sobriety, with­out prescribing of any abstinēce, more from fleshe then from fishe, These be the expresse words of the Cannon.

For there is nothing so delectable, as meates well drest and digested, Nor any thinge better for our health, or for the sharpning of our wits, or for the preser­uing of our bodyes frō sicknes, than so­ber and moderate feeding: for as suffi­zance nurrisheth vs, so doth it also maintayne vs, in good plight and pleasures:

By this Canon it appeareth, that moderate dyet is so commended, as that wee must haue a regard to our health, and not appayre it eyther by to much pyning of our selues, or the ea­ting of meates that are cōtrary to our health. And in good sooth, the same [Page 31] Canons do lykewise witnes with vs that, to abstayne from iniquitie, is the true manner of keeping and obser­uing the Lent, and that therein consi­steth the perfection of fasting. These be the very wordes of the Canon.

It is a great and generall fast to ab­stayne from iniquitie and vnlawfull plea­sures of the worlde, C. Ieiunium de Consec. dist. 5. and that is the most perfect kinde of fasting in this world. For we obserue the Lenton fast, when wee liue honestly, keeping our selues from i­niquitie and vnlawful delights. And truely (as sayth an other Canon) mens prayers and fastinges are nothing worth, C. nihil pro­dest de pa­nit, dist. 3. if the ill lyfe be not amended.

Vppon this poynt of abstynence from meates this history which Euse­bius reciteth is worthy to be noted. In the tyme of the Emperour Marke An­tonius, ther was a great persecution of the Christians in Vienna nigh vnto Lyons. Emong others two noble per­sonages named Alcibiades and Attalus were put in prison. Alcibiades did pu­nish himself greatly in prison through hys to great abstinence, eating no­thing but bread and salt, and drynking nothing but water, forbearing to eate eyther fleshe, or any kinde of meate. [Page] Where upon it was reuealed vnto At­talus that Alcibiades did euill in forbea­ring to vse the creatures of God, and ministred occasion of offence to the o­ther christians. Which thing when At­talus, had told to Alcibiades, Alcibiades be­gan to eat of all kinds of meats w^tout any kind of scrupulosity, & gaue thāks to God, being perswaded so to doe (sayth Eusebius) by y^e same spirit which had reuealed it vnto Attalus. It is also a very notable thing, whiche we read in the history Tripartite, Lib. 9. cap. 38. The diuer­sity that was in olde tyme, in the length of Lent & in the keeping thereof. concerning y^e greate diuersitye which was vsed in old tyme, in abstayning from meates, and in keeping of lent.

For in auncient time, the Romayne Churche did make their lent of three weekes and no more. And all Greece Sla­uonia, and Alexandria made it of sixe wee­kes. And neither the one nor the other did make their lent of fortye dayes, as it ought to haue bene in following the signifacatiō of the word. Moreouer some of them did abstayne from all thinges that had life: Other some did eate onely fysh: And some others (which were not of the grossest diet) did feede onelye on flying soules and fish, and did eate ney­ther beefe, Mutton, nor other such gros [Page 32] fleshe.

There were some other so scrupu­lous, as they would eate neither egs nor whitemeate. And others, which were not scrupulous at all, did eate of all kindes of meates, sauing that vp­on the fasting dayes, they would not eate til late towards night. All which diuersities (sayth the historye) were in those dayes practised in sundrye chur­ches, without finding any faulte, or chalinging one an other for so doing. Wherby it appeareth, that the christi­ans which liued in those dayes, were of much greater modestye, than those which haue liued in our dayes, in whom we haue seene all kind of cru­eltie, in burning and persecuting of such as haue not followed the traditi­ons and superstitions that are obser­ued in the Romish Church.

As touching Pilgrimages,Pilgrimages They also are reproued in their Canō law. For euery body knoweth, that amō ­gest the Romayne Catholickes, the pilgrimage to Ierusalem to visit the ho­ly Sepulchre, is highlye esteemed, as most holy, denoute, paynefull, and meritorious, And yet for all this, a certayne Canon sayth,C. Gloria. 12. q. 2. It is nothing [Page] worth to haue bene at Ierusalem, but to haue liued well there. These be the very wordes of the Canon taken out of S. Ierom. It is not a thing worthy praise (sayth he) to haue bene at Ierusalem, but to haue liued well at Ierusalem.

And as touching contemplation (whereby the Moonkes woulde cul­lour and mayntayne their idle life,The Moon­kes of olde time did la­bor for their liuing. C. Nunquā de consec. dist. 5.) their owne Canons do openly con­demne them, saying, that Moonkes ought to exercise themselues in tilling the land, in dressing of gardens, in graf­fing of fruit trees, in making of nettes to catch fish, in copying of bookes, and fi­nally in following the example of the Bee, which neuer ceaseth to be doing of somewhat.

And the same Canons do also wit­nes, that in the monasteries of Egipt they neuer receaued any Moonk, but vpon condition that he should labor: Not so much for his owne necessitye, that he might haue wherof to liue, as to keepe their minds from wandring about euill Imaginations. In so much that we reade that in old tyme, there was in Egypte a good Abbot named Serapion, Hist. trip. lib. 8. cap. 1. which had vnder hys charge ten thousand moonks, (which is [...] [Page 34] so little allowed and lyked of pouer­ty, as that they be very ful of husbād­ly ordinances, for the well gouerning of the goods and riches belonging to the Monasteries: Insomuch that there is a Canon, which condemneth a certayne kinde of people for here­tickes, which tearmed themselues A­postolicall, (as followers of the exam­ples of the Apostles) in making pro­fession to haue nothing priuat of their owne. And therfore, by this Canon, a man might say that all beggers are heretickes.

And who doth not see the infinite number of abuses, which are crept in­to the order of Monkes in protes of time, against the ordinances of the Canones. For, C. Si cupit. & C. Placu­it. 16. q. 1. (saith the Canon) if thou desire to be a Monke, that is to say a solitary person, as thou doest name thy selfe: What doest thou in the Citie, which is no place for solitary people, but for such as should haunt company?

And another Canon following, saith thus: Let the Monke be contented with his Cloister. For like as a fish doth die as soone as he is out of the water, e­uen so doth a Monke when he is out of his Cloyster. Therfore, let him be solita­ry, [Page] and hold his peace, for he is dead to the world but aliue vnto God.

But yet for all this, doe we not see how the Monks are planted in the best, and greatest Cities, and in the fairest places of them, and in exceding Princely and stately houses, whereas in auncyent time, they were conten­ted to dwell in wild fields, and For­restes, and in little Cabonets, builded in the corner of some Rock? Shal not a man meet them now, at all houres, in euery streete, in markets, and plea­ding places, in Innes, in fields, in townes, and in Castles, in stead of being within their Cloisters?

Furthermore, the Monkes in olde time, of what sort so euer they were, did eate no fleshNo Monke ought to eat flesh. at all, but followed the ordinance of the Canon, which sayth thus: It is not lawefull for anye Monkes, eyther to eate, or to tast of flesh: Not for that we esteeme the creature of God to be ill, C. Carnem de consecra. dist. 5. but for that wee iudge it meete and necessary, that Monkes, shold abstayne frō flesh, excepting onely those which be sick. Nowe then, if it happen that any Monkes breaking the ordināce of this auncient rule and custome, dare presume to eate flesh, let him be shut vp [Page 35] and kept as a close prisoner, by the space of sixe moneths to do his pennance.

See now, how the Monkes were brideled by their own Canons, but the most part of them haue since that time, broaken their bittes. For, now there are none, but the Monkes of the charterhouse, the Celestines, and these new come Capusmes, and Smoke Monkes, which will obserue that ca­non: and yet their obseruing of it, is (for the most part,) but in outward shew, and Ipocrisie.

Truely, if there were no more but this to be found fault with, in the or­der of monkery, the matter were not great. For, christian libertie geueth e­uery man leaue, to vse all kinde of meates, which God hath created for mannes vse, so that he take it mode­ratly, with thankes geuing. But the cause, that led me to speake of this point among the rest, is to shew, that the Monkes of these dayes, doe not obserue their auncient Canons.

And by the Canons also,C. Sanctim. 20. q. 1 Of Nuns. in aunci­ent time, it was vnlawfull for any Nun to take the vaile, and to professe her selfe a Nun, vnles she were aboue forty yeres of age. But in these daies, [Page] they be forced to take it vpon them, being but thirteene, or fourteen yeres olde, whereof, the world seeth what good huswifery insueth. And as tou­ching the pouling of their heads whē they cause thē to take the black veile: it is not so small a fault, as many e­steeme it to be. For, by the word of God,1. Cor. 11.6 women are commanded to pre­serue their heire in token of subiecti­on. And according hereunto, it is for­bidden by a Canon taken out of the Councell of Gangra, that any woman should poule her head vnder pretence of Religion. These are the wordes of the Canon.C. Quecun­que. dist. 30. If any woman cause her head to be pouled in respect of Religiō, cursed be she as a breaker of the Law of subiection, because long heare is geuen vnto women to couer them withal, and to put them in minde of their subiectiō.

And whereas in these dayes, it is thought so strange a thing amongest the Romish Catholicks, that a monk or a Nun should marry,That Monkes and Nunes may marry. (because it seemeth that in their so doing, they breake the vow of virginitie which they haue made vnto God:) they de­clare herein, that they haue not well read their own Canones, by y^e which, [Page 36] such mariages are allowed: Namely, by one Canon taken out of S. Augu­stine, as a witnesse of the Councell,C. Quidem dist. 27. which saith thus. Some say, that those which marry after the taking of the vow be adulterers. But I say vnto you, that those doe sinne right greeuously, which doe seperate such marryed folks.

Yet notwithstanding, we haue seene many Lawes here in Fraunce, which haue disanulled the maryages of priestes, Monks, and Nuns, and constrained them to returne to their Cloysters, a thing quite contrary to this Canon.

The selfe same doctor S. Augustine doth also shew,De doctrina Christiana. lib. 4. Virginitie is not to be preferred before ho­nest mari­age, that they haue done greatly amisse, which haue so highly commended virginitie, as to preferre it before mariage, saying that virgi­nitie did fill the heauens, and mariage the earth, which was the cause of the sounding of so many Nunries. For, he excuseth S. Ciprian, and S. Ambr. of their so great praysing, and exal­ting of virginitie, saying thus: Wher­as Ciprian the martir hath written of the behauiour which ought to be in vir­gines, he did it not to intise thē to make vowes of virginitie: but Ambrose the Bi­shoppe, [Page] (through his great eloquence) sought to inflame their desiers thereun­to. Truely, both the one, and the o­ther haue sore rebuked those women, which goe about to grace, or rather to disgrace themselues with painting of their faces:The abho­minablenes of such as paynt their faces. against which sort, Ciprian (amongst other things) saith thus: If an excellent painter, had well, and liuely counterfayted a mans face and body, & afterwards, another vnskilfull paynter would needes take vpon him to ouer­painte the same agayne, vndoutedly, the former paynter should haue great cause to finde himselfe greeued, and iniuryed. And thinkest thou (daughter) to escape the punishment of God, who hath fashi­oned thee, when thy damnable rashnes dareth presume to controll Gods payn­ting, by thy paynting? For, be it that thou art not vnchast, & whorish to the world­ward, yet, notwithstāding, thou through the whorish intisements of thy paynting art wors than the very strumpet and ad­ulteres, forasmuch, as thou hast corrup­ted, and marred Gods workmanship in thy selfe. Wheras thou doest it to beu­tefie and to trim thy selfe, it is nothing els, but a corrupting of Gods workman­ship, and a defacing of the truth.

Harken here to the voyce of the Apostle who warneth thee thus. Purge your old leauen, that you may be made new dough, without leauen: For, Christ our Easter Lambe is offered vp for vs: Let vs ther­fore make good chere, not with old lea­uen, nor with the leauen of naughtines, and malice: But with vnleauened bred, that is to say, with the bread of sinceri­tie, and truth. For, what continuance in sinceritie and truth is there, when the thing that was pure, is defiled, and when the truth is changed into vntruth, by false culler, and painting with slabersau­ces. Thy Lord doth say vnto thee, Thou canst not make one of thy heares, either black or white. And yet thou, to ouer­master the word of thy Lord, wilt thou needes seeke to clime aboue him, by thy trecherous contempt, and ouerbold dealing? Thou paintest thy heare, and by e­uil hāsel of the thing that shal happē vn­to thee, doest frizel thy head with fire.

Ambrose also, doth speake thus a­gainst these counterfaite paintings: From thence (saith he,) spring intise­ments to vice, namely, that women doe paint their faces with color made for the nonce: In so much, that by the co­loring of their countenances, with the [Page] filth of their painting, for feare to dis­please men, they purchase to themselues the stayning of their chastitie. What a folly is it to change a naturall face, for a painted face? For, in fearing the iudge­ment of their husbands, they lose their own iudgement, because that such as will needes change the shape and fashi­on which God hath geuen them by crea­tion, doe condemne themselues: and in seeking to be well lyked of others, doe first of all mislike of themselues. What better iudge of thy foulnes (thou wo­man) can there be, than thy selfe, that art so loth to be seene in thy own naturall likenes?

If thou beest fayre, why doest thou hide thy selfe? If thou beest foule, why doest thou bely thy selfe, in desiring to seeme fayr, and by thine own fault, make thy self worthy of blame, as well in thine own conscience, as in the opinion of others?

The same Ambrose, speaking of virgines, doth set down vnto them, (vnder example of a perfect virgin) of what behauior our virgins ought to be,What the māners and behauiour of virgines or maydens ought to be. saying: There was a virgin, which was a virgine not only in body, but also in minde: who by no outwarde shew, [Page 38] did at any time corrupt the sinceritie of her affection. She was humble of hart, sober in speach, wise in vnderstanding, of few words, geuen to reading, not putting her trust in the vncertainty of ri­ches, but in the prayers of the poore, earnest in her worke, shamefast in her talke, seeking God and not man to be the iudge of her hart, not doing wrong to any, wishing well to euery body, ho­noring all her elders, not enuying her e­quals, void of boasting, folowing reason, and louing vertue.

Hath this virgin at any time offen­ded her Parents in word or deede? when hath she beene seene to be at any iarre with her neighbors? when despised she the poore? when mocked she the lame? or when shrunke she away from the ne­dy? Her only care hath beene to haunte the company of such men, as are accom­panied with mercy and honest shame­fastnes. There hath not passed her one suspicious looke, nor dallying word, nor any vnshamefast iesture. Her pace hath not been vncomely, nor her voice loud, or ouer shrill. But, to be short, her out­ward behauiour hath alwayes beene the representer and Image of the goodnesse of her minde: for, a good house ought [Page] to be known by his entry, & make shew at the first, that there is no darcknesse in it, but that the Lampe which is within, doth shead forth his light to the outer partes.

What shall I say of her moderate fee­ding, and of the great aboūdance of her duetifull doings? In the one, she passeth Nature, and by the other, she oppresseth it. She letteth no time slip, without do­ing some good. And her sobrietie is such, that she doubleth her fasting daies, and when she hath desire to eate, she maketh her meale of the first meat that she meeteth with, which she taketh alonly to keep her selfe aliue, and not to pam­per her selfe for pleasure. By these words the meaning of Ambrose, is not to incou­rage maydens to vow virginitie, but to shew of what behauiour they ought to be, which haue already vowed it.

Hetherto I haue rehearsed the very words of S. Augustine, who doth alleage the forewritten sentences of S. Ciprian, and S. Ambrose to shew that they esteeme not so much the vow of virginity, as the good behauior which ought to be in both those, which be vowed, and in the others also. And it is to be noted, that in the saying of S. [Page 39] Ambrose, aboue written (which spea­keth of the manners, dueties, and be­hauiors of the virgines which haue vowed virginitie) there is no menti­on made of any of the hipocritical, and superstitious Ceremonies, which in these dayes, are obserued by the Nūs. He descrybeth them at large, and (as it were by peecemeale,) what they ought to be, & in what sort they ought to busie themselues, and wherein they ought to spend their time: and yet in all this, there is not one word spoken of their Popeholines. But contrary­wise, wheras he saith, that the vowed virgins, (which now a daies be called professed) ought to be diligent in wor­king, to beware of disagreeing with their frendes and Neighbors, not to withdraw themselues from the nedy, to frequent only such men as are mercifull, and shamefast, and to be of coū ­tenance and behauiour sober, and not nice or wanton.

It appeareth therby euidently, that in those dayes, they were not shut vp in Monasteries, but kept their vow of virginitie, in liuing in houses of their own, or els with their kinsefolk, exer­cising themselues in all good works, [Page] of godlinesse and vertue. And now that we haue spoaken sufficiently of Nunnes, let vs returne againe to the Monkes.

A prohibi­tion of the inuenting of new orders of Religiō.It is to be noted, that in the year 1273. in the time of Pope Gregory the tenth, there was a Counsell holden at Lyon, whereby was confirmed the prohibition made in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the third in the yeare 1215, which forbad y^e deui­sing of any moe new orders of mōks, or habites of new religion, (whereof there had sprong vp a maruelous sort since that time,) and all new religions which had been inuented after the said Councell of Laterane, were disanulled and forbidden. What shall we then say of the smokymonkes, the Iesuits, and the Capussins, which are growen since that time.

To conclude, neither the Monkes of old time, nor those which haue been deuised alate, nor their vowes, nor their works, haue any ground in the word of God, neither doe they behaue themselues ac­cording to their own Canons.

❧ Of the commaun­dementes of God. The v. chapter.

THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholicks and y^t protestants touching the commaundementes of god,The Pope hath defa­ced and wy­ped out the second of the ten commaunde­ments. is not small. For the protestantes ac­cuse them (or els the Pope) to haue wiped out the second commaunde­ment, which forbiddeth Images: and to haue cut the last commaundement into twaine, to make vp stil the num­ber of tenne.

And truely it is a great trechery, & a presumption vtterly intollerable, to haue bene so bold, as to rase a whole commaundemēt out of the law of the liuing God. For if ye marke well the commaundements which the priests pronounce in the saying of their com­mon Masse: ye shal finde that Imme­diately after the first commandement, (which is, Thou shalt honor but the one God, and loue him perfectly) they haue put the third commaundement, which is, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vayne, [Page] and haue wiped out, and ouerskipped the second commaundement, which doth forbid to haue Images or to ho­nor them.

Whiche thing hath beene done of purpose by the Pope and his Adhe­rentes, that they might the more easi­ly fill the temples of the Christians vnawares, with Idols and Sayntes of both kindes, to draw vnto themsel­ues offeringes and obuensions, and other like thinges, as may be seene by the sequel therof. So as in this point, the doctrine of the Romish catholicks is contrary to Gods word and com­maundement: for God sayth, Thou shalt make to thy selfe no grauen I­mage, nor the likenes of any thing, nether shalt thou doe any honour vnto them.

Contrariwise the Romish catho­licks vphold, that it is lawful to haue Images in Churches, (as they haue) and to knele before them, and to offer vp candles and incēse to them, and to put of their Cappes vnto them. Is not this I pray you, a direct encoun­tering of Gods ordinaunce, and a trā ­plinge of it vnder foote, and a rob­bing of the creator of his due honour, [Page 41] to bestow the same vpon stones and stocks?A fōd distinction bee­tweene worship­ping & ser­uing For if they say that they wor­shyp none but onely God, and that y^e thinges which they do to the Saints, and to their Images, is but a seruing of thē, according to their own distinc­tion of worshiping and seruing: The aunswere herunto is both ready and very easy, namely,Venerabiles de consec. dist. 3. that first their own canons, which alow the honoring and seruinge of Images, doe vse the selfe same terme of worshipping, sayinge that Christians ought to honor and wor­ship Images.

And as for their distinction of wor­shipping and seruing, it canne in no wise serue to excuse thē. First because it doth not followe by force of that di­stinction, that it is lawfull for them, vnder that pretence, to wipe out one of the commaundements of God.

Secondlye because this distinction of worshipping and seruing is fond & foolishe, chieflye in the Application, which they make therof. For they say that they honor God with the honor that belongeth to worshipping, and that they honor the Saynts with the honor that belōgeth to seruing. Now who is so very a foole, that he doth [Page] not perceyue, how by this meanes they humble themselues more in their honoring of Sayntes, than in theyr honoring of god. For he doth more imbase himselfe which serueth, than hee which worshippeth or honoreth. For as we commonly see, great lords can find in their hartes to honour meane personages, to whome notwithstan­ding they will not vouchsafe to sub­mitte themselues to doe them any ser­uice.

De ciuitate Dei. lib. 5. cap. 15. lib. 6. c. 1. lib 7. c. 32. lib. 10. cap. 1. & 4.But yet moreouer, this distinction is false: As S. Augustine proueth, who sayth that worshipping is alwayes taken in the Scriptures for seruice: So as by that reckning, worshipping and seruing are all one thing. And in very deed, both in the Scripture and also in the books of the auncient doc­tors, those two wordes are names of one selfe same thing, and signify bothe one thing without difference. And as for the honoring of Images,Au. de doctr christ. lib. 3 cap. 7. the same doctor, who neuer hard of the distinc­tiō of worshipping and seruing, doth vtterly condemne it, saying that those be greater Idolaters which worship the Images that are made by the handes of men, Than those which do [Page 42] worship the Sonne, the heauen, the sea, and the other creatures which are made by the hand of God.

Agayne the Protestantes say also, that the Romish Catholickes haue corrupted the third commaundemēt.How the Papistes de­face the 3. commande­ment. For by the same, god doth forbid men to take his name in vayne. But yet doth he not forbidde to sweare by hys name, when the othe is not in vayne, (as when a mā is brought to affirme a trueth before the Magistrate) But doth commaund that in such case,Deut. 6.13. a man should sweare by his name. And truly, when in such an earnest matter men affirme the trueth: it is an hono­ring of God, who is the truth it selfe, to take him to witnes, and it is a dis­honoring of God and a despising of him, if they sweare by any of the crea­tures. Yet notwithstanding, the Ro­mishe Catholickes permitte men to sweare in iudgementes vpon the re­liques of S. Anthony, and by the hee­sayntes and sheesayntes and other creatures which thing their own ca­nons doe condemne.C. considera. c. Tu malū. c. Siquis. 22. q. 1. Consider (sayth a Canon) that our Sauiour hath not forbidden vs to sweare by God, but for­biddeth vs to sweare by the heauens, by [Page] the earth, by Ierusalem, or by thy head. An other Canon sayth thus. Thou doost not amisse in vsing an othe well: for al­though, that of it selfe it be not good to sweare: yet neuerthelesse, it is necessary, whē a man is to be perswaded in a truth There is an other canon which puni­sheth those that rēd god in peeces, by their strāge othes (which now a daies are but to much vsed) saying thus: If any man sweare, by the heares or by the head of God, or do vse any such like blas­phemy: If he be of the cleargy, let him be deposed: and if he bee a lay man, let him be accursed.

The Protestantes say farther that the catholickes haue so corrupted the fourth commaundement,The Papists haue cor­rupted the fourth com­manodemēt as that (by all likelihood) their meaning was to haue made it quite away, as they dyd the Seconde. For God sayeth in his Law, sixe dayes shalt thou labor, and do all that thou hast to doe, but the se­seuenth day is the sabaoth of the Lord thy God. &c.

And the Romish Catholicks doe contrarywise say, that in some weeks wee ought not to labour past three or foure dayes, or fiue at the most, for the rest (say they) of the sixe ought to bee [Page 43] imployd idlely, in keeping them holy and feastfull to the sayntes.

I pray you tell me, is not this a manifest impugning of the sacred & inuiolable commaundement of God our creator? Is it not a setting of thē selues directly agaynst his holy will? I know well it may be sayd, that in the tyme of the olde law of Moyses, they did make moe resting dayes than the seuēth, which was called the Sabaoth day: As the feast of the Ta­bernacles, of Trumpettes, of vnlea­uened bread, of Easter, & such others like. But the aunswere hereunto is, y^t such feasts were commaunded by the expresse word of God. And bee not those feasts which are celebrated in the Romish Church. Otherwise in al the sayd feastes of the old law, the people did not loyter from their worke. yea, and euen in the Christian primatiue Church men might worke in tillage vpon the Sonday,Men may work vppō the Sūdaies as it appeareth by a law made by the Emperour Con­stantine, Which sayth thus.L. Omnes. 3 C. de Ferijs. Let all Iud­ges, Citizens and handicraftes men, for­beare their worke vpon the honorable day of Sonday: But let it be free and lawfull for the husbandmen to labour in til­ling [Page] the Earth, (for often tymes it hap­neth, that on the other dayes, the wea­ther serueth them not so well to sowe their corne and to dres their vines) least by ouerhipping so small space of tyme, they might lose the commoditye geuen them by the heauenly prouidence. Ge­uen the second daye of Marche in the yeare of the second consulship of Crispe Constantine

But there is a Canon taken out of S. Gregory, which procedeth yet fur­ther and sayth moreouer, that those which teach to abstayne from worke vpon the Saterday and Sunday, be teachers of Antichrist. These are the very wordes of the Canon.C. peruenit. de consec. dist. 3. It is come to my knowledge, that certayne people of peruersse disposition, haue sowed a­mong you some poyntes of doctrine cō ­trary to the holy faythe, commaunding men to abstayne from working vppon the Sonday: whom what els may we call than preachers of Antichrist, who at hys comming will cause men to rest from all labour, both vppon the Saturday and Sonday too.

