FRIDERICUS STAPHILUS  
FRIDERICUS STAPHILUS STAPHIL WAR ERST EIN LUTTRISCH MAN DARNACH NAM ER DAS PAPSTUM AN VERLEUGNET CHRISTUM VND SEIN WORT KAM AN ISCARIOTES ORT TETS CRISTENTUM SCHANTLICH VERLIG IST SEIN STAFFL IN DIE HELL ESTIGN  
1565  
BY    

THE APOLOGY OF FRIDERICUS STAPHYLUS COUNSELLOR TO THE LATE EMPEROR FERDINANDUS, etc. Entreating 

Of the true and right understanding of holy Scripture.  
Of the tanslation of the Bible in to the vulgar tongue.  
Of disagreement in doctrine among the protestants.    
Translated out of Latin in to English by THOMAS STAPLETON, Student in Divinity.  
Also a discourse of the Translator upon the doctrine of the protestants which he trieth by the three first founders and fathers thereof, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchton, and especially john Calvin.  
Matth. 24. Videte ne quis vos seducat. Take heed that no man deceive you  
Matth. 7. Ex fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos. Ye shall know them by their fruits.  
SPES ALIT AGRICOLAS·  
Imprinted at Antwerp by john Latius, at the sign of the Rape, with Privilege. Anno. 1565.   

REgiae Maiestatis Privilegio permissum est Thomae Stapletono Sacrae Theologiae candidato uti per aliquem Tipographorum admissorum impune ei liceat imprimi curare & per omnes suae regionis ditiones distrahere librum inscriptum The Apology of Fridericus Staphylus etc. & omnibus alijs inhibitum ne eundem absque eiusdem Thomae consensu imprimant vel alibi impressum distrahant sub poena in Privilegio contenta.  
Datum Bruxellae. 17. Novembris. Anno. 1564. Subsig. Facuwez.   

THE PREFACE OF THE TRANSLATOR.  
THe blessed apostle S. Paul (good Chri sten readers) not without the instinct of the holy ghost and a sure foresight off the troubles to come in Christ's church, writeth unto the Corinthians these words. 
1. Cor. 11.  There must be heresies, to the intent that they which are perfit among you, might be known. In which weighty and grave prediction of the Apostle two things I see especially to be notised. The one for our comfort, the other for our instruction. For our comfort it is, that we be not dismayed or over much offended when we see in the holy profession of our Christian religion, heresies, sects, and schisms to arise: that we forsake not therefore the field of our faith. 
1. Cor. 9  Wherein we warfare to god and run not as at an uncertain thing, and fight not as one that beateth the air, but run to obtain, and fight to win the reward: that we let not go the holdfast of our hope Which we hold as the sure and steadfast anchor of our soul: 
Hebr. 6.  but rather with the patience of Abraham, 
Rom. 4.  We believe in hope contrary to hope, continuing and cleaving steadfastly to the rock of our faith, against the which, Hell gates shall never prevail. 
Matth. 16.  For as we see by the verdict of the Apostle, There must be heresies. It is now sithen the time that the Apostle spoke these words a thousand five hundred and odd years, Yet never was there aage sense that time but that in some part of Christendom heresies have been stirring. In the very first offspring of the Apostles there lacked not such evil weeds among the corn of Christ's church yet green. 
2. Tim. 2. Apocal. 2.  Simon Magus, Hermogenes Philetus, Hymeneus, Alexander, Nicolaus, and such other are mentioned in holy writ to have swerved from the faith and after the knowledge off righteousness to have turned back from the same. 
2. Petri. 2.  Beside holy writ we read in the ecclesiastical histories of Ebion, of Cerinthus, of Martion and divers other planters of heresies in the Apostles time. After whom how from age to age heresies being always cut of and destroyed have yet sprung up again and flourished for a season as the venomous heads of Hydra. I remit you (to avoid prolixity) to the writings of Epiphanius, S. Augustin, Philaster and others, I report myself also to the Chronographies of Alexander Sculteti and such other: which deducting the estate of Christ's church from the beginning hitherto, setting forth in tables severally the Popes and supreme vicar's of Christ, the Emperors, the general and provincial counsels, the heresies of all times, have in no time nor age left us bare the leaf of the heresies. The figure of this calamity in Christ's church we see to have gone before in the law of Moses. For at what time the children of Israel had by the mighty hand of god entered in to the land of promise, chased out Idolaters and were settled in quiet possession, yet god of a just indignation conceived against them suffering the Canaanites to dwell among them pronounced by his Angel that he would not therefore cast 
Iud●. 2.  those Idolaters out before them, to the intent they might have them as enemies among them, and their gods should be as asnare unto them. And thereby the children of Israel were tried as now the Christians are, they by Idolaters, we by heretics. Though therefore his our present time be so entangled with schisms, severed in sundry sects, and imbrued with heinous heresies as never at any time sense the first preaching off the gospel: Yea and though it have so overrun the small plat of Christendom that remaineth, as ever any heresy did (except that of the Arrians) yet because we see the holy ghost suffereth it so to be, and warneth us by the mouth of the Apostle that is behoveth so to be, we must yield to the providence of almighty god. and say with the prophet Daniel. 
Dan. 3.  We have sinned with our forefathers. Yea thousand fold more than our forefathers, and therefore no marvel if the dreadful wrath of god have fallen upon us that we may well cry and lament with the prophet Hieremy. 
Hierem. 5  Consider and see o Lord our confusion: our inheritance is turned to strangers. 
1. joan. 2.  Such surely as have departed from us but were not of us: for if they had been of us: they would no doubt have continued with us.  
another lesson in the words of the Apostle for our instruction is this, that heresies therefore are suffered to be, to the intent that they which are perfect among us might be known. For by heresies the church as gold by the fire is tried, and as the river or sea by trouble and tempest casteth his froth and filth away (the pure water keeping his bonds and course) so the church in time of tribulation and storms of heresy voideth away the foul and unclean membres of her, 
The duty of a Christian man in time of heresy.  the sound and faithful remaining under her roof and abiding in the received faith and belief. For in time of schisms and heresies the part of every good Christian man is, to do as the good soldiers in the camp when a civil sedition ariseth, or as the quiet passanger when the sea stormeth: for even as the true and faithful soldiers in such a case run all unto their Captain and General, looking to be of him directed where, how, and when to strike, and as the wise and sober passanger when the tempest and storm disordreth the passage, suffereth quietly the master to rule the stern, meddling not with that he hath no skill of: right so when privy rebels or open apostatas of Christian religion sow seditious schisms and preach heretical doctrine, troubling thereby the quiet and settled consciences of true and upright believers, every Christian man, especially such as are of the lay and inferior sort, aught to cleave unto their heads and rulers in Christ his church meddling not with the determination of any point called then in controversy: but look to be directed as they have always been by their catholic pastors and overseers to whom they are commanded by the Apostle to obey and submit themselves: 
Heb. 13.  truly no less than the soldier to his Captain or the passanger to his master.  
Therefore our Saviour biddeth the people to beware and Take heed of false prophets, 
Math. 7. ●. joan. 4.  nor to believe every spirit, but try and discern whether they be of God or no. But this lo how may it be? How shall the ignorant and lay man try false doctrine from the true? It hath been put in to men's heads of late years that every man for this purpose ought to read holy scripture, and thereby to try and discern truth from falsehood. It were perhaps to be wished (if it had so pleased God) that as holy scripture is the true trial thereof, so it were open and evident to all men that seek the trial therein: 
Scripture hard to be understanded. Lib. 2. de. doctr. Christi. Cap. 6.  but what have learned men judged in times passed of holy scripture? Many things, saith S. Augustin, are dark in scriptures, and it hath so been provided of God to the intent that our pridemight be tamed by travail and our knowledge not cloyed with facilite: which quickly contemneth that easily hath been learned, 
In Ezech. Cap. 45.  In like manner S. Hierom. All prophecy or interpretation of scripture containeth the truth in darkness and obscurity, to the intent that the scholars and lerners within may understand, but the rude people set without may not know what is said. or else we shall cast precious stones before hogs though we open the treasure of holy scripture to every man. 
In anchorae tu.  Epiphanius likewise. The Scripture, saith he, telleth all truth: but we have need of good intelligence and perceiverance to know God and his word. There is in the gospel, 
Lib. 7. in Leviticum.  saith Origen, the letter that killeth: for the destroying letter is not only in the old Testament, but also in the new Testament to him that understandeth not spiritually that which is said. Tertullian speaketh yet more vehemently hereof. I am not afeared, 
I●praescrip. haeretico●um  saith he, to say that the scriptures themselves have been so disposed by the will of God that they mought minister matter unto heretics: seeing that I read that heresies must be which without scripture could not be. This is the judgement of the learned fathers who have travailed more in holy scripture than any new preacher of our time, and yet can espy no great facilite in it, but rather do complain of the marvelous difficult thereof. 
2. Petr. 3.  And doth not S. Peter writ plainly that in the epistles of S. Paul Certain things were very hard to be understanded which the unlearned and inconstant depraved even as other parts of scripture to their own destruction? Doth not S. 
2. Cor 4.  Paul writ that The gospel is veiled and covered from those that perish? 
joan. 5.  Are we not commanded to search holy scripture? doth not this searching import a diligence and difficulty more than lay men can either attend upon or attain unto? 
Act. 8.  The Eunuchus understood not the prophet, until the Apostle had expounded it unto him, And Christ after his Ascension opened the understanding off his disciples that they might understand the scriptures. 
Luc. 24.  And think we ourselves able to understand all that we read?  
This then being so how shall the lay and unlearned man perform the commandment of the gospel bidding him, To beware of false prophets and to discern the spirits whether they be of god or no? 
Math. 7. 1. joan. 4.  Every sect now a days challengeth the word of god and the right understanding thereof. The Catholic likewise by prescription out of memory standeth in possession thereof and will not be brought from it for all the brags the heretic maketh. How then shall the unlearned man hearing both tales conclude with himself which to follow? Were it not now good readers much to be wished that some clear and evident doctrine were taught, by what means and how the holy word of God may rightly be under standed, and the false prophets, preachers, and protestants of our time might be avoided? Truly as the safeguard of the soul passeth all worldly interest, so every Christian heart ought above all things tender the same: and with all diligence possible procure speedy remedies for the pestiferous venom off heresy which creepeth on like a cancre, 
2. Tim. 2.  and corrupteth the whole estate of our salvation.  
Having therefore seen and perused a certain book of Fridericus Staphylus, written first in the Allemain tongue, and after translated in to Latin, wherein he first teacheth the unlearned lay man how to beware of false and wrong interpretation of holy scripture which is no less necessary than the reading off scripture itself, secondarily detecteth certain false translations of the Bible by Luther in to his mother tongue: last of all declareth the marvelous dissension and variances of the Lutherans in their doctrine and chiefest articles of our faith (which is a most evident argument of the spirit of dissension (the devil himself) speaking in them and a clear proof of heretical doctrine, for the truth is but one) I have thought good to translate the whole in to our mother tongue, trusting in almighty God to profit hereby many a Christian soul of my dear deceined countrymen which (as God is my witness) was my only respect in this small labour.  
The first part of this book is a very necessary lesson for the unlearned lay man. 
The contents of the Apology.  For without the true and right interpretation of holy scripture such as the church teacheth he can have no right faith, and so hazardeth his soul and everlasting life which he ought above all worldly respect tender and procure. For as our Saviour saith, What availeth it a man to win the whole world and lose his soul? 
Lucae. 9   
The second part is a good admonition for all such as are not seen in the tongues to beware of new translations of holy scripture falsely forged for a vantage. Our english bibles set forth these last years lack not such foisting in of false terms. In the epistles of S. Paul as oft as the word Idol is found in the greek and latin text, so oft they turn it Image as though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek, idolum and imago in latin or idol and image in english were all one. When God saith in holy scripture. 
Genes. 1.  Let us make man according to our image, will these men say that God hath an idol according to the which man was made? and how be they not ashamed to call covetousness worshipping of images when that S. Paul calleth it idolorum servitus, 
Ephes. 5.  that is, service of idols because the covetous man maketh his money his idol? But this shift served them to dig up again the old carrion heresy of the I conoclaste, image breakers, condemned in the seventh general council and second off Nice, and to throw down images out of churches setting in their places their own and their wives, as in some part of Germany it is practised. Likewise to take away the sacrament of holy Orders, 
Epiphanius li. 2. contrea har. & August. ad Quoduult.  and to renew the old heresy of the Arrians and the Pepuzianis denying priesthood above a thousand years past, as the Sacramentaries and zealous Lutherans do now, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek and presbyter in latin, they turn always elder, not priest, as though every presbyter in S. Paul were an elder. 
1. Timo. 4.  then Timothe was no lawful bishop being but young and far from the account of an elder, unless by these men's doctrine a bishop may be young, but the priest may be only an elder. And these men mark not that this word priest is the very proper etymology of the word presbyter. For of presbyter in latin cometh first the french word prebstre and the dutch word priester. Out off which two languages we (as in thousands of other words) shortening yet more the term, have made of prebstre and priester, priest. So for church they turn always congregation, and that of a very wicked intent, meaning thereby to disannul the authority and estimation of Christ's church, making it to be every pelting congregation of private heretics: or as if that which we call the church, were nought else but the stones and mortar it is made of. But as touching the corrupted text of our common translation now used, it is beside our purpose to make any special note thereof: and in our Discourse we shall have occasion to specify some other places of more importance: As for these false and heretical foistinges of Luther here noted by Staphylus, though in the common translation of our country (thanked be God) they are not readen, (one excepted) which when I come to the place, I shall in the margin note you, yet it may serve to the Lutherans of our country for a most evident argument of the spirit of Antichrist speaking in Luther, and of a wicked and detestable arch-heretic. For what is more convenient for Antichrist, or more proper for an arch-heretic, then to corrupt gods holy word, and give us in stead of it, his own poisonnous and heretical word? Neither may the sacramentaries of our conntre think that this toucheth not them. For they are of Luther's brood no less than the other: Beside that their master, Calvin, is not behind hand for his part, as in our Discourse we shall by occasion declare unto you in divers texts and passages of holy scripture by him corrupted.  
The third part of the book is an evident and sensible detection of the abominable schisms of these protestans (what soever smooth countenances they bear to the world) not only profitable for the lay and unlearned common people, but right worthy to be read, weighed and considered of the rulers and higher powers: to the intent that seeing evidently before their eyes the horrible schisms, division, and disorder, that these protestants have caused in Christendom, and do foster up and breed daily, where they may have their full sway and course, they may think upon some speedy remedy for the restitution of unite and agreement among them, and the church of Christ from whence they have parted. And truly by the example of this confusion in Germany (where heresy hath had his free course in a state of liberty these forty years and more) we may see as in a glass the like inconveniences to be feared among us, if it should continue many years (which God of his tender mercy forbid) as also it would ere this have showed itself among our protestāns at home, if worldly policy had not refrained their unruly liberty. 
disagreement in doctrine among our protestans.  And yet among the pretended bishops of our country it is well known that some allow the order of priesthood, as the civil Lutherans do at Wittenberg, some preach openly that all men and women are priests, as the Illyricans do in Saxony and all the flock of the zealous Lutherans. Again some in the matter of the blessed Sacrament are very zwinglians, as the Apology and their articles at the last Convocation declare: some yet and that not the smallest stars of the realm, 
Caunterbury. Chichester. Gloucester. Rochester.  are in that point Lutherans, as the trouble of certain of them after the end off the last parliament witnesseth. Notwithstanding (according to the counsel of Melanchthon in his book against Fridericus Staphylus they pretend outwardly agreement and unite among themselves, to the intent that like the people of Creta (whereof such protestans are called Syncretisantes) they may with more joined force set upon their common adversaries the Papists, and overcome them the sooner. The late suppressed abominable book of Bernardinus Ochinus the Apostata, Peter martyrs companion lately printed, defending stoutly among other strange heresies the pluralite of wives (which began to be openly practised in Poleuntel the King banished him thence) may give us to understand, what jolly new doctrines and heresies the scholars of Peter Martyr which are not few, nor of the basest sort in our country, would plant and preach among us, were it not that matters being not yet ripe, nor thoroughly settled, they were like to mar all the game, if they kept not well their countenances. Where in they follow well and wisely the counsel of Nicolaus Amsdorffius, which he writeth in his book entitled Publica confessio purae doctrinae evangelii & confutatio praesentium Suermerorun. In the which complaining that Brentius and the masters of Wittenberg being at a conference and diet held at Worms would not condemn Zwinglius and Osiander whose doctrine utterly repugneth to their Confession of Augspurg, 
In the year. 1557.  he writeth these words. In this doing they have departed from the Confession of Augspurg although they pretend to remain in it, they have also caused dissension and taken away all means of agreement, for if they would (as we do) condemn the errors of Zuinglius and Osiander, then might we all agree together against the papists. These be the very words of Nicolaus Amsdorfius a famous superintendant among the Lutherans well and truly observed of our protestant preachers and Ministers. And is this the pure word of the gospel, so to bear two or rather twenty faces in one hood? For although among our protestants because of the estate of our country (where not whatsoever listeth them is lawful also to set forth) there seemeth in this new religion an apparent uniformite of doctrine, yet they vary not only among themselves, as we have before touched, but also from their own doings. The order of communion now practised in England differeth as much from the first order of communion used in King Edward's time, 
The difference of the present communion from the first.  as the Lutherans do from the zwinglians, and as the Illyricans do now from the Melanchthonistes. For the first both allowed the real presence in the Sacrament as Luther did, and used also many old ceremonies of Christ his church as the Melanchthonistes, and the civil Lutherans do yet in Wittenberg in Misnia in Franconia, at Norimberg, at ulme's (where passing by of late we saw in the church the holy Rood, and altars of stone yet standing) in the Dukedom of Wirtenberg, at Breslaw at Briga in Silesia and in many other places. The last and present order off communion denieth the real presence, as Zuinglius, and Calvin do, and rejecteth the ceremonies of the Mass, as the zwinglians and calvinists do in the five Cantons of Suitzerland Basil, Zurich, Berna, Schafusa and Clarona, at Geneva in Savoy, in Scotland and among the seditious rebels in France. Now Luther in his little confession De caena Domini condemneth Zuinglius and his complices for heretics. 
Tomo. 6. fel. 60.  So do Nicolaus Amsdorfius in the book above alleged, and Nicolaus Gallus in his book entitled. Theses & hypotyposes etc. Likewise Melanchthon condemneth Illyricus and his fellows as in divers writings, of Illyricus it is to be seen. By the judgement then of Luther, of Melanchthon, and of all the civil Lutherans, yea and by the judgement of all the ghospellers in King Edward's time, and of the stinking martyrs of that age, our communion now practised in England is heretical, and against the pure doctrine of the gospel. It were over long to recite here all the variances in doctrine among our protestants. I remit you to the daily experience which you may see better at home than we which are abroad. And thus much of the argument of this book. What remaineth then for our part to do, but as S. Paul commandeth us that we be Solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis, that is, 
Ephes. 4.  careful and diligent to keep unite off mind in the bond off peace, being one body and one mind, as we be called in to one hope and vocation? For there is but one lord, one faith, one baptim, one God, and father of all, that we hence forth be no more children wavering and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wiliness of men, and craftiness laying wait to deceive us. It is truly a world to see what labour and toil, what posting and running, what pains and charges, men sustain for their right in temporal traihe, in worldly commodities and present pleasures, which we have renounced in our baptism, which with care being gotten with sorrow is kept, and yet soon lost, and how cold, negligent, and careless we are, about the true and sincere worshipping of God, which we have promised and professed in our baptism, and which only hath his sure, certain, and everlasting reward. We spare no labour, no cost, no travail for the one, we move not a foot, nor will not depart from a penny for the other. but nodding and sleeping in wilful ignorance, fuffer ourselves to be lead by the noses with every tinkard and cobbler prating in pulpits, and planting poisonnous doctrine. If rebels arise against their Prince, they are with all speed possible and force brought down again. Well and worthily. And shall we wink at the rebels of Christ's holy word and his church? The thief that robbeth and pilleth our temporal riches, is hanged: and worthily. and will we not labour to espy out and avoy de heresies which bereave us of the treasure of eternal life? If we be thus reckless and careless for our salvation, we perish worthily, and the plague of god upon us for our deserts. if we will not wittingly be deceived but have a care of our soul health, and think upon the life to come, let us in this perilous ti mes of schisms, and abundance off iniquity hearken to such as can teach us to discern the true and right in terpretation of god's word, from the perverted persuasions of heretics. let us beware of such guides in matters of conscience, as stick not to corrupt the very text of god's word, against all honesty and conscience. Let us behold for the better assurance of our Catholic faith, which is but one, the horrible schisms of the Lutherans, Sacramentaries, anabaptists, Confessionistes, and other among themselves, all the which are here lively and expressly set forth by Fridericus Staphylus. and we shall I trust gladly keep ourselves under the wing of our mother the Catholic church and give no more ear to every new forged fantasy of seditious schismatics.  
As touching the Author of this book Fridericus Staphylus, in his life time (for within these few months he departed the world to the great grief of all good men) he was a virtuous, learned, and wise, Noble man. His virtue well appeareth not only in the fervent zeal of god's word and the truth, for the setting forth of the which, he took such trade of life as both impaired much the health of his body, and procured also greatiosse of his substance (as he writeth in the first part of this work) but also in the great patience and modesty that he used always against his adversaries writing pasquils, libels, and famous epigrams, against him, calling him judas, runneagat, traitor and so forth (as the modesty of this new gospel useth) because he forsook their abominable heresies after a thourough knowledge of them, and detected their juggling deceits to all the world as especially he doth in this work following. And this only were they able to object against him, which declareth well the innocency and uprightness of his life, For as herein they spared no kind of rhetoric to exaggerate his departing from them (which was a singular grace of God and most in him to be commended) so if they had had better matter, it should not have lacked the telling on their part. Smidelinus, one that of all other to his perpetual shame and ignominy took upon him to encounter with Staphylus labouring to fasten upon him some great blow of reproach and shame, at the lenghth for lack of better advantage, 
In Apologia absoluta pag. 78.  entuiteth him his natural behaviour that he used commonly to look down to the ground as he walked, thinking he had thereby reached him a great rap. Which how light a philip it is, every wise man seeth. And that gre at ghospeller and doctor of Gopping had forgot it was written of our Saviour that Non secundum visionem oculorum judicabit He shall not judge according to the eye sight. 
Esa. 1●.  Truly it is no small argument of his innocency that his most adversary could lay no grievouser matter unto him.  
His learning well appeareth in this and other his works as in his Absolute apology, his epistles and orations against Melanchthon, Flaccus, and other: where he showeth himself no less learned divine, then eloquent orator and expert of the tongues. But of his education in learning and prospering in the same, of what estimation also he was among the protestants themselves you shall understand by his own words, being forced to declare the same by the impudent reproaches of Smidelinus his adversary. In his Absolute apology written in the year 1562. thus he writeth. Whereas Smidelinus objecteth to me that I was Luther's and Melanchthons' scholar, I deny it not, for I lived in the university of wittenberg ten years of my own costs and charges studying there under Luther, Melanchthon and others. At that time also being a young man rash and unskilful, I was infected somewhat with the poisonnous doctrine of Luther. Howbeit that was not so rooted in me, but that it was soon driven out again. And that I never consented thoroughly to the fift gospel of Luther, many things do evidently prove. First that whereas the Masters off Wittenberg would needs persuade me to proceed Doctor among them, 
Staphylus refuseth to be Doctor because of the oath.  I would never do it. And that only because I would not take the oath of the university and make open confession of my belief in that place. And this Doctor George Mayor who yet liveth can bear me witness of. secondarily because I would never take upon me the Lutheran Ministry in any church: though few years passed I have been required of certain Princes to high dignities: as to be superintendant in sundry places: as at Augspurg, at Lubeck and at Brunsuick. Thirdly this may declare how little I fancied in my heart the doctrine of Luther, that being called and chosen of the Duke of Prussia to be a Reader in his dominions (at Coningsberg) and a Counsellor, I caused in the writ of my stipend this condition expressly to be put that I would be compelled to no religion or doctrine that in any point repugned with the doctrine of the primitive, Catholic, and Apostolical church, and of this my condition I am able to show if need shall require sufficient testimonies. By these words ye may see off what reputation and opinion of learning and virtue this man was at Wittenberg, Augspurg, Lubeck and Brunsuick the most famous cities of the Lutheran profession.  