This Canō doth plainly condemn the doctrine of the Papistes, which hold opinion that men ought to do no [Page 44] maner of worke vpon the Sundayes nor on the holidayes throughout the whole yere. The protestantes doe, (in deed) confesse, that the Sunday ought to be imployed rather in the seruice of God, than in any other kinde of tra­uell. And that it is good to obserue y^t order, to the intent that by resting on y^t day, folke may be the better able to go through with their worke vpon al the other dayes of the weeke: But to binde mens consciences to that order, were no better than to make them Iewes.

And although the Romish Catho­lickes finde fault with men for labou­ring vpon the Sundaies and the o­ther feastedayes: yet doe they suffer vsurers and marchauntes to vse their trafficke, and to make bondes, bar­gaines, contractes, paymentes, and receits of money vpon their holidaies So as it is commonly seene, that the tymes which are chosen for the ma­king of Obligations and such other bondes and bargaynes, be the Sun­dayes, and the other feastdaies: And that the times appointed for paymēts of money, are generally vppon the feastdayes.

And yet if now a dayes, any poore protestant should labor sixe dayes of the week in the fieldes, or in his shop to obay God and to mayntayne hys poore family: by and by they will cry out that he is an heretick, and worthy to be burnt or banished. And why so? Is it heresy to obay God? Now whē when men vse such speeches, is it not all one, as if they called vertue, vice: and white, black? Therefore let them hardily know, that their spewing out of such speaches, is agaynst God himselfe, who will one day well cause them to feele his terrible iudge­ment, and make them know that hee is ielous of his honor, and a reuenger of the despight done to his commaun­dements. The ninth commaundemēt also is corrupted by the Catholick so­phisters,The Papists corrupt the ninth com­maundemēt for God doth vtterlye and simply forbid to lye: And they are of opinion, that it is lawfull to lye for a good intent: And not onely to tell a lye by reporting some vntrueth, but also to break both promise, and oth to: Which is contrary to naturall reason whereby the lawe of all nations hath bene brought in, which willeth that both the publicke and priuate promise [Page 45] should be religiously obserued & kept for the maintenance of humaine soci­etye.

And it is also contrary to the word of God, which not onely reproueth li­ing, but also threateneth the lyer with damnation, and commaundeth vs to keep our promise, euen though it bee to our owne disaduantage. Also it is contrary to the canon law, which sayth that all kinde of lyes are sinne, and that we ought to keep our othe & promise,Promise & fayth ought to be kept inuiolable to all men. euen with our enemies a­gainst whom we make warre.C. primum. 22. q. 2. C. Noli. 13. q. 1. For as the Canon sayth expresly: Men ought not to seeke peace to the ende to make war, but to the end to gayne peace. And I would to God y^t the Romish Ca­tholicks had well obserued these Ca­nons. For then had not we frenchmē falne into the calamities, and ruine which we now bee fallen into.

The other commaundementes likewise, haue bene greatly corrupted by these Sophisters,The seuenth Commaun­dement cor­rupted by the Papists. which name thē selues catholickes: As namely the se­uenth commaundement, (which for­biddeth Adultery) hath bene corrup­ted by the goodly counsell of Tollette, and by Isodorus which sayeth thus: A [Page] christian may not haue two wiues, C. Christ. dist. 34. c. meretrices. 32. q. 4. nor moe than two: but one onely. But if he haue not a wife, he may haue a Concu­bine: which doctrine the Pope & hys vpholders haue Canonised and con­firmed: thereby the better and more easily to maintayne their shamefull Lechery, notwithstanding that the seuēth commaundement, and also the auncient Canons prohibit all dwel­ling or matching together of mā and woman, sauing onely in marriage.

Wherefore, (for a conclusion vp­pon this poynte,) it appeareth open­ly that the Protestauntes retayne Gods Commaundementes in their purenesse and soundnes, without ta­king aught from them: whereby it is euidēt to be sene, that their doc­trine is the best, the aunci­entest, and the fardest from error according to our forsayd maximes

❧ Of the Sacrament of Baptisme. The vi. chapter.

ALthough the Romish Catho­lickes holde opinion that there are seuen sacramentes: yet not with­standing to auoyd tediousnes, wee will speake here but of two: That is to say of baptisme, and of the Lordes Supper.

As touching Baptisme, the Catho­lickes and the Protestauntes do well agree in the principal poyntes: which is, that it ought to be done in y^e name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the holy ghost, w^t the sign of water.

But they doe differ very much in the other poynts and ceremonies: for the Catholicks beleue that if a childe dye before he be baptised, he cannot be saued: and that in case of necessity, wo­men may Baptise. And they woulde haue Baptisme ministred with con­iured water, such as had bene kept all the yere in a vessell, (which they call a font) within the Churche: affirming that the euil sprites be coniured to go [Page] out of the bodies of the little Infants which are baptised: And y^t they muste be held all naked ouer the fonte in the tyme of the christning, and that both salte and spittle should be put into the mouthes of y^e babes: Al which things the Protestaunts do vtterly disallow because as touching the infāts which die vnchristened, if they belong to Gods election, (which goeth both be­fore their natiuitye & also before theyr conception) they be with him and are partakers of his saluation, although they die vnbaptised.

For Gods election cannot be disa­poynted. Besides this it is not their fault if they be not baptised, but the negligence of their Parentes, or by chaunce of soden death.

And as concerning women, their sect and nature doth exclude them frō publick charges, which onely belong vnto men. And therfore are they alto­gether vnmeete, either to preache in Churches, or to Minister the Sacra­mentes. And touching the children of Infidels, it is not reasonable to re­ceaue them into the church to be members of christ, vntil they acknowledge him to bee their heade, and make [Page 47] cnofession of their faythe, and con­sequently be of conuenient yeares, be­cause that being borne of vnbeleuing Parents, they haue no warraunt or witnes, that they belong to the coue­nant of God. Neither doe the prote­stantes allow the forementioned ce­remonies: And their reasō is, for that they beleue that god is the only cause whereof and whereby we receiue the benefite of generation, and the remis­sion of originall sinne in baptim, without the ayd of hallowed water, or of any of the other Ceremonies. Nay, which more is, they take it to be a de­filing of the holy baptisme, to adde thereunto any other ceremonies then the institution of God, & that it ought to be ministred purely and simply, ac­cording to his ordinaunce. For wee ought to doe this honour vnto God, namely to beleue that whatsoeuer hee hath ordeined is perfect, and y^t thereto there ought nothing to be added, nor aught taken away. And therefore it doth appeare, that in this poynte of Baptisme, the Doctrine of the prote­stantes doth much better yeelde God his due honor then doth the doctryne of the Catholickes.

For the Protestantes mind not to restrayne the election of God to those onely which are Baptised, but doe ex­tend it to the children of the faythfull, forasmuch as it is a thing very reaso­nable to be beleued, that if the fathers and moothers bee of the household of God, their children are so likewise. But the Romish Catholicks do hold on the contrary, y^t the children whiche die before they be baptised, be not of the household of God, although theyr Fathers and moothers were.

Agayne, whereas the Catholickes enable women to baptise (which they call christeningWomen ought not to baptise children.) in doing wherof they committe vnto them one of the chiefe charges in gods house, to wit, the mi­nistring of the sacrament wherby we be graffed into the bodye of Christes church, and made the members of his bodye and meyny of his householde:) The Protestantes will not graunt to admit women into any of the publick charges in Gods household, specially seeing that euen by the ciuill lawes, (which in that poynt agree with the law of nature) women be disabled to take vpon them the executing of anye publick office, euen in the houses or [Page 48] dominions of earthly princes. More­ouer wheras y^e catholickes, (as much as in them lieth) not onely receyue such into the churche by baptisme, as are faythles and haue no knowledge of Christ, neither they nor their Pa­rentes, but also bestow baptisme vp­on bels after such a maner as they thē selues haue inuented for it: The Pro­testantes cannot finde in their hartes to defile Gods house so much, as to receiue infidels into it, or to avowe those to be the mēbers of Christ, who haue no fayth in them, neither them­selues, nor their Parentes, for asmuch as it were to vnseemely a thing to a­vow such a one for a member of a bo­dy, as acknowledgeth not the heade there of.

Finally, the Protestantes yeeld this honor vnto holy Baptisme insti­tuted by God, that they will in no wise adde any thing to it besids gods ordinaunce, nor defile it with spittle, oyle, salt, coniured water, and such o­ther Ceremonies, As the Romishe Catholickes doe. Besides this, the word of God doth teach vs,Math. 19.23. & Exo. 20.6. & 1. Cor. 7.14. y^t Christ receiued little Children whiche were not Baptised, and that he pronoūced [Page] of them, that the kingdome of heauen doth belong vnto them, and that God doth promise his blessinges vnto all the faythfull, and to their children, yea euen vnto the thousandth generati­on. So as those infantes shall neuer­theles be saued (though they dye vn­christened) seeing they be comprysed in the couenaunt of God.

Math. 18.9. Hebru. 9.4.The same word doth also teach vs, that Christ gaue commission of bapti­sing and preaching, not to the holy virgin his mother, nor to any other of the women that resorted to his Ser­mons: but to his Disciples, and Apo­stles. And therfore women ought not to take vpon them to baptise, seeing that (as saith the Apostle) None ought to vsurpe any charge or degree of honor, Act. 8.37.48.50. Gal. 3.27. with­out lawfull calling therunto. And the same word doth declare further vnto vs, that those, which doe not beleeue in Christ, nor come of beleuing parents, ought not to receaue Baptisme, for­asmuch, as baptism is no other thing, but the zeale of faith.

And lastly, the same word of God doth teach vs, that in the tyme of the Apostles,The maner of baptising in the tyme of the Apo­stles. Baptisme was alwayes ministred with common water, That [Page 49] is to say, without any charme or par­ticular blessing.Mat. 3.6 & Iohn. 3.22 For the Apostles and disciples of Christ, did baptise men on the banckes of Riuers, or in the first water that they found fit for the pur­pose. Also it doth teach vs, that God is the God of the faythful and of their Children:Gen. 17.7 Deut. 5.10 So as little Infantes be­gotten and brought forth of beleuing or faythfull Parentes, doe belong to God & to hys couenaunt, euen from their moothers womb: And so by consequence, their bodyes, (as is afore­sayd) cannat be possessed with ill spi­rites. And therefore it is needles to dryue them out by coniurations, as the priests of the Catholicks do. Likewise the Protestantes say also, that to hold the tender babes all naked ouer the font, (specially in winter) is often time a cause of their death, and that those which do practise that Ceremo­ny, be oftē guilty of murder, which is forbidden by the commaundementes of God. Likewise they disalow y^e salte the oyle, the spittle, and the other cere­monies, aswell for that they can­not but be hurtful to the little childrē, as also because they be filthy and fōde ceremonis, and haue no groūd in the [Page] word of God.Saluation dependeth not vpon baptim. Also it appeareth by the canons, that the saluatiō of men doth doth not depend wholly vpon Bap­tisme, but principallye vpon fayth. These be the very wordes of the Ca­non.

C. Baptisme &c. cathe­cum. de con­sec. dist. 4. S. Ciprian, (to proue that the torment of death may stād in stead of Baptisme,) hath grounded his argument vpon these wordes of Christ spoken to the vn­baptised theefe, This day shalt thou bee with me in Paradise. In the examining whereof more narrowly, I fynde that not onely the suffering of death for the name of Christ, but also the harty bele­uing in him, and the confessing of him, may supply the want of baptisme when the party is so distressed by some extre­mity of tyme, as he cannot haue the sa­crament of batisme ministred vnto him. And there followeth an other Canon, which sayth that if a learner of the Cate­chisme, (that is to say) such a one as is but newly entred into the doctrine of the faith, and is not yet baptised) do suf­fer marterdome for the name of Christ, he fayleth not to be saued, although hee want Baptisme.

And the reasō herof (as sayth the same canons) is, because that in this case, such [Page 50] as haue not receiued the sacrament of Baptisme, haue not wanted it through pride or disdayne, but through inforce­ment of necessity.

In likewise it is forbidden by the Canons, that women,C. Mulier de cons. dist. 4. (how wise so euer they bee,) shall either preach or baptise. It is true, that hereunto they do ioyn this one exception, (which is) if it be not in case of necessity. But if it be graūted, (according to the truth) that the Infants which dye vnbapti­sed, be not therfore excluded from sal­uation: It followeth well, that no ne­cessity can be great inough, to dispēse with women for intermedling them­selues with the administration of the Sacramentes.

And truely in old time,C. duo tem­pora. de cō ­sec. dist. 4. (as the ca­nons do witnes) Baptisme was not ministred ordinarily, but only at two tymes in the yeare, namely at Easter, and at Whittesontyde: which well be­wrayeth that they vsed no such haste, as that women shoulde bee fayne to meddle with the matter.C. Baptiza­dos. de con­sec. dist. 4. Likewise it doth also appeare by the Canōs, that Baptisme was not ministred to the infidels, but only to such as had faith, and did make confession therof when [Page] they were of age to do it. And as tou­ching the forementioned Ceremonies in deed there are some Canons, (how be it of the worst stamp) which do al­low thē. But the best and most aun­tient canons, do vtterly dissallow thē For by the auntient Canons, men are permitted to baptise in Riuers, in y^e Sea, in fountaynes, and in euery o­ther place commodious for that pur­pose.

C. celebri­tatem de conse. dist. 3These be the wordes of a Canon ta­ken out of y^e decrees of Pope Victor: Let the Gentiles that are come to the faith, be baptised in all seasons and all places fit for them, be it in Riuer, sea, or Spring, as being made cleane by con­fession of the Christian fayth.

And by an other Canon it is well shewed, that wee ought rather to rest vpon the Baptisme of the couenaunt of fayth, than vpon the Baptisme of water.C. verus &c Non dubito de consecra. dist. 4. For it sayth thus: The true bap­tisme doth not consist so much in the washing of the bodie, as in the beleife of the hart, as the apostolicke doctrine doth teach vs, saying: They make cleane their hartes through fayth. And in an other Canon going before, it is sayed that a catholicke not Baptised,A man may be a catho­lick when he is vnbaptized. (for it pre­supposeth [Page 51] that one may be a catholick without being baptised) whiche hath an ardent zeale of deuine charity, is to be preferred before a wicked man that is baptised. As for example, (sayth the Canon) Cornelius the Centener who was filled with the holy ghost before he was baptised, is to be preferred before Simon Magus, who was possessed with an vncleane Spirit after he had bene Bap­tised.

But if Cornelius hauing receiued the holy ghost, had not bene willing to be baptised, he had bene greuously guiltye of the despising of so excellent a sacra­ment.

By which canon it is easy to iudge that wee ought altogether to depend vpon that which the sacrament doth signifie vnto vs, and vpon the graces which god doth thereby geue vnto vs and not to set our mindes vpon a sort of superstitious and vayn ceremonies as the Romish catholicks do in these dayes. For they may easely perceiue by the things aforesayd, that the doc­trine of the reformed religion tou­ching the sacrament of baptisme, is better, more auncient, & furder from [Page] heresy, than theirs is, according to our three maximes here before set downe to proue the points which are in que­stion. Let vs now speak of the supper of the Lord.

❧ Of the Sacrament of the holy supper. The vii. chapter.

THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholickes and the Protestantes concerning the Supper of the Lord, doth consist in three points. The one, in the naming therof: for, the Catho­lickes call that the keeping of Easter, which the Protestantes doe name the Supper of the Lord. But this diuer­sitie of speaking importeth not much, for both of them are still a celebrating of the mistery of our redemtion. True it is, that the Catholickes vse the ma­ner of speaking of the old Testament: according to the phrase whereof, the feast of Easter (that is to say the passe­ouer) was celebrated by the eating of a Lambe, which did represent Christ, in remembrance of the deliuerance of [Page 52] the people of Israell, whom God had brought out of the thraldome of E­gipt. But the Protestantes vse the manner of speaking of the new Testament, whereby the holy institution which our Lord Iesus Christ ordayned to celebrate the remembrance of his death and passion, and to make vs partakers of his body and bloud, is called the supper of the Lord. But we must not striue about words, so it be knowen that to keepe the Easter, and to celebrate the Lords Supper, are at this day one selfe same thing.

The second difference (which is much greater) consisteth in the sub­stance of the Sacrament. For, the Ca­tholickes (at leastwise the schoolmen) vphold, that assoone as the priest hath spoaken the words of consecration o­uer one hoaste, or ouer many, they change their nature presently, and are transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of Iesus Christ, in the selfe­same greatnes & bignes that it was vpon the crosse: so as the bread of the hoast is thē no longer bread, although the color, and the tast of bread remayn still therin. Their proofe of this do­ctrine is, that when our Lord Iesus [Page] Christ did institute his supper, as he gaue the bread to his disciples, he said vnto them: This is my body. And in ge­uing them the cup, he said vnto them: This is my bloud. They proue it also by a Canon,C. Ego. de const. pise. 2 which beginneth thus. I Be­ringarius, &c. which Canon saith in expresse wordes, that after the conse­cration, the bread and wine become not only sacraments, but also the very body, and the very blo ud of Christ. And that the priest doth sensibly handle the same very bodye, and breake it. And that the faithful in eating the Sacrament with their mouthes, doe crash, and crush be­tweene their teeth, the very naturall bo­dy of our Sauiour.

And vpon this doctrine they con­clude, that we ought to worshippe the bread of the supper, which they tearm the holy hoast. Because (say they) it is the very body of our Lord Iesus Christ. But the Protestants allow not this Transubstantiation of the bread into flesh, nor of the wine into bloud, nor consequently, the worshipping of thē, as though Iesus Christ were personally enclosed within the compasse of the boast. For they say, that euery Sacra­ment is called a Sacrament, because [Page 53] it is a signe of a holy thing. In so much that the outward signe is to be conceiued by the eye: and the thing signifyed (which is inward and spiri­tuall) is to be conceiued by the mind: And that therfore in the holy supper, the bread and the wine are the signes which we see with our eyes & receue with our mouthes, but the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ be the thinges signifyed, the which we comprehend and receue by the mind, as true spirituall foode ordayned to feede the soule and not the body.

Now, to receaue and eate this spi­rituall meate, and to cause it so to dis­gest in our soules, which are spirites, as it may geue them such nourishmēt as may make them liue euerlastingly like as the food it self and our soules that receaue it are spirituall thinges: so must the eating therof be spirituall also. And to make this spirituall ea­ting to become effectual: we must not imagine that our soules are remoued from hence, and conueyed vp to hea­uen, nor that God leaueth his place in heauen, to come downe to vs heare below: for the minde of man doth wel execute his workes, though the thing [Page] that it worketh vpon, be farre distant from it. As for example: we see how it doth truely and effectually vnder­stand the thinges that are farre from it by distance of place, by meanes of the habilitie or power of reasoning, which serueth it as an Instrument to ioyne it to the thing that it worketh vpon, how farre of so euer it be by di­stance of place. And euen as reason serueth the minde as an Instrument to couple it to the thing that it ameth at in vnderstanding: euen so likewise doth faith serue the minde for an In­strument to receaue and take hold of the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, in the spirituall meate & drinke: notwithstanding that he be in heauē, on the right hand of his father, from whence he will not come vntill the last day.

This māner of eating then, which is done spiritually by the meanes of faith, is no lesse reall, than if it were done carnally by the mouth of the fleshly body, because the spirituall ac­tions of the minde bee no lesse reall and true, than the corporall and flesh­ly actions of the body, which are per­ceyued by the eyes.

The third difference touching the supper, doth consist in the manner of receiuing it. For the Catholicques (I alwayes meane y^e scholedeuines) do hold opinion, that the lay people (that is to saye those whiche are no priestes) ought not to communicate, but only with the sacrament of bread, And that the priestes (as beyng more worthy) ought to communicate both with bread and wine. And yet least the lay people should be difcontented with this partage, they say that the body of Christ is not without bloud, but that the bloud doth alwayes ac­company the body, and that so by consoquence, the lay people in receiuing the sacrament of the body, receiue also the sacrament of the bloud. They hold opinion also, that the priest ought to receiue this holy sacramēt euery day: And that it is sufficiēt for the lay peo­ple to receiue it once a yeare, and that it is not sufferable that they shoulde touche the sacrament with their bare handes. But the Protestantes do in no wise allow such parting of it, nor yet their fond shift of consequency, but hold opinion that the holy sacrament (as wel of the bloud as of the body of [Page] Christ) ought to be distributed vnto all the faythfull, without any distinc­tion of lay people or priestes, because that otherwise the supper of the Lord should not be celebrated whol, but by halfedeales: And therfore y^t it is good and necessary to receiue it as often as they may, that men may be the oftner put in minde of the excellent misterye of our redemption, and be made par­takers of the heauenly foode whiche geueth euerlasting lyfe to our soules. Likewise they say that in asmuch as Christ sayd, Take ye (which is referred to the hand) and Eate ye (which is re­ferred to y^e mouth): the faythful ought to receiue the Sacrament into their owne handes, and the custome of the Primitiue Church was to receiue the sacrament with their owne hands,Eccle. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33 as witnesseth Eusebius.

Thus you see in effect what the doctrine, aswell of the protestantes as of the catholiques is, concerning these three poyntes of the supper of our Lord, whiche are in controuersie a­mongest them.Absurdities that follow Transub­statiation. And now may a man easely iudge by comparing the one doctrine with the other, which of thē doth best yeld god his due honor. For [Page 55] if the bread were changed or transub­stantiated (as the Catholickes tearme it) into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ: it should follow by their doctrine, that he should come euery day down from heauen, to be handled and eaten of a Million of Priestes, and to be bruised and crush­ed betwixt their teeth: yea, and that he might also be eaten of mise, and gnawen with wormes, which are thinges to much against reason, and too too intollerable to be heard. For it were a thing very vnbeseeming the maiestie of the sonne of God, to be so cōmonly conueid through the hands, Mouthes, and Bellies of so many Priestes, full often foule and filthy both in body and soule: And that his precious body should be subiect to be eaten of mice, and gnawn w^t worms. And therfore the Protestants doe best yeald Christ his due honor, for that they vphold that his body is gone vp into heauen, and there sitteth at the right hand of his father, and that frō thence he neither doth nor will re­moue, vntill the last day when he shal come to iudge both the quick and the dead. And therfore that our worship­ing [Page] of him must be in heauen, and we must lift vp ovr hartes on high, and not worship him in the priests hands or in the pix. Likewise, they much more honor the supper of the Lord, than doe the Catholicks, because they doe so often celebrate the same, & that not by half deales, but wholly, vtterly abhorring the broosing and crushing of the flesh and bones of our Sauiour betwixt their teeth, as a doctrine more meete for the barbarous people of A­merica and the Canibals, than for Chri­stians. Neither will they (say they,) beleeue the contrary of that which na­turall sence doth teach vs, that is to say, that the things which we see with our eyes, and tast with our mouthes to be bread and wine, should be flesh and bloud. No nor that neither which is contrary to the order of Nature, namely, that accidents should haue an abyding without a substance fitte and conuenient for them to be in: or that a naturall body of a man, may be inclo­sed in so small roome as the bignes or roundnes of an hoast, for these things are contrary to nature. And if the Ca­tholicks reply that God is almighty, and able to doe these things: the Pro­testants [Page 56] doe answere, that doutlesse he is of power to doe whatsoeuer he listeth, In so much that because God will neither sinne nor lie: we say he can neither lie nor sin. But our Lord meant so litle that his body after his glorification should receaue vnnatu­rall qualities: that cleane contrary­wise he would haue his Apostles to iudge by the sence of their sight and feeling, that his body was a true and perfect naturall body, and not an ima­gined body. And although the effects of the Sacrament be thinges diuine, and supernaturall: yet are they not contrary to nature, as those are which depend vpon the doctrine of Tran­substantiation. Neither can it be pro­ued by the word of God, that the Sa­craments or any other of the ordinan­ces of God, conteine any thing con­trary to nature.

This doctrine of the Protestantes touching this Sacrament, is also eui­dently grounded vpon the word of God. For first of all, we doe say and beleue according to the articles of our faith, that Iesus Christ is ascended into heauen, from whence he shall come, not ten thousand times a dry, but on­ly [Page] once at the last day, when he shall come to iudge both the quick and the dead. Which thing S. Peter declareth very openly, when (in speaking of the last comming of our Lord) he sayth thus:Act. 3.21 Whom the heauens shall contein vntill the full setting of all things in per­fecte state, which God hath foretold by the mouthes of all his holy Prophetes, that haue beene since the beginning of the world.

And Iesus Christ himselfe also did wel geue vs to vnderstand, that we should not beleue that his body after his ascention should euery day return hither on the earth, nor remayne shut vp in boxes, when he said to his disci­ples, which found themselues gree­ued at the shedding of a little ointmēt vpon his body:Mat. 26.11 You shall not haue me al­wayes with you. And yet notwithstan­ding we must beleeue, that by the effi­cacie of his grace, he will alway be with vs, as he declared to his Apo­stles, in sending them throughout the world to preach the doctrine of his grace, saying vnto them: Behold, I am alwayes with you, Mat. 28 euen vnto the end of the world. And we must furthermore con­sider that the body of Christ was made [Page 57] in all points like vnto the bodies of other men (except sinne) as the scrip­tures do witnes:Hebr. 4.17. In so much that it hath euer had, and still hath at this present, a certain measure of greatnes and thicknes, as the bodies of other men haue. Wherupon it followeth of consequence, that his body neither is, nor euer hath been, in any mo places than one at one time.

And therefore when he celebrated hys holy supper with hys Disciples, the day before he suffered hys death & passion, his body which sate at the ta­ble, was not in y^e bread which he gaue thē: for the nature of a true body doth not permit it to be in any moe places than one at one tyme. And if they re­ply that a glorified body may be in many places at one instaunt: the aun­swere thereunto is, that the body of Christ was not thē glorified but mor­tall, at the tyme when hee celebrated hys holy supper, & was put to death the day after,Math. 17.2. and that the wordes of the holy supper cānot as now be true in any other sort, than they were whē he spake them and instituted the Sa­crament. And therefore this replica­tion is impertinent, and besides that [Page] it is vntrue:Luk. 24.39 for the body of Christ, hath not through his glorification, lost the qualities of a perfect body, whiche is to be felt, to haue flesh and bones, and to be contayned within the compasse of certayne bowndes. And therefore when hee celebrated the holy supper, hys body was not in the bread which he gaue to hys Disciples, and much les was the bread transubstantiated into hys body. Whereof it followeth, that these words of Iesus Christ, This is my body, This is my bloud, ought to be vnderstood sacramētally, as if he had said, This is the sacrament of my bo­dy & of my bloud: because that (as is aforesayd) y^e nature of a very true body in deede, permitteth vs not to vnder­stand, that euery morsell of the bread which he gaue to his disciples was his owne natural body. Also y^e words which S. Luke and S. Paul vse in speaking of the Sacrament of his bloud,Luk. 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25. do well declare that it is so to bee vn­derstood.

For they say not that Christ sayd This is my bloud: but rather this cup is the newe couenaunt in my bloud. Neuerthelesse wee must thinke it all one with the other speach, where it is [Page 58] sayd this is my bloud, or els should S. Luke and S. Paule be contrary to S. Mathew and S. Marke, which were vn­godly to beleue So that if it be graū ­ted (as truth is) that to say this is my bloud, is asmuch as to say this cup is the couenant in my bloud: It followeth playnely that this manner of speaking, ought to be vnderstoode of the sacrament of his bloud, or of the sacrament of the new couenant of his bloud, which is all one, and commeth all to one sense.

For the bread and the wine of the supper, are the sacramentes of the bo­dy and bloud of our Sauiour Iesus Christe, and of the newe couenaunt which he maketh with vs: because y^t in receiuing this sacrament with our mouthes, our soules do also par­ticipate and receiue spiritually and really, the thing signified, which is the body and bloud of Christ, in whiche participation consisteth the couenant which he maketh with vs.

And in very deed,Io. 6.51.53 Iesus Christ him selfe in speaking to his disciples of the eating of his flesh and of the drinking of his bloud: (yea and of the supper it selfe as the Catholickes expound it,) [Page] perceiuing them to be offended there­at, tolde them that it ought to be vn­derstood of a spirituall feeding, and not of a crusshing of his flesh and hys bones betwixt their teeth, nor of a cā ­niballike kinde of drinking of mans bloud, as the catholicke scholemen of these dayes do vnderstand it. Neither ought it to seeme a more straunge in­terpretation of these wordes this is my body, to say, this is the sacrament of my body, thā to make the same in­terpretation of a great sort of other figuratiue speaches conteined in y^e scripture.

As for example, where Christ sayth I am the vine, Iohn. 15.1. Iohn. 10.9. 1. Cor. 10.4 Exo. 12.43. Gen. 17. 13. 1. Cor. 12.12 Ephe. 1.23. and my Father is the hus­bandman, I am the gate. And agayne it is sayd the rocke was Christ, The Lambe is the passeouer, The circumcision is the couenaunt, The sacrifice is the clensing of the law: and Christ is the church. For out of question, all these textes are to bee interpreted figuratiuely. Thus may you see that the doctrine of the Protestauntes touching the holy sa­crament of the supper, is grounded vpon the pure word of God.

But now as touching the canons. The Catholickes thinke, they make [Page 59] altogether for them, and for the vpholding & maintayning of their transub­stantiatiō, as in deed there be of them which do, and chiefly the canon before alleadged, which is an abiuratiō that pope Nicolas caused to bee made at Rome, by one Beringariusc. Ego Beringarius de consec. dist. 2. a deacon of the church of S. Mawrice of Angi­ers: by which abiuratiō they inforced this poore man of Angiers to say and protest, that he renounced the doctrine that he had holden aforetime wherby he had maintained that the bread and wine of the sacramēt remained bread and wine stil after the consecration, & that the body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ could not be handled w^t the handes of men nor, eaten with their teeth: Declaring that contrari­wise, he there allowed the doctrine of the Romish church and of pope Ni­cholas, that is to wit, that after the cō secration, the bread and the wine doe chaunge and transubstantiate them­selues into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, and that the priest in putting the sacramēt in­to the mouthes of the faythfull, doth sensibly handle Christes very body it selfe, and that the faythfull doe crowze [Page] and crashe it betwixt their teeth. But agaynst this goodly abiuration rac­ked by pope Nicholas and a hundred and fourtene bishops out of this pore Deacon whom they helde amongest them in their clawes, there are many other canōs to be opposed, which are of a better stampe. Thus sayth one of them which is taken out of S. Augu­stine, wher he interpreteth these wor­des of the Lord,c. Prima quidem de consec. dist. J. The wordes which I haue spoken vnto you are spirit & life: meaning of the eating of his flesh and of his bloud. These words (sayth he) are spirit and life to those that vnderstande them spiritually: But to those that vnderstand them carnally, they are neither spi­rit nor life. You shall not eate this bodye that you see, neither shall you drinke the bloud which they shall shed that shall crucifye me: the thing that I commend vnto you, is a sacrament: If you vnderstād it spiritually, it will quicken you the fleshly vnderstanding thereof auayleth no­thing at all. Afterwards he concludeth thus: The Lord shall be still aboue vn­till the end of the world, but yet in the meane while his truth shal remayn here amongest vs. For it must needes be that the body wherein he is risen agayne, is [Page 60] in a place certayne, but his truth is spred euery where throughout the worlde. And to shew that the flesh of our lord is not crushed so betwixt the teeth as Beringarius sayth in his abiuration: here is an other canon taken also out of S. Augustine, which sayeth thus.c. Vt quid paras deutē. de consec. dist. 2. To what purpose doost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? beleue and thou hast eaten: for to beleue in the Lord, is to eat the bread, and to drinke the wine, who so beleueth in him, eateth him. And an other Canon following sayth thus. That which is seene and perceiued with the eies, is the bread and the cuppe: c. Qui man ducant. de consec. dist. 2. but as in respect of sayth (which seeketh to be taught) the bread is Christs body and the cup is his bloud. And because the receiuing of the sacrament is spiritu­all: It followeth, that at that supper the wicked receiue but the signes onely, & not the things signified, whiche are the spirituall meat of Christes bo­dy and bloud.

And the same is auowed by an other Canon which sayth:c. Qui dis­cordat. ibi­dem. He that agreeth not with Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his bloud, though he receiue the sacrament to his vtter vndoing and damnation. By these Canons it ap­peareth [Page] plainly that transubstantiati­on is reproued and condemned, and so by cosequence the locall worship­ping of the body of christ in the sacra­ment of the bread and wine. But be­fore I passe out of this matter. I will alleadge one text of S. Augustines,Au. de doctr Christ. lib. 2 cap. 10.16. which is so cleare and fitte to confute this transubstantiatiō, as is possible. For first of all, (that men may learne to know what manner of speaches in the scriptures are to be taken figura­tiuely and what are to be taken accor­ding to the letter) he setteth downe this rule which is a very notable one. If there be any thing (sayth he) so spokē in Gods word as that it can not proper­ly agree with the comelines of good ma­ners, A rule wherby to know figu­ratiue spee­ches from playne spe­ches. nor with the trueth of fayth: you must take the same to be figuratiuely spoken. Afterwardes to make this rule plain by examples, he sayth these ve­ry wordes. If then the maner of speak­ing be a precept, so as it forbiddeth any crime and misbehauiour, or commaun­deth the thing that is good, and behoue full: such maner of speaking is not figu­ratiue. But if it seeme to commaund an euill fact, or to forbidde the thing that is good and behouefull: then is it spoken [Page 61] figuratiuely. Vnlesse you eate the fleshe of the sonne of man (sayth our Lord) and drinke his bloud, you shall haue no life in you. By this maner of speaking he see­meth to commaunde a cruelty and an e­uill facte, in eating of his fleshe and drin­king of his bloud, therefore it is a figure wherby we be commaunded to become partakers of the passion of our Lord, and to imprint gentlye and profitably in our memories, that his flesh was māgled and crucified for vs. The Scripture sayeth likewise. If thine enemye hunger feede him, if he be a thirst geue him drink, no doubt but in this case he commaundeth a good deede. But wheras it followeth, for in so doing thou shalt heape coales of fire vpon his head: forasmuch as thou mayest thinke that he commaundeth a malicious deed: doubt not but that this manner of speache is figuratiue, and that those wordes may be taken two manner of waies, the one to do hurt, the other to do good. Thou oughtest therfore rather to construe them according to charitye than otherwise: and by those burninge coales, to vnderstand the burning sighes of repentaunce, wherby the pride of the party is healed, in that he repenteth himself to haue bene an enemy to such a one [Page] as releeueth his misery and necessity. Al­so it is written, who so loueth his soule shal lose it. Now, It is not to be thought that he forbiddeth so requisite a thing as the sauing of a mans owne soule, but that this speache ought to bee taken figuratiuely. He shall lose his soule, that is to say, he must suppresse and forsake the froward & vntoward dealing, wher­unto his mind is now geuen: by meanes wherof he is so greatly wedded to these temporall things, that he hath no regard of the euerlasting things. Agayn it is also written, Shew mercy and receiue not the sinner. The latter part of this sentēce seemeth to forbidde a good deed, for it sayth, receyue not the sinner. Vnderstand therefore that this is spoken by a figure, taking the sinner for the sin, to the ende that thou admit not any sinne.

Thus haue you heard the very wordes of S. Augustine, which doe very well declare vnto vs (as well by the rule as by the first example which he setteth downe) that the eating of y^e flesh and bloud of christ in his supper, ought to be vnderstoode spiritually & sacramentally, and not after the man­ner of the cannibals (which is vtterly voyd of all humanity and good man­ners) [Page 62] as those transubstantiatiers would make vs beleue.

And whereas the catholickes vp­hold,The supper ought to be receiued in both the kindes. that this sacramēt ought not to be distributed vnto the lay people but by halfes (which they doe terme vn­der one kinde) the same is expresly cō ­demned by their owne canons, as hie treason towardes God. For you shall here what a canon sayth, which is ta­ken out of the decrees of Pope Gela­sius.

It is done vs to vnderstand, c. Comperi­mus. ibidem that some hauing receyued the holy sacrament of the body, do abstayne from the cup of the holy bloud, which thing they ought not to do: for in asmuch as it is euident, that in so doing they entangle themselues (in I wot not what a kind of su­perstition) they ought to receyue the sa­crament whole togither, or els to ab­stayne from it altogither. For the deui­ding a sunder of one selfe same mistery, can not be done without great trechery. And furthermore where as the most part of the lay catholikes, do content themselues with the receyuing of the sacrament onely once a yeare, (which is at Easter) they are condemned by the canons, which declare that those [Page] are not to be taken for catholikes, which receyue not three times in a yeare. These be the very wordes of a cannon taken out of the councell of Agatha. c. Seculares ibidem. The laye people which receyue not the Lordes supper, at Christmas, at Easter, and at whitsontide, let them not bee taken ne reputed for Catholikes. Thus may all men perceyue & iudge, with what manner of passion these catholikes are caried away, which do so boldly condemne the Protestants as heretiques for their doctrine con­cerning this poynt of the supper of the Lord, and so do spitefully name them Sacramentaries, as though they denied this sacramēt. For in so doing, they do also vnawares condemne their owne cānons, which otherwise they esteme so greatly, that many of them do attribute more authority vn­to those Cannons, than to the holy scripture: saying that they be the de­terminations of the holy mother church, wherunto they ought to sticke bicause the scripture is to obscure, and may be taken both wayes. But indede it is nothing so: for the scripture hath but one sence, which is easy to be found out of a man that is willing to [Page 63] learne by conferring one text with a­nother. But the cannons are in ma­ny cases quite contrary one to ano­ther. I know full well that too shift off these contrarieties, the schole men say that we must always hold vs to those that were last made. But I an­swer them that that is asmuch to say, as we must alwayes hold vs to the worst. For euery man of sound iudgement may always easely perceyue, that the ancient cannons are better than those of latter tyme.

And further, to abate the authority of their canōs by their canōs thēselues I say, that the cannons do will vs to serch the vnderstāding of the obscure textes of the scripture, in the scripture it selfe, And those which seeke it else­where, are the very scholemasters of errour. These are the very wordes of a cannon. What is more vngodly, c. Quid au­tem. 24. q. 3 than to hold an vngodly doctrine, and not to beleue those that are most wise and lear­ned? But all such do fall into this kind of ignorance, as make not their recourse to the wordes of the Prophets, to the writing of the Apostles, and to the au­thority of the Euangelistes, to learne the knowledge of the truth in any obscure [Page] poynt, but will needes trust to their own wit And therefore they become schole­maisters of errour, because they list not to be disciples of the truth.

Which cannon in very deede, doth deeply in few wordes condemne the scholedeuines that make more ac­compt of the authority of y^e Cannons and doctors of the church, than of the very text of the scripture, which they accompt to be to obscure. And true it is, that some textes of the scripture, are in some places very darke: how­beit there is no text so obscure, but it may be made playne by other textes of the same scripture, Specially if they resort (not to the cannons and decre­talls, but) to the Hebrue text for the the olde testament,Aug de doc. Christ. c. 11. and to the Greeke text for the new testament, as S. Au­gustine doth teach vs, who sayth in this wise.C. vt veterū dist. 9. Such as vnderstand the latine tongue, must for the better vnderstan­ding of the whole Scriptures, haue the knowledge of two other languages more: that is to wit, of the Hebrue, and of the Greek, to the end they may haue recourse to the very fountayne of the o­riginall coppies, when the diuersitye of the Latin rranslations doth breede any [Page 64] doubte. And hereto accordeth a Canon which sayth thus: Like as the trueth of the things that are contayned in the old Testament, ought to be examined by the Hebrue books: Euen so the truth which is written in the new Testament, ought to be made playne and cleere by the Greek bookes.

I besech you what can be braied a­agaynst this Canon, by the whole herd of these Asses, which are so bold as to say, that the Hebrue and Greeke tongues be the Languages of Heri­tickes, and therefore doe vtterly re­iect and condemne them. Do they not by the same meanes, condemne the canons and auncient doctors? And if they condemne them: Are they to bee holden for good Catholickes?

Well: let vs come now to speake of the Masse.

Of the Masse. The viii. Chapter.

THe difference betwixt the Masse and the Supper of our Lord is great. For, the Catholick schoolemen which vnderstand what the masse is, (for all of them vnderstand it not) doe [Page] say, that it is a Sacrifice, whereby the Priest offereth vp the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ vnto God, for the soule health, both of the quick and of the dead: Which Sacri­fice is accompanied with diuers other parcels as accessaries: that is to say, with diuers prayers, and diuers texts taken out of the gospels and epistles of the new Testament, and with di­vers verses taken out of the Psalmes of Dauid, and other bookes of the olde Testament, and interlarded through­out with many and diuers Ceremo­nies. And this goodly omnigatherū hath bene patched together at many & Sondry tymes, by dyuers Popes. And that is the cause why the Catho­lickes do put the masse among the cō ­maundementes of their holy mother Church. For this commaundement, Thou shalt heare masse vpō the Son­dayes, and vpon other feastfull dayes inioyned, is the first cōmaundement of the Church of Roome. But asfor the supper of our Lord, It is no sacri­fice, but an holy bancket, which is pre­pared to put vs in mynde of thonelye and soueraigne sacrifice, whereby our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe was once for [Page 65] all sacrificed for our redemption, and to make vs pertakers of his body and bloud, by the spirituall and effectuall eating thereof: So that there is noe more lykenes betweene the celebra­ting of the Lordes supper and the ce­lebrating of the masse, than is betwixt geuing & taking, which are things far differyng, For, in the supper, the faythfull receyue the body and bloud of Christ: but in the Masse, the Priest geueth, or offereth vp Christ wholly vnto God the Father, as an host of sacrifice.

Now it must needes be graunted, that in this poynt of the Masse, the catholickes and the Protestantes doe vtterly disagree, And that the same disagreement is the principall cause, why the Catholicks do so extreemely bate the doctrine of the sayd Prote­stants. For they esteeme the masse to be one of the principall poyntes of the Christian religion, and therfore think it very straunge, that the Protestants should be so bould as to reiect it, syth it hath dured so long tyme, and is cō ­posed of so many good things, drawē out of holy Scripture, the whiche the Protestantes seeme to reiect, in reiec­tyng [Page] the texts that are taken out of it.

In deede these reasons geue some likelyhood wherby to iudge so, with­out hearing the other partye. But if the Catholickes will vse a little pati­ence, and here the replies of the Pro­testantes: they shall not finde them so voyde of reason as they thinke. For first they say, that the onely sacrifice, whereby Christ hymselfe was sacrifi­ced once for all, is more than sufficient for the saluation of the whole worlde. Yea & though he had shed but one on­ly drop of hys precious bloud vpon y^e crosse: It had bene sufficient to haue satisfyed the Iustice of God his father, and to washe away the sinnes of all men, which should be borne into the world in an hundred thousand yeres, if the world shold last so long, for that inasmuch as he was the sonne of god, the dignity of his priesthoode and the infinite greatnes of hys Sacrifice, are of sufficiency and worthines inough and more than inough, to doe away the innumerable sinnes of all men he­therto borne, or hereafter to be borne. And therefore it is great outrage (say the Protestants) to our Sauiour, to crucifie hym new agayne (as they do [Page 66] in the masse) to obtayne remission of sinnes, and lyfe euerlasting, for the quick and the dead for it is all one, as to say, that hys onely once sacrificing of himselfe, is not sufficient to take a­way our sinnes, and to obtayne vs lyfe euerlasting, because that if they held it for sufficient and perfect, (as in truth it is) it should follow, that it were in vayne to do it any more.

And is it not a great blasphemy, to say that the oblation and sacrifice of the death and passion of our Lord Iesus Christ is not sufficient for the saluation of the whole world? Truely it is not to be douted, for although it be nether auailable nor appliable to any other, than to such as beleue in him: yet not­withstanding his sacrifice is more thā sufficient to saue all the world. And furthermore wheras the Catholickes (at the least wise the simple common people) imagine that the Protestants in reiecting the masse, doe reiect the holy Sacrament of the body & bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, they deceyue themselues greatly: for contrariwise, the Protestantes hold the same sacra­ment in his true perfection, as we haue showed in the Chapter going [Page] before.

Neither do they reiect the textes that are stuffed into the Masse, and be taken out of the holy Scripture: But they like much better to read & learn them in the bible it selfe, than in the Massebooke. Neither do they reiect the good prayers which are mingled in the Masse: but they say it is much better to pray to God with a contynual prayer, for Princes & Magistrates, for the Shepheards of the church, for the necessities of all the people, for the remission of sinnes, for those which are sick and afflicted, for the conserua­tion of the faithfull, for the inlighte­ning of the ignorant, and for the ad­uancement of the kingdome of Iesus Christ, as they themselues doe: than to say an Oremus or particular prayer for euery of these thinges as the Priest doth in his masse, which sayth now one Oremus for himselfe, and by and by another for the Pope, and [...] a third for his benefactors, and for those that are departed, and often times for brute beastes, as is done in the Masse of S. Anthony.

For besides that the most part of the prayers in the masse be not allow­able [Page 67] by the word of God: It is cer­taine that men pray more hartely, more aduisedly, and with greater zeal when the prayer is contynued to the end without interruption, than when it is sayd by iumps with often inter­ruption.

Besides this, the people which do harken to the Priestes Oremus, cannot set their mindes well vpon the pray­er which he is saying, because they vnderstand it not, nor often times the Priest himselfe.

To be short therfore, by this doc­trine of the Protestants, God is bet­ter honored, than by the doctrine of the Catholicks. For the Protestants in not admitting any other sacrifice than that which our Lord Iesus Christ himselfe did make of his own body vpon the crosse, which sacrifice they esteeme to be very sufficient and per­fect for our saluation, doe therby yeald the honor and the effect of our felicity, vnto our Lorde Iesus Christ onelye: wheras the Catholiques doe attri­bute parte of his honor to the Priest, and parte to the sacrifice of the Mas.

Likewise the Protestantes doe much better honor God, in learning [Page] the texts of Scripture in the Bible it selfe, which is the very originall Re­cord of his will: than those which wil needes learn them in the Massebook, where they be confusedly packed and vnaptly applyed.The only sacrifice of Christ is our salua­tion. And now to shew that the doctrine of the Protestantes (which admitte the only Sacrifice of Christ, and reiect the Sacrifice of the Masse) is euidently grounded vpon the holy Scripture, there needeth no other witnes than the Apostle to the Hebrues, For, first he doth testifie vnto vs, that there is none other Sacrifice for the remission of mennes sinnes, but Iesus Christ only, and that he him­selfe by his own bloud, hath obtayned for vs an euerlasting redemtion: For thus he sayth: Christ being become the high Priest of the good things that are to come, Heb. 9.11.12 by a greater and more perfect Ta­bernacle not made with hands. That is to say, not of this building, nor by the bloud of Goates and Calues, but by his own bloud, is entered in once into the holy place, and hath found eternall re­demtion. And to the end we should not thinke that Christ is no more a Priest, but that although he was once a Priest, yet as now he hath resigned [Page 68] that office vnto others: The Apostle testifyeth that he is a Priest still, and euer shall be, saying thus of him:Heb. 6.4.5.6. Thou art a high Priest for euer, after the order of Melchizedech. And because we shold not thinke that there should be any o­ther priest thā he: the Apostle teacheth vs y^t there may be none other, in that he saith that no man may take the ho­nor of high priest vnto himselfe, except he be called of God, as Christ was cal­led to that office by his Father. These be his very words: No man may take that honor vpon him, but he shall enioy it, which is called of God, as was Aaron. Neyther hath Christ presumed of him­selfe to be made high Preest, but he hath bestowed that dignity vpon him, which fayde vnto him: Thou art my sonne, this day haue I begotten thee.

Now as we are taught by this text, that neyther there is, nor ought to be any mo then one Sacrifice for the forgeuenes of sins, that is to wit, Iesus Christ, which is and shalbe the high preest for euer: So are we taught also by other texts, that there is but one only Sacrifice once offered for all sinnes, and to obtayn euerlasting life, which is, the death and passion of Iesus [Page] Christ our Saviour. And that we need none other Sacrifice for the remission of our sinnes but only that. This is the very text of the Apostle, which is so playn and cleere as nothing can be more. By the which will we are made holy, Hebr. 10.10 14.18. euen by the offering of the body of Christ once for all. For by that one of­fering hath he made them perfect for e­uer, which are to be sanctified: & where remission of sinnes is, there needes no more Sacrifice for sinne.

Which words of the Apostle are a very definitiue sentence pronounced against the Masse. For if there be no more offering for sinne, what shall be­come of the masse, seeing it is no other thing in substance (as the very words of the consecration doe declare) but a Sacrifice and an offering for the for­geuenes of the sinnes of the quick and the dead? And in very deede the Ca­tholick Schoolemē not being able by any meanes to rid themselues of these textes which are so playne and cleere, do say for their refuge, that the Mas is not a very Sacrifice in deed, but a re­membrance of the only and true Sa­crifice of our Lord Iesus Christ.

But the answere to this shift of [Page 69] descant is very easie. For seeing they doe maintayne that the very body of Christ is in the mas, and that the bread of the singingcake is changed into his very body, and the wine into his very bloud: And that they breake his body in peeces, and offer vp both the body and the bloud in Sacrifice vnto God: It followeth of necessitie, that their opinion is, that it is a very Sacrifice and not a remembrance only.

On the other side, the protestants doe say that the remembrance of the true Sacrifice of Iesus Christ, ought to be done by celebrating his holy sup­per after the same maner that he hath appointed it. For he hath ordayned that his Supper should be celebrated by many at once, because it is a sacra­mentall communion of the body and bloud of our Sauiour, by the which we are made one body, and as it were one loafe in Iesus Christ, & become par­takers of one selfesame bread of euer­lasting life.

These are the wordes of S. Paule vpon the same matter:1. Cor. 10.16.17. Is not the cup of blessing which we blesse, a partaking of the bloud of Christ? And is not the bread which we breake a partaking of [Page] the body of Christ? For we that are many are one loafe and one body, because we be al partakers of one bread. By which text it appeareth euidently that the remembrance of the Sacrifice of our Sauiour ought to be vsed in celebra­ting the holy Supper by many toge­ther, accordingly as when he did insti­tute and celebrate it with his Disci­ples, they were many together. And so consequently it followeth, that the Mas neither is, nor can be a true re­membrance of the sacrifice of Christ, seeing that none taketh part of it but the priest him selfe. Now let vs come to the Canones.