His wisdom and other noble qualities he well declared first in the service of a counsellor to the Duke of 
Indefensione contra Musculum  Prusia from whom he was forced to departed and that (as he writeth) to the loss of some thousands of marks, because like a worthy and faithful Counsellor he freely advertised eftsoons the Duke to beware of the cursed heresies of Osiander and his fellows. secondarily in the like service under the Catholic and virtuous Duke of Bavaria, under whom he was in such credit that he was made overseer and chancellor of the university of Ingolstad jointly with the Bishop of Eistat. thirdly for his wisdom, learning and virtue he was of long time and many years Counsellor to the late most worthy Emperor Ferdinandus. under whom he hath done noble service as well in the diets and conferences in Germany as in embassages of Liflande, Pole, and other countries.  
As for the great labour, and diligence he bestowed to shift himself out of the captious and contentious controversies of this time (wherein he was nuzzled in his youth) it may well appear in that (as he writeth in the first part of this book) He employed only the study of Divinity and matters of Controversy about two and twenty years: not meddling in all that time with any worldly or civil matter. And what think you after so many years study and labour, after so great experience and learning, was the chiefest argument and reason whereupon he forsook the Lutherans and clave unto the Catholics? forsooth he declareth it in the very same place last alleged: and it is right worthy to be noted. This saith he, was the chief and principal cause why I actompted the divers doctrine of Luther and his fellows to be heretical and for such do utterly forsake 
Why Staphylus forsook the Luthe rans.  it and detest it, this again is the cause why I esteem the doctrine in all Christendom (which they call the Popedom) received, to be the only true and wholesome doctrine, because this doctrine is the Catholic and universally received interpretation of holy scripture, but their doctrine is only their private opinion and their private depravation of holy Scripture. This lowas the principal reason that drew this wise, learned and virtuous man from the sects of his Masters, Luther and Melanchthon: and brought him home to the perfect unite of the Catholic faith. for he saw by long experience that all the doctrine of the new ghospellers, was nought else but their own traditions, their proper inventions, and private imaginations: for ging upon the word of God such sense as them listed, and telling then the people that the same was the very word of God: whereas the Catholics followed such sense and meaning of the written word as by the learned fathers, continual tradition, and universal consent of Christendom was received and allowed. And truly this only reason may be sufficient both for the unlearned and deceived protestants to reduce them home again to the Catholic church of Christ, and to keep also within the same such as by the grace of God, virtuous education, and good instructions have not yet swerved from the same. Which I beseech almighty God it may so do.  
And thus much hitherto of this present Treatise and the author thereof. Many other things there are which I would gladly advertise the Reader of. But because we have (I fear) been overlong already and the Author himself hath prefixed a long but a learned and profitable preface and therefore not to be omitted, I will here break of, and after the end of the Author's whole discourse, put for conclusion the rest of my meaning, advertising in the mean season the reader of this one thing, that this our labour being an interpretation, and bound to the invention of the Author, we have not, ne could not use the like eloquence as the free style giveth: beseeching the notwithstanding, gentle Reader, to take our pains in good part.  
Farewell. At Louvain the 12. of November. 1564. Thomas Stapleton.   

THen (saith Nicephorus of the time of Constantius 
Lib. 9 cap. 46. histor.  his empire under whom the Arrians flourished) new devices were commended and increased daily growing to a strange alteration, so far that every man setting light by all ancient laws and ordonances, forged himself fresh of his own. And yet their doctrine (he meaneth the Arrians) was not of all such received: but each one imagined new opinions, heaping up ever doctrine upon doctrine. Then Aetius, Eunomius, Eudoxius (each one diversly) Uttered their blasphemies against Christ. Then Macedonius also blasphemed against the holy Ghost.  

Gregory Nazianzen reasoned against those new doctrines in this sort.  
IF our faith be but yet thirty years old four hundred years being now passed over sense the coming of Christ, 
Epist. 2. ad Clidonium.  than our gospel hath been so long in vain, our faith also hath been to no purpose. Then so many Martyrs have invaine testified their faith in Christ. Then so many Bishops and pastors have in vain so long fed the flock of Christ. If prescription of four hundred years served then this learned father against the thirty years of the Arrians how much more may fourteen hundred and twice thirty years serve us for a most strong presciption against the protestants of our country who have not yet half thirty years among us been in possession of this their pretended religion in such sort as it is now professed.    

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD PRINCE AND LORD, HIS SINGULAR GOOD LORD, the Lord Martin Bishop of Eystat, FRIDERICUS STAPHYLUS wisheth health.  
Whereas you are 
This epistle was written in latin by the author himself.  (most Reverend Prelate) as you forefathers were by orderly vocation placed as Patron and protector to this university of Ingolstad, sithen that also the right honourable Prince Albert Duke of Bavaria hath set me overseer and gowerner of the same, it had becomed me long ere this time to have offered unto you my service: especially having certain matters committed to my charge, whereof I should before this time have conferred with you. But whereas our voluntary deliberation by trouble of time was defeated, being constrained, not as I would but as I was forced, to yield to necessity, and therefore must omit the one, and do the other: Yet in this business to be somewhat occupied, and in the principal by the way to be doing, I have not suffered such leisure as at times happened, to pass without some fruit of public commodity. Whereof having long thought, it seemed me, I could not by the way more profitably be doing then if (at what time other play or banquet) I laboured upon some such thing as might inform the poor deceived people, and not offend rulers and magistrates. And to this end truly, these dark winter days as leisure served me, I have compiled this book, framing my style after a rude and simple sort, that the unlearned might understand me, but letting pass no jot of the truth, to cure and remedy the falsehood. Although therefore the learned by this book shall not perhaps be much instructed, yet the good wit shall find herein that is right worthy to be known. and truly in medicines the wise Physician will not so much regard that they be pleasant or fair to the eye as that they be wholesome.  
This is therefore my meaning and the mark I shoot at, 
The intent of the author in this work.  that the good people may be admonished of their salvation and advertised of the dangerous deceits of heretics by whose craft and guile we see the noble Roman empire much weakened and impaired even now to faint, and thousands of Christian souls other where daily to perish. But the deceits of these heretics being spread so far and so diversly in Christendom, that the unlearned can not comprise them and the learned scant espy them, it shall be enough for the people to learn to know themselves to be people, that is to understand that it is enough for their part to learn of the spiritual magistrate, how to do their duty to God, and of the civil or temporal magistrate to learn their duty to their prince, and in all things rather to learn then to teach, rather to obey then to command.  
For these two estates the spiritual and the temporal have of God himself been ordained, duly received of us, confirmed and established by laws: and have served us as two walls by the which the power of the Roman empire hath been in Germany stayed up and continued all most these eight hundred years. And truly as long as matters appertaining to God were by the spiritualty, and the common wealth by the temporalty governed, and the laws off both estates ordained were inviolately observed, them Germany might contend in wisdom with the greeks, in stoutness of courage with the Romans, in godliness with all Christian nations: than it mought more surely of us then of the Romans be said.  
By ancient laws and men doth stand  
Thestate of Germany and Allemain land.  
Then it could, when laws ruled men, not men the laws maintain peace abroad, and rest at home: keep out their enemy valiantly and govern their people in all felicity.  
But Satan not abiding the repos of this country, stirred up Martin Luther a Germane borne, pricked him with furious rage: and drove him so forward, that he overthrew all ancient laws, by the which this Empire hitherto hath stayed and continued: and placed for them new by the which it should perish and fall. Luther jolted and enraged by this rider Satan, began with a fury to set upon the two said walls of the empire, and in short time, as well by his battering the walls were sore beaten, as by the sound sleep of the rulers the ward and watch was forsaken: And that in such sort, until one of the walls, the Spiritualty, was utterly overthrown: the other, the Temporalty, was put in great hazard: For so it proveth in deed. when that (as the poet saith)  
The sore dissembled doth fester and grow 
C●or. 3.   
While the idle shepeard taking his ease,  
searcheth not speedily the wound to know,  
But asketh the Gods to cure the disease.  
But this negligence being once committed and done it can not now be undone: Yet although of things past we have the remembrance only, consultation or deliberation we have none, truly I can not forget with what a perpetual ignominy and shame we are to be noted, that could suffer a lewd friar, and that neither craftily clad in his sheeps cote, neither excellently learned, to work so foul and so pernicious a mischief against all Christendom, that having first all most overthrown the Spiritualty, he hath so shaken and weakened also the Temporalty, that it seemeth rather already fallen down then liekely to fall.  
But what entry made Luther? How began he to overthrow these two estates? His beginning was surely vain and foolish, and stuffed all with lies. The principles and grounds (saith he) of the papists are the traditions of men not expressed in holy write, the pope of Rome, doubting and uncertainte of the grace of god. But who saith this? Luther every where. What witness hath he? John Brentius in his book of the causes of dissension: But how proveth he it to be true? for none other reason forsooth but for that Luther is (as he saith) an Evangelist, and Brentius is an other S. Ihon. I think the thirteenth Apostle. But as for these principles or grounds, there was never Catholic that so much as dreamt them. so far is it that any man affirmed them or defended them.  
The true principles of Divinity with us are and have always been these. 
The principles of the catholic religion.  first the word of God to wit the doctrine of the prophets and the Apostles, and briefly all the holy Scripture which we call the Bible. The second principle is the right and Catholic sense and understanding of the word of God delivered by the Apostles to their successors and by them spread through the whole world, declared also in many Counsels of the holy fathers and brought in to Canons. For this Catholic exposition of the holy scripture, because it was delivered unto the Apostles by Christ himself, and by them left unto their lawful successors with the very text of the scripture, therefore it is commonly called the Tradition of the holy fathers, and oftentimes, the unwritten verity in respect of the written text. And because the truth off the text and of the right understanding of the text must needs be all one, truly our adversaries do slander us, feigning that in trial off controversies we would beside the word of God set as judge the traditions of men directly against the word of God. The third principle is that holy continual succession of the See Apostolic and other bishops in the Catholic church. For if we be able to prove by order of continual succession that all bishops as well before us as now have always expounded the holy scriptures even as the first Apostles did, can there be any more certain way for the understanding of scripture than this is? I would gladly hear what can be said against it. The fourth principle is the unite and consent of the Catholic church, Whereby it is made that the like truth be in every part that is in the whole, and so contrary wise. These are (most Reverend Prelate) the right principles of Christian doctrine: these are the foundations of all truth: these as four quarres or corner stones hold up the Catholic church: and therefore it is called One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church. For of these principles dependeth the authority of the counsels. Of these the holy Canons have their beginning: and of these, all lawful and laudable rites of the church take force and strength.  
These then being the principles of our religion, not those which Brentius falsely chargeth us withal, Princes and rulers ought to look more nearer unto the doings and sayings of their preachers. But now Bretius to make an opposition of the foresaid forged principles, our principles are (saith he) the word of God, Christ, and an assured certainty of our confidence in Christ, But what is I pray you, this your word of God? This it is, that all manner of folk, men and women, cooks and cobblers, bawds and butcher's, tinkers and tailors, peddlers and pothecaries, minstrels and mummers, and all such like, be priests, be bishops, be doctors, and pastors, and have authority to administrat the Sacraments, to interpret Scripture, and what interpretation each one by the drift of his brain draweth out of scripture, that to be the pure gospel off the Lord, and the express word of God. This is not (right Reverend father) the word of God, but the word of the devil himself, invented of Luther, not inspired by the spirit of God. For that man intending to pervert all that appertained to God or to man, laboured, travailed and endeavoured by all means possible, that there might remain no spiritual magistrate which might by authority discern between leper and leper, 
levit. 13.  maintaining the right doctrine of the gospel and removing the bastard. And this labour of Luther being well liked of Satan, he imagined an other word of God, as that among Christian men should be no civil magistrate: for all princes were fools tyrants and men of no religion. 
In his book de seculari potestate.  to th'intent that, if perhaps the heresies of Luther were condemned by the Spiritual magistrate and so forth with committed to the secular sword princes thereunto might have no authority. hereupon he forbiddeth Christian men to keep war against the Turk, 
In a book against the two commandments of the Emperor.  and commandeth subjects to rebel against their princes. Straight upon this arose an other word of an other God, that all laws of chaste and single life should be taken away, teaching among a sort of maids and young men that Man was no more able to refrain his fleshly lusts then not to spit when nature provoked. 
In lib. de Matrimo.  Again that fasting and abstinence from flesh nothing helped prayer, 
In libel. de matrimo.  nothing furthered devotion made nothing to sobriety. These smaller points being first all most conquered, he reacheth to higher and diviner matters. First because he teacheth that sin is not by the grace of baptism taken away in deed, 
In Assertion ad Leonem.  but is said and feigned only to be taken away, hereof he saw it would follow that men ought not be esteemed righteous and good in deed, 
In his sermons at Smalcaldium.  but only accounted and imputed for such. Then because he made no difference nor degree of grace, he admitted no increase in virtue, and therefore could not abide the Sacrament of Confirmation. furthermore because if sin be not rooted out if there be no increase of grace nor goodness, but all is only by manner of account and imputing, them must he also infer, that the presence of Christ's body may not be in earth, that no sacrifice be admitted, and (which followed thereupon) no priesthood neither. And of this point the zwinglians picked out one word of their strange God and the Lutherans an other. of this spring also arose the doctrine teaching man to be justified by only faith: hope, charity, repentance and other good works being pernicious and hurtful to salvation. what fruit then think you proceeded hereof? This soothly and many other. 
Calvin in his institutions.  For if God doth compel man to sin, as Luther and the calvinists do write, how can God require good works or by what law can be punish sin, seeing that he worketh sin in us, and good works are thought to be pernicious? And truly if there be no reward for virtue there shall be no punishment for sin. And then there is no hell nor place of punishment: as in the seacoste towns of Germany it is taught: there is no devil to execute that punishment as Osiander teacheth.  
This word not of God but of the devil being laid, 
Abominable heresies of the Lutherans touching Christ.  this principle being put, an other principle concerning Christ ensued: as that the human nature of Christ is god, as the Swenckfeldians will have it, or contrairely that Christ is not God as the Seruetians teach and Mathias Flaccius, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  affirming that the word in the first of john is not the son of God.  
Lo how fertile and abundant was this principle of Luther and Brentius. There were in times past and are also now a days which openly deny Christ to be the son of God: affirming him to be the son of joseph and Mary. Which Mary also had (as they say) many other children beside Christ. Other there be now which teach the gospel of S. john to be a tale of Plato, baptim to be the invention of the devil. And that there is not in God the trinity of persons, some other doubting whether this trinity be man or woman. So taught even this winter a certain new ghospeller in Sternberg a town of Moravia, 
Detestable heresies concerning the Blessed trinity.  and that with the favour of the people, but much against the will of the Bishop of Omoluke their diocesian. There be now in Hungary also, which in their baptim leave out clean the name of the Son. There be in many places the Seruetians, which call the blessed trinity by the name of the hellhownd Cerberus whom the poets feigned to have three heads. With like horrible blasphemies two other ghospellers daily preach, the one in the hills of Gutni, the other in Zary a village of Silesia. In Pintzou a town of Poleone George Brandat and Peter Statorius teach openly that there is not one, but three Gods, and each of them of divers and distinct natures no less than three divers men. So that there is not one substance of the godhead but three, and three different operations three divers wills. And that the Son is less than the father. As for the creed of Athanasius that it ought rather be called the creed of Sathanasius the devil himself. And these fellows Brandat and Statorius being admonished of such blasphemous doctrine, and required by what authority or whose persuasion they durst sow such blasphemies, they answered, they were moved thereunto first by the authority of Calvin, of wolfgangus Musculus, of Peter Martyr of Bullinger and such like masters, then by the evidence of the holy truth, which hitherto hath lain hid and now was from God unto them revealed: These things to be as we say, Stanislaus a Baron of the realm of Pole, Mathias Stadnitzky, and Franciscus Stancarus do write.  
But because this parted confusion of so divers opinions can not well be perceived and is hard to be tried or discerned of such as gladly receive all novelties, 
Lutherans in Bohem teach the soul to die with the body.  there is upsterte this very winter in Bohem a new Sect. The which to take away this confusion, and to set forth a brief and compendious way of the Lutheran doctrine, teacheth openly and affirmeth, that all other opinions and doctrine of God, of the worshipping of God, of faith, of good or evil works, and to be short of any salvation of man, be but old wives tales and fond inventions. This only to be a sure and infallible law and the true sincere doctrine, that man both body and soul after this life utterly perisheth, no sense or life remaining after death here. Lo to what point the preachers of the new gospel have brought their doctrine unto. Lo the mark and scope of all their doings.  
The third principle of the Lutheran gospel is, saith Brentius, an assured certainty that every man hath of his faith in Christ. But for the love of God, what is this assured certainty of faith? May we not as well call day night and light darkness? 
No certainty of faith in Lutherans.  But what I pray you is this so assured and undoubted certainty of faith among the Lutherans? It is peradventure that certainty of faith which for the clearness and evidence of it, hath so surely and with such constant consent and marvelous agreement joined together the Lutherans, that in all their new gospel no dissension can be found, no variance in any article of their faith, no heresies at all in their doctrine may be espied. For if constant certainty breedeth true concord and agreement (as a certain philosopher wittily reporteth) then surely uncertainte and wavering in opinions must needs breed strife. Hereof than we may clearly gather how true this third principle of Luther is: for such is the certainty of their faith as the agreement of their opinions is. The which how great and of what manner it is, they have themselves declared, 
See the third part of this book.  and we will not dissemble it. These are the principles of the reformed gospel laid by Luther, repeated by Brentius, and admitted of the whole swarm of sectaries. Now because in the principle all is contained and many labels depend thereof, what roof think you will the devil build upon these foundations of Luther? For the effect never excelleth the cause. Truly these consequents and labels depended of such holy principles. 
the labels of the Lutherans principles.  To make of chaste membres of Christ filthy membres of an harlot, of devout and well disposed Christians, wicked and unruly subjects, of sober and temperate, glutons and Epicures, yielding to all filthy lust and pleasure, whose belly is their God, whose faith is perfidiousness and no faith at all. And to this butt and scope of Luther many have previly aimed at, but those of Bohen have now openly shot at it and strooken the very mark, preaching in open pulpits that the soul dieth with the body. But because Epicure himself taught, that to get pleasure, a colour of virtue must be cast, and the devil perceiving well that public magistrates could better be changed than utterly taken away, he thought better to train this herd of Epicures, fleshly and worldly men, to the yoke of Mahometans doctrine, being so sure they should be his own, them to leave them under the roof of the Catholic church where he stood always in doubt to lose them. The devil therefore hath so directed always and trained all contentions and variances in religion, that all heresies end in the Alcoran Mahomet's law.  
All historiographers that writ of the first beginning 
The la of the Turks compiled by heretics.  of Turks affirm with one assent that the law of Mahomet written in the Alcoran was compiled by one Sergius an Arrian, and John a Nestorian both ancient heretics, and of a certain jew of the Talmudistes. Now although the heresies which have in our unhappy time sprung up be many and divers, yet if the chief of them and most received were examined and conferred diligently with those three sects above mentioned, we should plainly and evidently perceive that the drift of the devil is no other now a days, 
Note the end of present heresies.  then by the mean of these heresies to train us unwares from the faith of Christ to the cursed infidelity of Mahomet. Petrus Statorius chargeth Franciscus Stancarus with the heresy of Nestorius, and he again the other with the heresy of Arrius. And because Stancarus is a famous jew and Talmudist, and Statorius is by profession a Caluiniste, parts hath so hotly and earnestly been taken on both sides, that now not only in Pole and Hungary, which are Realms nigh unto the Turks, but also in Silesia, in Moravia, in Bohem and other provinces more remote, great contentions have been kindled thereupon and be yet hot. And what other thing (o merciful God) can we look for? If Christian men call the faith of Christ in doubt, if they deny it openly, if they embrace the abominable doctrine off Mahomet, is it likely that whose doctrine they allow, his power and rule they will refuse? no truly. But these may seem paradoxes and beyond all credence. Would God they were so. But I fear me they are as true as the gospel. The causes be evident and open. surely the event of all likelihood will be correspondent. Let them inquire that be ignorant, and those that see and know the things to be as we say, let them well weigh them. But I will not make so evil abodement. I will rather wish and hope well. and much more rather would I be counted a liar and unprovident, that it might not so prove, then true and wise, that they should so prove.  
But now to couple more closely and to strike more directly our adversary whom I labour here to save, I say, the only remedy for the mischief that hangeth on us, the only means to escape this utter destruction of Christendom, is to come back from whence we departed, to return to the unite and consent of Christendom and all Catholic people. For why? be we Germans Christian men? So are other nations and countries also. If then we be not the whole corpse off Christendom, we are yet a part of it. But that part is foul (say the S. Austen) 
●ib. confess.  which agreeth not with his whole. What then? surely this is the only medicine for our disease, the only remedy for this mischief, the only hope of amendment, if that we being not the whole corpse of Christendom but a part of it, suffer not ourselves to be persuaded, that any one part of the body can be saved: when the whole perisheth. The nature and property of a general council is, to cure every part of Christendom, neglecting none. Such a council now therefore being called and prowlgated we are all called, 
The council being now ended we ought with other Christian countries conform ou ourselves thereunto.  no man is excluded. Truly no man's grease or disease can be so great, but that the Council is able to remedy it. Nor none is of such virtue and perfection but that by the council he may be more commended. Will we therefore avoid in time this paganism of these Epicures? let us all embrace the wholesome rule of Christian faith, submitting ourselves to the holy Council. Will we cast of the yoke of Mahomet? Will we fly the idolatry of the Alcoran? Let us seek unite, let us come unto the Council, and (all force of arms laid aside) let us quietly and with leisure debate our cause, let us in all softness and love deliberate and consult of the public weal of us al. 
1. Cor. 13.  For charity as S. Paul teacheth is patiented, is gentle, charity striveth not, it doth not frowardly, it is not proud, not ambitious, it seeketh not her own interest. it is not provoked, it thinketh no evil, it rejoiceth not of iniquity but is delighted in verity. it suffereth all things, it believeth all things, it hopeth all things, it abideth all things. 
If Chatite were in protestāns they would never refuse the Council.  Let this law of the Apostle and rule of Christian charity be the foundation of the proclaimed council, the manner of ordering it, and the intent of debating in it. But you will say. We are grievously offended with them. Truly that is great pity. But Charity is patiented, suffereth all things, is not provoked. Our adversaries be unlearned: charity striveth not, is not proud not ambitious Our adversaries be rich and keep that is not their own. yea they have that is ours. charity seeketh not her own interest, it doth not frowardly. It seemeth the council will deceive us and not keep promise with us charity thinketh no harm, but believeth all things, hopeth all things. But what if peradventure we be there cast and condemned charity rejoiceth, not of iniquity, but is delighted in verity. Truly I am fully persuaded that if we would all with this mind and intent come to the Council, we should seeking all for the truth quickly see an end of controversies, and seeking all unite return home in perfect agreement.  