The Canons which we haue al­leaged in the former Chapter, when we spake of the Lordes Supper, doe sufficiently confute this Transubstā ­tiation (which is the very principall parte and foundation of the Masse:) And therfore we will speake no more of that point.Absurdities rising of Transubstā tiation. But I will speake of certain difficulties, into the which the Transubstantiatiō hath led the schole diuines, as it hapneth commonly (ac­cording to the saying of the Logici­ans) that in admitting one absurditie, there follow many moe. The schole [Page 70] doctors hauing once graunted that the bread and wine in the Masse, are Transubstantiated into the very body and bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, are greately troubled how to resolue di­uers other questions,C. Cum Marthae quesiuisti. extr. de ce­lebr. Miss. which haue growen vpon the same matter. Pope Innocent the third reciteth one of them, which he sayth was greatly de­bated amongst y^e sayd Scholedoctors, (howbeit in such sort, as they knew not how to determine it) That is to witt, whether the water which the preest putteth into the chalice with the wine, be transubstātiated into bloud or not, for they imagine, that water must nedes be put into the chalice where the wine is, bicause it is writ­ten that out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ, there did issue both bloud and water.

Notwithstanding, their opinion is, that there ought to be more wine than water.C. Pernici­osus. extr. eo For Pope Honorius the third, did sharply checke a certayne Bishop, who in singing masse did put more water in his chalice then wine: wherupon grew a great disputation amongst the Scholediuines, as Pope Innocent, reporteth. For some of thē [Page] held opinion, that the water was not Transubstantiated into wine, but re­mayned naturall water still, bicause (say they) there was water in the bloud which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ, when he was vpon the Crosse. And therfore, seeing that the wine in the Chalice at the masse tyme, is Transubstantiated in­to the very bloud: it must needes be, that the water remayneth water still, to the ende that there be an answe­rable resemblance, aswell of the wa­ter as of the bloud. Others sayd, that although it were graunted that wa­ter, must needes remayne still in the Chalice with the bloud, yet notwith­standing it must alwayes be beleeued, that the water which the priest put­teth into the Challice, is turned into the selfe same water which issued out of the side of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which opinion seemeth to haue most shew of wit, and most proportionble resemblance agreeing to the matter, though at the first sight it might seeme an absurde thinge, to saye that wa­ter is turned into other water. For looke by what reason the wine is trā ­substantiated into the very bloud, by [Page 71] the same reason is the water changed into the water.

The third opinion is taken out of Galene, and other Phisitions, which say that mannes body is compoun­ded of fower humors. That is, of bloud, of flewme, of melancholy, and of choller: and therfore (say they that are of that opinion) it is very like, that when the Euangelist sayd, that with the bloud there issued water out of the side of Iesus Christ, he meant that there issued out fleame, which is a watry humor: Wherupon they doe con­clude, that in the Masse water was changed into fleame.C. in quadā extr. de ce­leb. Miss. But this opiniō was condemned by the sayd Pope In­nocent, in a letter which he sent to the Bishop of Ferrara.

The fourth opinion is of such as vphold that the water also is changed into bloud, as well as y^e wine. Which opinion the said Pope Innocent graun­teth to haue in it, not most truth, but most likelyhode of trueth: Because (saith he) water is often times in the Scripture taken for the multitude of the people: so as the vnion which is made betwixt the water and the wine by the transubstantiating of the same [Page] water into wine, doth signifie vnto vs the true knitting together of Christ with his people, by such a bonde as cannot be broken. Truely, a reason drawen out of a quintisens of the sub­tilties of Scotus, otherwise called Duns. Marke here the goodly questions, or rather the fonde and heathenish dota­ges, wherin the Schoolemen and the Popes haue wrapped themselues, by the meane of their Transubstanti­ation.

Likewise also they finde them­selues greatly cumbred in answering these other questions: that is to wit, if a mouse or a rat doe happen to eate the Sacrament of the hoast, whether she eat the very body or the accidents only. Again, whether the Accidentes can be without a subiect, and whether Accidentes can be eaten or no. Also, whether the Accident without the subiect may haue the tast of the wine, and geue nourishment to the body: and such other vaine questions, whereof they can geue none but very absurde resolutions, because the presupposing of transubstantiation, is nothing but absurditie.

Besides this the Canons say not [Page 72] that our Lord Iesus Christ did ordayne the Mas, but they affirme that it was S. Iames, and S. Basill. The inuen­tion of the Masse fa­thered vpō S. Iames, & S. Basill. for these be the wordes of the Canon: Iames the bro­ther of our Lord according to the flesh (who had the first charge of the Church of Ierusalem) and Basil the Bishop of Ce­sarea (whose knowledge in the Scripture hath been renowmed throughout the world) haue brought vnto vs the cele­brating of the Masse. C. Iacobus de consec. dist. 1. But yet neither S. Iames, nor the other Apostles, nor the Euangelistes, haue at any time spoken of the masse in their wry­tings: so as there is no likelihood of truth in the report of this Canon, that S. Iames should be the inuenter of the Masse. Neither were it to any great purpose to say that onely Iames of all the other Apostles, was the first foū ­der and setter vp thereof. For, had it been a good thing, the rest of the Apo­stles would haue allowed it as well as he: and not being good, he would haue allowed it no more than the re­sidue did. Besides this, S. Iames hath no more spoken of it in his Epistle, than the other Apostles haue spoaken of it in theirs. Neither is it to be be­leeued that any of them would adde [Page] aught to the ordinances of Christ their Maister.

C [...]nocte. de Cons. dist. 1And as for S. Basill, the Canon hath vnfitly ioyned him with S. Iames, to haue helped him to make the mas. For he was 350. yeares after S. Iames. Moreouer, there are other Canones, which doe father the inuenting of euery part of the Masse vpon other foū ­ders.C. Ecclesi. dist. 2 C. Sacra. de cons. dist. 2 C. vasa. eo. dist. 1. C. Apost. eo C. Pacem igitur eo. dist. 2. Io. Stella venetus de vi­tis Pontific. As for example, the vsing of vn­leauened bread, and the putting of water into the Challice with the wine, they father vpon pope Alexander the first. The Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, and the inuention of the Cor­porace, they attribute to pope Sixtus the first. The inuention of Gloria in ex­celsis, to pope Telesphorus the first. The inuention to vse chalices of golde and siluer (which wer wont to be of wood and glasse,) To pope Vrbane the first. The singing of the great Creed at the Sondaies masse, to Pope Marke. The saying of Confiteor in the beginninge of the Masse, To Pope Damasus the first. The standing vp of the people when the priest singeth or saieth the Gospell, To Pope Anastasius the first. The kissing of the paxe, to Pope Inno­cent y^e first The inuentiō of anthems. [Page 73] taken out of the psalmes of Dauid, and the Introites, and Graduels, to Pope Celestine the first. The inuention of the nine Kirieleysons, of the Alleluya, and of the offertorye, to pope Gregory the first. The Oremus against y^e Turks Pagans, and Infidels (which in that time did make great warres vpon the Christianes) to Pope Calixte the third. The long prayers which are in the secrete words of the consecration, to Pope Leo the first, and to diuers other Authors. So as S Basill is not found to haue done any thing toward the building of the Masse, as may ap­peere by the Historiographers which haue written the liues of the Popes, and by the Canones which speake of their particular inuentions.

Now these Popes that haue in­uented and added euery one somthing to the Masse, were not al at one time. For betwixt the first and the last that are here spoaken of, there was more than a thousand yeares: which shew­eth plainly inough, that the Masse is but an inuention of men, and therfore deserueth not to be of such estimation as the Romish Catholicks doe reken it. For it ought to be sufficient for vs, [Page] to dwell vpon the holy ordinances and institutions of God, and to let goe the inuentions of men, seeing that the Scripture forbiddeth either to adde or to diminish aught from Gods word.

Inconueni­ences insu­ing to such as heare Masse.Yea and there are some Canones that seeme to disalow the Mas. For among the rest, there is one which cō ­maundeth euery man to receiue im­mediatly after the consecration: vpon payne of excommunication, so as by that Canon it may be sayd, that all such as be nowadayes at Masse, are excommunicated euery one, saue only the Priest, because none receiueth but he only. These are the expresse words of the same Canon:C. peract. de consec. dist. 2. After the conse­cration, let them all communicate, ex­cept they will be put out of the church: for the Apostles haue so ordayned, and the holy Romane Church doth so ob­serue the same.

There is also another Canō which forbiddeth vpon the same paine of ex­communication, that any man should heare the Masse of any Priest which keepeth a Concubine or any other woman. These are the words of the Canon. We doe commaund moreouer [Page 74] that no man doe heare the Masse of any Priest, C. Praebet. dist. 32. whom he knoweth assuredly to keepe a Concubine, or any other wo­man in his house: for so hath the holy Sinode ordayned vpon payn of excom­munication.

By which Canon it appeareth, that a man shal in these daies hardly heare a Masse, without putting himselfe in danger of excommunication, by rea­son of the notorious whoredome and bawdry which is amongst the most parte of Priests. And moreouer, the Canons denounce those persons to be Idolaters, which heare the Masse of any Priest or Deacon that is a For­nicator.C Si qui s [...] dist. 81. For thus saith a Canon ta­ken out of S. Gregory. If any Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon, be stayned with the sinne of fornication: we in the name of the father almighty, & by the authoritie of S. Peter, doe vtterly forbid bim to come into the Church, vntill he haue done penance, and made amendes. And if they continue in their sinne, let no mā presume to heare their diuine seruice: for their blessings shall be turned into cursings, & their prayer into sinne. And this doth the Lord himselfe witnesse, where he saith by his Prophet, I will [Page] curse your blessings. And as many as diso­bay this holesome commaundement, shall fall into the sinne of Idolatry.

Were this Canon wel vnderstood of the infinite number of pore igno­rant soules that hold of the Romish Religion, and doe ordinarily hear the Masses and other Church seruices of lecherous priestes: I beleeue, they would rather forbeare it vtterly, than defile themselues so wretchedly with Idolatrie. And (as saith this Canon) receiue the curse of God in receiuing the blessing of such a priest. But igno­rance accompanied with error, which hath been long bred and rooted in the Romain Church, doe cause the poore people to be content to heare the mas­ses of these Fornicators. But if a ma­ryed Priest should sing them a Mas, they would stone him to death, and not allow his masse to be good.

Behold what power long forgro­wen error hath ouer poore ignorant people, and how strangely the tirany therof causeth their wretched consci­ences to goe astray. For by the aun­cient Canons it is a cursed thing to shun the offering of a maryed priest. or to beleeue that the same is to be de­spised because he is marryed.

These be the very words of a Canon taken out of the councell of Gangra. C. Si quis. dist. 28. If any man make difference of a marryed Priest, in forbearing to come to his offe­ring, as though he might not doe it be­cause he is marryed: Cursed be he.

And there is yet another Canon which saith that no Priest hath power to consecrate singingcakes, except he be a man of good life. Which thing should make the Romish Catholicks to thinke that they put them selues in great danger of Idolatry, when they worship the singing cake, although it were admitted that their doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, which thing the Protestants doe still deny. For questionles, by this Canon all be Idolaters which worship the singing bread that is consecrated by priests of euill life, as the most part of them be. These be the very wordes of the Ca­non:C. Sacerdo­tes. 1. q. 1 The priestes which minister the body and bloud of the Lord vnto the people, doe wickedly, in beleeuing that by the law of Christ, it is the wordes which the priest speaketh, and not his good life which make the consecration of the Sacrament: And that to doe the same, there nedeth but only the solemne pronouncing of the prayer, without any [Page] merit of the priest: for it is written, that the Prieste which hath any blemish in him, may not approch to the Lord to of­fer any Sacrifice vnto him.

So then by this Canon it may be well said, that in these dayes there are very few Priestes which haue power to consecrate.

Moreouer, in these dayes they ob­serue no parte of the Ceremonies ap­pointed by the Canons, in the saying of their Masse. For they ought to sing the Masse in single linnen cloth, and not in silks of colors. These are the expresse words of the Canon. By the opinion of vs all, C. Consulto de consecra. dist. 1. we ordain that no man presume to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Altar in cloth of silke, nor in any other cloth of color, but in linnen cloth on­ly, consecrated by the Bishop, That is to say, made and wouen of flax which groweth vpon the earth, Euen in such like sorte, as the bodye of our Lord Iesus Christ was buried and wrapped in a sim­ple white sheete made of flax.

There must be two at the least to help a priest to say MasseNeither ought they to sing or say Masse without two assistantes, least they should offend in the congruity of Grammer in hauing but one, when they said Dominus vobiscum, and Orate [Page 76] pro me fratres, speaking in the plurall number. But yet this notwithstan­ding, the most part of Masses are said nowadayes but with one Clarke to accompany the priest, yea and often times the Priest is constrayned to answere himselfe, as it is sayd by a com­mon prouerbe of a priest named Mar­tin. These be the very wordes of the Canō:C. Hoc. quo­que. de con­sec. dist. 1. It is also ordayned that no priest shal presume to say masse, except he haue two assistants, so as he himselfe may be the third. For when he saith in the plu­rall number, the Lord be with you, & these words of the Memento, Brethren pray for me, it is very conuenient that other folks should answere of themselues to his sa­lutation. So as if all these Canons be well considered, euery man may well perceiue, that the Romish Catholicks haue no great reason to make so great account of their Mas, or to thinke the Protestants to be in error, in that they will neither come at it nor allow of it.

Of Maryage. The ix. Chapter.

AS cōcering marriage, y^e doctrine of the Protestauntes differeth not much from the doctrine of the romish catholickes. In deed the Catholickes do terme it a sacrament, and the pro­testantes say it is a holy institution of God, but not a sacrament: because that in euery sacramēt, there must be an outward signe to bee discerned w^t the eie, and an inward thing signified, which is inuisible, as I haue sayed of Baptisme heretofore, shewing that in that sacrament, the water is the out­ward signe, and the washing of the soule is the inward & inuisible thing signified: And in y^e supper of our lord, the bread and the wine are the out­ward signes, and the body and the bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ bee the things signified, which our soules do receiue inwardly and spiritually.

But it cannot be sayd, that in mar­riage ther is an outward visible signe and an inward & inuisible thing sig­nified: And therfore it is not a Sacra­ment. Agayne the Protestants affirm that marriage is honorable amongst [Page 77] all sorts of people, be they lay men or men of the church, noble or vnnoble, rich or poore, because God hath insti­tuted it. and hath permitted the vse thereof to all persons of what quality soeuer they be, and to celebrate the same at all seasons: And that to make gloses and limitations or restrayntes of y^e which God hath set at liberty, is to goe about to be wiser than God, which in deede is starke foolishnesse, beastly presumption, and heddy tray­terousnesse.The Papists make forni­cation law­ful, and ma­riage vn­lawfull. Contrarywise the romish Catholickes holde opinion, that it is not lawfull for men of the church to be married at all, nor to celebrate any marriage in Lent, in Aduent, and in the foure ember weeks. And the rea­son whereupon they haue founded this doctrine, is that they haue imagi­ned it to be a stayning and defiling of the Churchmen, (which doe handle sacred thinges) to be married: In so much as there hath bene some of thē, which haue termed second marriages by the name of honest fornicatiō.C. Hac ra­tione. 11. q. 3 C. Non o­portet. & seq. 33. q. 4 And yet for all their forbidding of Priestes to be married, they haue allowed thē to keep concubines, as we haue sayd before, in the fourth chap. By meanes [Page] whereof they haue geuen them leaue to transgresse Gods commaundemēt which saith, thou shalt not commit adulte­ry, by taking from them the liberty of Marriage, which god doth allowe to all persons. But if it should be asked them, wherfore priestes (whom they esteme holy and sacred persōs) should not vse marriage, which they call a sa­crament: what would they answere? For sacramentes are meetest thinges for sacred persons. And if marriage be a sacrament, (as they holde opiniō it is:) can it defile those which partici­pate the same? Truely it is as absurd a thing to say that a Sacrament can defile, as to say that whitenesse can make blacke. Thus doth it followe that God is better honored, and his ordinances are more sincerely obser­ued by the doctrine of the Protestāts, than by che doctrine of the catholicks. The doctrine of the Protestantes is clerly founded vpon y^e holy scripture, whereby Marriage is commaunded to all such as haue not the gift of stay­ednes, as before is sayd in the fourth chapter. For when God ordayned mariage first of all at the creation of world, he gaue this generall rule: It [Page 78] is not good for man to be alone. Gen. 2.18. 1. Cor. 7.2. Also S. Paule geuing an other generall rule thereof, sayth thus: For the auoy­ding of whoredome, let euery man haue his wife, and euery woman her husband. And in an other place he sayth, that to forbidde mariage is a deuilish doctrine. 1. Tim. 4.3. And how thē can the followers ther­of a vow, that their doings in that be­halfe are acceptable vnto God? Ther­fore it is easy to iudge, whether of the parties are best grounded vpon the word of God, namely whether it bee the Protestantes, (who hold opinion that the celebration of Marriage is lawfull to al people, and at al seasōs:) or the Romish Catholickes, which mayntayne that it is not lawfull for Priestes, Monkes, and Nunnes: nor ought to be celebrated in the lent, ad­uent, or the foure ember weekes.

There be Canons also,That the Mariage of Priests is lawfull. which doe flatly cōdemne the doctrine of the ro­mish Catholickes in this poynte, and which affirme that marriage ought not to be forbiddē to men of y^e church, which thing was also maintayned by a good Byshoppe named Paphnutius, (although himselfe was neuer marri­ed) in the first generall counsell holdē [Page] at Nice in the countrey of Bithinia, In y^e raigne of y^e Emperor Constantine y^e great: which opinion of his was followed by consēt of al y^e counsel. These are y^e words of the Canō:C. Nicena. dist. 31. The counsel of Nice intending to correct the liues of the Ecclesiasticall persons, made certayn lawes called Canons: in consulting wherupon, it seemed to incline to the bring­ing in of a law, to forbid Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons to lye with theyr wiues which they had taken in marriage before their entring into holy orders. Then Paphnutius standing vppe, spake agaynst it, saying that marryage is an honorable thing, and that it is chasti­ty for a man to vse the company of his owne wife. And so he perswaded the Counsell, not to make any such law: al­ledging this reason both right graue and of great importāce, namely that it might be an occasion of fornication to the ec­clesiasticall persons thēselues, or to their wiues. Such matter did Paphnutius al­leadge, notwithstanding that he himselfe was neuer married: and his aduice was allowed by all the counsell, in so much that there was no law made then cōcer­ning that article, but the matter was left at liberty for euery man to do as he [Page 79] listed. Loe here a very notable and aū ­ciēt canon, which hath euersince bene obserued and kept in the eastern chur­ches, which would neuer suffer them­selues to be bound to the vow of sin­gle life. And if the westerne churche of Rome had done the like: Priests had neuer filled the world with so muche whoredome and wickednesse as they haue done. And vnto this Canon of the counsell of Nice, is agreeable the fifteth chap. of the Apostolick canōs, (which are allowed, for good & Catholick in the Decrees of Graecian) where it is sayd thus: If any Byshop, priest, C. Quoniā dist. 31. C. Placuit. dist. 26. de­acon or Subdeacon, or any other man of the order of Priesthood, doe abstayne from marriage, or from eating flesh, or from drinking of wine, not to make his mind more apt to the exercises of god­lines, but as in way of misliking them, forgetting that God hath made bothe male and female, and that all his crea­tures be good thinges, and so thereby blaming and slaundering that, which god hath created, let him be corrected, or deposed and put out of the Church.

By which Canon is condemned not onely the prohibition of mariage vnto priestes, but also the forbidding [Page] of men to eat flesh vpō certayn daies, whereunto doth well accord, that which S. Athanasius did write to one Dracontius a Moonke, who refused to be a bishop, because he imagined that the Monkes life had more holines in it, by reason that the Moonkes dyd obserue more scrupulously the prohy­bition of marriage, and the eating of certayne meates.Athanasius in his epis­tle to Dra­contius. Well then (sayth he) let not such things be alleadged to thee by such as counsell thee to shunne the charge of a Byshop. For I haue knowne Byshops which haue bene great fasters, And Monkes which haue bene great ea­ters! And Bishops which haue dronk no wine, & Monks great drinkers of wine: Byshops which haue bene workers of miracles, & Monks which haue wrought none. Agayne diuerse Byshops haue ab­stained from marriage, and many monks haue bene maried and had children: And contrariwise, there haue bene ma­ny Byshops maried and bene fathers of children: and many Monkes vnmaried. And there haue bene clergie men that haue eaten and drunke, and Moonkes which haue fasted: For both of them be lawfull, and none of them both is for­biden, but euery mā may lawfully chose [Page 80] which he listeth.

Whereby this good doctor doth playnly declare, that in his time mar­riage was not forbidden to menne of the clergye, nor to any monks. And in like manner the auntient Canons accurse al those, which in exalting vir­ginity do condemne marriage. These be the wordes of the Canon:C. quicūque dist. 31. Whosoe­uer keepeth virginity or single life, as in derogation of marriage, cursed bee hee, because his folowing of virginity, is not for that it is good and holy. And in ve­ry deed, the true virginity is y^t which consisteth in the mind rather than in the body, as witnesseth an other Ca­non, saying: It is much better to haue the soule a virgin, than the flesh: C. 2.32. q. 5 yet wer it good to haue them both so, if it may be. But if wee cannot bee chaste to the worldward, let vs yet at the lest be chast towardes God. For a true virgine maye wel be misused, but she cānot be made a whore, because the godly virgine is the church of God, and her chastity cannot be defiled by the brothelhouse. For the chastity of the minde abolisheth the in­famy of the place.

For the vnderstanding of y^e which Canon, we must haue an eye to the [Page] time of the primitiue Church, when diuers among the heathen men did put their bondslaues (whether they were wiues or maydens) into brothel houses and common stewes, to rayse gayne of the shamefull abuse of their bodies. And it fel out oftentimes that their poore slaues were Christians, and yet full ill against their willes, they were faine to suffer that shame­full abuse in their bodies, and to be­come as it were open brothels and harlots, to make gaine to their Ma­sters. wherof they are excused by this Canon, as hauing only their bodies abused by a forcible constrainte, and not their mindes by consent of their willes. Now therfore it may wel be discerned by these Canones, whether this doctrine of the Protestants con­cerning mariage, ought to be repu­ted erroneous or not, and whether it be not more agreable to Gods word, and the auncient Can­nons, than the doctrine of the Romish Catho­lickes. And now let vs pro­ceed on.

¶ Of princes and Ma­gistrates. The x, chapter

THe Protestants hold opinion that all such as dwel within the lands, Dominions, or Prouinces of any Prince, be they naturall subiectes or free Denizens, ought to yeald faithful obedience to him, and also to all Ma­gistrates vnder him, without any ex­ception of persons, or of their goods. And that they ought to acknowledge and to honor him as Gods Lieute­nant vpon earth, hauing the sword in his hand, to minister iustice to al men, and to be the defender and maintay­ner of Gods commaundements, and to cause his Subiectes to obay them. Also they hold opinion, that all folke ought to pray to God for the preser­uation and prosperitie of the Prince, and of all other Magistrates. And they beleeue that to disobay y^e prince, is a disobaying of God who hath set him vp. And that mē must obay him, not only for feare, but also for the due­ty of conscience, which doth binde vs [Page] to obay God, and so consequently the Prince whom God hath commaūded vs to obay.

The clergy exempr thē selues from the obedi­ence of princes.But the opinion of the Romish Catholicks is, that such as are of the cler­gie be exempted from this generall rule, and that they be not the subiects of temporall Princes, but of the pope: And that so by consequence, the prince neither may, nor ought to leuy any tribute, beneuolēce, loane, or subsedy of the Cleargie of his Countreis, nor of their goods:e. Clericis. de immunit ecclie. in 6. Accordingly as Pope Boniface the eight in one of his decrees expresly forbiddeth all Kings, Prin­ces, Dukes, Earles, Barons, Poten­tates, Captaines, Officers, Gouer­ners of Cities and Castles, and all o­ther persons, of what estate, degree, or condition so euer they be, to doe the like vpon paine of present interditing and excommunication, whereof none other but only the Pope himselfe can geue absolution.

Also they hold opinion, that the Prince (whom they tearme secu­lar) hath no authoritie in matters of Tenthes, nor in matters of Matri­mony among the lay people, nor in many other such like things.

Thirdly,The Pope chalengeth power to put downe Princes. they hold opinion that the Pope hath power to put down kings and Princes, and to depriue them of their Realmes and Principalities, as Pope Gelasius vaunteth himselfe in an epistle sent to the Emperor Anastasius: wherin he alleadgeth the example of Pope Zachary, who deposed king Chel­derike of Fraunce from his kingdome,C. alius. 15. q. 6. not for any wicked doings (sayth he) but because he was vnfitte to be a king. And did set vp king Pipin the father of Charlemaine in his place. Al­so by reason of this great authoritie, which the Popes tooke to themselues ouer kinges, they be puffed vp with such pride,c. Solitae. ex­tra. de Ma­ior. & obed. that they compare them­selues to the Sun, and to Golde, and kinges and Emperors to the Moon, and to leade: tearming themselues the masters of them, as the same Pope Gelasius did write to the sayd Emperor Anastasius. c. Duo. c. quis dubit & dist. 96.