But you require to know the judge and order of this council? In good time. for the protestants would one of their flock to be judge and likewise the Catholics of theirs: again they desire one order and these an other. For private affections are on both sides feared, lest the true judgement be thereby corrupted. How shall we then do to have a judge void of all suspicion that may uprightly judge? 
The Catholics desire no other judge of present Controversies  Let the word of God and the Catholic and right interpretation of that word be judge: in the which interpretation there is surely no less truth then in the very text of the word of God. For what can be more impudent and unreasonable then to embrace the text only and reject the right and Catholic understanding of the same, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  to admit that is spoken, and refuse that is meant, to urge the letter that of itself killeth and fly the spiritual meaning which giveth life? Herein therefore the greatest point of our debate consists when the Catholic shall interpret holy scripture otherwise then the protestant or the protestant otherwise then the Catholic, to know which of these two bringeth forth the more Catholic, more right and more received interpretation. And in this debate the end must needs be, that they be judged to have brought the righter, the more Catholic, and the more received interpretation, which are able evidently to show their interpretation alleged to be Catholic and Apostolical, that is, to have proceeded from the Apostles, to have been received of their successors, delivered from hand to hand by continual succession, and spread through the whole corpse of Christendom, and so to have come and reached even to us. They again must needs be thought to have alleged the false and bastard interpretation of holy scripture; which are not able to deduct it from the Apostles, nor to prove it universal.  
As for example. 
A clear example off debating a controversy.  Let us suppose, that now in the council with these new Arrians of our days this question were to be debated: Whether Christ be in deed, the Son of God and of equal substance with the father, or no. where as the Arrians deny this, the Catholics do affirm it, and the Arrians for their part allege that place of scripture where it is written, Pater maior me est, The father is greater than I am, 
joan. 14. joan. 10.  again the Catholics allege an other place, Ego & pater unum sumus, I and the father be alone: and each of them interpreting their place alleged, but both of them diversly, what can now help the very written word of God and bare text of the scripture to terminat this debate? the written word is on both parts express and of both admitted. Wherein then standeth the controversy? truly not in the text but in the right understanding of the text. Not in that which is spoken but in that which is meant. Is not this I pray you agreeable to the word of God? standeth it not with all reason, that the same interpretation and understanding of an alleged text be judged right and lawful, which can evidently be proved to have been derived from the Apostles and so received and used in the whole corpse of Christendom? I verily can imagine no better. And with this my judgement, agreeth well that Noble and wise Emperor Theodosius, the first, who in this very question of us propounded, chose for judge in that controversy the Catholic and received interpretation of holy scripture. For thus we read in the ecclesiastical history of Socrates, of one Sisinnius who gave the Emperor this council to assuage the great contentions that were then in the church, through that heresy of Arrius. This Sisinius was, 
Socrates. li. 5. cap. 10. Sozomenus li. a. ca 17 Nicephor. libro. 12. Cap. 15.  as Socrates writeth, an eloquent man, a man of much experience, very well seen in the old writers expounding holy scripture and a good philosopher. This man therefore perceiving that by disputations and conferences with heretics, the schism grew on more, and waxed more contentious, he advised Nectarius then patriarch of Constantinople in this manner. The old writers (saith he) teach all ways the Son to be coeternal with the father, wherefore they never would affirm that the Son had any beginning of substance. 
Good Counsel of Sifinius to defeat heretiker.  Let us then leave these Logical disputations, and look unto the expositions of the old writers. Put it therefore in the emperors head that he call the heretics before him and ask them what account they make of such doctors and fathers, as wrote before their heresy began: and whether they judge them to be Christian men or none of the church. If they mislike them, let them (if they dare) condemn and anathematise them. If they so do, the very people will overrun them. And so truth shall over come. But if they do not repel the old doctors, it shall then be our part to bring forth their sayings, and by their testimonies confirm our doctrine. This being told of Sisinius, Nectarius goeth forth with unto the Court, and declareth unto the Emperor the advise off Sisinius. who liking it very well, and going wisely about the matter, called the heretics before him, and dissembling his purpose demanded them only whether they made any account of the Doctors of the church which lived before their heresy began or no. They not rejecting those writers but calling them their masters and fathers, the Emperor asketh them again whether they would admit them as worthy witnesses of the Christian faith. The chief masters of that heresy, hearing those words, doubted much what they might answer. Whereupon they strived among themselves, some thinking the Emperourment well, some mistrusting the issue of his demands, and perceiving they made little for their purpose. For they were not all of one mind touching the writings of the old fathers, differing in that point not only from other religions, but also from them selves who professed all one religion. Thus their wicked doctrine was discovered and confounded, as the builders of Babel by their variance in language. For the emperor preceaving their disagreement, and seeing they trusted only upon contentious disputing, regarding not the exposition of old writers, 
Old heretics despise the holy fathers as our protestāns now.  he took an otherwaie with them commanding that each religion should in writing shortly comprise the effect of their doctrine and opinion. Thus far the history of Socrates. That Sisinius though good not to dispute with heretics, it was not his first devise. The holy canons had commanded the same. 
In prescript  Tertullian and other holy fathers had written the same.  
And the cause why they think it not expedient to try by disputation matters of our faith is, 
why it be hoveth not to dispute with heretics.  that all heretics do utterly take away the true principles off Christian religion, which are the sure grounds off good disputation, and place in their stead false and forged which are all uncertain: and may serve (as we see in counting) sometime for more, sometime for less, sometime nothing at all. For he that taketh away the general and the whole, how can he be sure of the parts? Or if ye deny the substance, to what purpose were it to dispute of the accident? To none at all. Therefore he that listeth dialectically and school like to reason with an heretic, if he agree not first with him for the principles, he shall fight he woteth not against what, nor to what purpose. and sooner shall ye take a hare with a taburin then conclude a subtle heretic with an argument. For he hath no certainty in his doctrine: but is ready to deny that he granted the last word before, and likewise to grant that he last denied flitting and flying as vantage serveth.  
Brentius affirmeth the only text of the written word to be the first principle of Lutheran religion. But in such sort that it may be lawful out of this written text to cut of the epistle of S. james, 
Vide praefationes Lutheri in hoslibros primae editio.  cast away the epistle to the Hebrews, refuse the Apocalypse of S. John, and condemn the books of Macchabees. This principle serveth also to reject any other part of the whole Bible. for if any sentence evidently expressed in sctipture be brought against him, straight Brentius crieth. The Hebrew text readeth not so. The greek copies have otherwise. And this principle of the only text serveth so fit for these heretics purpose that for conference with them no way can be made, nor end can be found. Then the Catholic and Apostolical understanding of holy Scripture which is every where one and always agreeable with itself, which is derived from the Apostles, which is the present judge in all controversies, they utterly refuse, and very rudely and impudently appeal unto Christ, whom in earth present judge we can not have. 
In Bohem and in the seacost towns of germany.  Whom yet some of them deny to be God, some to be man, and some other say he is but a tale of Plato. And yet forsooth they boast of the certainty of their faith, which in deed is most uncertain, as their most manifest dissension well declareth.  
A very vain and childish crack it is, to cry always that their Confession of Augspurg is grounded upon the doctrine of the prophets and of the Apostles. For who saith so, but they themselves and of their only foot, which first invented it and would impudently compel all Christendom to receive it? But if you ask them how they prove it, they will say unto you, All the articles of our Confession agree with the prophets and the Apostles, and differ from thence in no point. O the madness of our country. That which is called in question, they lay for their grounds, bringing for proof that which ought to be proved. What child in logic would so fond reason? For if you deny again that the articles of this their confession is grounded upon the doctrine of the prophets and the Apostles, what have they then to say? peradventure left they may seem to be put to silence they will begin to interpret and confer Scripture together, after their manner. But is not this the foul fault in logic called Petitio principij, that is, to ask that which ought to be proved? For when we blame the Confession of Augspurg we blame nothing else but the false and wrong interpretation of holy Scripture used in that Confession. But you will say. We may as well refuse the interpretation that the Catholics do bring of their own. Well truly and worthily. For who will hear the Catholic doctor if he bring forth nothing, but say only that the doctrine of the Catholic church is grounded in holy Scriptures? This must not be told but be proved.  
What then will the Catholic bring that the heretic shall not be able to bring? He will surely bring and declare first the interprerarion of Scripture which he useth to be universal, to have been derived from the Apostles, to be received and allowed in all Christendom. Then he will show that every article and principal point of our faith hath been confirmed by miracles. Last of all he will teach you that all matters of the Catholic church, which be proper of the new testament, are found expressed by evident figures in the old Testament: 
The difference between catholics and heretics.  What difference then is there between the right Catholic and the deceived heretic? Truly herein heretics agree with the Catholics, that both embrace, allege, and defend holy scripture as the very word of God, but herein differ all heretics from the Catholics, that these bring the Catholic and universal interpretation of holy scripture, they bring their own private and heretikall. These are able to prove their doctrine by miracles, they are never able: Last of all, that these are able to show the matter of the new Testament by the figures of the old law (as in the sacrifice, in the sacraments, and ceremonies) they can not.  
These two different ways being by just balances indifferently pondered, and tried, it will soon appear which overwaieth the other. And in deed if they bereave us of the common and received judgement of the whole church, wherewith all things in the church are judged, why may they not in like manner take away all the rest? For as if ye plucked out a man's eyes and yet would say that ye bereaved him not of that which might be seen, even so it is, if heretics grant us the text of the bible and yet take from us the true understanding thereof. If it forceth not whether we understand holy Scripture rightly or no, how shall we then discern falsehood from the truth? Whereby shall we try the truth, or what judgement shall the church have of the truth? And who would follow such teachers of religion which confoundeth truth and falsehood together, which spoileth us of all judgement of the truth, which leaveth us no means to try the truth, which blindeth and blereth our eyes of all intelligence? Yet in better case were the Cimmerij, who although they had lost the light of the Son, yet might use the fire. But these men that take away from us the consent of Christendom and the judgement of the church, which mock and scorn at the miracles of God, which refuse the doctrine and figures of Moses, do leave us in such horrible darkness, that we have not so much as one sparkle of light remaining Even in the time of the Apostles heresies sprang up, 
Actor. 8.  as of Simon Magus, of Hermogenes, of Philetus, and such like. 
2. Tim. 1. The mark of the heretics of the primitive church.  But by what mark trow ye was the doctrine of these heretics known from the doctrine of the Apostles, but that the Apostles and all, that followed them were Of one heart, one mind, and one belief? And this only touchstone left Christ to know the church by: 
Actor. 4.  that whereas two or three be gathered together in his name, and agree in any matter, 
Math. 18.  there he is to be found in the midst of them. This consent then and agreement in any matter, as in the Apostolical doctrine, and right understanding of holy Scripture, being uniform and all one in all, how can it not be the sure and certain judgement of the Apostolical doctrine and of the church? Beside as in Christ him felse, so in his Apostles it happened that such as believed not their words through infirmity, were yet forced to believe their miraculous works, they being an evident proof from God of their doctrine. Farther such order of the church, as the Apostles began to frame, and left to their successors to be perfected and thoroughly poolished: they thought it to be shadowed in the figures of Moses' law, and expressed in the light of the new law. But what like to these marks of the true church did Simon Magus, Hermogenes, and Philetus bring? even so much as now of late, Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin. For these new doctors be not of one heart, one mind, nor one belief, 
The same mark in our heretics.  and much less such disciples as followed these false preachers. For these dissent in every point, agree in no point: and therefore Christ the author and God of unite is not among them, but the devil the master of all dissension. Calvin very childishly and vainly going about to excuse himself, saith that the Lutherans are no more to be blamed for that so divers and so horrible heresies springe up now a days in every place, than the Apostles were in their time, under whom many heresies also sprang up. 
A notable testimony of the calvinists against Luther.  This maketh nothing for your excuse, Calvin. You deny flat Master Calvin and so do all your companions of Zurich that Luther was any prophet at all or in any point like to the Apostles. But you say the devil spoke in his mouth, not the holy ghost. 
In the third treatise of the church of Zurich against Luther.  The which testimony of your church of Zurich the truer it is, the more ye prove the very same devil to speak in yourselves. For the very same Luther in divers points of your doctrine you follow, whom you writ and affirm to speak by the instinct of the devil. 
All new sects have begun of Luther  And what new sect is now in any place of Christendom which hath not drawn the first act of his tragedy out of Luther's school? whence took Munzer the beginning of that great rebellion of the commons in Germany but of Luther? 
In a book against the two cōmaūde●ments off Caesar.  For He forbade men openly to obey their princes and condemned all war again the Turks whom he writeth to be tenfold better than our foolish and mad princes. So he termeth them. Whence digged out the anabaptists that carrion of the old heresy of the Donatists? Out of a certain epistle of Luther ad Waldenses, in the which he writeth, That it were better not to baptize children at all then to baptize them without faith. Whence took Carolostadius occasion to renew the heresy of Berengarius? Out of his commentary on S. John and the translation of these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The flesh profiteth nothing. 
Ican. 6. See the 3. treatise of the church of Zurich and The heavenly prophets off Luther.  I reaken here up the notable and principal sects only of our time. I could say as much of the base sort, if it were needful, which are so divers and so many, that we see almost as many sects as families among the Lutherans.  
For these therefore and other weighty considerations, which all to recount were now out of time, If I mought be credited or bear any authority among princes in this matter, (most Reverend prelate) I would give them that advise that Sisinius made unto the Emperor Theodosius. That is. They should charge and command their preachers and ministers to accept and acknowledge for right, that sense and understanding of holy scripture, which is Catholic and may be derived from the Apostles, and approved by the testimony of miracles: and that to be false which is private, of their own forging, and whereof they be not able to show any further evidence. And truly unless this advise other by my suggestion or by some other man's be not put in to the head of princes and persuaded them, we shall never live in quiet: the church will be overrun, and we of Germany shall other become slaves to the Turks as the greeks are, or to the Moscovites, as the Liflandmen are, or (which will be more miserable) we shall be utterly in perpetual thraldom as the jews, the Hungarians, and many other countries are now. But I will leave (as I said) these evil abodements. and will pray unto God, that it will please him rather to bear down our sins with the balance of his mercy then to exact them to the rigour of his justice: granting to our adversaries the love of Christian and Catholic concord, and to us the amendment to a perfi● life.  
The wrath of God is slow, and although allwais just, yet never without mercy, if at lest we labour rather to try it merciful then just. For it inviteth us first to acknowledge our sin and expecteth our repentance before it pronounceth sentence to condemn us. And what may we think of the providence of God, taking away the ancient and aged princes and leaving alive the young, which for their tender age and small experience are like to serve and miss in many matters? Within the compass of these three years or there about what number of princes, kings and Queens, have departed this world? And to begin with the most principal, The Emperor Charles the fift died the last year. 
The death of many great Princes in a short time.  About that time died his two sisters, Leonore wife unto Francis then french king, and Mary wife unto Joys king of Pannonia. Marry also Queen of England married unto king Philip his son. About that time also died John king of Portugal, Bona wife unto Sigismunde king of Pole, and Isabella his daughter married unto John king of Hungary. Not long after also died two kings in Denmark, Christern and Christian son to king Friderike which had long kept the other in prison. Shortly afther these Harry the French king died, and a little before him Paul the fourth B. of Rome. What shall I now talk of the death of inferior princes? In the compass of a short time died four of the Prince's electors of the Empire, 
Moguntia.  the bishops of Trevires, of Ments, and of Colony, and Ottohenricus, Count palatin of the Rhine, and in Italy the Duke of Venice. But what shall I speak of those which died this last month, 
In No●th. An. 1560  Gustanus king of Suethland, francis the second, the french king, and Ernestus Duke of Bavaria? Michael also archbishop of Salisburg a virtuous and learned bishop, the bishops also of Frising and of Eystat your predecessor have about this time been taken out of this world. And although it be true that Euripides saith. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all men are borne to die, and that Eschilus' an other poet writeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To search out the cause of death is in the secrets of fortune, yet the like is not of such strange and rare manner of chances. True it is and by a most just order of nature hath always been a constant and sure ratified law that which Horace the poet writeth. Pallida mors aequo, & cae.  
With like force and foot, death striketh at the door  
Of the princes high palais and the cottage of the poor.  
But that so many kings, so many Queens, so many Princes in so short a compass (as of three years) should all depart this life, it is a rare matter: the like whereof hath in few ages happened. And may we think this to be a mere chance and casualty, or rather to have proceeded of the unfallible providence of God? Truly as the first I can not think, so the last I must needs believe. For doth not God by the mouth of his prophet Esay declare us his divine providence herein? 
Esaiae. 3.  For Lo (he saith) the Lord God of hosts doth take away from Jerusalem and juda every valiant and strong, abundance of bread and of water, the mighty and man of war, the judge and the prophet, the wise and the aged man, the prince of fifty years old and the honourable, the Senators and men of understanding, the master of crafts and the well spoken wiseman. And I shall give them children to be their princes, and the delicious, and wanton shall have the rule of them, the people shall be overrun, and one man shall be set against an other, every man against his neighbour. the boy shall presume against the elder, and the vile p●rson against the honourable, and so forth. Thus the prophet's in times past did so pronounce of the jews, that it may well seem to be meant also of us Germans. The truth of the prophet concerning the jews the event declared. And that he will not lie touching us, it is not need to declare in words, the daily experience doth show it.  
But seeing that this mischief is so far grown, 
Non nisi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that by only repentance we may escape the rod, better it were for us to amend ourselves quietly, then to reprehend other sharply: seeing that so it is now, that if as an inferior you do brotherly advertise men, you avail nothing by entreating: and again if as a superior you command you get nothing by forcing. Peradventure therefore (as S. Basile saith) in the like cause of a common vice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Better a man to hold his peace then to speak, 
In orat. adverse. ebrios  Being the part of a good orator as well in time to keep silence as when occasion serveth to talk. For as by doing the one he profiteth much, so by neglecting the other he hurteth sometime. And this the nearer I consider, the more loath I am to set upon this enterprise. And truly if I followed herein my own private quarrel, I might worthily seem vndi●cret and rash, which would prefer my private commodity or incommodity before the public and common, or would esteem my private displeasure more than the profit and instruction of many. But the love of truth shall here overcome. which as it is oppressed by silence, so being discovered taketh force again. I had rather therefore, if I must needs somewaies offend, smart for telling the truth, then for dissembling by flattery. Therefore iff I declare that which I have perceived, if I advertise men to beware of the mischief that I have incurred myself, I trust in so doing I shall offend no man. I know there are among the rulers and noble men, which if they plainly perceived the deceits of these heretics, and knew what mischief ariseth thereby to themselves, to theirs, and to the whole common wealth, they would not slowly and slackly as I did very unwise, but with speed as wise men return to the trade of ancient and Catholic religion.  
Therefore writing this book (most Reverend) I have eftsoons joined tears with prayers beseeching almighty God as well for my enemies as for my friends, that it will please him of his goodness to give us all one mind, and one understanding, that we may know no other thing, 
1. Cor. 2.  nor think ourselves wise in any other point, then in jesus Christ and he for us crucified, For he is the shoot anchor of all Christian religion, he is the only port of our salvation. Who so strayeth from him, he loseth God and life everlasting. And to this end have I directed both all other travail of my life, and this my present labour, that the unlearned might hereby charitably be admonished, and the learned might have occasion better and depelyer to consider these matters. In the mean season I have endeavoured that in such things as I bring out of stories and facts of our time I might content all men, offend no man. But if there be any man that thinketh himself offended with this my book, other because I have spoken more plainly than he would I should, other because he taketh my words otherwise then I meaned, him I beseech most heartily that he call upon me and hear what I can say for myself. Surely I shall not be so froward nor so unkind, but being better instructed of any man, I will with all courtesy thank him therefore: and much more will I be glad to submit myself to the lawful and Catholic censure of the church. Which being most reasonable, if I can neither by entreating, neither by any right obtain of my adversaries, I will patiently suffer, by God his help, all that may happen, and will defend notwithstanding according to my power, the truth of God his word as long as I live. Contenting myself for all reward of my pains, if I may by this small travail either call any one back that is gone astray, or confirm any man that hath hitherto remained in the truth. Especially in this your Diocese, most Reverend Praelat to whom this university of Ingolstad is subject. Wherefore I most humbly commend unto you both this school, especially the study of Divinity therein, and me and all mine.  
Far you well.  
written on Christmas eve, in the end of the year. 1560. To your most Reverend highness the most affectioned FRIDERICUS STAPHYLUS Counsellor to the Emperors Majesty, etc.   

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER grace. FROM GOD AND PEACE.  
IT is an old and much received, but a very evil custom, that such as can not abide the truth told them, 
De●ost. proc●ro●a.  use to slander, backbite and rail at other, especially for that by instinct of nature (as a wise ethnic writeth) men are more busy to espy other men's faults than virtues. And although this wicked custom hath always from the beginning been practised, proceeding of the corrupted nature off man: yet never in any age it hath so much been used as now sense Martin Luther brought out to light the fift gospel, and sent abroad in to the world these unhappy and unghostely ghospellers, which all Christendom now almost to their great lost and destruction, is stuffed and stifled with all. For where as this gospel can neither be proved by any evidence of truth, neither (as the true gospel was) be confirmed by operation of miracles, these new preachers of our days have turned all their force and power an other way, 
A charitable shift of the protestants.  labouring to the and nail, by right and by wrong, and by all means possible to bring the old Catholic doctors, and all such as follow them in infamy, obloquy, and reproach to all the world. And this lesson our adversaries have very perfectly learned of their Master Luther, and have practised this precept all ways having to do with me or any other Catholic man. Neither will they by any means be brought from this their charitable custom while they live, perceiving well that by this crafty means they get more ground and deceive more the people, than ever they were able to do by plain and upright dealing. Truly as for my part, I confess before God and his divine judgement, my sins to be great and many, which can rejoice in no other thing, nor otherwise pray, than that good king David, using these words. 
Psal. 141.  Lord hear my prayer: hear me in thy righteousness, and enter not in to judgement with thy servant, for no living man may be justified in thy fight, to the which that notable sentence of S. Austen also agreeth, saying. 
Lib. confes. 9 cap. 13.  woe even to the commendable life of men, if thou o Lord dost examine and try them without thy mercy. And thus must every man (be he never so holy and perfect) judge of himself, if he respect the terrible judgement of almighty God, wherewith no man can stand without his mercy through Christ jesus. But in civil policy and trade of this world, where the good a bearing of subjects is required, every man ought so to order his life that he may without groudg of conscience say. I can be charged with nothing, howbeit I justify not myself herein. 
1. Cor. 4.  And that saying of the prophet. 
Psalm. 7.  judge me o lord according to my righteousness. For this is our glory, 
2. Cor. 1.  as the Apostle saith, the testimony of our conscience. Although therefore as I said before, I acknowledge myself for a great sinner, yet not with standing all days of my life (be it not spoken for any pride) I have always endeavoured to have the testimony of an upright conscience, that I might give a count to such as required it of me, both of my belief and of my conversation. For this is the strait commandment of almighty God, and the doctrine of S. Peter the Apostle, saying: Be ye ready always to give an answer to all that shall ask you a reason of the hope that is in you, 
1. Pet. 3.  and that with meekness and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they backbite you as evill-doers they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. The which weighty precepts of holy scripture commanding expressly every man to be ready to geveaccompte of his hope and conversation, I being so bitterly and roughely provoked of my adversaries, could not but purge and defend myself as reason required: For as S. Hierom ●aieth: He that neglecteth his good name, is cruel and unnatural toward himself, 
Lib. de bono viduita tis. cap. 22.  and as S. Austin saith, Our life we maintain for our own sakes. our good name for other men's. The wise man also saith. Better is a good name then much riches, and to be loved is worth better than gold or silver. 
Prou. 22.  And the common talk telleth us, who hath lost his good name, is more than half hanged. For these reasons therefore and divers other, I have thought expedient to write, and set forth this brief and short Apology to th'intent that according to the duty of a Christian man (because other ordinary means of trial our adversaries admit not) I may declare to the world my innocency herein, and remove the heinous flawnders of my adversaries, which they lay out continually against me in pulpits, in grammar schools, in their writings and in famous libels.  
To suspend therefore no longer the Godly and Christian reader, we will now enter our Apology being divided in to three parts. The first is of the true and right understanding of the word of God and the gospel which they say I did before embrace and follow, but now, I abhor and persecute. The second part is of the translation of the holy bible in to the vulgar Germane tongue. whereof they babble that I go about and devise to make an inhibition against the reading of the german bibles. The third part is of certain articles in controversy, which the Lutherans partly for shame deny, partly go about to reconcile with the rest of their doctrine. To the end that hereby they may persuade the world that I belied them hitherto, affirming such to be their articles, and charging them with dissension among themselves.  
With these three points, by the grace of god, I shall defend my simple conversation and give due information of my belief, using herein a plain and familiar style of our vulgar tongue: that the simple lay man may also understand me, declaring sincerely and with all modesty, the truth in all points, without railing, biting, or any other uncivil demeanour. For so it becometh well meaning men to do. Although my adversaries to bring me in infamy and reproach omit no such kind of rhetoric, laying on great load of lies and reproaches, whereby they have cut away all honest means of reconciliation, avoiding all manner of judgement and civil trial. Being yet from god commanded by Moses, That all controversies and debates should be tried by the lawful Magistrate. 
Deute. 17.  For this hath always been my only desire and is yet, that my adversaries which either privily or in open libels cease not to backbite me, convent me before my ordinary and lawful magistrate, and there make their complaint: not making themselves the party plaintiff and defendant, yea and judges in their own cause: as against all order and law, both spiritual and temporal they have hitherto most impudently done. Truly as I haveben always, so am I now ready and desirous to present myself before my ordinary Magistrate, and to abide the whole order and process of the laws against me. For thanked be God I know my life and conversation hath been such (be it not spoken for any pride) that I am not ashamed nor afeard to show my face before any man a live. 
The cause of the protestāns grief against Staphylus.  And sure I am that if I had not laboured with the emperors Majesty and other Catholic princes for the maintenance of the Catholic religion against heretics, my life should never have been touched of them. But seeing that the Catholic doctrine itself (praised be God) can not by any good, reason or colour be impugned, they lay at my person, and fight against me, letting the doctrine itself alone. Using this argument that I against my own conscience only for honour and riches sake, defend the Catholics, whereas yet they know well themselves, that I have sustained the loss of some thousands of crowns, and impaired much the health of my body, in the quarrel of the Catholic faith. But howsoever the matter goeth, 
2. Tim. 2.  Our Lord knoweth who are his, and he trieth the hearts of men, 
2. Thess. 2. Lib. 5. st●matum.  and (as Clemens Alexandrinus writeth, 
Math. 16.  No man is so great but God passeth him, nor no man so small but God espieth him, and he shall give to every man according to his deserts. If I therefore do against my conscience herein, woe is unto me, For only God knoweth the conscience of man. But if I do uprightly herein, woe is unto you that take upon you the secret judgement of God. And thus far off myself enough. Let us now come unto the matter.   

OF THE TRUE AND RIGHT UNDERSTANDING OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.  
AS touching the first part, whereas they lay to my charge that I labour to oppress and tread under foot the holy gospel and word of God, having before professed the same, etc. To this I answer plainly that herein they deal very uncourteously with me, and do injuriously slander me. And I am very sure they have not one jot to prove this their saying by. But to remove this their vain, and forged opinion with sure and undoubted reason, I would gladly know of them what is that they call the holy gospel and word of God. Here if they answer me that the word of God is no other thing, than the holy scripture, commonly called the Bible, that is, the old and new Testament, them again I answer them they do most injuriously slander me. For they are never able to prove that ever I rejected or persecuted any one little peace or parcel of the gospel or of the law. But I embrace and reverence all the holy Bible, the law, and the gospel: and take it for no less than the very word of God's mouth. Yea and I grant, that sooner heaven and earth shall perish then any one jot of that word. 
Mar. 13.  Which I dare say not only for my own part, but in the name of all Catholic Christians: 
The Catholics have the word of God no less than the ptotestants.  which hitherto even from the Apostles time almost these thousand six hundred years without any intermission have read in churches, song always in public service of the Mass, and taught openly in pulpits, and have also in the common breviaries and portyses of the Roman use comprised almost the whole corpse of the Bible: and that in such order, that the priests are bound weakly to read over the whole Psalter, and yearly for lessons almost all the gospel and epistles, and prophets, as the most ancient custom practised so many hundred years past, of the Canonical hours, the Prime, the Third, the sixth, the Ninth hours, Evensong, and Complin doth well declare. which disposition and order of times, 
Actor. 3.  was off the Apostles themselves (as it may appear in the Acts and other where) so well and diligently appointed, that to every day for the hours of our lords passion, psalms, lessons and gospels do correspond, with a reverent and devout remembrance of Christ's benefits. whereby the church from the beginning unto our time through out the whole world, would testify and teach unto us, that all holy scripture ought to be construed and grounded on the passion of our Saviour jesus Christ, as in the true corner stone for the salvation of our souls, as hereafter we shall in his due place by the scripture most plainly prove. It is therefore a wonderful slander that these men say of the Catholics. That hitherto the gospel and the word of God hath been banished from the church, 
A lowdlie of the Lutherans against the Catholic church.  kept in hucker mucker, and at the length under the pope to have been utterly extinguished: but now is revoked unto light: therefore those that embrace this new gospel, to be worthily called men of the gospel, but that we which follow our sweet parents and forefathers with the whole Catholic church, keeping and maintaining the old Apostolical doctrine must be called wicked papists.  
But here, 
Note well.  he that hath eyes to see, let him open them, and he that hath any regard of his salvation, let him here take heed. for this is that subtle deceit of these protestants, and the mist wherewith they dim the eyes of the simple people, making them believe that they only profess the word of God. And yet these new preachers and masters know very well themselves the contrary: as Luther himself in his book against the anabaptists and the zwinglians witnesseth, saying that among the papists, that is, in the church of Rome, the holy gospel and all holy scripture with all the books, sentences, words and pricks thereof hath remained in continual succession of time, uncorrupted whole and perfit. which maketh me more to marvel, what wicked and malicious spirit moved these protestants, to term themselves only ghospellers and professors of God's word, calling the Catholics papists, and enemies of the word of God: seeing that both now and in all ages, we read the gospel in our churches, we preach the word of God in our pulpits, and interpret it to the people: we express it by outward ceremonies, rites, and gestures, such as we have received of our forefathers, even from the primitive church and the Apostles time. And this Luther knew himself well enough. But why dissembled he it then? forsooth to deceive and entrap the easier the simple people in to his pretended religion. For Luther and all his ministers know very well that in the gospel and word of God two 
In the word of God two things are to be considered.  things are to be considered. First that the text be sound and not corrupted: then that the same text be expounded catholicly and not heretically. For as S. Bernard saith, look with what spirit the scriptures were written, 
Ad fratres de monte Dei.  with the same must they be read and understanded. Seeing then the text by the instinct of the holy ghost hath been given us true and perfect, the understanding also and interpretation thereof, coming of the holy ghost must be true and perfect: so that one shall be as true, and of as much force as the other. It is not enough therefore to read holy scripture perfectly, but to understand it well also. 
Adverse. Luciferianos.  For (as S. Hierom sayeth) The scriptures consist not in reading but in understanding. All this Luther was not ignorant of. But to deprave and corrupt the right interpretation of holy scripture, and to bring in place his own heretical and forged expositions, he maketh no mention off the text, but crieth still the word of God, calling the dreams of his brain, pure and holy scripture. For if ye ask of the Lutherans when they preach that God constraineth men to do evil, 
Lutherus inassertio. Melanchthon in Paulum ad Rom. Calvinus i●institut.  that God was the cause of judas his reprobation and obstinate desperation, that good works are hurtful to salvation, and such like matters, what manner of doctrine that is, they will incontinently answer you, that This is the pure gospel, the sincere word of God, and holy scripture itself. But then if ye go farther, and desire them to show you these very words and propositions in holy scripture, there they hush. Yet will they tell you, that the words in deed them selves be not in the Bible, but the meaning of them is there. To the which if ye reply again, and urge them farther it will soon appear, that the controversy between the protestants and us, is not of holy scripture itself, but of the true understanding of the same. And so S. Hilary having to do with heretics in his time pronounced. 
Lib. 2. de Trinitate.  Heresy, saith he, is in the understanding not in the scripture. And truly all heretics never cried other thing than the holy scripture, the word of God: and we that are Catholics also have holy scripture always in our mouth.  
Now than a man may marvel and ask, how cometh it to pass that the Lutherans and the Catholics, the protestants and the papists strive and contend so one with an other, where as yet both have the gospel, both love and embrace it, both cleave unto it, and both are ready to spend their good and their life for it? Here I beseech thee, Christian reader mark and perceive well: 
Note well  that this is not the controversy, whether the Catholics or the Lutherans 
What is all the controversy between the catholics and the protestants.  have the word of God, but which of them, doth truly, rightly, and sincerely expound that word off God. For this is the Lutherans common saying: The papists understand not the Bible, but we have found the right interpretation thereof and the kaye of all truth. And to set a good colour upon this holy protestation they say farther. That all bishops, prelates, priests and Monks be all without learning, all incontinent, all of evil life, given to covetousness, to pleasure, and to the belly. But they themselves, that is, the Lutherans be learned, chaste, sober, liberal, devout, and of perfect life, and such as have done great miracles and yet do. Neither are these impudent heretics ashamed of these loud lies, although all the world well knoweth it is nothing so: while they see Churches, 
Remember the state of germany of Scotland and the late spoil in France.  hospitals, religious houses of all sort, colleges, and bishoprics, of these men partly clean overthrown, partly rifled, all taken into their hands, and converted into palaces, armouries, barns, coal houses, shops of Marchaundrise, yea and in some places, in to stables. 
The miracles of the new gospel.  These lo be the miracles of this new gospel abundantly practised all this forty years. As for other miracles, not one of these new ghospellers was ever able so much as to cure a lame colt, or a halting biche. so far is it, that these men could ever cast out devils, heal the lame, cure the blind, restore the deaf, or raise up the dead. all which miracles many holy fathers of the old gospel (as I may so speak) which these men call Papists have wrought from time to time in Christ his church, as right approved histories do manifestly declare.  
Now as for the good and perfect life of these men, and excellent learning, all the world seeth it. An old sort of heretics called Donatists objected in times passed to S. Augustin the very same argument, saying that their church only was upright, holy, pure and learned. But the Catholic church was nothing so. And therefore the doctrine of the Donatists was undoubtedly sound and perfect, but that of the Catholics false and untrue. But what awnswered them here S. Augustin? 
In lib. de unitate ecclesiae.  The argument (saith he) that proveth men's doctrine by their life is false. But let us suppose that these holy protestants passed all the universal Catholic church of Christ since the time of the Apostles, both in godliness of life, and excellency of learning. Which I think in good sooth they will not all together affirm, But if it were so, it will not yet thereupon ensue, that only the Lutherans understand holy scripture, and the Catholics never understood it. 
Difference between life and doctrine.  For if the right intelligence of holy Scripture be only to be sought among such, as will stoutly affirm of themselves to pass all the rest of men, in uprightness of life and excellency of learning, then in very deed must we needs leave this great treasure of the right meaning of holy scripture unto heretics. For in all ages heretics always craked of their great learning and perfect life: as the ecclesiastical histories well declare of the Arrians, the Manichees, 
Luther in parva Confessione contra Zuinglianos.  the Pelagians and such like. And what other thing doth Luther in many of his works, especially in his book against the pope, Then call the old Catholic writers and holy fathers, fools, asses, 
Libr. quod Papatus supra infernum exstructus sit.  rude and unlearned, babes of the pope, hermaphrodites, and such like. Neither contemneth he only the Catholics, 
Libr. contrae coelestes prophetas.  but even his own companions and fellow heretics also as Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and other of that batch. 
The pride of Luther.  Yea this man father of all this blessed brood of protestāns, so highly extolleth himself, 
In sua Apologia contrae postremam Lutheri confessionem.  so presumptuousely despiseth all the world, like an other Lucifer, that the protestants themselves of Zurich writ plainly, that now no more the holy ghost, but the spirit of pride and presumptuousness speaketh in M. Luther. Illiricus also and his companions crack they not likewise of their virtue, and great learning? especially Illiricus, how boasteth he that he was perfectly seen in Aristotle, and had written marvelous much upon him? But what doth holy scripture speak to these proud boasters? S. Peter saith. God resisteth the proud, 
1. Pet. 5.  and giveth grace to the make and humble. And the prophet saith of god. 
Psal. 103.  Thou art he which poorest out the fountains in the low valleys. not in the tops of hills. Again in an other place. Every valley shall be exalted, 
Esaiae. 40  and every high hill shall be plucked down. It is therefore a great vanity of them to judge and pronounce so proudly of themselves, seeing that the Apostle of such men saith. 
Rom. 1.  Saying themselves to be wise they have proved fools, and their foolish heart hath been darkened.  
But now touching the integrity of life and virtuous behaviour of the Lutherans, I would be loath to report thereof myself. Surely I see Luther to doubt very much thereof. For in his great postil upon the gospel of the first Sunday in advent, he crieth out and complaineth. That by his gospel men were become far worse than they were before 
A notable testimony of Luther of the life of his scholars.  under the Pope. For wickedness and vice had so far grown in his ghospellers that they seemed almost become devils. And truly this is a sure token of false prophets. For Of thorns who gathered grapes or of brambles who gathered figs at any time? 
Math. 7. Luc. 6.  For look what the tree is, such is the fruit. such master such scholar, such doctrine such living.  
Now where as they again object unto us the evil and disordinate life of the prelates of the church and of the clergy, as that they be gloutons, dronckards, ambitious, horehunters, and so forth, I will not here presently defend them, that are such. It is surely much to be lamented, that the life and behaviour off the reverent priesthood answereth not to their godly and high profession: but is very scandalous to the world, even in such places as the church is by heretics corrupted and persecuted. Notwithstanding I doubt not although in many of the clergy it be found true that the Lutherans say of them touching evil life, yet there are a great numbered of virtuous and learned bishops and priests, of devout and perfect religious men, such as among the Lutherans were hard to find. But it were better in this case and more seemly for Christian charity, that each part looked in his own wallet, 
Math. 7.  and first took out the beam of their own eyes, for so shall they see better to take out the mote off their neighbour's eye, 
2. Timo. 2.  And herein whatsoever the judgement of man say, God knoweth who are his, and who are in deed virtuous or contrary. Wherefore our faith and belief must not be pinned to the life of the clergy or preachers. 
Again repetaunce of the most wicked may be sudden and secret.  For by this reason we are not sure of the due administration of any Sacrament, neither can we trust any preacher of the word of God, seeing that we are not able to judge whether the priest or the preacher be a man of upright life or otherwise. But our Saviour jesus Christ to take away this doubt, and to assure unto us the verity of his Sacraments duly administered by the clergy thereunto chosen, 
A perfect rule to discern fall see preachers.  and the preaching of his holy word by their mouth, he hath left unto us a sure and certain rule to know the false preachers and prophets from the true, and to discern the doctrine from the person that teacheth. And this rule hath three parts.  
The first is when the doctrine is good in itself, but the life of the teacher is evil and fauty. The second, when the life of the teacher is good and virtuous, but his doctrine false and vicious. The third is to know how the doctrine may be tried by the life off the teacher, and how the life of the teacher may be tried by his doctrine.  
As for the first part, Christ giveth us a very good lesson what to do, 
The first part.  when the doctrine is good and the life is nought, saying The scribes and Pharisees sit in the Chair of Moses. 
Matth. 23.  What soever they shall say unto you, keep it and do it: But do not according to their doings. By the which words of our Lord, we see that the learner ought not so much to regard the life of the teacher as the doctrine. For it may be that his doctrine be sound and good, whose life is evil. For although that as well in the former ages, as now a days we find many of right good learning, which have preached and taught the word of God sincerely, yet some of such live not accordingly. Neither is there at this day any point wherein the people more grudgeth against the clergy then that many of them lead their life clean contrary and repugnant to their own Canons and constitutions. For many of them can tell a trim tale in the pulpit, exhort the people very demeurely to a sober and perfect life, but will not once move a foot to live well themselves. And now (alas) it is to true that our lord sayeth by the prophet of his church. 
Esaiae. 5.  I have long looked that my vinyeard should have brought forth grapes, but lo it hath brought forth brambles, and a little after. Woe be unto you which rise up early to follow drunkness, and to drink until the evening, that they be set on fire with wine. In your companies are haps and lutes, tabrets and pipes, but ye regard not the work of the lord. Can this be denied? it is, alas, to true. But what then? is this their living accounted virtuous? is this Catholic? No Catholic nor Christian man will say so. The doctrine of our religion utterly forbiddeth these things and the Catholic church condemneth them. Neither can all this preiudicat in any point to the doctrine of the Catholic church. For (as our Saviour said) Do all that they shall say unto you, 
Math. 23.  but do not as they do. and again. First cast out the beam of thy own eye, 
Matth. 7.  and then thou shalt see to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye. And in an other place. 
joan. 8.  Who so ever of you be without sin let him cast the first stone against her. Again. 
Galat. 6. Rom. 2.  We must carry one an other his burden that we may be all saved. We must not rashly judge other, lest we be judged to.  
The second part now is clean contrary to this: 
The scond part of the ruie.  as when men of good and sober behaviour preach false and heretical doctrine: of these our Saviour giveth us warning, in these words. 
Matth. 7.  Take ye heed of false prophets which come unto you in sheeps clothing, but are within ravening wolves. Did not the Picards cloth them selves trimly in sheep skins? 
Heretics of great virtue in appearance.  for they suffer not among themselves any usurers, drunkards, adulterers, thieves or any such heinous offenders. The anabaptists also have they not (think you) fair sheeps coats? They wear no weapon, to pretend patience: they have nothing of their own, but all in common to avide covetousness. They eat their bread in the sweat of their brows. they labour truly: they pray much. The Manichees, what coats had they? shepelike I warrant you. They never eat flesh to chasten their body they drank no wine, abstained from fruits, etc. The Encratitae likewise abstained utterly from wine to follow their books the better. The Cathari, (so called as men of pure life) abhorred all pleasures and pastimes of this world, never contended with other. Can any man deny but that these were gay fruits, and jolly sheep skins? Therefore if doctrine and religion were to be tried by the appearance of virtue and holiness, who can condemn these men for heretics? truly no man. And why? because their fruits are good. And therefore it seemeth thetre can not be evil. We see the simple sheep skin, we see no looks nor tokens of the wolf. Of the outward show therefore of good life, doctrine can not be tried.  
But then a man may here ask. What meaneth Christ when he saith, 
Matthae. 7.  by their fruits ye shall know them. For if false prophets must be known by their fruits, how can I mislike the anabaptists, the Waldenses, 
The third part of the rule. How to know doctrine by the fruits.  and such other, whose life and behaviour can not be reprehended? yet their doctrine is and seemeth detestable. What shall I here do? for so the now the third part of this rule shall instruct you, how you may try the doctrine by the fruits and how the fruits by the doctrine. Wherein you must first diligently mark that the doctrine is not tried by the only fruits, but so that the doctrine and the fruits be all alike and correspondent. For undoubtedly where the doctrine is like the fruit, and the fruit like the doctrine, one must needs try the other. Whereupon our lord hath given a yery good note and rule, in S. Matthew teaching after this sort. 
Matth. 12.  Other make the tree good and his fruit good, or make the tree evil and his fruit evil, For by the fruit the tree is known. And by this rule Christ reasoneth against the unbelieving jews, when he saith If ye will not believe me, yet believe my works. 
joan. 10.  and why so? because the works and doings of Christ did agree very well with his doctrine, and the doctrine with his works. So was the life and the doctrine always agreeable of the prophets, the Apostles, the Martyrs, and all other holy men. Whereof it will well be concluded that seeing their life was holy, virtuous, and perfect, their doctrine also was sound, good and wholesome. And why may we so conclude in them? because even as they preached and taught so they lived: and what they taught other to do, they did them selves: and again as they did so they taught. Therefore of them it is well said. 
Math. 7.  Of their fruits ye shall know them For their fruits being good in deed, the tree could not be evil.  
The like reason is of evil doctrine and wicked life: 
The fruits of the Lutherans doctrine.  for one followeth always the other. It is the doctrine of Luther. 
In libro. de Matrimonio Tom. 6  That a man can no more refrain from satisfising the filthy lust of the flesh, then from spitting. Of tree what fruits proceeded? For so the these: that because to live chaste is an unpossible thing, than no man, no woman must live chaste or single. But if occasion serve not to marry, they may lawfully seek after bawds and hoores. Which is now a common thing in Germany: and hath proceeded of this doctrine of Luther. Luther teacheth that if the husband can not do his duty to his wife, she may in this manner speak unto him. You see good husband that you can not do your duty unto me. 
Luther in the 6. tome libello de matrimo.  Let me with your good leave marry privily with your brother or next kinsman, so that always yet you bear the name of my husband, lest your goods come into other men's hands: & cae. To this request of the woman (saith Luther) the man ought to accord and provide: or else she ought to go privily from him. Is not this (think you) a blessed graff? but what buds trow ye brought it forth? Truly these that now the brother may marry his brother's wife, he yet living, as Herod did, 
Marc. 6.  as it is much now practised among the Lutherans Again that one woman may have many husbands, and one man many wives, as the Turks use: and as we see in germany, not only in the cite of Monster, but in many other places also openly practised. And do not these fruits agree well and just with the doctrine?  
In Luther's doctrine we read: If the wife will not, 
In the 6. tome of his works printed in the year 1553  let the maid come. Out of the which wholesome tree this goodly fruit is sprung, that nothing is more common now among the Lutherans then wanton bawdry and adultery, so much that the Lutherans themselves are ashamed of it, and affirm that it was never so bad under the pope.  
Again this is the doctrine of Luther. 
Lib. de christiana libertate.  Fasting is but man's invention: Christian liberty abideth not any fastings or difference of meat. Of this noble tree hath grown the excellent fruit of banqueting, riot and drocknes a hundred fold more in our time then ever before in Germany.  
Luther teacheth there is no magistrate can force Christians to obedience, 
Contra du● Caesaris mandata.  that it is not lawful to fight against the Turks. And what were the branches of this stock? First the rebellion of the commons under Munzerus, than the civil wars of the swizzers, the enormous usurping of the anabaptists in Monster and many such like, which I had rather pass over by silence: 
Remember the late rebellion in France.  speaking nothing of sundry private conspiracies against public magistrates.  