Euery man therefore may iudge whether doctrine is the better, either that of the romish Catholicks, (which doth so limmit & cut short the autho­ritie of kinges and Princes, to aug­ment the greatnes of the Popes and Prelats.) Or that of the Protestants, [Page] which doe not challenge, but disalow such limitations, affirming that the Pope hath no such iurisdiction ouer the Subiects of kings and Princes. And seeing that Princes be the Lieu­tenantes of God here on earth, hol­ding their Scepters and Crowne of him: No doute but the honor which is done to them, is done to God him­selfe. And so consequently, God is better honored by the doctrine of the Protestantes, than by the doctrine of the Romish Catholicks.

The doctrine of the Protestantes is groūded euidently vpon the word of God, which commaundeth all men (without exception of any person) to obay the Prince vnder whose Domi­nion they dwell, not only for feare of his sword, but also for conscience sake. These be the words of S. Paule, who speaketh generally:Rom. 13.1.5. & Tit. 3.1. Let euery man be subiect to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, and the authorities that be, are ordayned of God, and therefore we ought not to be subiect for fear of displeasure only, but for conscience sake also.

And hereupon S. Chrisostome saith that this rule is so generall, that there is neither Apostle, nor Euangelist, [Page 83] nor Bishop, nor other person, that is exempted from the obedience of the Prince. And likewise S. Peter spea­king to al Christians, and to al Gods chosen flock, sayth thus:1. Pet. 2.15 Submitte your selues to all ordinance of man for the loue of God, whether it be to the king as to the chief, or to the gouernors as to those which be sent and oppointed by the Prince to punish male­factors, and to prayse the well doers.

And the reason why euery one ought to yeald obedience to y^e Prince, is, because the charge and estate which Princes take vpon them, is of God: For, the Scripture doth call Princes Gods, because they are the Lieuete­nants of God.Deut. 1.16. Psal 82.1. 1. Pet. 2.17. And therfore next af­ter God, we ought to feare and honor the Prince, as sayeth S. Peter: Feare God and honor the king.

And as Salomon doth also teach vs,Prou. 24.21. saying: My Sonne, feare the Lord and the king. And it is to be noted that in these textes, the king is put next after god, as his Lieuetenant presenting God himselfe. And we ought not onely to honor and feare the prince: but also to pray to God for him, and for all those which are in authoritie vnder him, y^t their gouernment may be in peace [Page] and tranquility, and that we may liue vnder their obedience in the seruing of God with all godlines and good­nes. These be the very wordes of S. Paule: 1. Tim. 2.1. I warne you therfore that before all other thinges, you make intercessions, prayers, supplications, and thankesgeuinge, for all men, and specially for kings, and for al such as are in authoritie vnder them, that we may leade a quyet and a peaceable life in all godlines and honesty: For that is accep­table before God our Sauiour.

And it is not for any man, not on­ly to exempt himselfe from obaying the prince, but also to deny to pay him tribute,Math. 17.27. & 22.21. seeing that our lord Iesus Christ did pay it, and hath commaunded to pay it. S. Paule doth also witnes the same thing, saying y^t the duty of conscience commaundeth vs to pay tribute to princes, because they be the mini­sters of God, and serue thereunto. Therfore geue vnto euery mā (sayth he) that which is due vnto hym. Rom. 13.5.6.7. Tribute to whome tribute belongeth, custome to whō custome pertaineth: duty to whom duety belongeth, and honor to whom honor is due. To be short, next after God, wee owe to the Prince all o­bedience, honour and feare: neither ought wee to thinke it straunge, that [Page 84] God shoulde haue the cheefe prehe­minence, seeing that the prince is but his minister and seruant, and that the Liefetenant ought not to goe be­fore him which putteth him in office, nor the seruant before the master. And that was the cause why Daniell said so boldly vnto the king Darius, Dan. 6.2 [...] that he had made no fault in disobaying his commaundement, which he could not haue obayed, without offending both God and his own conscience.

Also it was for the selfesame cause, that the obedience which the people of Israell did yeald vnto their king Iero­boham, (which caused Calues of golde to be made, and commanded the peo­ple to honor them) is condemned by the word of God. For in matters of Religion we ought to hold the gene­rall rule which S. Peter teacheth, say­ing: We must rather obay God than man. Act. 4 20. The reason hereof is the same that is alleadged by S. Paule: 1. Cor. 7.23. namely That we be redeemed or bought with the precious bloud of our Lord Iesus Christ, which is a thing of so great and excellent price, that we ought not to turne away from the saluation which he hath purchased vs, for any thing in all the world.

The Pope and his clergy ought to be in subiection to Princes.We haue heretofore alledged some of the decretall Epistles of the Popes Gelasyus, Innocēt the third, and Bomface the eight, by y^t which they haue done their indeuour to thrust down empe­rours, kinges, and other Princes far vnderneath them: but the auncient Canons speake farre otherwise, for by them, euen the Pope himselfe (when­soeuer he cōmitteth any fault) ought to be corrected and punished by the Emperour, as Pope Leo the fourth a­uoweth and confesseth in his epistle written to the Emperor Lewes, c. Nos fi in­competenter [...]. q. 7. which epistle is made canonicall. If we haue done (sayth he) any thing which wee ought not, or haue not performed the e­quity of the law towards your subiects, we are ready to amend our fault, by the iudgement of your selfe, or of your com­missioners: for if we which should cor­rect the faultes of other men, do worsse then they: we be not the children of the trueth, but (which thing I speake with great grief) we be masters of error, more thā others. Wherfore, we most hūbly besech your maiesties clemency, to vouchsafe to send hither some commissioners of yours, such as feare God, to informe you of our behauiour and to make as di­ligent [Page 85] inquisition thereof, as if your im­periall maiestie were here present in proper person: and to search out the trueth by peecemeale, not onely of the thinges afore mentioned, but also of all other matters which may haue bene reported vnto you: So as by that meanes al things may be determined by lawfull examina­tian of the case, and nothing remayne to be discussed and decided hereafter. By which Canon it appeareth playnely, that the Emperour of Rome hath power and authoritye to inquire of y^e misbehauiour and misdealings of the pope, and that he may by lawful iud­gement, condemne and punish him when he doth amisse. We do also read in S. Gregory Greg. Epist. lib. 4. epist. 29. lib. 5. e­pist. 163. lib 6. epist. 194 lib. 7. epist. 114 120. 126. lib 8. epist. 2. lib. 9. epist. 60. (who is esteemed for one of the best Popes) that in his epistle which he wrote to the kings of fran̄ce of Englād, and of the westerngothes, he did alwaies call them his children. But when the wrate to the Emperor which raygned in his tyme, whose name was Mawrice, hee called him his Lord, and spake very humbly vn­to him, as vnto hym that was his so­ueraygne, declaring that he did, and would obay the sayd Emperors most mylde commaundementes, (for those [Page] be his termes that he vseth. There are other Canons also, by the which all power of Soueraintye is attribu­ted vnto princes, as well ouer the lay people, as ouer the clergye, and ouer the goodes both of the one and of the other. These be y^e very wordes of the Canon.c. Tributum 13. q. 8. S. Peter in fishing found tribute in the mouth of a fish, because that the church ought to pay tribute of such outward good as are sene to al mē. And the case so standeth, that for his tri­bute he was commaunded to pay, not all the whole fish which he had caught in fishing, but onely the peece of siluer which he had founde in the mouth of the fish which he had caught, because the church it selfe or the preheminence of the place, ought not to be geuen to Emperours, and Kinges, nor to be put in subiection to their power. But surely (as I sayd before) that which was found in the mouth of the fish, is com­maunded to be geuen for the tribute of Peter and of the Lord, because wee ought to pay tribute vnto princes, of the outwarde goods of the church, accor­ding to the auncient custome, to the end they may mayntayne & defend vs in good peace and quietnes.

By which canon it appereth, that princes may as well rayse tribute vpon men of the Church, as vpon y^e lay people, although they may not take authority in deuine matters, further than to cause obedience to be geuen to the commaundements of God, as it is sayd in an other Cannon in ex­presse wordes.c. Imperato­res dist. 9. Princes cā ­not bind mē to lawes that are a­gaynst Gods commande­ments. When Emperors make wicked lawes to maintayne falshood a­gaynst the trueth, it serueth to trye the true beleuers, who are crowned with martirdom for perseuering in the truth. But when they make good lawes and edictes to mayntayne the truth agaynste the falshood, the persecutors are strickē in fear by it, and such as vnderstand the truth do amend themselues. Whosoe­uer therefore, doth refuse to obay the edictes of the Emperoures and princes that mayntayne the true doctrine, doe procure themselues great punishment: but as many as refuse to obay the edicts made agaynst the will of God, winne to themselues great reward. Eor euer since the tyme of the prophets, all kinges are blamed, which haue not prohibited, and rooted out from amongst Gods people, all such thinges as haue bene set vppe a­gaynst his commaundements. And these [Page] which haue prohibited thē and rooted them out, are highly praysed aboue al o­thers. Nabuchodonosor being an Idolater, did make a trecherous proclamation, that all men should worship his Image. But those which refused to obay the vn­godly law, dealt faythfully and holyly. With this Canon agreeth an other canon taken out of S. Augustine, who in expounding the texte of S. Paule, (where it is said) that he which resist­eth the Prince resisteth the ordinance of God,C. Qui resi­ [...]et. 11. q. 3. speaketh in these termes. He that resisteth the higher power, doth re­sist the ordinance of God. Yea, but what if he commaund vnlawfull thinges? tru­ly in that case thou must not obay him. Consider the degrees euen of mens lawes. If the ordinary iudge commaund a thing, he ough to be obayed, but not if the gouernour command the contrary. And in this case thou despisest not the inferior maiestrate, but of the two thou chosest rather to obay the superior, wher in, the inferior maiestrate ought not too find himselfe greued, for that his superi­or is preferred before him. Moreouer, If the gouernour commaunde one thing, and the Prince an other: or rather, if the Prince commaund one thing, and God [Page 87] commaund the contrary, what will you say to that? God is the highest power, O my soueraine Lord, I beseech you to par­don me, you may cause me to bee put in prison, but god hath power to put me in hell fire. In this case thou must arme thy selfe with the buckler of fayth, whereby thou shalt be able to beat back all the fi­ry dartes of the deuill.

Now then, these Canons mayne­taine the doctrine of the Protestants, which affirme that next vnder God, we ought to yeeld all obedience to the Prince, yea although he were an In­fidell or a Runeagate as Iulian the A­postata was, of whom the canō spea­keth thus:C. Iulianus. 11. q. 3 Albeit that Iulian the Empe­rour was an Apostota or backslider: yet had he christen souldiers that serued vn­der him, whom whensoeuer he commā ­ded to march forward in battaile for the defence of the common weale, they o­bayed him. But when he commaunded them to marche agaynst the Christians, thē they acknowledged the Emperour of heauen.

And in good soothe,The Pope can geue a­gene away benefyces. so little is the Pope in abled by the auncient Can­ons, to bereaue kinges and princes of their Realmes and principalities, that [Page] he cannot so much as geue away a Bishopricke in any Realme, without the consent of the pruste vnder whose dominion the same is, as it appeareth by an Epistle of Pope Leo the fourth sent to the Emperours, Lotharius and Lewes, by the which he doth intreat thē to consent to bestow the Bishopricke of Rets vpon one named Colon. These be the very wordes of the Canon. Se­ing the church of Rets, c. Reatina. &c. Lectis. dist. 65. hath bene so lōg tyme without a Shepheard, it is requisite that it should bee ayded by your maie­sties authority, and maintained by the power of your gouernement. Wherfore after our most hūble salutatiō vnto you, we beseech your clemency to vouchsafe to graunt the gouernement of the sayed church vnto Colon your humble deacon, that by your maiesties licence, we may (with Gods helpe) consecrate him By­shop of the same. And if it stād not with your liking that he should be Bishop of that church, then we beseech your high­nesse that he may haue the Churche of Tusculan which is now vacant, so that being by vs consecrated Byshop, he may geue thankes to almighty God and to your jmperiall maiesty.

And it is not to be doubted, but y^e [Page 88] both in the time of the same Pope Leo, and before his tyme also, it was the ordinary custome, not to receiue any Byshop, without the consent of the prince, vnder whose dominion the bi­shoprick was. According whereunto it is sayd thus in an other canon speaking of y^e same matter in these termes Forasmuch as we know that the church of God cannot be maintained without Shepheardes: we beseech your maiestye (as we are bound to do) to vouchsafe of your imperiall wisedome, (according to the custome in all auncient time obser­ued) to geue vs licēce by your maiesties letters patentes to prouide one, and we will therein obay your will and (by Gods helpe) consecrate him that shal be chosen

To be short, not onely these fore­sayd canons, but also many others do witnes vnto vs, that nother any By­shoprick, nor yet the Papacy it selfe, may be geuen to any without consent of the Prince: so farre off is the Pope frō hauing authority aboue y^e Prince. And whosoeuer will read S. Gregory (especially in the Epistle which hee wrote to Mawrice the Emperoure) shall finde that he doth often tymes [Page] geue the Emperoure thanks for pro­uiding such & such a church of a good and meete shepheard,Epist. lib. 4. epist. 29. & lib. 6. epist. 170. and how he de­clareth in diuers places, y^t hee is and will, be obedient to the lawes and cō ­maundementes of the Emperoure, as we haue towched here before.

❧ Of the authoritie of the Pope and of the succession, and discipline in the order of the cleargy. The xi. Chapter.

THe Romish Catholickes hold o­pinion, that the Pope is the su­preme head, chiefe Shepheard, and v­niuersall gouernor of all the churches of Chistendome: as vicar generall of our Lord Iesus Christ. And this doc­trine they build vpon a likelihood of great conueniency, that Iesus Christ which is in heauen, should haue a liuetenant here below vpon earth, to pardon the sinnes of the repentant, & to prouide Curats and Shepheardes for the perticuler churches when they happen to be vacant, and to make [Page 89] lawes and Canons to rule all christē ­dome in matters of religion & ecclesi­astical pollicy. They say also, that this authority ouer all the churches of the world was geuē to S. Peter the first pope of Rome, and so consequently to to his successors, for because our Lord Iesus Christ sayd vnto him.Mat. 16.18 Thou art Peeter, and vpon this rocke will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall haue no power agaynst it: And I will geue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen, and whom soeuer thou bindest vpon earth, he shall bee bound in heauen, and whomsoeuer thou losest vpon earth shabbe losed in heauen.

But contrarywise the Protestants affirme,Christ hath no need of any Lieuetenant or vi­car General on earth. that Iesus Christ alone is the supreme head, chiefe shepheard, and vniuersall gouernor of the vni­uersall Church whiche is disparsed throughout the world, and that when he went vp into heauē, he did not ap­point any vickar or liuetennant to keepe his place, nother in deede was it needefull. For he that is absēt him­selfe hath need of a liuetenant: but as for him, he is neuer absent from his church, but is and alwayes will be with it by his spirite & deuine power, vnto the end of the world: So as to [Page] say that Christ hath neede of a liuetē ­naunt vpō yearth, as though he could not execute his office vpon yearth for all his being in heauen, is as much as to bereue him of his Godhead, which of it owne nature hath no lesse power and abilitie on earth and in hell, then in heauen where his manhode is re­sident. Wherof it inseweth (according to our first maxime) that the doctrine of the Protestantes in this poynte, is better thē the doctrine of the Romish Catholicke, because the honor that be­longeth to Iesus Christ, is better yel­ded vnto him by that, then by the o­ther. Lykewise y^e doctrine of the pro­testantes is much better grounded v­pon the word of God, then the doc­trine of the Romish Catholicks.

For S. Paule doth teach vs, that Christ is the head of the church, not a head separated or set away frō it, but surely knit and ioyned fast vnto it, with all manner of fastninges & knit­tinges that a well vnited and well cō ­pacted bodye should haue. These be his wordes:Ephe. 4.15. To thend that by follow­ing the truth with charitie, wee should in all poyntes atteyne to full growth in him which is our head, that is to say in [Page 90] Christ, vnto whome the whole bodye being throughly knitted and fastned to­gether, by all manner of fastninges that may furnish it out, doth take bodilye in­crease of the power that worketh with­in it, according to the capacitye of euery mēber, to the full perfecting vp of it self in loue. By which wordes euery man may easely iudge, that S. Paule ment to portray out vnto vs the great and singular cōiunctiō of the head, (which is Christ) vnto his church, in that he sayth, that he is knit, and fastened to the same, by all manner of fastenings requisite to the full furnishing out of a bodye.

And in an other place he sayth like­wise, that Christ is the head of the church, working all thinges fully in all the members of his bodye, which is the church. Whereupon it follow­eth very well, that we ought to haue no other head in the church, to execute and performe the office of Christ, for­asmuch as the sayd performance is re­seruid to Christ him selfe.

These be the very wordes of S. paule: Ephe. 1.22. And he hath put all thinges vn­der his feete, & set him aboue all things to be the hed of the church, which is his [Page] bodye, and the ful furnishing out of him, who furnisheth out all thinges fully in all men. Also in an other text of S. Paule, it is well declared, that y^t church needeth not a liuetenant to hold the place of Iesus Christ her hed.

For he sayth y^t lyke as the husband, is the hed of his wife: so is Christ also y^e hed of his church. And were it meet y^t a wife should haue a nother man in her husbandes stead? would not men say that the wyfe which would needs haue another man to supply her hus­bāds roome, were a whore? yes, and euē in lyke wise the chast and honest­minded church ought to content her­selfe with her hed which is Christ, who is well inough able to gouerne the same, without a liuetenant, spe­cially seing it should be but ill gouer­ned by such liuetennants as the most part of the Popes haue bene.

Eph. 5.23. This is the very text of S. Paule: For the husband is the hed of the wyfe, euen as Christ is the hed of the Church, who is also the preseruer of hir bodye. Ther­fore, as the church is subiect vnto Christ, so lykewise let women be subiect to their husbandes. Moreouer when S. Paule maketh reckening of the diuers [Page 91] offices which are in the Church, he saith that for the gathering together and building vp of the same, Christ hath ordayned Apostles, Prophets, Euangelistes, Shepherds, and Tea­chers: and not that he hath appointed a Pope or an vniuersall Shepheard to haue supremacie ouer the vniuersal Church, which is dispersed through­out all the world. And yet it is very certain that S. Paule would not haue forgotten to haue spoaken of him, yea and to haue reckned him in the first place, if Iesus Christ had ordayned that there should haue bene a pope in his church, to haue bene his lieutenāt. These be the very wordes of S. Paul Therefore he hath appoynted some to be Ap­postles, some to be Prophets, Eph. 4.11. some to be Euan­gelists, some to be Shepheards, & some to be Teachers, to gather together the Sayntes through their working in the ministery, and to build vp the body of Christ. And so it appeareth by this text, that there nee­deth no pope for the building vp of y^e church nor for y^e work of the ministe­ry, but that y^e offices before named by S. Paule are sufficient for y^t purpose.

And as touching the text of Saint Mathew before alleadged, whereon the [Page] Romish Cotholickes doe build theyr doctrine concerning the Pope, saying that Iesus Chryst hath builded his Church vpon S. Peeter the first Pope, and geuen him all power ouer the v­niuersall Church. The Protestances aunswere, that the Petra that is to say the rocke which is spoken of there, is the fayth whereby S. Peter had most stoutly confessed that Iesus was that Christ, the sonne of the liuing God. For S. Paule doth teach vs,Ephe. 2.20. that Ie­sus Christ is the head corner stone whereon we ought to build. And S. Peter himselfe doth witnes,1. pet. 2.5. that the true beleuers, (which haue their fayth builded vpon this corner stone christ) are as liuing stones, conched and ce­mented together vpon it, to fynish vp the building of the lords church. And as for y^e authority which Iesus Christ gaue vnto Peter, as it is sayd in the same text: They sayd also that he gaue the like to all the rest of his Apostles, as S. Iohn witnesseth.

Ioh. 20.23.So as it cannot be inferred vpon this text, that S. Peter was ordained to be the onely Soueraygn gouernor of the Christian Church, any more then the rest of the Apostles. And in [Page 92] an other place S. Paule doth wel de­clare that S. Peter had no more authority then the other Apostles: for hee putteth himselfe in the same degree of apostleship that Peter was. And whē he reckneth vp the chiefest Apostles, he reckneth first S. Iames, then Saynt Peter, and in the third place S. Iohn, wherein he had greatly ouershot him selfe (which cannot be sayd without blaming the holy ghost) if the saying of the Romish Catholickes be trew, who affirme that S. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and had soue­raygne authority ouer them, and ouer the whole vniuersall church. These be the uery wordes of S. Paule:Gal. 2.8.9. For he which hath wrought by peter, in the office of Apostleship among the circumcised, hath like wise wrought by me among the Gentiles, and Iames, Cephas, and Iohn, who are esteemed to be the pillers, haue knowne the grace which was geuen me. Neither doth S. Peeter in his Epistles, name himselfe Pope or prince of Apostles, or head of the church, or Christs vickar, but simply, an Apostle as the others. And when his companions did geue him charge to go preach in Samaria, he was so far of from pretēding to haue any prince­ly [Page] authority ouer them: that he obayd them without gayneseing, as it is written in the Actes of the Apostles.Act. 8.14. And therefore it appeareth playnelye by all these sayings, that the doctrine of the protestantes is better groun­ded vpon the word of God, then the doctrine of the Romish Catholickes, and consequently that it is the most auncient and true, according to our second Maxime.

Let vs now come to the Canons. Truely when I read these Canons, which I wil reherse hereafter: I maruel that pope Engenie the third (who authorised the decres of Gratian and commanded that they should be openly red in the vniuersities) procured not the vtter defacing & dissanulling of all the auncient Canons there ga­thered together, seing they be so de­rectly contrary to the doctrine and authority of the popes.The name Pope signi­fied in olde tyme a Fa­ther, & now a Prince. But it was the prouidence and will of God, that it should so be. Now then you must first of all vnderstand, that the auncient doctors of the church do oftē vse this name of pope, which signifyeth, a fa­ther, and in aunciēt time, was indiffe­rently vsed to all Bishoppes aswell [Page 93] meane as great. But in the end, the Boshop of Rome appropriated the same to himselfe alone, and from that tyme forth, this name of pope hath e­uer bene taken, (as it is still in these dayes) not for a father but for a su­preme head and vniuersall Bishop of all the Christian churches of the world: which title of vniuersall is re­proued by all the auncient Canons, & so consequently the estate which the pope of Rome doth take vpon him at this present, is condemned: For it is well knowne that he nameth him­selfe the vniuersall Shepheard or Bi­shop, and that he chalengeth authori­ty ouer all churches and councels. Now harken to the very words of a Canō which putteth him to his neck­verse. Let no Patriarke at any tyme vse the name of vniuersall. c. Nullus. c. ecce. dist. 99. For the Patri­arke, which nameth himselfe vniuersall, taketh the name of Patriarke away from all others. But Godforbid that any of the faythfull should chalendge honor to himselfe, to the derogation of his bre­thren, be it neuer so little. Wherefore we besech you of your charity, let none of you from henceforth in his letters, geue the title of vniuersall, to any man [Page] any more least ye take away the title due vnto your selues by attributing the same vnduely vnto orhers. The next Canon following doth sing the same song, which ought to be of so much y^e more force among the Romish Catholicks for that it is taken out of an Epistle of S. Gregory sēt to the patriark of Al­lexandria: Thus therefore doth he say in expresse wordes. Behold euen in the very preface of your letters which you wrote vnto me, you go about to cast the proud name of vniuersal pope vpon me, euen vpon me (I say) who haue forbiddē other men to vse it. Wherefore I besech your holines, euen of your curtesy, to do so no more, for you take from your selfe to geue to an other, without cause why. I seek not to aduaunce my selfe in tytles but in manners: neither thinke I that I ought to purchase honour to my selfe, with the losse of the honour of my bro­thers, for my honor is to honor the vni­uersall church, and to behaue my selfe vprightly towardes my brethren. And I thinke my selfe then most honored, whē euery of them hath his due honour yel­ded vnto him. But if your holines name me the vniuersall pope: then in attribu­ting the whole vnto me, ther is nothing [Page 94] left to others: which God forbid where­fore let vs driue away these termes farre from vs, which inflame vs with vanity, and hurt charity. The reason of these Canons is very euident: namely, for that it is impossible for one man to gouerne the vniuersall church, and to be Byshop of the whole world, seeing that euen they which are best able, do finde themselues greatly combred in the gouerning of one onely Byshop­rick well. Besides this the title of vniuersal Bishop, is to stately and proud to be matched with the true Shep­heardes of gods church, which ought to walke in humility, voyd of al pride and ambition. The same thing is ve­rified by a canō in these expres words Whosoeuer desireth supremacy vpon earth, shall finde confusion in heauen. C. Vlt. dist. 40. Supremacy aboue o­thers is to be eschued. And he that speaketh of primacie, shall not be nūbred amongest the seruātes of God. Let euery body therefore study, not how he may seem greater thē others, but by what means he may most imbase himselfe. For hee is not the most righteous, which amongst men is most honored: but he is most honorable, which is most righteous Hereunto agreeth well the Canon which sayth that all churches are equall in authoritye, and that the [Page] church of Rome hath no superiority ouer other churches, This Canon is takē out of S. Ierom, and sayth thus. We ought not to think that there is any ods between the church of rome & the churches of any other place of the world. c. Legimus. dist. 93. In Fraunce, England, Affrik, Persia, the East, and the Indies, and all the Barbarous na­tions do honor Christ, and obserue one rule of truth. If regard bee to bee had of authority: the world is greater then the City of Rome. Wheresoeuer there is a Byshop, All Bishops are of equall authority. be it at Rome be it at Eugubiū, be it at Constantinople, be it at Rhegium be it at Allexādria, be it at Thebes, or be it at Garmace: it is all of one worthines & of one selfsame degree of priesthood. The greatnes of Riches, or the meanesse of pouerty, setteth not a Bishop in high­er or lower degree. To bee short, all of them be the successors of the Apostles.