The doctrine of Luther is, 
In Captivitate Babilonica.  That Christendom ought not to be governed by civil laws and ordinances, that no Prince, no nor angel of heaven hath authority or power to make any law against Christian men. Lacked this tree his fruits? no surely: For hereby all justice hath quailed: and that either by privy corruption, or open and violent oppression. beside that among the nobles of this sect, that is accounted most right which can best be maintained by force of arms. 
Lnther●s in 3. ca ad Gal. & Illyricani mul●is lib.   
another lesson of Luther's school was. That the love of God and our neighbour, repentance also for sin, were not necessary to salvation but (as the Illyricans do write) both these and other good deeds were very pernicious to salvation. And what fruit proceeded of this tree? for sooth that men of the Lutherans gospel were of a far more enormous life, 
Above in the 36. leaf.  as Luther himself withnesseth, than the when they were under the pope.  
Luther and Calvin do write that God forceth men to sin, and all sin committed of man is not done by the permission of God, 
Calvinus in instituti onibus. cap. 14. In assertio nibus. art. 31.  but by his proper will and operation: yea and whensoever men labour to do well, that then they sin deadly. Of this tree have grown all mischief, fornication, adultery, riot, drunkness, extortions, robberies, rebellion, perjuries, deceits, lies, all contempt of honesty and virtue, proclivite to all vice, beside blasphemies of Gods holy name, backbiting, slandering, reproaches, injuries, and all kind of wickedness freely and without grudge of conscience practised. Be not these noble and fair fruits of Luther's gospel? May not well the rule of Christ here take place? 
Matthaei. 7.  By their fruits ye shall know them. 
Note the difference between the evil life of the Catholics and the Lutherans.  For look what the tree is, such is the fruit and look what the fruit is, such is thetre.  
Although therefore we can not deny, but among us Catholics much enormity is, and much evil life, yet no man can say that we teach and allow these vices: or that our doctrine is the cause off our naughty living, no man I say can charge the Catholic doctrine to prescribe any thing against holy scripture, against civil policy, or public magistrates as the new forged gospel of Luther doth. Exacting therefore the Lutherans unto this rule of Christ, we worthily judge them of their fruits to be false prophets and dangerous deceivers. 
Note.  The like they can not do of us, for that the evil fruits that are in us proceed of ourselves not of our doctrine, of swerving from the precepts and godly constitutions off our faith, not of observing them. But the Lutherans naughty life proceedeth even of their doctrine, as we have in some certain points for example before declared.  
Yet as touching the life of spiritual teachers and rulers, god hath prescribed to the laity and common people a perfect and absolute rule to discern true doctrine from the false, saying. The scribes and Pharisees sit in the Chair of Moses: 
Matth. 3.  Do as they command you to do, not as they do themselves, in the which saying of Christ, every Christian man that regardeth his soul health, ought diligently way two points. First to know which is the lawful chair of Moses, 
How to discern true doctrine from the false.  and which is not. then how the lay and common sort of people ought to bear themselves towards the evil life of the clergy. Let us then first speak of the first point.  
Sithen the time that these new doctrines of Luther hath been putin the people's heads, and so many, divers and contrary opinions hath been taught, that the simple and unlearned, know not all most which way to turn themselves, many are brouht to that point, that they reject all religion at ones: and think our Christian faith to be but pretty policies of men's invention or rather old wives tales to fear children, and with this imagination are become worldly Epicures, terming their felicity in present pleasure, as a great number do now in Germany. Whereof truly we have great cause to fear (unless these cursed heresies be speedily extinguished) that almighty God of his dreadful justice, will stir up the Turk or some cruel tiran, to rip up the bellies of these fleshly swine and greedy gloutons, destroying also with the wicked (which God of his tender mercy forbid) the good and virtuous. But to th'intent that all good and virtuous people may beware of such infidelity and wi●ked cogitations, despering utterly of all religion, S. Paul hath forewarned his scholar Timothe, and in him us all: 
2. Tim. 3.  writing, All scripture inspired from God, is profitable to teach, to improve, to amend, and to instruct in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect and prepared unto all good works. These are not men's imaginations, but the very words of God, pronounced by the holy ghost in the mouth of the Apostle. And this is an express commandment of God, that we believe undoubtedly in holy scripture, that we seek our salvation therein, walking and continuing uprightly in the paths of that holy write, 
It is not ●ough to read scripture with o●t the true understanding of the same. 2. C●r. 3.  not swerving either on the right hand, either on the left. But that we may so do, it behoveth us not only to read the bare and literal text of holy scripture, but to inquire also for the true and right understanding of the same. For the letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life. Wherefore our Lord speaking to the jews, saith, Search the scriptures: for in them ye think to have eternal life. 
joan. 5.  But it is one thing to read, another to search.  
They are therefore much deceived, which cry now a days that nothing must be received but holy scripture, that all other interpretations, being but the imaginations of man, are not to be believed. If the protestants speak herein as they think, I wonder why the Lutherans, and the zwinglians have written so many and so large interpretations upon the old and new testament, and caused them to be printed abroad, yea why make they such continual sermons to the people, wherein they recite not always express scripture, but talk much beside the text, adding their interpretations and expositions unto it? commanding also and charging the people to take those their interpretations for the very word of God. And is not this a marvelous impudent and proud presumption of these protestant preachers?  
When we on our part allege the expositions of the holy fathers upon holy scripture, they as if it were in a rage, cry out incontinently. 
A dangerous deceit of the protestants.  The holy fathers were but men, the church hath erred in many points, the expositions of those fathers are but their imaginations and devices, not the word off God. And therefore we need not give any credit unto them. But when they themselves preach unto the people, the command and persuade the people, that if they tender their soul health, they must undoubtedly believe, that which is there preached unto them and the interpretation of holy scripture which they bring, is the pure and sincere word of God, the gospel itself. Is not this as I said, a a marvelous impudent and proud presumption of these protestant preachers? Is it not an horrible arrogancy to term their own fantasies holy scripture, their imaginations the gospel, the meaning and since of their own invention, 
Note.  the very word off God: condemning withal and rejecting the uniform, true and received interpretations of all old holy fathers and writers approved hitherto in the Church of Christ, by whom the same church hath been from time to time governed, directed, and instructed in all truth sens the time of the Apostles, this thousand five hundred years and more: under whose doctrine and godly instructions, so many blessed martyrs, holy confessors and infinite thousands of other Christian souls have attained to everlasting life? Whereas contrary wise by the expositions and interpretations of these new preachers, horrible schisms, divers and heinous heresies, dissolute and licentious living, strifes, contentions, and rebellions, have sprung up and all most overgrown the garden off Christ's church, well planted before and tended by the holy fathers, rulers thereof? what can be more impudently and arrogantly presumed?  
Yet these new preachers to wrap and entrap the people more and more in their former snare, they patch on an other dangerous deceit, using this guile with them. 
another dangerous deceit of the protestants.  You must good people in deed believe the only written word of god, but to the expositions of the preachers ye ought so far to believe, as their expositions agreeth with the written word, that is, that the simple and unlearned people must judge of their own faith, and be able to try whether their preachers teach false or no, whether their expositions agree so just with the word of God, that they may be bold to believe them even as the very word of God. If this be true that the people must now judge their preachers and teachers, than was S. Paul to blame, describing the providence of Christ toward his church to say these words. 
Ephes. 4.  Christ ascending on high, lead captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. These gifts were undoubtedly his holy word. and to make it out of doubt what manner of gifts he meaneth, it followeth straight upon And he hath given some Apostles, some prophets, and some Evangelists. For by these three sorts of men, by the prophets, the Apostles, the Evangelists inspired of the holy ghost, holy scripture was written. but because in the written word many mysteries lie hidden, therefore Christ left not to his church only Prophet's Apostles and Evangelists, but (as it followeth in S. Paul) He gave pastors and doctors, shepeards' and teachers which should feed the people with the true intelligence of the holy write, and teach them the true understanding of the same. Now then either the Shepeardes and teachers must instruct the people, and interpret holy scripture unto them as S. Paul prescribeth, or else the people himself must take upon him the person of a judge over his shepeards' and teacher's, as the protestants will have it. Chose here good reader whom thou list to follow. Surely I must needs obey and believe the blessed Apostle whatsoever these men babble. Therefore I say again, the people ought to learn not to teach They ought to obey those that have charge off their souls, 
Heb. 13.  their sheaperdes and teachers, not to judge or instruct them in matters of religion. Contrary wise the pastors and teachers ougth diligently to instruct their flock, and expound unto them the right meaning of holy scripture, that they may with the kaye off truth bind and loose the sins of the people accordingly.  
Now whereas in cities Mayres and schoolmasters, 
The strange order of serving the church in germany.  in villages the gentlemen, and in the courts of princes the chancellors prescribe and appoint unto their parish priests and vicar's, the manner of interpreting holy scripture, the order of ministering the sacraments, the form of common prayer at the pleasure of every lay magistrate and Temporal Lord, what will become of this strange fashions, the time will once declare. For nothing is so privy, 
Matth. 10.  but that it will once come to light. Every wise man may easily cast what is likely to follow, when every magistrate or secular ruler utterly unlearned, and but of mean ability, yet do at their pleasure appoint ministers and put down, prescribing what doctrine they list to the poor people, or what sect liketh them best. hereof it happeneth that if the Mayre, schoolmaster or gentleman be a Suenckseldian, than the preacher of that parish must follow only the doctrine of Suenck feldius, or if he be a Zwinglian, an Osiandrin, an Anabaptiste, an Illyrican, a Wittenberger, a Maiorist or of any other sect, the poor simple people must learn the new faith of the More, schoolmaster, or gentleman: and utterly renounce his old: nor may not be so bold as to hush to the contrary.  
When this new strange order was first taken in hand, that all spiritual Magistrates, constitutions, and ordonances should be disannulled, 
Lutherus lib. de Christiana libertate  some there were that thought it not reason that men should be forced to embrace this opinion, or that, but it should be left free to every man, to believe whatsoever the spirit moved him unto, without any let to the contrary. 
The fruits of Luther's liberty.  So wrote Luther in his book De Christiana libertate and in an other De capti vitate Babilonica in the which books he so imbrued the hearts of men with the love of licentious liberty, that all Christian constitutions, laws and decrees of the church were utterly abolished and trod under foot. Out of these books also Thomas Munzer took occasion to 
lib. Contra. 2. manda. a Caesaris. & in literis ad ducem Sax●uiae.  make the insurrection of the commons in Germany wherein perished more than a hundred thousand off our dear countrymen, as Sleidan noteth in the fift book of his story. Of this licentious doctrine off Luther also one Bernard Rotman begun the heresy of the anabaptists, and that by these words of Luther. that no man could be compelled to any faith: that all Christian men are free, and taught of God him self immediately: that there needeth no interpretation of scripture, but it is all plain and perspicuous. that a simple man of the country can more readily expound and understand holy scripture, than any Doctor in divinity.  
But after that Luther espied this untoward course of his doctrine, and that now his own scholars Muntzer, Rotman, Carolstadius, Zuinglius, and divers other bet him with his own rod: he invented straight a new shift, or rather succoured himself with the old practice of the Catholic church, 
Vide scriptum Philippi ad Com. Palatinum aeditum an no. 1560. Heidelbergae.  as the followers of Melanchthon and Brentius do now a days, who seeing the people carried away daily in to new sects by other ghospellers leaving their former new masters, do call their fellows renegades and apostatas, compelling them by ecclesiastical censure and force off pretended excommunication to return home again. When Luther first began to write and set forth books, his scholars murmured and said, 
The incon stancy of the Lutherans.  it was against the Christian liberty, that Christian men might not freely read what books they listed. But now when the Lutherans themselves do serve from their master, and write one against an other, they run to the refuge of the Catholic church, and make inhibitions forbidding all such books, as their fellows writ against them to be read or sold: banishing out of their towns and countries with all the power they can, all such ministers and preachers as dissent from them. so it is now true among these heretics that Athanasius and Tertullian wrote of the old heretics of their time, 
In decret. Synodi Nicenae. Lib. praescrip.  that is, what they approve to day they reprove tomorrow. What they preach as the word of God this year, they condemn as heretical next year: wavering like the read with the wind, and framing their faith as occasion serveth.  
Melanchthon seeing that the licentious liberty planted by Luther gave occasion of much suaruing and departing of one from an other among themselves, he put a new cote upon his religion: and whereas before he acknowledged but two Sacraments, Baptim, and the Supper of our Lord, 
Melanchthon acknovvledgeth iiij. sacraments Philipp. in annot in epist. Pauli & in postrema edistone Loc. Com.  now he addeth two more. Penance and holy Ordre. Penance he added to bring again in order the dissolute consciences off his brethren, to set up excommunication, and to erect in Wittenberg, the new Lutheran papacy. Holy order he added to the intent that the Masters of Wittenberg sending abroad their preachers, might bind them with an oath, to preach and teach no otherwise then they had learned of their masters, as the tenor of the oath (set forth in the ordonance of the university of Wittenberg) declareth. 
Lege scholae Witten bergensis ordinationem.  Although therefore the Lutheran protestants rail and inveigh without measure against the Pope, because under him doctors and other be sworn to the obedience of the Catholic church, and uniform consent of doctrine in the same, yet they themselves swear and charge by oath against all reason their scholars for the mainteaunce and upholding of their heresies, and abominable doctrine.  
Notwithstanding these Masters of Wittenberg could not obtain their purpose. Amsdorfius and Illyricus, 
Illyricus li. contra lustum menium.  two great masters of Luther's school would never agree unto them. but provoked to the former writings of Melanchthon and Luther, wherein they plainly teach that all lay people, men and women are priests, may minister the sacraments, may baptize, expound holy scripture, teach and preach. This Illyricus lately wrote against Menius who had objected him the saying of the prophet, 
jerem. 18.  that he ran being not sent, that is, that he took upon him the high vocation of a bishop, that he interpreted scripture after his own pleasure, corrected his brethren, condemned them of heresy, ruled the church not in one place only, but through out the whole state of Lutherans, (whereas yet Melanchthon and the masters off Wittenberg never permitted him, but had decreed against him) finally that he was never called to the ministry like a Lutheran, nor never ordained priest as a Catholic: but from teaching of a grammar school, had taken upon him the authority of a bishop.  
Thus in this belly fest kingdom of Lutherans, you may see how soon vizards be changed, and how easy a matter it is to come a loft. For when Menius and Maior two great masters of the Lutheran ghospellers object unto Illyricus, that he was never called to the ministry, never appointed to the word, nor sent to preach, and therefore he should be ashamed to play the bishop in the church of Luther, and to condemn all other Superintendts, and Ministers that would not agree to his proper and several doctrines, he answereth them again, that according to the doctrine of our father Luther, Every man was a priest, as cacthepolles, millers, barbers, Physicians, ushers and schoolmasters: especially such as professed the Hebrew grammar. But consider here I beseech the gentle reader, how soon this wether is overcast. Now fair, now fowl, now clear now dark. For here as you see, while Illyricus hath to do with the masters of Wittenberg, the Scripture saith that Every man is a priest and fit to teach in the congregation. But a little after, the same Illyricus having to do with Osiander and his companions in Prussia, curseth and banneth them crying and writing, that to dogged Physicians (naming so the Physicians of the prince, who then were preachers of Osianders' doctrine) Matters of religion and ruling of churches ought not to be committed. 
Illyricus li. contra Oūan drina iustiluta.  for that Physicians were not called nor appointed to any such function. Be not these trim preachers and masters of the new gospel? is there not a jolly uniformite in their doctrine? Maior and Melanchthon when they fight against the Catholics, 
Note the disorder of these Archeprotestants.  if then you ask them what authority they have with their new reformation to control the whole corpse of Christendom, and the church of Christ, being never called nor ordained of the church to any such office, by and by they will answer you out of Luther's books, De Christiana libertate & de Captivitate Babilonica that every man is a priest, every man hath authority to read the Bible, to discern true and false interpretation of holy scripture. But even in the same moment before they move a foot further, you may see them accuse and cry out at Illyricus that he being neither priest nor called to the ministery, behaveth himself very seditiousely in Germany taking upon him to control the masters of Wittenberg and of Lipsia by his own private and proper authority.  
Notwithstanding all these enormites' and aburdities ensuing of the bare text of scripture, the Lutherans seeing themselves on every side entrapped and counicted, yet ever they play fox to the hole, and run to this impudent shift to say that. The next of holy scripture is sufficient for all instruction and doctrine, that it may be understanded of all men, and need no gloss nor expositions. Is not this I beseech the good reader, a captious and subtle shift to thrust only the written text to the people defrauding them off the true meaning and interpretation of the text? Even so did the Sadduces heretics of the old law before Christ's time, as josephus in his Chronicles witnesseth. So did after Christ, 
To clean unto the written text only is an old heresy  the Arrians, Dimeritae, Apostolici, and many such other heretics as it is to be senein S. basil, Epiphanius and S. Augustin. If the text of holy write needeth no exposition, what meaned our Saviour, 
Scripture needeth exposition.  when after his resurrection, He expounded to his disciples all such scriptures as were written of him, beginning with Moses and so all the prophets? 
Luc. 24.  What meaned Philippus to ask the Eunuch of the Queen of Candace sitting upon his chariot, whether he understood that which he read in isaiah the prophet 
Act●. 8.  and (after the eunuchs answer, saying, how can I, if some expound it not unto me) to expound him the text declaring the right interpretation and meaning thereof? Again what will they say to that which the Apostle writeth That the holy ghost divideth and distributeth to every one his gifts, as it pleaseth him? so that all men have not all gifts but every man certain and several. 
1. Cor. 12.  as some the gift of healing, other the gift of divers tongues and other the interpretation of tongues. Every man is not a Physician, divine, or lawyer, as S. Paul to the Corinthians largely declareth, taking a comparison of the body of man, where are many members, and every member hath his proper and several function. for what could be more absurd than if the feet would play the hands, or the hands do that which belongeth to the head? The like reason is to be considered of functions, offices and gifts in the government of Christian religion. to the setting up whereof God hath appointed divers and sundry ministries, especially for the instructing and teaching the right understanding of holy scripture, that we might thereby know his will and pleasure in all things without doubt or controversy. Which if every private and mean man without a teacher and interpreter were able to understand, to what purpose hath the holy ghost given in his church unto some the gift of interpretation?  
But what need we spend herein many words? let us read the books of Moses, the psalms and the Prophets. see we not there a number of high and secret mysteries which before the coming of Christ none almost understood? And what meaned our Saviour when he said unto his disciples, 
Lucae. 8.  It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the other in parables, that seeing they see not and hearing they understand not? What meaned our Lord in these words? Truly this, that it is a special gift of God to understand well holy scripture: and that this gift was especially given unto the Apostles and to their disciples and successors, which should after them bear their room in Christ's church. Again that it was enough for the people, that (as much as is necessary for salvation) they might learn of their pastors, preachers, and curates the exposition of holy scripture, by similitudes and parables agreeable to their capacity. which may farther be proved by divers places of holy scripture.  
But I would here gladly ask of our new Masters when they say that the text of scripture is sufficient, that there needeth no exposition nor gloze, why writ they so many commentaries, such long gloss upon scripture, so many books and that without all measure? if we need no exposition, then surely all the Lutherans books and writings be utterly superfluous, vain and to no purpose, but only crafty snares to catch the simple and unlearned withal.  
But to tell you plainly what the protestāns mean by this subtle shift to cleave to the only written word, 
Why the protestāns cry upon only Scripture.  surely this it is: they would not have the scripture utterly not expounded, they mean nothing so (for that in deed nothing serveth their turn) but they would have their expositions, their manner of expounding to be received and believed as the very word of god. But contrary wise, when they have to do with us, rejecting all interpretation of scripture they ring their old song in our ear, The word of god is clear, perspicuous and plain, it needeth no exposition, it requireth no interpretation of the old fathers or of the Church. wherein you see what is their impudency and contrariety: And this much have we said to show that Scripture ought to be expounded, that the bare text sufficeth not.  
But here riseth now a great question and worthy to be weighed. 
A question what interpretation of scripture is to be so lowed.  Seeing that holy scripture must be interpreted, and that we see abroad many and divers interpretations thereof, and yet in one thing there can be but one truth, and as scripture itself is undoubtedly true, so the interpretation thereof must be undoubted and certain, whether of all these interpretations or what manner is to be accounted the right, proper and undoubted. As for example. No Christian man denieth but that these words of the last supper, Take eat, 
Lucae. 22.  this is my body be the very words of God Christ himself. And what could be said more plainly, more distinctly, more directly than these words of Christ are? 
Vide Luthe ri Confessi onem. de Coena.  yet what happened? All the sects and heresies that reign now adays acknowlegde them for the words of God. No sect denieth them. Whereupon then riseth these great and horrible dissensions? surely not whether sect hath the word of god, but whether of them well expoundeth it. And see how diversly these few words are expounded. Zwinglius saith these words. This is my body are as much to say, This significeth and betokeneth my body. Oecolampadius thus expoundeth them. This is the sign or token of my body. Carolstadius after this sort. Herein sitteth my body. Swenck feldius yet after an other sort. This is my spiritual body. Luther thus. This is my natural body in natural bread. The Catholics have always thus expounded it. 
What the unlearned shall do in perplexite and variety of interpretations of scripture.  Under the form of bread, it is the true body of our Lord. Now what shall here a simple and unlearned man of the country do, hearing so divers and contrary interpretations of so few words? Truly if he will here of his own head confer scriptures together and search the true meaning of these words in scripture and the written text, he shall be as wise herein as these men above mentioned: who all by conference of scripture you see how sweetly they agreed upon the truth. But if there were any certainty in conference (as sometimes it helpeth much) yet the simple unlearned man, by common order of wit shall never find it out. For how can the unlearned and ignorant judge of that, which he never learned? no more truly than the showemaker is able to judge of the goldsmiths' work, which he was never practised in. And were not that showemaker to be accounted very impudent and undiscreet, who seeing two goldsmiths contending of the fines of some piece of gold or silver, would step in, and take upon him to determinat the matter between them? much less ought the unlearned meddle with or determinat matters of Divinity, or take upon them to expound the meaning of the holy ghost, seeing that in worldly affairs there can no weightier matter, of more difficulty, or of greater importance be taken in hand. what then shall the unlearned man do in this case? If he may cleave to no part at all, then must he be of no church, but make himself a new sect, forge himself a new faith, and so at length lose all faith, and become a very painim: which god forbidden that ever any man should persuade the unlearned. If he cleave to any part, yet is he in great danger. For almighty god commandeth straightly by his Apostle, 
Tit. 3.  that we avoid the heretic. Here truly the lay man ought to take good advise. 
Matth. 7. & 16.  For he is bound himself to take heed of false prophets, lest being blind himself and not able to understand holy scripture, he suffer himself to be lead of a blind guide, such as the heretic is. But how can the blind man see whether is guide be blind or no? Truly of him self he can not see it, unless he hath learned of such as see well, some certain token how to know it. Is there then any such token or sign, or where may a man seek it? verily the merciful providence of almighte God hath not failed in this point, but hath left unto the lay, simple, and unlearned man a certain and unfallible token, whereby he may (if he regard his own salvation) beware of all false and heretical corruption in interpreting scripture.  