Now then it appeareth plainly by these Canons, that the pope (who in all his bulles doth name himselfe the Bishop of Rome) is no greater than another meane Bishop, & that neither he, nor the Church of Rome, can claime to themselues any autho­ritie ouer other Bishops and Chur­ches, otherwise than by tiranny and [Page 94] vsurpation.

And truely, besides the foreallea­ged Canons taken out of S. Gregory, Greg. epist. lib. 4. ep. 76. & 78. who so will reade his epistle, shal find that he vtterly detested this title of v­niuersall Shepheard or Bishop from his hart, as a wicked title not meete for any but for Antichrist or for his forerunner. In one of his Epistles he complaineth greatly to the Empe­ror Maurice, that Iohn Bishop of Con­stantinople did trouble the Church of God, by seeking to vsurpe the title of vniuersall Bishop. For (to the intent ye may vnderstand the very roote and originall beginning of this discourse) you must consider that in those daies, and long time before, Constantinople was called new Rome, and the other in Italy was called olde Rome. And because the Emperor of Rome did most commonly keep his residence at new Rome, and olde Rome was at that time greatly vexed with the bar­barous Gothes, & Lumbards which warred vpon Italy and destroyed it: without doubt the new Rome was then a more flourishing Citie, and in higher estimation than olde Rome, or any other Citie in all the wholl Em­pire. [Page] Wherupon the said Bishop Iohn being of an ambitious dispositiō, and minding to aduance himselfe by the dignitie of the Citie whereof he was bishop, began to preach and persuade the people and diuers of the bishops, that like as the Emperor extended his dominion ouer all the prouinces and countreys of the Empire: euen so the Bishoppe of Rome (that is to say of new Rome) which was then in more estimation than old Rome, ought to extend his power and autooritie ouer all the prouinces and countreys of Christendome.

And truly this Bishop Iohn did so much by his continuall trauell, that he caused him selfe to be proclaymed vniuersal Bishop in a certain Sinode or Counsell, wheragainst S. Gregory (who was then bishop of old Rome) did set himselfe very manfullye. And therefore writing againe to the same Emperor Maurice, he saith amongst o­ther thinges there written, that the name of vniuersal Bishop is a title of pride and pompe, which troubleth the church, the lawes, and the sinodes, and the commaundements of Christ: And that S. Peter neuer was, ne ne­uer [Page 96] called himselfe vniuersall Apostle. And that it was the Emperors duty, (if he meant that God should long preserue his empire) to cut of that sore and to bridle the disease by his autho­ritie, if it could not otherwise be hea­led. Afterward he addeth these words worthy to be noted. If any man (saith he) doe attribute vnto himselfe the name of vniuersall Bishop in the church, S. Gregory whom the Catholicks take for an Archpope, condemneth the authority of Popes. what will al honest men iudge of him? For the estat of the vniuersall Church must nedes fall (which God forbid) if he fall which is called the vniuersall Bishop. Therfore let this blasphemous name be banished from the harts of all Christians, whereby the honor of all Priestes is taken away, and wrongfully vsurped by one alone.

And in the Epistle following, S. Gregory maketh his mone to the Em­presse Constance, that the said Emperor Maurice her husband went about to perswade him to leaue of his setting of himselfe against it, which I cannot doe (saith he) for I defend the cause of the Gospell, and the Canons, and the truth of equitie and humilitie. And it is to greeuous & intollerable a thing that the sayd Iohn our fellow brother and bishop, should seeke to haue the [Page] name of bishop to himself alone. But what other thing doth he geue vs to vnderstand by this his pride, but that the time of Antichrist draweth neare? For he followeth the steps of the wic­ked feend, who despising y^e ioy which he had in common amongst the legi­ons of other Aungels, dyd seeke to set himselfe in y^e hyghest roome, to raigne as soueraigne all alone,

And in an other Epistle, the same S. Gregory, answering to y^e whiche the sayd Emperour Maurice had written vnto him, which was that hee ought not to bee so precisely wedded to his own will for the terme of vniuersall Bishop, for such strife about termes hinder the vnion and peace of the church: did disproue his reasons with very good grace,Ep. lib. 6. ep. 194. saying thus: But I beseech your maiestie of your goodnes, to consider that of words fondly spoken some doe no harme at all, & other some doe great harme. As for example, when Antichrist shall come and call himselfe God, that speech is very fond: neuerthe­les as it is fonde, so is it also very perni­cious. If you looke no further thā to the wordes, there are but two sillables: but if you way the meaning of the wordes, [Page 97] it is the full importance of all iniquitie. And I dare boldlye say vnto you, that whosoeuer calleth himselfe, or causeth himselfe to be called the vniuersal priest, the same partie through his vainglory­ousnes, is the foreronner of Antichrist, because that by his pride, he exalteth himselfe aboue all others. I besech you therefore of your good zeale to God­ward, to commaund that no cause of of­fence be geuen by taking vp such a fond title. See how S. Gregorye declareth and denowceth him to be the foreron­ner of Antichrist, which doth name himselfe vniuersall Byshop, foras­much as he taketh vpon him the auc­thoritye of all other Byshops, as wel neere all the Popes of Rome haue done, which haue bene since his time. And yet to confirme this his sentence better, I wil adde the warning which he gaue by his letters to the Byshops of Greece, to be well ware that they gaue not the title of vniuersall By­shop, to Siriacke Byshop of Constan­tinople next successor of the said Iohn after his decease:Epist. lib. 7. epist. 69. good brethren (quoth he) yee shall vnderstand, that the late Iohn, (who not long since was prelate,) Passing the bondes of modestie, and [Page] of the measure of his calling, did wrong­fully in a Synode vsurpe the proud and pestilent title of Oycumenicall (that is to say vniuersall) Byshop agaynst God and the Church, and to the despight & derogatiō of the whole order of Preest­hode. Wherupon wee wrote twise vnto him, that he should not omit any thing, which might concerne the peace of the Church, exhorting him to leaue that proud name, and to submit his hart to the humilitye, which our Lord and ma­ster hath taught vs. Whereof forasmuch as he held scorne, we haue vsed the lyke admonitions vnto our brother Siriacke, his successor. But sith wee see that Anti­christ the enemy of mankinde, begin­neth to shew himselfe opēly by his fore­ronners in this latter tyme: and that the preestes themselues, (which ought to resist him by their holy & humblelyfe,) be the partyes that serue him for his foreronners, by intitling thēselues with his proud name of vniuersall: I beseech yee, yea and charge ye, that none of you at any tyme, receyue, admit, write, allow written, or subscribe vnto that title: But that as becommeth the seruauntes of the almighty God,) euery of you keepe himselfe pure and cleare from this vene­mous [Page 98] infection, without yelding of him selfe, to the deceitfull craftines of the enemy: for surely that title tendeth to no other end, but to the hurt, and diuisi­on of the Church, and to the slaunder of you all, as I haue sayd before: because that if he onely (as he imagineth) is the vniuersall Byshop, it followeth that you be no Byshops. There are yet diuers other like sayings, in the writings of S. Gregory, which I could here al­leadge, but these which I haue here before set downe, may suffice (in mine o­pinion) to declare and shew vnto the Romish Catholicks by the authority of that god doctor (whom they them­selues take to haue beene one of the greatest & worthiest of all the Popes, in respect whereof they haue surna­med him the great S. Gregory) that the name and office of y^e Pope (which is nothing else but an vniuersall and supreme Byshop or shepheard ouer all other Byshops and Priestes,) is condemned as the name and office of Antichrist or of his forerunner, and as a title and estate full of pride, iniury, di­uision, and contempt of Gods com­maundemēts, and of the holy decrees and counsels which haue bene holde [Page] before that tyme.

That S. paul and S. Peter were equall in degree.But now that we haue made S. Gregory to fight sufficiētly against y^e popes that were his successors, let vs returne to our Canons, to shew that S. Peter was neuer pope, (that is to say prince or soueraine ouer the Apo­stles:) I will only alleadge one Ca­non, which saith that S. Paule and S. Peter were equal, yea euen at the same time that they were both at Rome, and that the one was no way greater than the other: whereof it followeth, that S. Peter was no more pope than was S. Paule. Now S. Paule was ne­uer pope, nor euer reputed so to be, by the very maintayners of the pope­dome themselves. For these be the ve­ry words of the Canon, taken out of S. Ambrose. c. Beate. 2. q. 7. S. Peter and S. Paule haue preheminence aboue all other Apostles, by speciall prerogatiue. But yet is it vn­certayne whether of them two were preferred before the other. For I think that they were both equall in deserts, & like­wise in their deathes and passions: and also that they liued in like deuotion of faith and finally, came Both together to the glory of martirdome.

And I beleue that it hapned not with [Page 99] out some cause, that they both suffered martirdome in one day, in one place, and vnder one persecuter, for they suffered in one day, that they might goe toge­ther in company to Christ: and in one place, to the end that Rome should not want either of them both, & vnder one persecuter, that both of them might be partakers of one cruelty. The day there­fore was ordayned for their desert, the place for their glory, and the persecuter for their vertue. And they both suffered martirdome at Rome the soueraign La­dy and head of all nations, to the end that where the head of superstition was, there should rest the head of holines: & where the princes of the Gentils dwelt, there should remayn the Princes of the Church.

By which Canon it may easely be iudged,S. Peter was neuer head of the Church. that S. Peter was in nothing to be preferred before S. Paule, & that both were equal in all respects, which sheweth plainly that S. Peter was ne­uer head of the Church, neither in re­spect of nature, nor in respect of mini­stration. For if he had been, thē should as much haue been sayd of S. Paul, ac­cording to the Canon. And so by con­sequence, we should say that y^e Church [Page] had then two heads like a monster, a thing that were to absurde & strange. I know wel that such as imagine the gouernment of the Church to be like the gouernment of a kingdome,The Lordly gouernemēt of the chur­che dispro­ued by the auncient Canons. doe thinke it meete that there should be one supreme head and gouerner, and that the same should haue Cardinals as great Princes of his court, & Arch­bishops somewhat in lower degree than the Cardinals, and Bishops as inferiors to the Archbishops, and so consequently Abbots, Priors, Chan­nons, and Curats, ech in degree vn­der other. And in good sooth, this or­der of holy gouernment hath a fayre outward shew, but there is one thing that marreth all, which is, that it hath no foundation in the word of God, which doth not teach that there is a­ny inequalitie amongest the Shep­heards, but that they ought to gouern their Churches with one common consent by Gods word, making as­semblies or meetings, (which are cō ­monly called Sinodes or Councels) for the same purpose, if need require. And moreouer that they ought to submit themselues to the Ciuill Magi­strate. And the very Canons them­selues [Page 100] doe agree herewith, (specially one Canon which is taken out of S. Iherom,) seeing, that in the time of the primitiue Church there was no diffe­rence betwixt a priest or an elder, and a bishop: and that the Church was then gouerned by the common coun­cell of the elders.

Let vs heare the very words of the Canon.c. Olim. dist. 95. In olde time an Elder and a Bishop were all one thing, till scismes and parttakings crept into Religion by the deuils inspiration, and that folke be­gan to say, I hold of Paule, and I of Apol­lo, and I of Cephas. Vntill this time the Churches were gouerned by common aduice of the Elders. But after that eue­ry man began to brag of his own disci­ples whom he had baptised, and not of Christ, then it was ordayned that in eue­ry Church one of the Elders should haue authoritie ouer the rest, to take away the seede of scizme. Wherefore like as the Priests know that by the custome of the Church, they be put in subiection to the party that is set in authoritie ouer them: So let the bishops know also that wher­as they themselues are of more authori­tie than the Priest, it is not by the ordy­nance of God, but by custome, and that [Page] they ought to gouerne the Church by common aduise.

Which Canon in very truth is ve­ry notable, specially for that it doth e­uidently shew, that all the degrees and dignities (which are infinite at this day in the Church of Rome) are not grounded vpon the expresse ordi­nance of God, but only vpon the po­sitiue law of custome, for looke what the Canon speaketh of Bishops, is much more by all reason to be spoken of Cardinals, Patriarches, Archbi­shops and other dignities, seeing that the office of a Bishop (wherof the ho­ly Scripture maketh mention) was instituted long time before the digni­ties of the Cardinals and the others. And hereupon it followeth, that men should not make so great reckning of any of these great and pompous dig­nities, which are founded but onely vpon custome, which ought not to be of any (or at least wise of very litle) authoritie in the Church of God, as shalbe declared more at large in the last chapter of this booke.

The Pope had no pre­rogatiue a­boue the generall counsels in old tyme.As touching the residue, if it be al­leaged that the Bishop of Rome had in olde time, and still ought to haue [Page 101] cheefe authoritie and preheminence, at the least wise in the assemblies of coū ­cels and Sinodes: the answere is, that he hath nothing to doe with the matter: for the Ecclesiastical histories and the acts of the auncient councels,Hist. trip. lib. 2. cap. 1. (as that of Nice, holden in the time of Constantine the Emperor) doe witnesse vnto vs, that the Bishoppe of Rome was so far of from ouerruling y^e coū ­cels, that he tooke his place in sitting but as fourth in degree, (which is a good way offe from the first and cheef place) as he did at the generall coun­cell of Nice.

But forasmuch as in this point of the Popes Supremacie,The forged donation fathered vp on Constantine. the Romish Catholicks (& chiefly the Canonists) doe maintaine the authoritie of the Pope, by meanes of a donation and of certaine prerogatiues which they affirme to haue been graunted vnto the Pope by the Emperor Constantine the great. I will here a litle examine the truth of the matter. I say therfore that this donation and graunt of prero­gatiues, c. Constan­tius. dist. 96 inregistred by Gratian in his de­crees, is a thing inuented of pleasure and altogether false, and that it neither is like nor possible, that the Emperor Con­stantine [Page] did at any time make such a pre­tended gifte or graūt of prerogatiues, as may easely be perceiued by the histories of his time.

And for proofe of this matter, ye must first vnderstand, that in their sayd surmised donation, they make the Empe­ror Constantine to say within foure dayes after he was baptised, that he wold haue all the Bishops and Priestes of the Ro­mayn Empire, to acknowledge and hold the Bishop of Rome for their head, in like sort as the iudges of a Realme doe holde their king: and that he should haue greater authoritie than the Empe­ror himselfe: Geuing vnto Siluester the vniuersall Pope and to his successors, his Imperiall Pallace of Lateran which is at Rome, and the Citie of Rome it selfe, with al the Prouinces, Places, and Cities of Italy, and all the west part of the Em­pire, together with the Imperiall Crown of pure golde, inriched with precious stones, his Scepter, his mantell of Purple, and his other Imperiall Robes, and the Imperiall dignitie of commaunding the men of warre, with all other things con­cerning the glory & maiestie of the Em­pire. Geuing also to others of the Ro­main Cleargie, the dignitie, preheminēce [Page 102] and authoritie of Senators, Lords of the Empire, and Consuls: willing them to ride on horseback with white footeclo­thes, apparrayled like Senators, to the end that the Cleargie should be furni­shed with the like titles of honor in all poynts, as the Lordes and men of warre of the Imperiall Court were.

Also they make the same Emperor to acknowledge himself to be Pope Sil­uestars Footeman or Lackay in holding his stirrop and his bridle when he moū ­ted on horseback. And moreouer to de­clare that he would remoue his Imperi­al seate to the Citie of Bizance, which he was thē purposed to builde and to name it after his own name (that is to say) Con­stantinople, to geue place to the Pope, be­cause it was vnmeet that where the seate of the Priestly kingdome, and of the su­preme head of christen Religion was set by the Emperor of heauen: there also should be set the seate of the Emperor of the earth. And therfore that he willed and commaunded that the same dona­tion should stand in force, and be inuio­lablye obserued vntill the ende of the world, beseeching and adiuring all the Emperors, Lords of estate, Princes, Sena­tors, and People that should come after [Page] him, euen before the dreadfull iudge­ment seate of God, neuer to breake the same vpon payne of euerlasting damna­tion. And to haue both S. Peter and S. Paule their enemies, both in this world and in the world to come, and to be bur­ned and consumed in the deepe pit of hell, amongst the deuils and the vngodly folke. And the date of this pretensed donation is this. Geuen at Rome, the third of the Kalends of April, in the yere of the fourth Consulship of Constantine Augustus. And also in the fourth Consul­ship ot Gallicanus.

This in few words is the whole sūme of the pretended donation made by the Emperor to the Pope and to the Cleargie of Rome. Wherupō the doctors of the Ciuill Law take mar­uailous paines in discussing whether it be auaileable or not, and whether Constantine might so greatly diminish the Empire, seeing that (say they) the title of Augustus is geuen vnto him, to the intent he should increase, and not diminish the Empire: And whe­ther he could geue greater authoritie to the Pope, than he himselfe had, see­ing that by the rules of the law, no mā can graunt to another more right [Page 103] than he hath in himselfe: And whe­ther he could force or constraine his successors to obserue this donation, considering that by the Ciuill Law, like against like hath no power.

These doctors (say I) haue taken great paynes to resolue this question and diuers such like vpon that mat­ter: but all in vaine,The dis­proofe of the donati­on by the very dona­tion it selfe. for it ought first to be prooued that there was such a gifte made, before they disputed whe­ther it be lawfull and auaileable or not. But we may easely gather by the histories, that it is but a surmised and a forged graunt, and that there was neuer any such: But the holy order of the Cleargie hath alwayes taken it to be a holy kinde of fraude, to enter vpon the goods of the lay people by such meanes.

Therfore to resolue the sayd dout by the history, you must vnderstand, that this donation is reported to haue beene graunted in the time of Constan­tines fourth Consulship after his bap­tisme,Pomponius laetus. in Cō ­stantine & Licinius. Euseb. lib. 9 cap. vlt. trip hist. lib. 1. cap. 8.9. O­rosius. lib. 7 cap. 28. as if they had been both at one time, when as those times were farre asunder. For his fourth Consulship was in the yeare of our Lord three hundred and eighteene, and his bap­tisme [Page] was more than twenty yeares after: and therfore the diuersitie of the times doth discouer the falsenes of the donation.

Besides this, it could not be done in any of both those times, for afore the time of his baptisme Pope Siluester was already dead, as the histories do well proue, which doe witnesse, that for the great desire which Constantine had to be baptised in the Riuer of Ior­daine, in Iury, he deferred his Christ­ning (by reason of the great affayres wherwith he was continually kepte occupied) vntill the latter ende of his life, at which time perceiuing himselfe to be very ill at ease & out of all hope of being able to trauaile into Iury to be baptised in the Riuer of Iordaine, he caused himselfe to be christened in Ni­comedia.

And therfore this pretended graūt, could not be made by constantine af­ter his Baptisme (as the donation it selfe doth beare men in hand) to pope Siluester who was dead before that tyme. Neither could it be done in the tyme of constantines fourth consul­ship: For at that tyme (and moe than ten yeres after) he had a fellow in the [Page 104] Empire named Licinius who held the East part of the Empire, and Constan­tine himselfe held the west partes, ac­cording to the custome of the Romain Empire then receiued, which was to haue two Emperors at once (as were Dioclesian and Maximian, and also Gale­rius Maximinus, and Constantius Chorus) the one commaunding in the East parts, and the other in the West.Euseb. lib. eccl. hist. 8. cap. 16. & Pom. lpaetus in vitis ho­rum Impe­ratorum. And therof (as some thinke) did grow the custome of paynting the Imperiall Eagle with two heads. Now then in asmuch as Licinius remayning at that time in the East countreys as in his own parte of gouernement, was a Heathen man and a deadly enemy to Constantine who was a Christian: It followeth in reason, that if Constantine should haue geuen vp the Empire of the West to the Pope, he could not haue made his account to haue remo­ued his Imperiall seate by and by in­to the East, (for he had reckned with­out his hoast) but it would haue be­hooued him first to haue put down Licinius, ere he could assure himselfe of the Empire of the East, as in deed he did afterward by force of armes: But that was more than ten yeares after [Page] his fourth Consulshippe. But who would thinke Constantine to haue been such a foole, as to spoyl himselfe of the West Empire to geue it to the Pope, and to content himselfe with the East Empire, which he had not, nor could assure himselfe to haue, considering how vncertaine the issue of waar is.

Moreouer about the same time of Constantines fourth Consulship, there was Ciuill warres in Rome betwixt Constantine himself and Maxentius, who had set vp himselfe as an vsurper in the Citie of Rome, through the ayde of the Pretorian Soldiars. By reason whereof, considering that Maxentius was a great enemy to the Christians, and had on his side an infinite num­ber of the greatest men within the Ci­tie: It doth well appeare that that time was vtterly vnmeet for Constan­tine to aduance Pope Siluester and the Romaine Clergie so greatly as this pretended donation would make vs beleeue.

And truely in the very same yeres of this fourth Consulship, the Senate of Rome did canonise and inrowle a­mong the number of the Gods, the Emperor Dioclesian who dyed at that time [Page 105] and had resigned vp the Empire, a­bout a ten yeres before.

Now then seeing that the Senate was at that time in so great authority as to canonise Dioclesian (the greatest enemie and persecuter of the Christi­ans that euer was) in despite of Con­stantine being then Emperor. Consul, and a Christian? I leaue it to your discretions, to cōsider how they wold haue suffered the thing which this pretended donation speaketh of, namely, that Siluester should haue been set vp as soueraigne Lord ouer the Sena­tors themselues, and ouer all the West Empire: and that the rest of the Cler­gie should haue been made fellow like and equall with the Senators, Con­suls, & States of the Empire. Sure­ly they would no more haue suffered it, than the Presidents and Councel­lars of our Parliament would now­adaies abide to haue a minister of the Gospell set ouer thē to controll them. Or the ouerseear of a Consistory to be made fellow with them.

And yet furthermore the history doth witnes vnto vs that this Constā ­tine the great, did leaue vnto his sōne Constantine for his part the Realmes [...] [Page] such ordinances doe burthen mennes consciences, and they that obay them, doe seeme rather to play the Iewes, than to vse the liberty of Christians. These be the very words of a Canon taken out of S. Augustine: c. Olim. dist 12. Vndouted­ly I am of opinion that the traditions of the Church ought to be cut of, as soone as oportunity may fitly serue thereunto. For although it appeare not that they are contrary to the faith: yet notwith­standing the slauish burthen of them doth oppresse Religion, which God of his mercy hath apointed to be free with the celebration of few Sacramentes, and those very cleare: In so much that the state of the Iewes is more tollerable thā the obseruation of so many traditions. For though they know not the time of their libertie, yet doe they not submitte themselues to any Sacramentes at the presumptious and fantasticall appoint­ment of man.

Which Cnnon doth well declare how much they be wedded to their own affection, which in these dayes doe kindle coales in all places, and condemne all those of heresie, which doe leaue the traditions of men, to be­take themselues to the word of God. [Page 107] For with what coūtenance dare they call it heresie, not to beleeue in the in­uentions of Popes, seeing that euen their own Canons doe wil vs to for­sake the traditions of men? If this be heresie then ought they to burne their Canon Law.

Moreouer, it is very easie to be proued by their own Canons, that al the decrees and ordinaunces of the Popes, are either superfluous or wic­ked. For if they agree & accord with y^t word of god, they are superfluous, be­cause it ought to suffise vs to obserue y^e ordināces of god, which haue no need to be ratified and authorised new a­gaine by men. And if they be contra­ry or repugnant to the ordinances of God, then ought they to be reiected as wicked, as the auncient Canones themselues doe witnes. These be the very words of an auncient Canon at­tributed to Pope Vrbane: c. Sunt qui­dam. Ye must vn­derstand that the Pope of Rome may wel make new ordinances in such things as the Euangelistes and Prophetes haue not spoaken of, c. contra. 25. q. 1. But in the matters that are openly resolued by the Lord himself, or by his Apostles, or by the auncient Fathers that followed next vnto them, [Page] the Pope of Rome cannot make any law at all, but ought rather to maintain that which is already ordayned, yea euē with spending of his bloud and his life. For, if he should take vpon him (which God forbid) to destroy that which the Apo­stles and Prophets haue taught, in so do­ing he should shew himselfe to doe a­misse, & not to geue sound iudgement.