There is no Christian man so rude or ignorant that knoweth not perfectly his Crede, 
A token to know the false interpretion of scripture from the true.  and can rehearse it from the beginning to the ending. In the which though every article ought diligently to be marked and borne away, yet in this time none more, than the article where we say Credo sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam. I believe the holy Catholic church. For in this word Catholic, is the very true token and mark to know the right interpretation of scripture by, for that is called Catholic (as S. Austin teacheth) 
What is Catholic. Cotra Gau den●ium Donat. lib. 3.  which every where and at all times is and hath been. Then this word Chatolike attributed to the church, is that which hath continued from the Apostles time to our days without any breach, division, or intermission. For such a church did God the Father promis to his only begotten Son, speaking by the prophet David in this wise. Thou art my Son; 
Psal. 2.  this day have I begotten thee: ask of me and I shall give the nations for thine inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. which place all holy fathers have so expounded, that God the father hath given to Christ such a church, as should be spread through out the whole world, not only in Suethelande, Denmark or Germany. So the Son of god taking upon him the nature of man, after he had here in earth purchased our salvation, sent abroad the holy Apostles as Ambassadors through out the whole world to take possession of the foresaid inheritance, charging them in this wise. 
Matth. 28  All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the some and the Holy ghost: teaching them to keep all those things, whatsoever I have commanded unto you: And behold I am with you all ways even to the end of the world.  
In this high and weighty embassage of our Saviour jesus Christ two things are especially notised. First that his Apostles should go and preach through out the whole world. secondarily that he will tarry with them until the end of the world. In which two points 
Lib. de uni late ecclesi.  (as S. Augustin at large disputeth against the heretics of his time) this artikle of our Crede is comprised. I believe the Catholic church. In the which words we confess that the church of Christ must be universal, and spread through out the whole world, and that from the time of the Apostles forward it should continue by the continual assistance and presence of Christ. And in this consideration the Apostle calleth the church, 
1. Tim. 3.  the Pillar and ground of truth. signifying by the word ground the largeness of Christendom: by the word Pillar the continual, smooth, and not interrupted succession of the Apostles and their scholars, upon whom all truth is builded. And this interpretation of the word Catholic S. Augustin teacheth in many places against the Donatists, especially in his book de unitate ecclesiae. Therefore to deny it were to become a Donatiste and to take the part of those detestable heretics. And this much of this question.  
But to return now to the true exposition of holy scripture, every Christian man ought not only believe this article of the Catholic church, but be also one of the same, and believe what so ever it believeth, expound and interpret the scriptures, as it expoundeth and interpreteth them: condemn and reprove all such things as it condemneth and reproveth. And what surer token or more certain mark could God give to discern false expositions of scripture from the true, than this article of our Crede, I believe the holy Catholic Church? For when three contrary opinions, three divers interpretations of holy scripture are brought forth, whereof two are fresh and new, never taught nor heard of before our time, the third is ancient, accustomed, and received of our forefathers, derived even from the Apostles time and continued hitherto, what lay or unlearned man is in this case so rude or ignorant, but (if he list, as he professeth in his Crede, to believe the Catholic church which is always and in all places) may easily judge this third interpretation to be the right meaning off the holy ghost, the other two to be false and heretical?  
For the more declaration of this matter I will recite here a story, 
A pretty story of false interpretation  which I learned being a boy, and happened at Lubek. In Lubek there dwelled a rich man, whose family and kindred was of Turing. This man being in Lubeck at point of death and having no child to be his heir, bequeved his goods to certain of his kinsfolks at Turing. They shortly after this man's decease coming to Lubek bring with them a Proctor, open the will, and found there that the widow of the departed man beside other goods bequeved, should deliver them a thousand and two hundred shipbordes, commonly called there Wagenschoff. But the Proctor and heirs of Turing cavilling upon the word Wagenschoff required a thousand and two hundred great pieces of artillery: saying that in their country the word so signified. Neither would these men of Turing be brought from their challenge, until at the length the matter must be tried by judgement. Wherein their process being long debated, and both parts heard, it was found that the interpretation of the word Wagenschoff alleged by those of Turing was a new and strange interpretation never heard of before in that country: whereas the widow by the consent of all the people and the whole country proved, that of old time the word Wagenschoff signified nothing else than shipbordes which are commonly brought thither out of Lifland and Pole. Whereupon the interpretation of the proctor of Turing was rejected and laughed to scorn as new, curious, superstitious, and strange. Much more ought we that are Christians do the like in these new and strange expositions of God's word invented by proud and presumptuous heretics, detesting and avoiding them as present poison. For surely such new forged interpretations once spread abroad, 
2. Tim. 2.  do creep like a cancre and infect daily more and more, as we see now by experience in sundry places.  
Every man now a days calleth upon scripture: every man demandeth the express word of God. And what I pray you can be more express than that the Apostle S. Peter saith So that ye first know this that no prophecy in the scripture hath any pri●●t interpretation? 
2. Petri. 1.  In the which words it is to be noted that S. Peter will have us first and before all other things know this, that no prophecy in the scripture hath any private interpretation. Therefore it must needs be very perilous to believe strait this or that interpretation, whatsoever we here. For it is a common saying, it is evil toying with the eye, with maydenhood, and with our faith.  
But many there are now a days, 
Awicked persuasion of worldly careler men.  which when they hear contrarietes in doctrine, and divers interpretations of scripture, they comfort themselves carelessly in this sort. What need we pass for the contentions of preachers, and controversies of Divines? Although they miss in certain points, and disagree in some certain articles, yet our faith and belief is not broken or impaired. We in the mean season will say our Pater noster, bear away our Crede, and the ten commandments, and peradventure the catechism of children. As for other matters, let the learned contend among themselves as long as they list, we pass not upon it. But alas, o merciful God, what a vain comfort and pernicious persuasion is this? For what saith S. james the Apostle? Whosoever, saith he shall keep the whole law, 
jaco. 2.  and yet fail in one point, he is guilty of all. So is it in our faith, who denieth one article, denieth the whole. This vain comfort teached first the Zwinglians. 
Vide jous. Lascy contra episcopum Hosium, et Lutherum in ultima Confessione suade Coena Deu●i●.  against the which Luther in his last confession written against the Sacramentaries, saith, that faith is like to a bell, which as long as it is whole keepeth his true sound, but when it is anything crazed or cleft, it jarreth and loseth clean his proper tune, like as an ear then vessel as long as it is whole and sound is called a pot a crock, or some like thing, but one's broken or cleft it loseth his name and is called a potsherd. Let no man therefore comfort himself with this vain hope, that although their preachers and ministers err in some points, yet are good Christians in other points, for that availeth nothing. You must be saved within the ark of Noah or be drowned with out it. There is herein no middle way. Therefore you must take very good heed that you be not deceived: lest that while wanton and negligently you hearken to every new doctrine and forged interpretation of scripture that one or two new preachers teach, you lose your souls in good earnest. Remember rather what the prophet saith. Every man is a liar. 
Psalm. 115  He meaneth not all men together. For I for my part, and you for your part, and every man a part, may lie, err, and be deceived. But all good men together, that is, the whole Catholic church of Christ can not err in any article of faith. 
Matth. 16. 1, Timo. 3.  For it is builded upon the rock of truth, and upon that consideration is called the pillar and ground of all truth. Therefore when the simple and unlearned man heareth sundry and contrary expositions of holy Scripture, let him have recourse to his faith and fully determinat with himself (for that he is not learned in holy scripture) not to take any other way or follow any other guide then the article of his Crede, I believe the holy Catholic church, persuading himself undoubtedly that to be the only true interpretation of scripture, which is Catholic. That is, which together with the written text, hath by the Apostles and their successors been spread through the whole world, and continued uniform and uncorrupted even to our time.  
And this only rule may serve as a buckler for the unlearned man, 
A buckler for the unlearned against new preachers.  that as oft as new preachers set a brooch any new doctrine and strange, then to think this with himself. I am a man unlearned, I can not perceive the drift of their disputing, I can not judge of their controversy: But seeing that my Crede teacheth me to believe nothing, but that which is Catholic and hath always been kept and received in Christendom, what shall I do to know whether these new preachers doctrine be Catholic or no? Here this unlearned man must remember the counsel of Moses, saying. Ask of the days that are past, which were before thee, sense the day that God created man upon the earth, 
Den. 4:  and ask from one side of the heaven unto the other, and in an other place. 
Deut. 32.  Remember the days of the world that is past. Consider the years from time to time, ask thy father and he will show thee: thy elders and they well tell the. For this is the true guide of a blind man, and ignorant, to ask and inquire, what his forefathers, what his neighbours, what the towns and countries about have always observed and believed, sense the time they were first traded in Christian religion, and have so many years continued in. This is the faith of that cooliar: which being at point of death, 
A very good faith of a Coolyar.  and tempted of the devil what his faith was, awnswered. I believe and die in the faith of Christ's church. Being again demanded what the faith of Christ his church was, that faith, said he, that I believe in. Thus the devil getting no other answer of the simple man, was overcomed and put to flight. By this faith of the cooliar every unlearned man may try the spirits of men whether they be of god or no, by this faith he may resist the devil, judge the true interpretation of scripture from the false, and discern the Catholic preacher from the heretical Minister, the true doctrine from the forged.  
But to set this whole matter before your eyes as it were in a glass, 
A ready way to try out an heretic.  take this example. Suppose there came to some great city five different and contrary preachers, as by name, Calvin a Zwinglian, Longinusa Swencfeldian, Functius an Osiandrin, Illyricus a Lutheran, and some Catholic doctor: suppose the magistrates of the cite granted these five every one to preach and defend openly his own private doctrine. what shall the unlearned lay man do here, that he follow not a blind guide and so fall both in to the dike? 
Matth. 13.  surely as we have said before, so must he do. he shall ask first of Master Calvin whether his doctrine be the pure and very word of god when he writeth that in the Supper of the Lord not the true body of Christ, 
Caluin●s libr. contra Ioachimum Westphalum.  but only the figure of his body is there, and is given. Again that original sin is but a natural infirmity of the mind, 
Zuinglius lib. de baptismo contra Vrbanum Regium. calvinus li. de praedestinatione.  not guilty of eternal damnation. Or else that God is the cause of the sin of man, that god compelleth and forceth men to wickedness, blasphemies, whoredom, theft, lying, deceits and such other. Here of Calvin answer that all this is the pure and clear word of god, let him ask him again in what place of the Bible he readeth expressly these words: In the Supper is not the true body of Christ but the figure only: Original sin is but an infirmity not guilty of eternal damnation, last of all that men are constrained of God to sin. To this Calvin will surely answer that although this his doctrine be not found in scripture expressly in these words or terms, 
Theodorus Beza in defension calvini.  yet that this sentence and meaning is there. Mark here then that the doctrine of Calvin is not the express word of God, but the meaning and interpretation of it. And this lo is their first deceit. Let the lay man go yet farther with Calvin, and ask whether this his interpretation be Catholic, whether that Christian religion began with this doctrine, in Germany, France, Italy, England or any other where, whether this his doctrine was preached of the Apostles and their successors, received and used in the Catholic church, and derived from our forefathers to us, through out all these countries. For I (may the lay man say) have asked here of my elders, which deny they ever heard any such thing. I have inquired of the cities and countries here about, they know it not, but say it is new and very strange unto them. And here Calvin can not deny but that it is so (and our men are not ashamed to sai● that these thousand years all truth hath been lost) therefore the unlearned man may here boldly say unto him Well Sir if it be so, far you well. I intend not to meddle with you nor your doctrine any more. 
Epiph anius lib. 2. contra heresies. Tit. 3.  So Athanasius writeth to Epictetus the bishop, that it is enough to awnswere an heretic after this sort. The Catholic Church never taught this: the holy fathers never received this. Wherefore it is written. Avoid the heretic man.  
In the like manner shall the unlearned and lay man behave himself with the Suenck feldian, demanding of him, whether this be the pure word of God, when he teacheth. That Christ as touching his human nature is not a creature, but a begotten thing conceived and borne of the holy ghost, 
Suentfeldius lib. de dup. statu Christi & mulnis alijs tractat.  and that afther the ascension of Christ in to heaven, his humanity was made God or rather was changed in to God. Again that, the same power and operation which is in the word of God preached, is the only begotten everlasting Son of God. last of all, that all the gifts and graces of God be parcels of the divine nature. For when Longinus the Swenckfeldian shall say that these doctrines are the very sincere word of God, the lay man may ask of him again where holy scripture doth clearly express this doctrine. To this Longinus can make no other answer, then that although it be not there expressed, yet it is there mente and understanded. here if to the lay man ask whether this meaning and understanding be Catholic, and planted by the Apostles or their scholars in Swethen and Silesia, and from thence derived unto our time, Longinus do answer ye: then must he prove in what place of Silesia and under what bishop that happened. Which being not able to do, he proveth himself a vain follow and a liar. But if he say, that this doctrine until this time was not received in Silesia, because our forefathers were not of capacity to conceive these high mysteries, the lay man may roundly say unto him. Avaunt heretic, and take this f●r a final answer. The Catholic church never taught this: the holy fathers never received this: Wherefore it is written, Avoid the heretic man.  
After the same order also may the lay man ask of Functius the Osiandrin, 
Osiander lib de Confessi one doctrinae suae. Hiorem. 23. & 33.  when he teacheth upon these words of Hieremie, God is our righteousness, that man ought to be just by the essential justice of God: again that Christ doth justify us with his only divinity, the humanity being excluded, and such like doctrine, which he calleth the very express word of God, in what place of scripture it is read. When he answereth, that word for word it is not in scripture, but it agreeth well with the meaning of scripture, let him be asked again, whether this his meaning agree with the Catholic exposition of scripture derived from the holy fathers and successors of the Apostles, and observed hitherto continually in the church of Christ without contradiction. Here if Functius (his conscience forcing him) do confess that this doctrine was of late planted in Prussia by Andreas Osiander, and although it was not until now revealed, yet according to his judgement it agreeth very well with the word of God and the gospel, the lay man may give him the final answer of Athanasius, The Catholic church never taught this, the holy fathers never received this. 
Tit. 3. Vide Amsdorsium de ha● propos●●one. Luther. in 3. cap. ad Gal.  Wherefore it is written. Avoid the heretic man. The like answer also may be made to the strange doctrine of Illyricus the Lutheran writing, That good works are pernicious to salvation: that God doth justify men by words and not by deeds. And truly this answer is of such force, and so meet for a Christian man, that unto all heretikall interpretations, to all erroneous doctrine, yea though an Angel from heaven, if it were possible, should bring any new gospel, it might with these words be awnswered. A way false prophet, the third Elias, the fift Evangelist. For The catholic church never taught this, the holy fathers never received this. Wherefore it is written. Avoid the heretic man. Last of all the unlearned lay man may well also demand of the Catholic doctor or preacher, how he liketh the opinions of these new ghospellers. whereunto he will answer, that he hath perceived these new and strange interpretations of holy scripture, and after long weighing and considering them, hath found that they are all ancient condemned heresies: 
See out discourse.  which now certain brainsick men by the instinct of the devil raised up again, to the utter destruction of the Roman empire and our dear country of Germany. Therefore he is ready to show by good grounds of holy scripture, by the right and Catholic understanding of Scripture, that the old religion hitherto received, is grounded upon those two pillars, and upon them hath been sustained from the Apostles time until our days through out the whole corpse of Christendom, and maintained sound and perfect, against all busy barking of heretics and cruel bites of pagan princes. And is not this most agreeable both with religion and with reason, that we should embrace and accept that interpretation of the holy Bible for the true and sincere, which in all churches, of all people and countries hath been received, confessed, preached, maintained, and sense the Apostles time hitherto continued? as by the testimonies of ancient doctors we are able in all points evidently to declare? Contrary wise may we not worthily esteem these new doctrines broached so lately, proceeding of old condemned heresies, and renewed by wild worldly men, to be heinous heresies and detestable deceits of the devil?  
Surely this was the chief and principal cause why I accounted the divers doctrine of Luther and his fellows to be heretical, 
Why the author forsook the Lutherant.  and for such do utterly forsake it and detest it: this again is the cause why I esteem the doctrine in all Christendom (which they call the Papacy) received, to be the only true and wholesome doctrine, because this doctrine is the Catholic and universally received interpretation of scripture, but their doctrine is only their private opinion and their private depravation off holy scripture. I confess I have employed the study off Divinity, and laboured matters of controversy, about these two and twenty years, not meddling with any other worldly or civil matter in all that time: nor I can not deny but I have been a scholar of the Lutherans, and have so far learned their mysteries, that within these fourteen or fourteen years the divines of Wittenberg would almost have constrained me to be a doctor of their university. Again I have bestowed much time that I might thoroughely and substantially be learned in the Catholic doctrine, conferring always the sayings and writings of both parts. And although that I had much a do to shift myself out of their crafty, captious, and contentious controversies, yet as soon as by the help of God I attained thereunto, espying the erroneous and heretical doctrine of the Lutherans, and perceiving the true and sound doctrine of the Catholics, 
The duty of a converted Catholic.  I laboured not only utterly to rid my stomach of that poisonned doctrine of Luther, but also to avoid all company and familiarity of heretics, that I might neither see them, nor hear of them. Which lack of my old acquaintance and manner of living, both impaired much the health of my body, and procured also great loss of my substance. And is like to do daily more and more, unless God of his mercy stretch forth his helping hand. Howbeit whatsoever befall of me, I am ready to lose body and life, honour and goods for the furtherance of the ancient Catholic religion. And I wish to my dear country of Germany that mind also. For sure I am, whosoever is no Catholic, he must needs be an heretic. Seeing therefore that holy write advertiseth us to fly from heresies even as from present poison, I be seche all good men to mark well this example which I know to be true, and will here recite, to show what it is to be once fallen in to heresy.  
A certain young man of my acquaintance, 
A notable example of the sun dry sects in Germany.  very well learned and sometime preacher in Misnia, being according to the doctrine of Melanchthon and Maior an Adiaphoriste, that is, of that sect of Lutherans which take good works and constitutions of the church to be things indifferent, etc. departed in to Saxony upon hope of some ecclesiastical living there. Being then demanded of what religion he was, he awnswered that he was of the opinion of Philip Melanchthon and Georgius Maior. Then saith unto him the Illyrican superintendant, it seemeth thou art an apostate heretic. And withal asked him whether he thought good works to be pernicious unto salvation, Whereunto this poor preacher awnswering, he believed that they helped rather then hindered salvation, the superintendant straight saith unto him, Seing you are an heretic of the gospel, you may not abide in this cite nor country: and therefore get you hence. With this answer he departed and went in to Prussia, where meeting with an Osiandr in superintendant, and desiring some ecclesiastical service, he was demanded, whether he believed That man ought to be made just by the essential justice of God, and whether he judged those for heretics which thought or taught the contrary. Whereunto awnswering that he could not so think, seeing that Melanchthon and Illyricus interpreted the scripture otherwise, incontinently he was thrust back like an heretic, and commanded to departed out of all the dominions of that country. After this he came in to Pole, and meeting with certain calvinists, being of them examined, and found that he agreed not with the zwinglians, he was repelled also of them for an heretic. Seeing then he could not speed there, passing on further by the way he came to the Picardi, hoping that he might be received in to their sect. But when he refused to abjure all other sects and religions and believe only them, he was feign to depart thence also. After which he came to a Noble man of Silesia requiring service, of whom being required how he liked the doctrine of Swenck feldius, whether he believed, That the external ministery or preaching was but superfluous, and that the internal word or rather the power and operation off the word being preached were the Son of God himself, he awnswered that this doctrine seemed unto him an old heresy confuted thoroughly of Illyricus, Melanchthon, Calvin and divers other writers. Which answer nothing pleasing that Noble man, our poor Minister was forced to get him packing. Seeing therefore that he lost his labour and spent his time in vain, he struck over to Moravia where the anabaptists bear rule. Not that he minded to tarry and abide with them, but to try and know their religion. But they craftily preventing him, ask him first of what religion he was, though he went about the bush with them, thinking to colour the matter, yet they perceiving that he liked not their rebaptising, he was also chased from thence as an heretic.  
At the last after long and weary travail and trouble, this poor Minister came unto Vienna, where he happened upon a Catholic learned man, unto whom he declared his travail, adversities, and diversities off heresies that he chanced upon, beseeching him for the love of God to help him and instruct him, how he might attain to some sure and certain doctrine, and interpretation off holy scripture. 
A necessary lesson for deceived protestants.  Then was it told him, that he should follow such doctrine and embrace such interpretation of God's word, as was Catholic and universally received in all places, and at all times, casting away all private opinions and proper interpretations of this sect or that sect. For it was impossible that any private sect could admit the Catholic exposition of scripture which is common to all, or that the sects could ever agree among themselves, each one setting forth his own opinion and condemning all the rest. As it is written in the prophet Ezechiel, 
Ezech. 13.  Woe be unto these foolish prophets which follow their own spirit and see nothing. Therefore if he would be a Christian man, and in all places be taken for such, he should embrace and follow the Catholic understanding of scripture, such as in Catholic doctors and writers we find. From the which Catholic and uniform exposition of scripture although many in divers countries have failed, and departed, yet before our time, it was in all places without contradiction or gainesaieng received and believed, and many thousands of souls have in that belief been saved. Beside that there are also yet divers Christian Countries and kingdoms, divers nations and people, which acknowledge no other doctrine or interpreation of holy scripture, than the Catholic and old accustomed: which they have received of the Apostles and their first founders of religion. Wherein if any doubt now a days ariseth, or any contrary interpretation be brought, it is most expedient to seek of the first and most ancient teachers of Christian religion the truth thereof. For so Scripture willeth us to do, and all ancient and approved doctors, as in S. Irenee a writer very nigh unto the Apostles, you may see, whose words are these. These things then being so evident, we ought not to seek the truth at other men's hands, 
Lib. 3. cap. 4. contra heresies.  which we may easily have of the Church. 
A Godly instruction of Ireneus.  For the Apostles left unto the church and laid up in her as in a rich aumerie all truth, that whosoever listeth, may draw of her the drink of life. For the Church is the gate of life, all other are thieves. therefore we must avoid them, but love all that the Church teacheth us and embrace the tradition of truth. For what if there were but a small matter called in controversy, ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches, in the which the Apostles have lived, and inquire of them the truth and certainty of our doubt? And what if the Apostles had not left unto us scripture at all? aught we not to have followed the order of tradition which they delivered vntothem, whom they left to govern the Church after them? the which order many nations of Barbarous people such as believe in Christ, do follow: having their salvation without paper and ink, by the holy ghost written in their heart, and keeping diligently their old traditions. Thus far S. Irenee. With this good lesson and information the Lutheran Minister being somewhat amended, afterward in short time utterly detesting all sects and heresies, becometh a right good Catholic. And surely so it happeneth, that who so once departeth from the church, if he entre but a little with other heresies, he is accounted an heretic of the heretics themselves. From the which our Lord of his tender mercy preserve us always. Amen.  
Our forefathers the ancient Germans were ever accounted men of gravity, constancy, and of a settled judgement: not light brained, inconstant or wavering with every wind as peradventure some other countries were noted for. For lightness in deed in men of wisdom is a great blot. But what can be more light or more vain, then to believe every light person without any sure ground of his doctrine? 
Eccle. 19  He that believeth quickly, saith the wise man, is light of heart. These preachers and new ghospellers that now a days run from country to country, be vile vagabonds, light and wild persons, men of no gravity, nor whorthy of any authority. 
The outward be haviour of the Lutheran in Germany.  And that their outward behaviour declareth. Their beard they let grow only upon the upper lip, like the Turks, their coats be cut short at the buttokes, with large wide sleeves, as the sergeants or catchepolles in times past were wont to have, and thus like frogs they leap in to the pulpit, crying and creking there. Our Confession of Auspurg is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, 
A vain crack of protestants.  and hath endured these thirty years. Behold good Catholic reader a wondrous matter. The Confession of Augspurg is thirty years old. Is not this a marvelous long sustenance? and yet these fellows will not be a known that our Catholic religion hath continued these thousand five hundred years and above twice their thirty, without breach or interruption.  
Now where they babble that their Confession is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets, doth not every sect and every heretic crack the same? Do not the anabaptists cry, it is written, in the xxuj. of Mark. He that will not believe, shall be condemned. 
Every heretic all ageth the scripture.  But children have no faith and can not believe, ergo they can not be saved nor ought not be baptised ●Like wise the zwinglians cry they not that it is written in the vj. of Ihon. The flesh profiteth nothing? and therefore they will have it but bread in the Sacrament? Again the scholars of Osiander allege they not the saying of the prophet the 23. of jeremy. jehovah is our justice? Who can deny but all these allegations be the writings of the Apostles and prophets? why then do the Lutherans abhor the anabaptists? why condemn they Osiander and his fellows? why doth Luther call Zuinglius an heretic? Do not they cry that their doctrine, as well as the other cry that their Confession is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and prophets? yes they cry truly so, even as loud and as truly as the Lutherans. What then lacketh in this matter? Truly not who allegeth Scripture, for that every heretic doth, but who can prove his doctrine in deed not only in words by Scripture. For who can abide the preacher, be he never so Catholic, that crieth only that his doctrine is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and Prophets. It is not sufficient to allege and hudle up many places of scripture, which the heretics do, as roundly as the Catholics, but you must by good reason and sure ground prove that those your places be well and duly alleged and expounded. But by what ground and reason may this be proved?  
By three manners of ways. First the teacher of any doctrine or preacher ought to prove and evidently declare, 
How interpretation of Scripture is tried true  that his doctrine or interpretation of holy Sripture is Catholic, derived from the Apostles, received through out whole Christendom, and continued unto our time. secondarily that all the order, manner, and disposition of the church of Christ in the new law was figured and shadowed by other observances and doings in the old law. Thirdly that every principal article of our Catholic religion hath been confirmed with some miracle, whereby the verity of it hath unvincibly been warranted. As for example.  
Among us Catholics it is a sure and undoubted 
The body of Christ under one kind per fit and whole.  point in our religion that in the blessed Sacrament of the altar, under one kind the whole and perfect body of Christ is contained as well as under both. This point we first prove by the express word of God, uttered by the Apostle saying, that Christ can not be divided. 
1. Cor. 1.  Now that this saying of the Apostle is well applied to the one kind of bread in the Sacrament, the common practice of Christ's Catholic church these many hundred years doth abundantly witness. Again it is proved by an evident figure of the old law. For we read in Moses, 
Exodi. 16.  that although some gathered more, some less of Manna (which undoubtedly as S. 
2. Cor. 10.  Paul witnesseth was the figure of our lords supper) yet he that gathered less, had as much as he that gathered more. So Hilarius pope of Rome decreeth, 
De Consecr. dict. 2. cap. ubi pars.  saying. Where part of the body is, there is the whole, for the like is in the body of our Lord that was in Manna, that figured it. For not the visible quantity is to be considered in this mystery, but the spiritual efficacy and virtue of the Sacrament. Last of all this hath been confirmed by so sundry and strange miracles wrought from God, that who so hath any sparkle of Christian faith remaining in him, can never doubt, but that the body of Christ is as well under one kind, as under both. The stories of the jews may testify clearly this matter, which happened in divers places, as at Passau, Breslau, 
Bedurum. Vratisluia Ratispona.  Regenspurg and Tekendorph in Bavaria, in the year of our Lord 1337. and afterward at Berlin in the Marchise of Brandeburg in the year 1512. 
In the year. 1556. Vide Pontanum li. 5 fol. 432.  and now lately in Pole in the diocese of the archbishop of Gnesna. In which all places it hath been seen, that out of the Host of our lords body, foined in with daggers by the jews, blood hath gushed out, and many other miracles have befallen. The which all surely, almighty God of his mercy hath wrought for the confirmation of his church in this article, that under the form of bread is fully contained his precious body and blood, and for the convicting also of the damnable heresy of the Manichees, who above a thousand years agone, affirmed that under the form of bread was the body without blood.  
This I have brought in for an example, to show how the Catholic doctors are able to prove every article of Catholic religion: That is, by the Catholic, universal, and received exposition of holy scripture, by the figures and shadows of the old law, by the operation of miracles Surely who can thus prove his doctrine, he may boldly say that it is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and prophets.  
Now if the Confessionistes speak as they think, when they say their doctrine is grounded upon the Apostles and prophets, and that they will prove it to be so in deed, let them try their Confession and Apology also by these weights. Let them from the first article unto the last, show first that their doctrine is the right and Catholic exposition of God's word, then whether they can confirm it by any one miracle, last of all let them show the manner and order of their Lutheran church to have been prefigured and shadowed in the old law. If they can so do, I will warrant them, that all Christian people will gladly subscribe to their articles and believe according to their doctrine. But if they are not able to perform this, then let them not object to us their Confession or Apology. let them suffer us quietly and freely persevere in our Catholic and ancient religion, and we will not let them to cry, to swear and forswear that their Confession is grounded upon the writings of the Apostles and prophets.  
And thus much hitherto have we spoken as touching that which our Lord said. Upon the chair of Moses sit the scribes and Pharisees, 
Matth. 13.  do all things that they shall bid you to do. For hitherto have we talked how to try true doctrine, and how to know such as sit in deed upon the chair of Moses. It remaineth now to speak of the later part of Christ's saying. But do not as they do. 
Why the protestāns bark at the evil life of the clergy.  Which we must also no less discuss then the former. For in this our miserable and unhappy time because heretics can not overthrow by any good reason the very chair of Moses, the doctrine of the church, they take hold of the evil life of the clergy, and bark at the dissolute living of those that sit in the chair, making the people believe that their doctrine is no other than their life and behaviour is: inferring very absurdly, that the doctrine and the life is all one and can not be divers: which wicked opinion hath bred much strife and caused much trouble in the Christian common wealth: as in the writings of the fathers we may read treating of the heresies of the Donatistae, Encratitae, Cathari, and Apostolici: But we have in holy scripture marks enough and that evident, to discern heresies which proceed of evil doctrine, 
Mat. 18. Tit. 3.  from the evil life, which proceedeth of men. For heresy being a very plague and poison of Christian religion, S. Paul biddeth us avoid and fly from the heretic after the first or second admonition. Because he is subverted that is such a one, and offendeth being condemned by his own proper judgement. And our Lord biddeth us to account him for an heathen and publican that heareth not the church. And publicans were a sort of men with whom it was not lawful for the jew to keep company withal. S. Antony also that holy and famous ermite in his last words spoken before his death unto his scholars, left them these two godly and wholesome lessons, and most necessary for our time, 
Two good and godly lessons of S. Antony.  as that notable bishop Athanasius writing his life reporteth. the first was. Avoid ye the venom of all schismatics and he retikes. and follow hardly the hatred that I bore always against them: for they are the enemies of Christ, and you know I never had soft or paisible communication with them. The second lesson is this, Keep above all things your upright faith in Christ: and the religious tradition of your forefathers, which you have learned by the reading of holy scripture and by my poor advertisement from time to time. This commandment of avoiding and shunning heretics is not made for the learned only, 
Math. 7.  but also for the simple and unlearned. 
Matth. 15.  Which is readily proved by the sayings of our Saviour. Take ye heed of false prophets. and again. If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the ditch. and such other. 
The church must not beforsaken for the evil life of men in the church.  But to forsake the church and the Catholic doctrine of the same by reason of the disordinate life of priests and other prelates, Christ not only never commanded it, but also very straightly forbade it: declaring the parable of the husband man which forbade his servants to weed out the darnel from the corn. Lest peradventure saith he, gathering the darnel ye pluck up also the corn. let them therefore grow both together until the harvest time, 
Mat. 13.  and then I will say unot the ripers, gather first together all the darnel and bind it up in bundles that it may be burned, but the good corn gather in to my barn. For as it becometh not the servant to take upon him the correction of such matters in the family, as the master upon some weighty consideration would have reserved to himself, so much less in the church of Christ may the lay men (whose part it is to obey and follow, not to prescribe laws and orders) take upon them the rule and dominion which appertaineth only to bishops and rulers in the church. Farther that this is the true meaning of our Saviour in the place above alleged, he declareth by an other similitude of the shroud servant, which said in his heart. My Master will not come of a long season, 
Mat. 24.  and thereupon beginneth to strike his fellow servants, eating and drinking and making good cheer. But the Master of that servant will come (saith Christ) in the day that he looketh not for, and in the hour that he knoweth not, and shall cut him of, and put his portion with the hypocrites. there shall be weeping and gnashing of tethe: Our Saviour hath here plainly and roundly (I trow) warned the lay people, not only not to meddle with, chasten, or correct their bishops, pastors and Curates whom Christ (as the Apostle saith) hath appointed and set over them, 
Ephes. 4.  but also not to trouble instruct, rule or reprehend their fellow lay folk. though now a days (alas) nothing is more common than clouters, cobblers, saddlers, tailors, citizens, and men of the country, gentlemen and noble men to take upon them in the church of Christ the part of Masters and rulers to interpret holy scripture, to prescribe their Curates how and what to preach, how to administrat sacraments, setting them up and down at their pleasure, whereas they ought by the express commandment of S. Paul obey and submit themselves unto their curates, vicar's and bishops. For thus he writeth unto the Hebrews. Obey them that have the oversight of you, and submit yourselves unto them, 
Hebre. 13.  for they watch for your souls, even as they that must give account. that they may do it with joy and not with grief. For that is not expedient for you.  
But you will say. These papist bishops and priests be men unlearned, incontinent, dissolute, given to riot, ambition, to covetousness, to pomp, and to all vice. If you say this of some certain among the clergy it may be true. But if you speak of the whole clergy, it is very false and untrue. For not only among the lay people, but among the clergy also (praised be God) there be right virtuous, sober, and godly men, upon whom the faults of the rest can not be fathered. Yet if perhaps all these vices and abominations were found in the whole clergy and rulers of Christ's flock, notwithstanding the commandment of Christ must remain in his full force and effect, 
Matth. 13.  That the darnel be suffered to grow. 
Mat. 23.  that the scribes and Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses: do as they command you to do, but do not as they do themselves. Again. 
Heb. 13.  Obey them that have the oversight of you for they watch as those that must give account for your souls. 
Matth. 7.  And every man must pluck first the beam out of his own eye, and then take the mote out of the priests eye, Let us therefore, good Christian reader, suffer the church to stand and continue in his former and most received course. For without doubt she is so surely grounded upon the Rock, that hell gates shall never be able to overthrow her or prevail against her. 
Math. 16.  As for the life of the clergy God is their judge. For as of virginity so of priesthood man can not judge. Yet we discharge not here the clergy of the Ecclesiastical censures and punishments. For as it is said to the lay men, 
Mat. 13.  touching the evil life of the clergy, Let the darnel grow on, so is it said to the bishops, (as S. Augustin declareth against the Donatists) 
1. Cor. 5.  Take away the evil from among you. Wherefore we read of that notable Emperor Constantinus the great, at what time certain bishops offered up certain complaints to be determined by him, to have awnswered in this sort. God hath ordained you priests in his church: 
Eccl. histor li. 10. ca 2  and hath given you authority to judge us: and therefore we are well judged of you: but you cannot be judged of any men. It were surely very expedient that some reformation were had, to correct and chasten the corrupted clergy according to the prescription of their own Canons, to th'intent that such offences as rise in men's hearts against the clergy and the church through their inordinate life, might be remedied and taken away. But this is not in the hands of the laite or temporal rulers, whose part it is to suffer and obey.   

OF TRANSLATING THE BIBLE IN TO THE WLGAR TONGVE.  
ANother thing that the Lutherans object unto me, is, that they say, it hath been by my means and counsel procured that the Bible is no more read in the vulgar tongue: especially as Luther translated it. Now although I remember not that I ever said or wrote that the lay men ought not to have the Bible in their vulgar tongue, yet if I had so done, 
Say men are not commanded to read Scripture  it had been no great trespass. For surely I could never yet find in holy scripture, that the common people ought of necessity to read scripture. But that of the reading thereof much schism and the destruction of many souls hath proceeded, daily experience teacheth us. And holy write warneth us, where our Saviour thus speaketh. It is given to you to know the mystery of the kingdom of God, 
Luc. 8.  but to the rest in parables, that seeing yet they see not, and hearing they understand not. Who are these unto whom our Lord saith, To you it is given, & c? Surely the Apostles and their successors the rulers of Christ's flock. 
Vide Theo philactum 〈◊〉 Luc. cap. 8  And who are they that should learn by parables? surely such men, as were better not to know the mysteries, lest misusing them they procure themselves a greater damnation. 
Math. 7.  For precious stones ought not to be cast before hogs, and such of all likelihod are the lay ignorant people. Beside our Lord in that his former saying may seem very well to have alluded to the twelve tribes of Israel: which figured the twelve Apostles, 
Exod. 24. Num. 11.  and to the threescore and ten elders chosen out of those twelve tribes, which also did represent the threescore and twelve disciples that were beside the Apostles. These threescore and ten elders of the jews had only the power (as stories declare) to read and and understand the mysteries of the Scripture. 
The hebrew text could not be readen of the common jews.  For at that time the hebrewe text used of the jews, had no vowels in all the text but only consonants. And this manner of reading without vowels was known only to the threescore and ten elders: the other jews knew it not, lest peradventure the precious mysteries of that old law should be cast before hogs, the rude and curious people. 
Vide josephum, justi num mart. in suo paraenetico. I renaeum lib 3. cap. 25. Clemen. Alex. lib. 1. Stromatum. Hilarium in 2. psal. August. de civit. dei. lib. 18. cap. 42 & 43.  These threescore and ten elders also very miraculousely translated the Hebrew Bible in to Graeke, before the coming of Christ, they only having the knowledge of the text. So in like wise because the threescore and twelve disciples were chosen to read and understand the mysteries of holy write, unto whom priests have succeeded (as in the principal seas and Bishopriks' in Christendom by stories we are able to show) thereof it is evident, that unto Priests, Pastors and Bishops (whom God hath placed to oversee his church) the grace of the holy ghost always assisteth to interpret and expound the mysteries of holy scripture by parables unto the people, as far as for them is requisite. Wherefore the unlearned lay men may well be admonished to refrain from all curious and greedy reading of holy scripture. First, lest rashly and unadvisedly they take upon them the office committed by God to the elders, to priests, and bishops: which presumption we see hath been grievously punished in the examples of King Ozias of Core, 
2. Par. 26.  Dathan and Abiron. 
Num. 16.  Then also because experience of our time hath taught, how dangerous it is that every lay man, crafts man, labourer, or otherwise, all without discretion, should read and examine scripture at their pleasure.  
The sects of the Picardi of the anabaptists of the Swenckfeldians and divers other heresies proceeded off no other cause, 
The dangers proceeding of the laities reading Scripture  than that certain unlearned lay people took upon them to read, interpret, and expound scripture. And what text do these unlearned men read? surely such as Luther himself or some other archeretike hath translated in to the vulgar tongue, and corrupted partly with false additions and privy foisting, partly with heretical gloss put in the margin. Again they come all to reading of it with a certain prejudice that Luther hath appointed them, teaching that he which will read holy scripture, ought not to bring with him any judgement, but seek it in the text. Which is as much to say, that the unlearned lay man nothing informed before in the faith of the church, nothing prepared with devotion and humility, nothing instructed by what means to understand holy scripture may rashly and roundly set upon it, as if it were Bevis of Hampton or a tale of Robin hood. 
The well spring of heresies now a days.  In this case if the unlearned man suddenly imagine an exposition of some place, that liketh his brain, and serveth well his humour, be it never so contrary and repugnant to the true understanding of holy scripture, yet he will not be brought from it, but cleaving unto it tooth and nail forgeth himself a new religion, frameth a faith of his own, and setteth up in his heart a new idol, in the defence whereof he will spend his body, his goods, his life, and his soul. And this is lo the well spring of sundry heresies now a days.  
Wherein me thinketh it fareth, 
A similitude worthy to be noted.  as if the common crafts men of a cite, upon a stomach of private presumption would suddenly displace all physicians and remove pothecaries from their shops, persuading themselves to know as well as they the virtue of their medicines, balms, drugs, waters, ointments, roots, herbs and other such ware: and hereupon would take upon them to minister both to themselves and unto other, potions, purgations, and all kind of medicine. Were not these men think you, likely to do much good in short time? especially if other would be so mad as to believe them? would not experience quickly teach them to call home again their old Masters, Physicians and pothecaries, and set these men to their crafts again? Surely so it is of the holy scripture translated in to the vulgar tongue and so made common for all men. For the lay man may so read them, and pick out metsons meet for his appetit: but for lack of skill (as experience hath tried) he will cast himself down being whole before, and so (as they say) shall pay for touching. For in very deed the unlearned man is not acquainted with the phrase of scripture, he knoweth not the language of the holy ghost, and although he hear the sound, yet he seeth nothing, nor understandeth not to what end or purpose this or that be spoken. For it fareth in scripture as in medicines, which although they are ordained of God for the health of man's body, and are the gifts of God, yet if they be not used in time and place as the disease requireth, and as the learned physician appointeth, they may be mischief in stead of a remedy: and serve to kill man being made to heal man. By this similitude the unlearned may gather, how dangerous it is for him to read the scripture in his mother tongue: especially with the intent to interpret it as he shall think best himself.  
Now whereas I have in deed found fault with the translation of Luther, and have withdrawn men from reading of it, 
How and where Luther hath corrupted the text of the Bible.  I have done it upon good reason and weighty considerations. For it is evident that Luther in his translation hath both corrupted the text omitting and altering the very words, and also hath depraved the sense of the text by false and heretical gloss partly added in the margin, partly foisted in the text itself. So by clipping away the terms of the text, and patching on the subtle shifts of his own brain, he hath gaily coloured his pernicious doctrine with the painted sheathes of pretended scripture. I will here bring you for a taste some few examples of his liegerdemain, giving you to understand, what conscience he is likely to have in other doctrine, that feareth not to juggle, to cog, and to foist in holy scripture it self.  
S. Paul writeth thus unto the Ephesians according to the Latin translation. 
Ephes. 6.  Which also word for word agreeth with the graeke text. 
S. Paul corrupted by Luther.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God that ye may be able to resist in the evil day, and stand perfit in all things. These words of S. Paul the honourable and learned man George Gienger one of the privy counsel unto the Emperors Majesty, translated after this sort. Darum ergreift den harnisch Gottes/ auf daffir andem boesen tag widersteme kundt/ und in all len dingen/ als die volkommen/ vesteen mijghr: that is Therefore take on the barnis of God to the intent, that in the evil day you may resist, and in all things stand as the perfit But Luther clipping the text translated it thus. Omb des wegen so ergreifft den hamisch Gottes auff daf it widersteen kundt an dem bosen tag/ und in allen ewrens thun besteen mijgt. which soundeth thus. Therefore so take on the barnis of God to the intent that you may resist in the evil day and stand in all works, In the which sentence Luther omitteth the word perfecti in latin, als die volkommen in dutch, perfit in english. which depravation of the text in this place, and cutting away the word perfit, served his turn very well to raise up again the stinking heresy of the Manichees. For he writeth that. Sin is part of man, and a thing guilty itself. which cleaveth also so fast unto man, that it can in this life, be taken a way by no virtue of the grace of God or of the Sacraments, and therefore that man remaineth always in sin: nor is not able to attain to any point of righteousness in this life. 
The manner of he retikes.  And herein Luther as the manner and custom of heretics is, fighteth against scripture with scripture itself. For S. Paul saith: Not because I am already perfit, but I follow though that I may comprehend. 
Philip. 3.  and a little after. Let us therefore as many as be perfit be thus wise minded. Here he maketh mention of two sorts of perfection. One which consists in hope and is looked for in the life to come of the which the Apostle in an other place speaketh By hope we are saved. 
Rom. 8.  an other, which Christ speaketh of saying. Be ye perfit as your father of heaven is perfit, 
Matth. 5.  and again. Be merciful as your father of heaven is merciful which perfection is, 
Luc. 6.  as for example, that our glory be the witness of our own conscience, 
2. Cor. 1.  which we are bound to have in this life, and therefore ought to labour, as S. Paul before exhorted us, 
Ephes. 6. Lib. de servo Arbitrio. Caluiaus de prae destruat.  that taking upon us the armour of God, we may stand perfit in all things. Now Luther admitteth no perfection in this life, but teacheth, that man is so far from being perfit in this life, that God doth compel him to sin. S. Paul useth often times the word perfection: but so that he confoundeth not the perfection of the life to come, with the present: which in this life as proclive and subject to sin, may and ought be kept of us as far as our infirmity beareth. Yet this perfection as little as it is, Luther to the intent he might utterly take away, he sticketh not as you see, to clip the coin of God's word, and bereave the text of the word perfit, lest any man perhaps would labour to be honest and virtuous.  
The like slight used he in an other place of the Apostle, for the like purpose and intent. For whereas the Latin and Greek text both do read, By the law we have knowledge of sin. 
Rom. 2.  Luther corrupteth it, translating after this sort. Durchs' Gesetz is't nur erkantuus dee Sijnden. that is, By the law is nothing but knowledge of sin. For as before he clipped away the word perfit, 
Lib. Saxonice ecclesiae contra Geor Maiorem. Amsdorffius in libello, Bona opera saluti obesse.  so here he foisteth in the word Nurse (nothing but) to build again the former heresy upon this text. But although Luther (as by his writings it is manifest, and as the Illyricans and Antinomi his scholars do yet teach) professed at the first, that the law nor before nor after justification is necessary: and that good works were pernicious to salvation, yet afterward writing against the Antinomi his scholars, he corrected his former doctrine after this sort. That the law before justification is in deed necessary for the knowledge of sin, but afterward is utterly unprofitable. For the maintenance therefore of this Pelagian and Manichean heresy, the shifting in of the word Nurse (nothing but) fitted his purpose marvelous well. For by this only word he hath planted again two notable and ancient heresies. 
Vide Nilevitanum et Arausicanun Conciliae  The one of the Pelagians, which said that the law availed nothing, but for the knowledge of sin, teaching what we ought to do and not to do, and that by the gospel we have no grace given us to perform that which by the law we learn to be good and godly. An other of the Manichees which teach (as Luther doth) that the law is made for wicked men not for Christian men: which can be held in by no law, nor are not bound to any good works.  
In an other place where the Apostle according to the Latin and Greek text, 
1. Cor. 9  hath thus. Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman? Luther thus translateth it. 
This place is also corrupted in our English translations printed in the years 1549. and 1551.  Haben wir night matched ein Schwester zum Weib mit umbher zu fijrn, that is, Have we not power to lead about a sister for a wife? Here again like a false foister he shifteth in counterfeited droges among the sweet spice of holy scripture: adding thereunto of his own these words zum Weib. that is for a wife. which is far different from the meaning of the holy ghost: and was never written by the Apostle, nor read in holy scripture from the beginning of the church by any Christian Catholic man. But what intended Luther by this his addition? surely to root out of men's hearts all love off chastity and virginity. (lest perhaps if S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles had carried no wives about with them, some would be content also by their example to lack them) yea he maketh the blessed Apostle a liar, whereby he might remove him clean out of the Bible. For the Apostle say the in an other place. I would have allen●n be as myself. 