Vpon this Cannon it is worthy to be noted, that the Popes authority extēdeth not so farre, as to deale with any thing which the Doctors, & aun­ciēt fathers of y^e Church haue taught, as it is farther auouched and proued by the Cannon following, attributed to Pope Zosimus whiche sayth thus: As touching the statutes of the fathers, the authoritie of the Seate may neyther ordaine any thing contrary to them, nor chaunge any thing in them: for antiqui­tie ought to be inuiolably rooted amōg vs, as beyng honorable by the decrees of the fathers, By which Cannons of Pope Vrban and Pope Zosimus, it doth playnely appeere, that the auncient Cannons, (such as those be whiche we haue alleaged in this book to con­fute the errors of the Romish church) ought to be of greater authoritie, than [Page 107] the decrees, and ordinaunces of the latter Popes of our dayes, & of their councels, which haue no power to di­sanul or altar any thing in y^e statutes, and doctrine of the auncient fathers. And as touching the authority, which the Pope attributeth vnto hym selfe,The Popes auchority in damning of mens soules c. Si papa. dist. 4 0. concerning power to dampne soules, and to send them into hell by great troopes, without beyng lawfull for any man to say vnto him, why doest thou so: and to excommunicate, out­lawe, and accurse whome he listeth: a man may beat down all these hornes of hys with this vnanswerable ar­gument taken out of his owne Ca­nons, that such as are true members of Christ and of hys Church, cannot be condempned nor put out of the Church by any kinde of excomunica­tion, enterditing or accursing, & that if any faythful Christian happen to be wrongfully excōmunicated or accurs­sed by y^e Pope, or by any other priest: yet notwithstanding hee is neuer the more out of the Church, but remay­neth alwaies a member of the same.

These be the very wordes of a ca­non touching that poynt:c. Cum ali­quis. 2. 4. q. 4 When any man departeth from the truth, from the [Page] feare of God, from the fayth, and from Charitie, truely, truely thē goeth he out of the compas of the Church. But con­trariwise, if any man be excommunica­ted and thrust out of the Church, by vn­iust Iudgement, it is certayne that if hee were not gone out afore, (that is to say, if he haue not done any thing that deserued it) he is not hurt by such excōmu­nication, for often times he which is dri­uē out remayneth still within, & he that seemeth to be within, is neuerthelesse without.

This Cannon teacheth vs a very good, and holy doctrine: which is to hould and retayne the pure doctrine of the truth, the feare of God, fayth & charitie, & then not to feare y^e excom­munications or thunderbolts of the Popes, or Bishoppes (the which in these dayes they do rather vse against such as will not allow their errors, than against wicked liuers and such as giue occasion of offence) because no man is able to put vs out of Gods Church, if we cast not out our selues through our vices. Now, if vices and errors be the thinges which driue a man out of the Church of God, are there in these dayes any people in the [Page 109] whole world which are more out of the Church than those which think to driue out others?

There remaine yet two pointes to treate of, touching this matter,A personall succession in the order of clergy. namelye, the personall succession a­mongst those of the Romain Clergy, (wherof they doe so greatly brag thē ­selues against the Protestantes) and their discipline. As touching the first point, they say they haue (as it were) a lineall succession from age to age, of Bishops and Shepheards from the Primitiue Church, and therefore that they be the true Shepheards: & that by the contrary reason, the Ministers of the gospell which haue had no such succession, be false Shepheards. But this matter of succession is very easie to be answered. For if you looke well into the histories of the Popes, and conferre them with the canons both of late yeres and of olde time, you shal finde that the most part of the Popes and Bishops came in at the window, and not at the dore. And that they haue been intruders and vsurpers, & not lawfull successors.

And to begin at the beginning, the canons doe teach vs (as truth is) [Page] that Bishopricks and Ecclesiasticall offices ought to be bestowed by law­full election, and that it is not lawfull for Bishops and Shepheards to ap­point in their latter dayes who shall succeede them, but only to geue their opinion to their Churches, concer­ning such as they deeme in their con­sciences to be most meete to succeede them. Thus saith a Canon taken out of the Counsell of Antioch.e. Episcopo. c. vnde. 8. q. 1. It is not lawful for a Bishop to choose or appoint who shall be his Successor, though he be neere his death: and whatsoeuer he doth in that case, is nothing, nor nothinge worth.

That the Popes are intruders of the Papacy.By which Canon it followeth, that Pope Clement (whom they vouch to be the Successor of S. Peter) was no lawfull Pope. For there is another Canon which saith (if it be worthy to be beleued) that S. Peter drawing nie the end of his life, tooke S. Clement by the hand, and betooke vnto him the Church of Rome, choosing him to be his successor. Also Pope Damasus (who was about the yere of our Lord 371. in the time of the Emperor Valentiniā) was made Bishop or Pope of Rome by great hurliburlies, wherein there [Page 109] were a hundred and seuen and thirty men slaine in the streetes as Marcilli­nus doth witnes.Am. Mar­cellus. lib. 27. Io. stella venetus. & Platina in vitis Ponti­ficum.

Pope Iohn the eightth being a wo­man (and therfore not capable of the Popedome) was borne in England, & held the Papacie about two yeres and a halfe. Pope Siluester the second was a great Negromanser, and came to be Pope by the help of the deuill, to whom he gaue both body and soule (as it is written in his history) and he raigned foure yeares and certaine Monethes. Pope Siluester the third was made Pope by tumults and fac­tions: For in those dayes (as sayeth the history) the popedome was growen to such a state, that it was geuen to him that would geue most for it, or which made most frends and fauour. Pope Boniface the eightth was made Pope by faction and bribery, hauing first by suttle practises gotten the re­signation of his predecessor Pope Ce­lestine a man of a simple Wit, whom he caused to be straitly shut vp in prison, where he dyed for grief of mind when he saw himself so deceiued and il han­deled. Wherupon it was sayd by this Boniface, (a good witnesse of his cal­ling) [Page] that he entered into the Pope­dome like a fox, raigned like a Lion, and died like a dog: for he dyed mad. Pope Iohn the four and twentieth v­surped the Papacie by force and vio­lence, and maintayned himselfe in it by the same meanes, and was found to erre in the Christian faith in moe than in fortie Articles: so holy was his holines.

To be short, the histories of the popes are full of the wicked dealings and practises which the Popes did vse to attaine to that degree. Now therefore I aske you whether these ought to be called lawfull successors of S. Peter, and whether those Bi­shoppes which were consecrated by them, were lawfully called or not, or ought to be reputed the lawfull successors of y^e primitiue church, & whether the Curates and other Priestes that were promoted to holy order and to benefices by such Bishops, may be reckned as lawfull successors of the Shepheards and Elders of the Pri­mitiue Church. It is very ceataine that they were not:c. Cum. in cunctis. c. Bona c. Quisquis Extr. de E­lectione. For then were the Canons vntrue, which say that in all prouisions for persons meete for Be­nefices, [Page 111] there ought to be a lawfull e­lection, wherein consideration is to be had of the fitnes of the parties age which is to be chosen, and of the gra­uitie of his manners, and of his lear­ning: and that as many as haue voy­ces in the election, should be heard, vpon paine of making the election of no force, and that the party be denoū ­ced as vnworthy and vnmeet to haue a benefice, which is furthered or pre­ferred therunto by the fauor or power of the world. Neither are such diue­lish seruings, inforcementes, subtil­ties, and fauors to be called lawfull vocations: but intrusions, inuations, vsurpations, and wicked and damnable practises.c. Eaquae. 1. q. 3. Ci. c. cum essent extr. de Simō &c cum dete­stabile Ex­tra. The Canons also doe confirme it to be Simonie, to geue mony or ought els to be promoted to Orders, or to be prouided of a Bene­fice or to obtayn a benefice in recom­pence of any temporall seruice.

And that al aduowsions and presē ­tations made by Popes or Bishops in way of Simonye, be naught and of no valure or authoritie. Now I leaue it to al people of any discretion, to cō ­clude how the Bishops & the priestes of these dayes, may be called the law­full [Page] successors of those of the prima­tiue Church. For shall a man find any which geueth no mony for his orders or for the bulles of hys benefice? Are not the Bishoprickes, Abbyes, Pry­oryes, and other Benefices geuen a­way now adayes and of long tyme agoe, in recompence of temporall ser­uice, yea and sometime for such vn­worthy & vile seruices as deserue ra­ther punishement than recompence? And seeing that the Popes and By­shops thēselues clymbe vp into their high degrees by Symonye, must it not needes be, y^t the collations which they make in bestowing the benefices of the patronages vpō other inferior priestes, are Simonicall, and so con­sequently voyd according to the fore­sayd Canons?

If the Romish Catholickes deny this, they must also disauow their own Canons, and deny the sonne to haue light. And therefore the Romish Clergy are farre from the lawful and continuall successiō of the Shepherds and Priests of the primatiue Church, wherein they imagine themselues to to remayn. For sure, Brybery, Simo­nie, and such other like practises, are [Page 111] not the doore whereby they ought to enter into the succession of the aunci­ent shepheardes and Elders, as they doe. But they ought to enter by law­ful election made by calling vpon the name of God, after dew examination of the party that is to be promotid, & that he be found meet for that charge: who beyng so chosen, must thence­forth haue the tokens of the auncient Shepheardes, whiche are, to preach Gods word purely, to minister the Sacraments, to mayntayn good dis­cipline, and to visite and comfort the sicke, as the Shepheardes of the Pro­testantes do.

Affor the discipline of the Bishops and the rest of the Romish Clergie,The disci­pline & mā ­ners of the Clergy. It is so corrupted & marde, that their lyfe, doynges, and behauiour, are di­rectly contrary to the auncient Can­nons. For first, neither the Bisho­pricks nor any other benefices ought in any wise to be geuen to such as sue and make meanes for them, but ra­ther to such as shunne the hauing of them. These are the very words of a Cannon taken out of S. Gregory.

In your writinges you saye you haue greatly sought quietnes: c. In scrip­turis. 8. q. 1. But yet by the [Page] same you declare, that you are come lawfully to the office of a shepheard: for like as that office ought to be denyed to such as do greedely seeke it, so ought it to be geuen to such as do shun it. And (as it is written) let no man vsurpe auc­thoritie, but tary the Lordes calling, as Aaron did.

But who is he that seeth not that benefices are at this day geuē to such as hunt for them, and to such as runne best: so as it is sayd in common pro­uerbs,What man­ner of per­sons ought to haue be­nefices. that horses run for benefices, and Asses catch them. Let vs now see what kinde of folk they be, to whome (by the auncient Cannons) Bisho­prickes and other benefices ought to be geuen. These be the wordes of a Cannon taken out of S. Iherom. Albe­it then that the Lord had geuen his cō ­maundement and election for the set­ting vp of a Prince: c. Licet ergo 8. q. 1. yet neuertheles the congregation is called together a­bout it. The presēce of the people ther­fore is requisit at the choosing of a priest that euery body may know and be assu­red that such a one is chosen to the de­gree of priesthoode, as is most excellent amongest the people, best learned, most holy, and most notable in all vertue: that [Page 113] when the people haue yealded him this record, there may remaine no scruple or occasion to reuoke the election.

And another Canon sayeth thus:c. Si Episco­pus. dist. 23. He whom men would make a Bishop, ought first to be examined, whether he be of nature, wise and discreet, milde of behauiour, chast of conuersation, sober, vigilant, of good foresight in his own af­faires, lowly, gentle to speak vnto, mer­cifull, learned, well instructed in the law of the Lord, sharpwitted, and of good vnderstanding in the sence of the Scrip­tures, exercised in the doctrine of the Church. And (aboue all things,) such a one as holdeth simply the Articles and grounds of the faith.

And in another Canon are well described at large, y^t behauiors wher­unto the Priestes framed themselues in auncient time, according to the rule of the auncient Fathers.c. His igitur dist. 23. Now then (saith the Canon) such as are separated from the common conuersation of the world, are commaunded by the lawes of the Fathers of olde time, to abstain from pleasures of the world, to absent them­selues from commō playes & gamings, and from the pompe of common feastes and banquets to be sober and shamefast [Page] in their priuate behauiour, to geue them selues from vsury and vnhonest gayn, to seeke to deceiue no man, to shunne the loue of mony as the roote of all vices, to eschue worldly businesses and offices, to accept no degree of honor through am­bition, to receiue no giftes or presentes for the bestowing of Gods benefites, to flee from all false practises and conspira­cies, to shun hatred, enuy and backby­ting, to keep their eyes from wandring, their tongs from walking, their gesture from loosenes and wantonnes, to yeald proofe of modestie and shamefastnes by the plainnesse of their gesture and appar­raile, to abhorre all villanous words and works, vtterly to refraine the company of widowes and maydens, to admitte no women to dwell with them, except they be very neere of kinne to them, to inde­uer to mayntayne the chastitie of their bodyes, or els to binde themselues in mariage, (howbeit but onely once) to o­bay their Elders, to forbeare to vaunt themselues with bragging and boasting, and finally to apply themselues continu­ally to the reading of the Christen doc­trine, and to the exercise of Psalmes, Hymnes, and songs, for such ought they to be which intend to geue themselues [Page 114] to the seruing of God: that by their la­boring to get knowledge to themselues, they may minister the doctrine of grace to the people.

Truely here be many good condi­tions and vertues. And if the priests of these dayes, which are so greatly in loue with y^e tenths of worldly goods, had but a tenth part of these vertues, the world should not be so corrupted as it is. But euery body seeth, that now a dayes men of quite contrary conditions are aduaunced to the Be­nefices & Offices of the Church. For a father that hath many children, doth not seeke to preferre that sonne of his into the ministery which is most gen­tle and vertuous, but him which is most vntoward and vnfit. And there­of grow the extreeme abuses, corrup­tions, and ignorance that is among the Cleargie.

And as in olde tyme the teachers,Priestes ought to be Preachers. and Shepheardes were learned men: so did they imploy thēselues to teach others, and they that did not so, were reputed not onely vnworthy of theyr chardge and vocatiō, but also worthy to be abhorred of euery man. Thus speaketh a Canon thereof.

c. Vlt. dist. 43. The sowing abroad of the heauenly seede is commaunded vs: Cursed be we if we hold our peace. Which thing, seing that the vessel of election doth feare and cry out at: how much more ought we little ones to be afeard? Wherfore, as it is a great fault in the Shepheards, to cōceale the truth which they ought to publishe abroad: so is it no small daunger (God sheeld it) to such as despise their doctrin which they ought to obay.

And an other Cannon taken out of the counsell of Tollero, doth shew that the whole duety of Priestes consisteth in studing the Scriptures, & in prea­ching them to the people.c. Ignoran­tia. dist. 38. Ignorannce the mother of all errors (sayth the Ca­non) is to be eschewed in any wise by priestes, whose duety it is, to preach the worde of God vnto the people. The priestes are admonished by Paule the A­postle writing vnto Timothie, to read the holy Scriptures. Be diligent (sayth he) in reading, in exhorting, and in teaching: and continue alwayes in the same. Let Priestes be cunning in the holy Scrip­tures and Cannons, and let all then la­bour be in preaching and teaching; and let them edifie all men, as wel by know­ledge of fayth, as by redresse of maners.

But where be nowe these Shep­heardes, whiche geue themselues to preaching, shall you finde one such a­mongest twentye of your Priestes? There are none that meddle with preaching, saue a few monkes, and their so doing is contrary to the pro­fession of monkery: For by the Canōs (as we haue shewed before) it is not lawfull for monkes to preach. And as for redresse of māners, and examples of good workes: where is it to be found? Not amongst the Curats and Priestes of this time, who (for the most part) are full of ignorāce, which being (as the Canon saith) the mother of all errors, hath layd her belly a­mong them, and (by their meanes,) hath brought forth all the abuses, er­rors, and corruptions that be in the world, so as men cannot abide any reformation or amendment.

Furthermore in old time, bishops and other Ecclesiasticall persons,What the talke and communica­tion of Cle­gimē ought to be. had none other ordinary talke and com­munication, (no not euen at their feastes and banquets) but of pointes of the Scripture, according to a Ca­non made in the third Councel of Tol­leto, which saith thus: Because that [Page] most commonly there is nothing but telling of idle tales at the table: c. Pro reue­rentia. dist. 44. therefore (for the reuerence of God and Priestes) the holy and vniuersall councell decre­eth that Priestes shall vse to reade some parte of the holy Scriptures at their meales. For by that meanes the soule may wel be edefied, and vnprofitable fa­bles layd aside.

I doe aske now, shall ye finde this Canon well practised and obserued in these dayes? No: but ye shall find the cleane contrary, as euery man doth see and know.

What By­shops ought to be.The Bishops and Pastors of olde time, tooke not the state of a Bishop to be a degree of honor and dignitie, but a chardge of great waight & pain­fulnes: but they esteemed it to be an honorable thing in a Pastor, to be learned & of good knowledge. Har­ken what the canons doe speak ther­of.c. Qui epis­copatum. 8. q. 1. He that desirerh a Bishoprick, desi­reth a good work. By these wordes the Apostle meant to teach vs what a Bi­shoprick is: namely, that it is a title of worke and not of worship. For it is a greeke word, which signifieth that he to whom the charge of a Bishoprick is cō ­mitted, is as an ouerseer of all such as [Page 116] are committed to his chardge, and that he ought to haue a care of them.

And another Canon sayth thus:c. Vilissimus 1. q. 1. That man is to be counted most vile, which is in highest degree of honor, if he doe not also excell all others in know­ledge and holines.

Nay contrariwise in these dayes e­uery man seeth that to be a Bishop,A descriptiō of a Popish praelats priesthood. is a title of honor and dignitie, voyd of all other chardge than to make good cheere, and to keep a Bishoply table, causing a kinde of seruice to be sayd in the Church by some chapline of his for fashion sake. But to be a man of knowledge, of good life, and of playn meaning, is a vile and a disdainfull thing. The Bishops thēselues laugh such people to scorne, and cannot a­bide to haue them about them.

Touching ecclesiasticall goods (for the which our Clergy men contend in these dayes with tooth and nayle) let vs see a litle how the men of olde time did vse them,The vse of church goodes. and how they ought to be vsed by the auncient Canons. First of all according to these Canons, they ought not to possesse any lands, nor a­ny other temporall goods, but onely the tithes and offrings. These are the [Page] very words of a Canon taken out of S. Iherome: c. Clericus. 12. q. 1. The Churchman ought to shew himselfe to be such a one as pos­sesseth the Lord, and is possessed of the Lord. He that possesseth the Lord and sayeth with the Prophet, the Lord is my porcion, can possesse nothing but the Lord. And if he possesse any other thing, the Lord will not be his porcion. As for example, if he possesse siluer, gold, lands, or moueables, the Lord disdaineth to be his porcion amongst these things. Also if I be the porcion of the Lord, and the meeteline of his heritage, I haue no part with the other tribes, but (as a Leuite & Priest) I liue of the tenths and seruing at the altar: I am found by the offerings of the altar: hauing my food and clothing, I content me therwith, and naked I fol­low the naked crosse.

Now I do aske of you how wel this Canon is performed in these dayes? Haue not the clergy men all the best & goodliest possessions, rentes, and re­uenewes that are to be found, ouer and besides their tithes & offerings? If the case concerne the demaunding of tithes, they can skil to say that they belong to them, as to those that hold the place of the Leuites, to whom (by the old law of Moyses) the tenthes [Page 117] ought to belong. But if it bee put to them that they ought not to posses a­ny landes or temperall inheritaunce, as indeed the leuites did not, because it was forbidden them by the law: They will not then be Leuites anye longer, nor say that they represented them. It is not amisse to cōstrue it to most aduantage, that they may bee gathering on all handes thereby. As touching tithes and offerings,How the goods of the Church ought to be vsed. let vs now see how the bishops and priests did vse the tenthes in old tymes, and how they ought to vse them now, ac­cording to the canons. That is, that they owght to deuide the reuenew of the tenthes and offeringes, into foure partes: Whereof one fourth part was to be geuen to the Byshop, to mayn­tayne him & his family, that he might keepe hospitality for straungers: an other fourth part was to goe to the priestes and clergy of his Church: an other fourth part was to be bestow­ed vpon the poore: and the last fourth part was to be imploied in the repai­ring of his churches. Harken to the expres words of a canon taken out of S. Gelasius, which sayth thus.c. Quatuor, &c. Mos. est. 12. q. 2. All the reuenewes and offerings of the Church, ought to be deuided into foure partes, if [Page] the value thereof will beare it, (as is found to haue bene decreed long agoe,) Whereof one part belongeth to the By­shop, an other to the Clarkes, the thyrd to the poore, and the fourth is to be im­ployed in building. And an other Canō speaketh thus. It is the custome of the Apostolicke Seate, to commaunde the new made Byshopes to deuide all the re­uenewes of his Bishopricke into foure partes: the one part for himselfe and hys family, and to the keeping of hospitality, an other for the clergy, the third part for the poore, and the fourth for the repay­ring of Churches.

Thus you see how the tenths and offerings were bestowed in old time. But in these dayes the distribution & imployment of them is farre other­wise, for the Priests vse the partition of the Lyon, taking all to themselues, and leauing no part to the poore. And yet haue we seene euen in our time, that these auncient Canons haue bin set in force againe by the statutes of Orleance, in the raign of the late king Charles the ninth, in the yeare 1561. for there is a branch of that statute, which saith that the fourth part of the tenths shall be distributed to the poore of e­uery [Page 118] Countrey where they are leuy­ed. But the Clergiemen haue so wel handled the matter by setting them­selues against it, & by their appeales that the said branch could neuer yet be put in execution, nor attaine any ef­fect at all, so charitable are they to­wards the poore. And yet by the aun­cient Canons the tenths are named the tributes of the poore.Tithes are the tribute of the poore. And there­fore those which doe not pay their tithes well, be counted gilty of the death of the poore, which die for want and necessitie. How much more gilty then are they which can so well exacte the tenthes, & keep all to themselues, and geue naught to the poore? Let vs harken (I pray you) how the canons doe thunder against such kind of peo­ple as doe withhold the goods of the needy.c. Decema. 16. q. 1. The tenths (saith the Canon) are the tributes of needy soules, so that if thou payest wel thy tithes thou shalt not only receaue aboundance of fruites, but also health of body and soule. He that payeth them not, is an vsurper of other mennes goods. And looke how many poore folke doe die for want of suste­nance in the place where he dwelleth, of so many murders shall he be gilty before [Page] the seate of the eternall iudge, for con­uerting of the thinges to his own vse, which are appointed for the poore.

And surely the Church of old time could so ill away with such an abuse in the Clergie, as is the withholding of the goods of the poore, that it wold neuer haue suffered it. But contrari­wise (by the auncient Canons) the Bishops and the rest of the Clergie, should haue been constrayned to suc­cor the poore and needy with the gold and siluer of the Church, and to im­ploy it rather in this work of charity, than in making of faire buildings and in repayring of Churches. These are the words of a Canon taken out of S. Ambrose: c. Aurum. 12 q. 2. The Church hath gold, not to hoord it vp, but to distribute it to the needy. To what end should a man keepe that, which serueth him to no purpose. Do we not know what a great quantitie of gold and siluer the Assiriens tooke out of the temple of the Lorde? were it not much better that the priestes should be­stowe it to the releefe of the poore and needy, than that the wicked enemye should spoyle it and carry it away? will not the Lord say vnto yov, wherefore haue ye suffered so many needy folke to [Page 119] dye for hūgar? For thou hadst gold wher­with thou mightest haue bought them meate: wherefore hast thou suffered so many Captiues to be led into bondage, and to be killed by the enemy for lack of beyng redeemed? It had bene much better for thee to haue saued the vessels of lyfe, then the vessels of mettall. Thou shalt not know what to aunswere vnto this, for what wilt thou say? That thou wast afrayd least the Tēple of God should not haue bene well garnished? I say vnto thee, that the Sacramentes haue no neede of gould. The thinges which are not to be boughte for golde, are neuer the more acceptable for the golds sake. The redemption of Captiues is the ornament of holy thinges. And truely these are the precious vessels, which do saue mens soules from death.

That is the true treasor of the Lord, which couereth that whiche his bloud hath couered. And the next Canō fol­lowing taken out of S. Iherom, c. Gloria. 12. q. 2. sayth thus. The glory and reputation of a Bi­shop, is to pinch himselfe to inrich the poore, and it is a shame for a Priest to seeke riches to himselfe. Many build vp the walles, and in the mean while do pul downe the pillors of the Churche. The [Page] marble glistereth, the Lampe shyneth, and the aulter is garnished with preci­ous stones, but of all this while, there is no account made of the seruaūts of god. To receiue the goodes which ought to be distributed to the poore, and to be desirous to keepe them vnspent, is a poynt of to great forecast, or els of to great fear­fulnes, but to conuert any part of it to a mans owne vse, is a fault whiche passeth the crueltie of the greatest theeues of the worlde.

Marke this definitiue sentence, which this good doctor S. Ierom hath pronunced agaynst such as withhold the goodes of the poore, and bestow them to their own vse Oh good lord, howe full of suche theeues is this world at this day, which are cōdēned by this sentence of S Ierom. At least­wise the most part of my masters of y^e Clergy, can not wash their handes of this crime of deteining and vsurping the goodes of the poore, except they will deny the Canons heretofore al­leadged, which are grounded vpon al reason and equity, and haue bene ho­lily obserued in the primatiue church. I doubt not but that many of the cler­gy will thinke this little discourse of [Page 120] tyme which I haue made touching their discipline,They that conceale the truth main­teyne error. very hard and gre­uous. But I beseech them to suffer their affections to geue place to the truth. Their owne Canons shal serue me for a lawfull defence and excuse in this case. For by them we be taught, neuer to conceale the truth, but bouldly to speake it vpon payne to be ac­counted oppressors of the same, and allowers of error. These are the wordes of a canon of Pope Innocentes. The errour which men do not resist, c. Error. dist 83. see­meth to bee allowed. And the trueth which is not defended, is oppressed. If a man neglect to resist the vnruly, it is as good as a mayntayning & bolstering of them: neither can the party be excused of suspition of secret society, which neg­lecteth to withstand the crime that is manifest.

There is also another canon which sayth thus:c. Facientie dist. 83. That party is gilty of the fact, which is careles to correct the thing that he may amend. For it is written, that not only those are partakers of the misdeede which commit it, but also they that consent thereunto. And he that condemneth such as goe astray, sheweth himselfe to hate their misdoinges: and [Page] he leaueth no gap for himselfe to leape out at, which challengeth those that start out of the way.

By which canon we ought all of vs to learne, not to winke at vices and misdealings. And therefore my may­sters of y^e clergy, may (if it please thē) make themselues a wholesome medi­cine of the things which I haue spo­ken heretofore concerning their man­ners and discipline. And like as they spare not to exclaime against the Protestants (howbeit wrongfully) that they are the cause of the ciuill trobles in Fraunce, and so consequently of the corruptions and disorders that are bred of them: So set them bethinke themselues a litle of their own doe­ings, and they shall finde by the Ca­nons which I haue alleadged here­tofore, that in their own orders there are as many abuses and corruptions as possibly can be. But now that I haue spoaken sufficiently of the Pope, and of the Romish Clergie, let vs now enter into theire Purgatory.

❧ Of Purgatorye. The xii. chapter.

THe Romain Catholicks doe hold opinion, that there is a certaine place within the earth which is not altogether so low as hell, whether the soules of the good Christians which are dead, doe goe to purge them of their sinnes by tormentes of fire and other rigorous paynes: and that eue­ry deadly sinne should, by desart, haue seuen yeares of purgation, if the term of yeares were not shortned by mas­ses, suffrages, and pardons. And for this cause they doe hold opinion, that it is needfull to cause a great number of masses and suffrages to be sayd for them that be dead, and to the same end to geue legacies and foundacions of Obites to massepriests and chaun­trypriests, and to make good prouisi­on of pardons, specially in the time of the great Iubileis and Croysseys, which they sell very good cheape.

And in very truth this doctrine of Purgatory hath exceedingly inriched the Cleargie,Purgatory the inricher of the Cler­gye. yea more than any other thing. For there dyed not so poore a wretch which gaue not some legacie to the priest, (yea often times euen the [Page] best thing they had) to haue them sing masses for the case of their soules, and to shorten the time of their abode in purgatory. And hereunto were al sick folke perswaded by their Confessors, which would make great difficultye & nicenes to geue them absolution, ex­cept they would promise to geue one thing or other to the church.

And the better to draw them here­unto, they made them beleue that for euery mortall sinne, their soules shold remain (as is said) seuen yeares in the paynes of purgatory, which would be an infinite time, if it were not shorte­ned by masses. For, say they, although that God doe in this world, pardon the sinnes of all such as confesse them to the priest and make satisfaction, yet doth he remit but the sinne only, and not the payne, so as we must needes goe to purgacory to suffer paynes for al the sinnes which we haue commit­ted in all our life time: Which paines are so great, as greater are not possi­ble. For (say they) there is as greate difference betwixt the fire of purga­tory and the fire of this world, as is betwixt a burning coale & the breath of a mannes mouth. By reason wher­of the poore world had so great feare [Page 130] and conceit of this hote fire of purga­tory, and of the infinite time which they should be fayn to remaine there, accounting seuen yeares for euery mortall sinne which was committed in a mannes life time, that euery man gaue vnto the Priestes, as much as they would craue, to the end that their time in purgatory might be shortned. But contrary to this doctrine, the Protestantes doe hold opinion that we haue no other purgatory than the bloud of our Lord Iesus Ghrist, which washeth away and clenseth all mens sinnes which beleue in him. And they say that his precious bloud is more then sufficient to wipe out all our sinnes, without hauing neede to be purged by any fier. And that our sauiour doth not clense vs by halfes, but throughly altogether, and we should doe him wrong and iniury, to beleue that we haue need of any other kinde of clensing, than of that which he him selfe maketh, in iustifying vs by bea­ring our iniquities, and by wyping away our sinnes and blemishes: And that it is a mockery to say that God doth pardon our sinnes, and not the payn due for sinne: as if you wold say, he forgeueth vs the dets that we doe [Page] owe him, but not the payment of the dettes: for he will haue that still.

And now (to say the truth) all men may easily iudge that this doctrine is better thā the doctrine of the Romish Catholickes, according to our first rule, because that by the same, Christ our Redeemer is most honored, for­asmuche as he is acknowledged to be the only and whole purger of our ini­quities, and our true and only Atto­nementmaker and Iustifyer.

And asfor the holy scripture, that doth teach vs that the faythfull and chosen of God do dye vnto the Lord and that those which dye vnto y^e Lord are very happy, & do go into the place of rest. These are the expresse wordes of S. Iohn. Happy are they which from this time forth do dye to the Lord: Apoc. 14.13. for they do rest from their labors. And for those which dye not to the Lord, forasmuch as they be none of his, nor members of the body of the true church where­of christ is the head: it is certayne that there is no saluation for them. And therefore it is in vayne to imagine a purgatory, either for the one, or for the other. For as many as die to the lord, go presently to rest & not into purga­tory. And those which doe not dye to [Page 123] the Lord, do go into euerlasting payn (not into purgatorye) and there is no saluation for them. And as for the text taken out of the booke of the Macha­bees, which alloweth prayer for the dead,2. Machab. 12.43. & 15.39. and so by consequence purgato­ry also: The Protestantes say that it ought to be houlden for a certayn and vndoubted rule, that we ought not to build any article or fayth vpon the bookes called Apocripha, of which nū ­ber this booke of the Machabyes is one: insomuch as the Author there­of that wrate it, confesseth that he may perchaunce haue ouershot himselfe, and that he hath written in simple stile, and that he was not of skill to write any better: which is an vnmeete kinde of speech for the holy Ghost, who can not erre nor hath any neede to be excused for speaking in a base stile: for when he listeth he spea­keth in a higher stile than the excel­lentest Orators that ouer were in the world.

And as touching the text where it is sayes: that the sinne against the holy Ghost is not pardoned, neither in this world, Mat. 12.32 nor in the would to come. (Whereupon the Romish Catholicks doe inferre, fol­lowing the interpretation of S. Gre­gory) [Page] that then the other sinnes are for­geuen in the other world, and so by consequence, that there must nedes be a purgatory: the protestantes affirme that to be an ill conclusion. For in so saying our Lord Iesus Christ mente nothing else, but that y^e sinne againste the holy Ghost shal neuer be forgeuē. S. Oregory himself (as we will declare hereafter) doth not say that all other sinnes sauing the sinne agaynst the holy Ghost, shall be pardoned in the world to come: but onely that the smalest sort of sinnes which are called veniall sinnes, shalbe then forgeuen. Let vs now come to the Canons.

Prayer for the dead is disproued.There are two peeces of Canons in the decrees of Graecian, which may easely quench and confound purgato­ry. For by the one it is sayd that in this world one of vs may wel be hel­ped by the prayers of another: But when we depart from hence to ap­peare before the seate of Christ, euery man must beare his own burthē, and then the prayers of Saints which are in paradise will nothing auaile vs, and much lesse will the prayers of mē of this world stand vs in any steade. These are the wordes of the Canon.c. Inpraesen­ti. 13. q. 2. In this present world we know we may [Page 132] helpe one another with our prayers and good aduice: but when we come before the iudgement seate of Christ, then ney­ther Iob. nor Daniell, nor Noe, can pray for any, but euery man shall then beare his own burthen.

The other Canon sayth that nei­ther the bishops nor the Apostles can assoyle the dead of their sinnes: Wher­upon it followeth y^t men haue bought the Popes pardons in vaine, for the redeeming of those which are sayd to haue been in Purgatory. These are the very words of the said Canon ta­ken out of the decrees of Pope Gelasi­us: c. 2. 24, q. 2. We reade that Christ hath raysed the dead to life: But we read not that e­uer he released any of those which were dead in sinne. And he who only had the power to doe it, hath geuen this princi­pall commaundement to S. Peter, saying: That which thou vnbindest vpon earth, shall be vnbound in heauen, and that which thou bindest vpon earth shall be bound in heauen. He sayth vpon earth, but he neuer sayd that he which is departed bound by sin, shalbe released.

Which Canon doth well shew, that the power to vnbinde doth not stretch so farre as to hell, nor so farre as to the pretended Purgatory, but [Page] only to the earth: and that the Popes of late yeares haue gone about to ex­tend the boundes of their territories to farre, in commaunding the angels (as they doe by their bulles of par­dons) to goe fetch the soules of such out of purgatory, as the Popes themselues listed to name, for they haue no cōmaundement that reacheth either higher or lower than the earth.

Whence prayer for the deade commeth.It is true that for ground of this doctrine of Purgatory, they alleadge that the custome of praying for the dead hath been allowed and receaued now of long time, euen from the time of the primitiue Church. But it doth not therby follow, but that an error is an error, although it be neuer so old.c. Cum Marthae. vlt. ext de celebr. missa. Moreouer (as Pope Innocent the third doth witnes) many of the aun­cient Fathers haue beleeued, that the glory of those which are in Paradise, might still grow greater vntil the day of iudgement, and so by consequence they did imagine that it was lawfull to pray to god for the increase of their glorifying.

De Ciuit. Dei. lib. 2. c. 24.S. Augustine also wryteth (how be it that he alloweth not the opinion) that some auncient Fathers haue i­magined, that to pray for the damned [Page 125] sort, might doe them good, not to ex­empt them from eternall payne, but to moderate their tormēts. And ther­fore although that this kinde of pray­ing for the dead were sufferable, (as in deede it is not) seeing it hath no foundation in the word of God, yet cannot Purgatory be grounded ther­upon, forasmuch as the praying of the Fathers of olde time, was either for those which were happy in Paradise, for that their glory and blessednesse might increase, or for those which were damned, that their payne might be diminished, and not for any which they beleeued to haue bin lodged in Purgatory. For in those dayes they knew not yet what was meante by Purgatory, nor where Purgatory stoode. For it is but a late inuention of the new descriptions of hell.

The famosest doctor that euer spake of Purgatory, is S. Gregory: Dialog. 4. c. 39. who not­withstanding, speaketh after such a fashion, that he seemeth to make no great reckning of the matter, For he sayeth that none but veniall sinnes may be purged by the fire of Purga­tory, the deadly sins cānot:The smale power of Purgatory in clensing mens sinnes So that by this reckning the paines & torments of this pretended Purgatory, haue no [Page] more power to purge, than hath the simple holy water: whereunto they doe likewise attribute the vertue of clensing, and of washing away of mennes veniall sinnes. These are the very words of S. Gregory.

Such as a man departeth hence, such is he presented in the day of iudgement. But yet we must beleue that before the iudgemēt, there is a fire of purgation for certayne degrees of sinnes, because the truth sayth, that if any mā haue blasphe­med the holy Ghost, his sinnes shall not be forgeuen, neither in this world nor in the world to come. By which wordes it is geuen vs to vnderstand, that there are some sinnes which may be pardoned in this world, and some in the world to come. For that which is denied in one sinne, is graunted in an other by conse­quent interpretation. But yet (as I haue sayd) you must vnderstand this to be spoken of the leaste sinnes, as the speaking many idle wordes, to much laughter, to great carefulnes for a mans owne family (which is a sinne that can hardly be shū ­ned euen of suche as know best how to keepe thēselues from sinning) or to erre in poyntes which are of no great impor­tance, or to be ignorant of thē. Al which sinnes make a mans burthen the heuier [Page 134] euē after death, if they be not pardoned in his life tyme.

Vpon this text and vpon the in­terpretation which S. Gregory hath made of it, (howbeit amisse, as I haue sayd before in the text of the holy scripture which sayth that y^e sinne against the holy Ghoste is not pardoned in this world nor in the world to come) the Romish Catholicks, or rather the Scholemen and sophisters haue alto­gether builded and founded their purgatory. And they are not contented y^t onely veniall sinnes should there bee purged, (as S. Gregory would:) but they will needes haue it to serue for the doing away of deadly sinnes also, either by remayning there the full time of seuen yeares for euery deadly sinne, or else by redeeming or shorte­ning that long season, by the celebra­ting and founding of Masses and o­ther suffrages. Which addition of the Sophisters hath maruelously inri­ched y^e kitchins of y^e clergy & mōkes, and brought great aboundance of water to their milles, which had ne­uer happened to them, if purgatorye had serued but onely to purge veniall sinnes, according to the aforesayd opi­niō of S. Gregory. for the good people [Page] of christendome had rather to haue purged themselues from those sinnes with holy water (which did no harme to those that sprinckled themselues therewith) then by the fyer of purga­tory which is affirmed to be extreme­ly burning and scalding hot, or by the founding of masses and Obits, which were farre deerer then was the holy water. So as purgatorye had bene brought to nothing, as a wast and barren soyle, if men had held them­selues to the onely sayings of S. Gre­gory. Thus may you see how the poore world hath bene abused, by the inuētors and practisors of such holy deceytes.

¶ Of the exception of prescription. The xiii. chapter.

HEtherto I thinke I haue made it to appeare playnely enough, that the Romish Catholickes are not so well groundes as they imagine, in y^e poynts of religion which they would mayntayne agaynst the protestantes, Now therfore let them blame the re­formed religion asmuch as them list­eth [Page 127] and report it to be new, full of er­rors and heresies, and contrary to the word of God: and finally let them deface it as much as shal please them. For when it cōmeth to y^e vpshot, their hasty headines and their wilfull for­deeming through the corruptnes of their affections, shall neuer bring to passe, but that truth shall alwayes be truth, and darcknes be darcknes. Do what they can to the vttermost, yet will the trueth continue alwayes to strong for them, in the iudgement of the wisest sort. I know well that those which thinke themselues to haue the best braynes, and to be of greatest in­sight in all matters, are the persons that vtter their opinions so boldly in this controuersy of Religion, saying that the reformed Religion (which they tearme new) is a sauage Religi­on, fond and full of follies and errors: and they will needes be beleeued in the matter vpō their bare word, with­out proouing any part of that which they speake.

But as those kinde of people are commonly ignorant and malicious, and moreouer possessed with ambiti­on and beastlines: so doth it appeare that their mouthes are euer stil open, [Page] euen when their ouerarrogant igno­rance is beaten down by good rea­sons and allegations. And when they haue done all that they can, for their last refuge they are fayne to runne to the exception of prescription, saying, that the Romish Religion hath been receaued and obserued in Fraunce e­uer since the first setting vp of y^e king­dome, euen since the great king Clowis, who was the first Christian king, and that it is not like that God would leaue the world so long time (which is more than a thousand yeares) in error and ignorance.Prescriptiō can bear no sway in matters concer­ning God & Religion.

But what if it be denyed that their Religion (such as it is this presēt) was obserued in the time of Clowis, or of Charlemayn, or of many other kings of Fraunce which haue beene since that time? How would they prooue that which they haue sayd? And if the contrary be proued to them by wry­tings of auncyent Bishops and Doc­tors of Fraunce, by the which it doth appeere that in this Realme in olde time they did hold the same Religion, or uery neare the same, which the Protestants doe in these dayes, what will they answere then? And were it not also very easie to proue by the Histo­riographers [Page 136] which haue written the liues of the Popes, and also by the decrees of the Popes themselues, that the most part of their ceremonies and traditions (whereof at this day they make more account than of Gods word) haue bin inuented and brought into the Church by the Popes of la­ter times, long since Charlemayn? And therefore they which sayd that the Romish Religion (such as it is at this present) hath been obserued in Fraūce euer since the beginning of the king­dome there, doe greatly mistake their markes, and cannot verify their say­ing, but the contrarye is easie to be prooued.

But let vs put the case (how be it without graunting it) that the thing which they say is true, and that this Romish Religion is of the vttermost antiquitie that can be. Must the truth of God therfore forgoe his right, by the exception of prescription? Noe truely. For if by the Ciuill law there be no prrscription agaynst a king, how much lesse then, may it be against the king of kinges? And put the case again (without graunting it) that prescription ought to take place against God: yet were it not reason (thinke [Page] you) to recken the lapse of time accor­ding to Gods measuring thereof? Now it is certayn, that with God, a thousand, yea and twelue hundred thousand yeares, are no more than an hower, or a quarter of an hower, and therfore by the lapse of so litle space of time, prescription can take no aduan­tage. But all men of sound iudgemēt will alwayes graūt that as time doth not change the truth into vntruth, nor vntruth into truth: So also of consequence we must not admit a Religiō for true and good, vnder colour that it hath indured long time, seeing that the exception of prescription is not to be admitted in such caces.

For els if the Romish Catholickes will needes sticke to the Iudgement of prescription for the allowance of a Religion: then must they make good the religion of Mahomet, which hath already lasted aboue a thousād yeres, which thing I am sure that none of them will doe, how passionate soeuer they be otherwise. And if it be demaū ­ded wherefore god hath so long tyme suffered y^e error of Mahomet amōgst the Turkes, Persians, Arrabians, Sirians, & the other Esterne and Southern people of Asia and Affrica, among whom [Page 129] the Apostles and disciples of Iesus Christ preached the Gospell and plā ­ted so many fayre Churches: there is no other answere to be made vnto it. but that god hath done it by his secret iudgement, wherof we are ignorant. Full well we know that he hath done it for good and a iust cause, & to good purpose, because he doth nothing but that which is good and iust. But it doth not become vs to search any deeper for the perticuler causes which haue moued him so to doe, neither ought we to be inquisitiue of his pri­uities and secret di [...]g [...]mentes. The same also is to be answered, to such as say that it is not likely y^t God would suffer the people of Christendome to erre, so long as since the masse hath had his full scope. For (to be short) se­ing that God is the truth it selfe and y^t his word is true: it is much better to yeld God his due honor by sticking onely to his word, then to refort to custome and prescription of time, to authorise the traditions of mē.Math. 5.21. Iesus Christ himselfe doth teach vs playne­ly enough, that we ought to reiect the traditions of men, although they be neuer so auncient, and groūded vpon prescription of time out of minde, and [Page] that we ought alwayes to haue re­course back to the pure word of God, which shal last for euer, notwithstanding al customes & prescriptiōs which are agaynst it. For in reprouing the traditiōs of the Pharisies which had then bene receiued & allowed of long time, he exhorteth his disciples to cast them of, and to returne back agayne to the pure word of God, and to the naturall meaning thereof saying: you haue heard how it was sayd to the mē of old time &c.

As for the auncient Canons, they are so cleare and expresse in this case, as is possible & therfore it shall suffice me to translate them here simply. These be the very wordes of y^e Canō.c. Mala. c si consuetudi­nem. c. Fru­stra. c. Con­suetudo. c. si solus. dist. 8. The peri­lous effects of euill cu­stome. An ill custome is no les to be reiected & shunned, then a pestilent infection, be­cause that if it be not the sooner plucked vp the wicked do serue their turne with it as it were by right of priuiledge: inso­much that the sundry disorders and dy­uers vsurpatiōs which are not repressed out of hand begin anon after to be re­ceiued for lawes, and are alwayes obser­ued as priuiledges.

By which Canon wee may well note the pernicious effectes of ill cu­stomes, which cause vs to receiue vice [Page 130] in steade of vertue, and euill in steade of good: wherof our miserable world hath to many examples, as well in causes of Religion as in matters of pollicie and law. For in these dayes men defend nothing more earnestly, than the abuses and errors which are in all estates, vnder pretence that they haue taken root by long custome and contynuance of time, which haue suf­fered them to passe in force of lawes and Priuileges.

Another Canon taken out of saint Gregory sayth thus:Al custome must giue place to trueth. If a man happen to obiect custome against vs, we must con­sider what the Lord sayth: I am the way (saith he) the truth and the life. He doth not say I am custome. And truely (as say­eth S. Ciprian) all custome although it be neuer so auncient, adde receiued, ought to be set aside in respect of the truth, & all custome which is contrarye to the truth ought to be abolished.

There is yet another Canon which singeth thus: In vayne do they alledge custome, which are ouercome by reason as though custome were of greater force then the truth. Or as though in spiritu­all thinges we should not follow that which hath bene reuealed by the holy Ghost. Certaynly it is a true thing, that [Page] reason and truth are to be preferred be­fore custome. But if custome be confir­med by the truth, it ought to be constāt­ly kept and retayned.

There is yet another Canō which speaketh fitly of this matter, takē out of S. Ciprian, saying thus: The custome that is crept into any place, ought to be no impediment but that the truth shold be preferred and get the vpper hand: for custome without truth is nothing els but a geuing of contynuaunce vnto error. Wherfore let vs leaue the error, & fol­low the truth: knowing that in Esdras, truth getteth the vpper hand, according as it is written, Truth preuayleth and getteth the mastery, and lyueth for euer, and shall indure world without end.

To come to an end, I wil adde this one Canon & no more: For I should not haue done very soone, if I would rehearse all the Canones that are to purpose touching this matter. And thus sayth this Canon: If only Christ ought to be heard, then must we not de­pend vpon the thinges which other men that haue been before our time, haue thought meete to be done, but rather vpon that which Christ hath done, who is before all. For we ought not to folow the custome of men, but the truth of [Page 131] God, specially seeing that he saith by the mouth of Esay the Prophet, In vayn doe they honor me, by teaching the com­maundements and doctrines of men.

And in very deede this Cannon should make the whole rable of the Canonistes, Decretistes Sarbonists, Sophistes, and others which handell the bookes of the Romish diuinity, to blush for shame, that they should strayne them selues to vphold the doctrines which haue bene apparātly inuented by men. For this one Can­non doth arregne them and cōdemne them, al in few wordes.

Now to come to an end of this tre­atise,An exhortation vnto peace. I pray the Romish Catholikes to vouchsafe, to looke aduisedly into the poynes hertofore by me discussed: and to examine and ponder them throughly and without passion, if it be possible. For in so doing I am sure, that as many as haue any naturall discression in them, shall find that the Religiō of the Protestants, is a farre other thing then they haue hitherto taken it to be, or than it hath bine borne them in hand to be. And when they shall perceaue that the sayd Re­ligion (at the least) is neither wicked, nor hereticall, nor new (as euen the [Page] most simple may easely discern by the points before treated of) it may be a iust occasion for them (if they be not strangely bereft of their right wittes) to incline to liue henceforth in peace and concord, with the professors of the sayd Religion.

And herewithall I beseech them to haue earnest consideration of twoo thinges. The one is, that without a good peace and concord betwixt the Catholicks and the Protestants, the state of the Realme of Fraunce will not only run wholy to ruine, but also come to vtter vndoing and destructi­on. And he that seeth not this, is very grosse & ignorant. For Ciuill warres (when they contynue) do neuer bring forth other effectes, than the changes and destructions of common weales, vnles some good and vertuous men that are louers of the common weale, doe fortune to preuent such vnhappy and euil destinies, by procuring some good and reasonable pacification, as the histories do yeald vs infinite ex­amples therof.

The other thing to be considered of is this. That euery perticular per­son ought to bethink himselfe that he hath a soule to saue, and that he ought [Page 132] to seeke the way of his saluation. For to what purpose serueth it to haue gotten honor, glory, riches, and other contentments of the world, to him that followeth the way of damnation to his own wretched soule? Now he that is determined to seeke the salua­tion of his soule, will he say that he is contented to beleeue as his Curate doth beleeue? Such resolution were to foolish and beastly. Or will it suf­fice him to say that he will liue as his Predecessors haue done, and follow custome? That were also a wronge way; and is already condemned by the Canones heretofore alleadged. Then ought we to determine with our selues to follow the truth, and to imbrace the true doctrine of Christ Iesus but lord & Sauior, or else we shall neuer attayn to saluation. And when we be thus resolued, we must take heed that our passions doe not blinde the eyes of our vnderstāding, & cause vs to take blacke for white. For if we say stil, we haue bene led and brought vp in this Religiō, my father & grand fathers? (which were good men) haue died in the same, I haue borne Arms and ventred my life to mayntayne it, it were not now for my honor to fol­low [Page] the Religion agaynst which I haue fought, I am of the opiniō that there is no ill in the religion that I hould, I am now to olde to learne a­ny other, and such other trifling excu­ses: we do greatly deceaue our selues, for they are nothing auaileable before god, with whom we may not dally in this sort. For such shiftes of descant serue to no other ond, but to trifle our mindes, and to lull them a sleep in ig­norance and darckenes, that they may haue no skill of their saluation when they depart this world. What is then to be done that we may come into the path of saluation? we must seek the truth. And where shall we find it? euē there whether Christ did send vs whē he sayd search the Scriptures.

The father of all mercy, who hath created and made vs for of his owne glory and honor sake, geue vs all such grace, that being inlightened by hys holy spirit, we may be well edified in the pure doctrine of Iesus Christ hys sonne our Sauiour, to the ende that being true Christians in name and effect, we may liue in good vnitye peace, brotherly and christianly loue together in his holy seruice.

Amen.