1. Cor. 7.  That is (as he expoundeth himself) that all priests and preachers off the word of God should abstain from matrimony and all pleasure of the flesh, to the intent that they might study rather to please God then their wife. As also again when he saith. 
Ibidem.  He that marrieth his virgin doth well, and he that marrieth her not doth better. meaning thereby that both are right good, both to marry and to live single. Yet whem one of the twain and the better must be chosen, certain it is that the Apostle preferreth single life before marriage. But Luther by jumbling in only these words, 
Luther addeth to the text.  Lum Weib, that is, for a wife hath taken away the meaning and godly intent of the Apostle not only out of the scripture, but also out of thousands of men's hearts, 
Luther enemy to Varginite and wedlock.  not without great loss of many a soul. He hath beside hereby not only disgraced the excellent vertu of chastity and virginity, but also brought so in contempt the holy sacrament of wedlock (as if it were in invention of man) that nothing is now more common then (as Luther himself teacheth in the sixth tome of his works) If the wife will not let the maid come. And there be yet extant certain epistles of Luther and Melanchthon, and advises given by their letters wherein they do openly permit and pronounce it to be lawful, that one husband may have two lawful wives. 
Luther and Melanchthon teach pluralite of wives.  I could also allege and note with my finger divers examples hereof agreeable to the doctrine of these blessed ghospellers.  
Neither may any man here think that this false and deceitful translation of Luther is any new invented trick of himself: it was practised also in the time of S. Augustin, who confuteth it with these words. For upon this respect (saith he speaking of relief made to the Apostles) 
Lib. de opere Monachorum. cap. 4.  godly and faithful women having worldly substance, went about with the Apostles and ministered unto them of their substance, that they lacked nothing necessary for this present life. Which S. Paul showeth he might lawfully have done, as the other Apostles did: but he saith afterward he would not use his power and authority herein. And this point certain men not perceiving, expounded not asister woman, where the Apostle saith, have we not power to lead about a sister woman, but a wife. These men seem to be deceived by the ambiguity of the graeke word. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  For that in graeke one word signifieth both a woman and a wife. Allthouh the Apostle so placed that greek word, that they might not be deceived. For neither he said a woman only, but a sister woman: nor to marry, but to lead about. but other interpreters were nothing deceived with this ambiguity, translating it a woman not a wife. Thus far S. Augustin, very plainly and roundly confuting the fond interpretation or translation of Luther. 
Of the Canonical how resused in the church.   
There is in the church a laudable custom, and godly institution of the Apostles to apply holy scripture to the passion of Christ. So that Lessons and other prayers in the church, especially of priests and other in holy orders, be so divided and distributed in to certain hours, that both the story of Christ his passion and the rest of holy scripture may by that orderly distribution more conveniently be understanded. Hereof (as we have before touched) were instituted the Canonical hours of Matins, of Prime, of the iij. uj. and ix. hours, of Evensong and Complin. And that all this is not by man's constitutions or traditions, it may by divers places of holy scripture evidently be confirmed. David in a certain psalm writeth. 
Psal. 118.  Seven times in the day have I said laudes unto the upon the judgements of thy righteousness. And that this was done at certain hours and prescribed times it appeareth by an other place of the same psalm. I arose at midnight to confess unto the upon the judgements of thy righteousness. And in an other psalm he writeth. 
Psal. 54.  At evening: at morning and at none day I will pray and he shall hear my voice. Morning prayer in the church is counted the Prime. None day, the ix. hour after Mass. At evening the Evensong. In the Acts we read of the sixth hour. Where it is written that Peter ascended in the upper parts to pray about the sixth hour. 
Acto. 10.  The iij. also the vj. and the ix. hour aremencioned in Daniel. at the which hours he prayed with tears over against Jerusalem. 
Da●. 6.  Complin time of prayer appeareth by that which S. Luke writeth of our Saviour. It happened in those days he went up in to the Mount to pray alone, 
Lut. 6.  and continued all night in, prayer to God. These hours also by God's institution are so distributed for the remembrance of Christ's passion, that every hour containeth the remembrance of some special act of the passion. For at Matins time which is in the night Christ was borne, taken, beaten, mocked and scorned. At the prime which is in the morning, he was presented to Pilate and falsely accused. At the same time he appeared after his resurrection unto Mary Maudelen. At the third hour he was whipped, 
Actor. 2.  crowned with thorns, mocked, condenned, and bearing his cross, was lead to the place where he should be crucified. At the same time also the holy ghost was given to the Apostles. At the vj. hour he was crucified, given to drink with gall and vinegar, and reputed among thieves. At the ninth hour he rendered up his Spirit in to the hands of the Father. At Evensong he was taken down from the Cross: at last in the Complin time he was anointed and buried.  
This laudable, godly, and devout custom of daily setting forth the passion of Christ by seven distincted hours of prayer, the Apostles and their successors have always from time to time reverently observed. But Luther to the great reproach of Christ's church, and inestimable damage of Christian souls, hath in many places utterly extinguished and abolished it: placing for it the old cursed heresy of Vigilantius. Which his purpose lest it should in any point be stayed, such express scripture as declareth this manner of prayer, he thought good by his false translation to deprave. In the acts of the Apostles according to the graeke and latin text, thus we read. 
Actor. 3.  Peter and John went up in to the temple at the ninth hour of prayer. In all languages these words (at the ninth hour of prayer) be so translated, that they signify some certain determinat and appointed time of prayer: which Luther being desirous to abolise, interpreteth that place thus. Petrus und Johannes gieugen hmauff in den Tempel umb die neund stunned zu veten. that is. Peter and John went up in to the temple about nine of the clock to pray. as though that the Apostles had by chance, and not of a set and prefixed order prayed at nine of the clock. And as though it were all one to read in scripture, 
Great confusion in the church by small alteration of the scripture  the hour of prayer, or in some hour to pray. But if a man list to see what great desolation and confusion hath ensued of so little an alteration of the text in churches and other place of godly foundation, let him remember with himself the number of religious houses, Monasteries, Nunneries, Chapels, Hospitals, Alms houses, yea and cathedral churches, where God hath in times past been honoured and served at distinct and sundry times for the continual remembrance of his blessed passion, both day and night: and now no service there at all: but are become either profane dwelling places, or schismatical conventicles. And all this under pretence of abuses, which though they had crept in and blemished that most godly institution and order of Christ's church, the abuse should have been corrected: the good use should have remained.  
In the same chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, S. Peter when he had healed the same man, he spoke thus unto the people. 
Acto. 3.  Ye men of Israel why marvel you at this, or why look ye so on us, as though by our own power or virtue we had made this man go? that which the Latin text hath pietatem the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is well translated virtue or godliness, Luther hath translated it merit, as though the Apostles had denied merit. But there is great difference between virtue or godliness, and merit or desert. Yet Luther to take away all love of virtue and good works, laboured all that he could to persuade men, That good works have no merit, dejert or reward before God, and that they procure nothing but god's wrath. Wherefore all merits seeming to Luther vain and superfluous, for the maintenance of this his heresy, scripture must be corrupted: seeing directly it would not serve him.  
In like manner behaved he himself in the Sacrament of holy Orders, to the intent he might take away all priesthood out of the church, and set in their places rennagat apprentices, and unthrifty servants, such as had spent their own and rob their masters, to govern the new church by him erected. For this his purpose scripture must be wreathed and perverted: lest the holy ghospeller might perhaps seem to say somewhat without scripture. Therefore whereas S. Pause admonisheth his disciple Timothe whom he had then ordained bishop of Ephesus, to use well those gifts and graces of God, as had been given him with laying on of the hands of the priest hood, that is, in taking his holy Orders, vising to him these words, 
1. Tim. 4.  Despise not the gift which is in thee, which was given the thorough prophesy with the laying on of hands by the authority of priesthood, for the word priesthood, Luther hath translated, 
Our English translations printed in the years 1549. and 1551. have corrupted this place also.  Der altisten, that is. of the elders. Persuading thereby the people that holy orders is no Sacrament, and that it is not necessary that those which must minister the Sacraments, preach, and govern churches, be ordained of bishops which have the authority of priesthood, but that it sufficeth to be called to the ministry by the elders of the people as of the mayre, the shrifes, and other temporal rulers. 
The Lnther ns Ministers  Whereof we see it hath happened that in Cites, towns, and Villages, where the Lutheran gospel taketh place, show makers and saddlers, pothecaries and peddlers, tailors and tinkards, butler's and bakers, and such other rif raf, never admitted to holy orders, men of no learning nor sobriety take upon them the holy office of priesthood, preach their pleasure to the people to the utter destruction of many a soul, and minister the Sacraments without authority thereunto.  
But Luther and Melanchthon perceiving at the last this confusion, proceeding by reason of this false interpretation to grow on so far, that every light and seditious knave, as for example Thomas Muntzer in Turinge, Bernard Rotman in Westphalia, Mathias Illyricus in Saxony and divers other in other places took upon them (not being called nor ordained, nor admitted by the masters of Wittenberg) to preach and govern the people, sowing new heresies and sundry schisms in the congregation: 
Luher and Melanchthon chaung● their language.  suddenly they changed their tune. For Luther to refrain a little his evil translation that it may serve for the Sacrament of order, in his last edition of the Bible, upon the word Altisten of the elders, he made this gloze in the margin. 
So do also the later English translations printed in the years. 1●52. and ●502.  That is, of the priests or of the priesthood. Melanchthon for the like consideration, though at the first he counted all the Sacraments to be but the invention of man, and forged deceits, yet in his book of common places, he reakeneth holy Order among the Sacraments, charging expressly that it should be taken and used for a holy Sacrament.  
But this recantation of Luther and Melanchthon neither served then to any purpose, 
The sch●clers of Luther disobey their Master.  nor is now off any force. For the brethren stand stoute● in that which Luther and Melanchthon taught first, that holy order and priesthood was no sacrament at all, that every man and woman were priests. Although this be an old condemned heresy of the Aerians of Aetius and 
Vide lib. 2. Epiphan. de haeresibus & Bernardum.  Pepusius raised up now again of Martin Luther by changing the word Priesthood in the word Elders contrary the meaning of S. Paul and the common received interpretation of all Christendom hitherto. Yet hath it pleased Master Luther to renew and preach to the world and old detestable heresy under pretence of S. Paul's doctrine, and the express word of God.  
Now although these few examples might suffice to declare the honesty of Luther and upright dealing in translation of the holy scripture, yet for the more declaration thereof, I will add yet one place notably misused and wilfully corrupted of Luther. The Apostle writeth thus to the Colossians. 
Coloss. 2.  Beware lest any man deceive you by philosophy or vain deceits after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world and not after Christ. Thus readeth the greek and the latin text. But Luther drawing after his fashion the scripture for his purpose, where it is in the text, After the elements of the world, he turneth it, Nach der welt satzungen. 
So hath our english translation, anno 1552. & 62. Vide Lutheri prefaetionem in annotat. Philippi in Pa●um.  that is, after the laws and ordinances of the world. It is surely a strange case to see how variabel and brainsick these ghospellers are. At the first broaching of this new gospel, while Luther (as the rumour was) lived yet in his Patmus, Philip Melanchthon, taught that sithen Christian men were all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, taught immediately of God himself, no man should study philosophy. For all the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, and such other were but frivolous tales and dangerous deceits, and to be burned and destroyed (as in deed in many places so they were) but only the Bible ought to be read and studied. For by these the holy ghost would minister all knowledge both to serve God, and to live in this world, both for everlasting salvation and for this temporal estate. That a Christian man should not live a studious quiet life, 
Genes. 2.  for that it was written, In the sweat of thy brow thou shalt eat thy bread, that is (as they expound it) thou must be a ploweman, a showemaker, a bucher, a tailor, or some such handy crafts man: and so with thy own labour get thy living.  
This fowl error, beside other occasions ministered thereunto, was of Luther in sundry places of his works stoutly maintained and defended. One of such places I will here at large allege. Writing unto the nobility of Germany he hath these words. The universities also have need of an earnest and sharp reformation. 
Tom. 6. fol. 589.  Truly I must speak as I think. let him be angry that listeth. Whatsoever was instituted or ordained under the pope, tended only to the furtherance of vice and increase of errors. for the universities if they be not otherwise ordered than they have been hitherto, what other thing are they then (as it is noted in the Maccabees) schools of children and of the greek glory, where is all licentious dissoluteness? holy Scripture and Christian faith is not taught. but that blind ethnic philosopher Aristotle ruleth above Christ himself. wherefore by my advise the Physics, the Methaphisiks, 
Luther condemneth good learning.  the books de Anima, the ethics should utterly be abolished with all the rest of his works which profess to teach the natural causes of things. Although therein neither natural nor spiritual knowledge is to be got. Beside that they are of such obscurity, that few have hitherto understood them, good wits losing both labour and time about them. I dare well say that every coblar hath as much knowledge of natural things as is to be got in those books. It grieveth me even to the heart that this cursed, and crafty proud ethnic could so long a time abuse and deceive the learned men of Christendom. With this scourge have we been whipped for our sins.  
This much wrote Luther in the year of our Lord 1520. out of these and such other writings of Luther, Carolostadius and Melanchthon first sucked out the contempt of philosophy, and all good learning being so moved by the authority of this german prophet, Luther. And by the year 152●. they furthered the matter so far that in many famous universities and cities all study of philosophy utterly decayed. And although this doctrine of Luther and Melanchthon taking away from Christian men (as julian the apostate 
Nicephorus li. 10. cap. 26. histor. eccles.  Emperor did) all honest discipline, liberal sciences and good learning, whereby the estate of Christendom hath always been in knowledge and virtue directed, and to drive all men to handicraft works and husbandry only, by a rude and bestly doctrine, yet it so served that time, and was so well liked, that at Wittenberg many scholars burned all their books, and became crafts men, sheaperdes, husband men and so forth. 
And Melanchthon becometh a baker. See the Table following. Vratislavis.  Carolostadius himself (being before archdeacon of Wittenberg) getting him to a village thereby became suddenly a ploughman, tilled and sowed the ground himself, and brought wood to the market of Wittenberg to be sold. Beside, many other cities, especially Breslau did shut up clean all schools, and for the space of certain years suffered their youth to rove abroad without any education or instruction. Which if a man had asked them why they did so, the text of S. Paul served them for a cloak of their folly where it was written. Beware ye that no man deceive you by philosophy and vain subtleties after the tradition of men. 
Coloss. 2.  But now Luther perceiving afterward that this served nothing his purpose, returning from his Patmus to Wittenberg he corrected Melanchthon and drove Carolostadius out of the dominion of Wittenberg, professing then openly and declaring, that without grammar, logic, and philosophy, his gospel could not be spread abroad conveniently.  
Therefore in the year. 1524. 
Luther changeth his hood.  writing to the Magistrates and cities of Germany of setting up and main taining schools, he laboureth very earnestly to have restored again, such as had decayed or were neglected: making yet no mention of Carolostadius or Melanchthon by whom that enormity was committed. To quench therefore and appaise the tumults stirred up by his former doctrine and by Melanchthon, letting pass the foresaid text of S. Paul, he teacheth, that philosophy is good in itself, if it be well used and not abused to deceive men. Which in deed had been of him well said, if he himself had not much abused philosophy to set forth his fleshly gospel, and to persuade his wily and subtle opinions. But seeing that he could not without philosophy and help of schools utter the wicked wares of his fresh and new learning, letting pass (as I said) the former text of the Apostle, he took hold of the words that followed. The elements of the world, turning it, the laws and ordonances of the world. For philosophy hindered not so much his purpose, as the Magistrates and and laws of the country did. Whose authority unless he first overthrew, drawing men from due obedience unto their superiors, he perceived right well, that his purpose could not be brought about, being to abolish old and ancient religion, and to plant a new of his own invention. To colour therefore this his intent and fetch, he forceth me the Apostle to speak for him, and to utter his doctrine in the vulgar tongue, putting in for the words of the Apostle after the elements of the world his own words, after the laws and ordonances of the world. As though the Apostle had commanded, that because the civil laws and decrees be not word for word expressed in the prophets or the Apostles, but instituted for a policy and worldy government, therefore that no man was bound to obey them. And this pageant so prettily entered of Luther proved not amiss: especially for the trim tricked translation, or rather transposing and altering of S. Paul's words.  
In an other book entitled Of the secular power he writeth that among Christian men there ought to be no superiority, no power, nor no Magistrate. In the very same book, and in an Epistle against the two edicts of the Emperor he writeth. 
Luther writeth against obedience to magistrates.  That our princes of Germany be liars, obstinate, men without reason, very beasts, and to use his own words wild pret in himel, that is, like wild dear in the element, that we ought to pray to God that the subjects obey not their magistrates, nor go not to war being pressed, nor give any thing toward battle against the Turk: for that the Turk himself, is ten times better than our Princes. In the book of his assertions against Leo the pope, he affirmeth that. To fight against the Turks is to resist God, punishing us by the Turks tyranny. In his book de Captivitate Babylonica he saith. 
Note the liberty of Luther's gospel.  There is no remedy to be hoped for unless the liberty of the gospel (he meaneth his own) being restored, and all men's laws utterly extinguished, we judge and rule ourselves. For no Magistrate (saith he) no nor angel of heaven hath the authority to prescribe any law over Christian men, other than they will be content themselves to follow. For Christian men are free from all subjection. Again in a little book against the Collectors of worms, he writeth, that no common wealth is well ruled by laws Last of all in his answer against Ambrose Catharinus, he stormeth like a mad man and crieth out, that the Church of Christ and the gospel, can in no wise acknowleadg or suffer any Magistrate or jurisdiction. For all these things be but torments and cruel inventions of men against Christians. Luther then having by this false and foisted interpretation of S. Paul, found the means to burn the Canon law, to bring in contempt the Civil law, to raise up the commons against their princes, beside many other seditions and rebellions hereby procured, I trust men will take heed and beware off such false, forged, and foisted interpretations. For who seeth not that there is great difference between The elements of the world and the ordonnaunces of the world? Chrisostom, Theophilact, Theodoret, and other holy father's interpreting this place of the Apostle, teach us that the word Elements do mean that we should avoid the Astronomical predictions, which are seldom without enchantments and coungering. And this is not only forbidden by scripture, but also by Canons of the church, and by the civil laws (as in Codice de judaeis & Mathematicis a man may see) is grievously punished. yet Luther will have no other thing meant by those words of the Apostle (whatsoever the holy fathers say) then politic and civil ordonnaunces, which he loudly and lewdly curseth. And Melanchthon in despite of the fathers and Canons maintaineth at Wittenberg most above other sciences Astrology, so that in no place it is so much followed and practised as there.  
I could bring here divers other false and corrupted translations of Luther, but that I fear me I should weary the reader with over long and superfluous recital thereof. Notwithstanding who so loveth the truth and will not wilfully be abused, he may judge of these few examples, what trust is to be given to the rest of Luther's translation, an such other heretics, especially if he consider that he that is ones over the shows will not stick yet to wade further.  
But here peradventure a man will demand. Sir if it be so that the reading of the Bible in the vulgar tongue be so perilous a matter, how shall the unlearned lay man provide that he be not abused in this case? For many there are among the laite that can not refrain from reading holy scripture, taking it for a great comfort, and instruction as well to bridle their passions, as to move them to virtue. What part then of holy scripture might well be permitted them to read? For the whole corpse of the Bible were it never so well translated, yet I doubt whether it were expedient for the lay to read it. For it might be an occasion of idle and light thoughts, if every girl or young woman should read the stories of Lot, 
Gen. 19 Gene. 38. Num. 5.  and his daughters of Lia, and Rachel the wives of jacob, of judas, and Thamar, and how adultery may be tried in women. Which all in the old testament is to be read.  
Among the jews it was a law that before the age of taking priesthood, 
Vide Hieron. praefat in Ezechielem.  which was of thirty years no man should be suffered to read the beginning of the Genesis, the Canticles, the end and beginning of Echechiels' prophecy. And that because although all this were the word of God, yet it was not thought expedient that every one indifferently should lightly come to these secret and high mysteries, which God would not have revealed to all, lest being common (as it happeneth) they should the less be esteemed. Nor it hath not been without the singular disposition and marvelous providence of God, that through all the west church, the words of his holy Sacraments have among so many barbarous nations been kept so long time in the Latin tongue unknown and strange to the common sort of men.  
Yet that the laite be not utterly excluded from the mysteries of holy Scripture, 
What parts of Scripture may be read of the laite.  but that they may as far as is expedient for them read and know them, this our counsel were not peradventure amiss. Because in holy scripture there are many stories, and other things which are not necessary to be known not only of the laite but also of the inferior sort of the clergy, certain bishops of Rome many years past have picked out of the whole corpse of the Bible, certain most necessary parcels thereof, and set it forth together in the form of a Breviary or portise, to be read of the clergy by duty, and of the laite such as listeth. This is so distributed in to the seven hours of Christ's passion, that who so listeth apply himself to prayer and devotion, can surely imagine no better order than that is. The right Noble and excellent learned man George Gienger one of the privy counsel to the emperors Majesty, well perceiving the great commodity thereof hath translated the Roman Breviary in to the Germane tongue in so handsome and pure style that the Psalter, the lessons and the gospels be as pleasantly to be read in the Germane tongue as they are in the Latin. It were therefore peradventure more expedient for the common and unlearned lay men to have with them some such to pray and read in, then rashly trust to every translation: or confusely read every thing they list. Especially being so perilous a matter to serve from the right understanding of holy scripture, that the danger ensuing is no less than heresy.  
It were also very profitable that certain Homilies and Sermons were gathered out of S. Chrisostome, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, S. Gregory, S. bernard, S. Bede and such other holy fathers, which being distributed in to the Sundays and holy days of the year, and well and truly translated in to the vulgar tongue, might safely and with great profit be read off the common people. Beside where as many godly prayers for divers necessities are to be found in the doctors, they might serve also for common prayer for the people being truly translated in to the vulgar tongue. Surely any lay man that desireth to read scripture not of curiosity, but to strengthen his faith, to increase his hope, and to kindle his charity, may in such books as we have said satisfy fully his desire and appetit.   

OF disagreement IN DOCTRINE AMONG THE PROTESTANTS.  
THe third matter wherewith the Lutherans charge me, is that I have alleged falsely certain of their articles, whereby their enormous dissension appeareth, partly have fathered some upon them which they never taught. As touching the first point, doctor Smidelin preacher of Gopping stirreth up heaven and earth against me, sweareth and affirmeth that the Lutheran preachers vary in no one point or ground of their doctrine. But if there be any controversy among them, the same is (saith he) not of any article of their faith, or of their Confession, made at Augspurg. 
Confessio Augustana  A man may verily in many places find light and impudent persons; which will not stick to call chauke cheese, and say white is black. But such an impudent preacher as this james Smidelin of Gopping is, not this forty years hath been seen in Germany: which is not ashamed to write and set forth in print, yea that in books dedicated to men of worship, that among the Lutherans is no one jot of variance in all their doctrine, nor no dissension in any article of their Confession. In deed this argument troubleth much the man, that where division and dissension is in the chief points of Christian religion, 
Note the ground of this book.  there must needs heresies be. But the Lutherans can not deny their enormous dissension and open variance in sundry points, yea in these articles of their Confession made at Augspurg, Ergo there be heretics among them and heresies great store. For whereas to the first proposition of this argument no man can gainsay, but if he be extreme impudent or very foolish, M. Smidelin shifteth himself to the other part and denieth stoutly that there is any one jot of variance or controversy between them. Now then to prove the contrary and to stop the impudent fellows mouth (who being oftentimes friendly warned persevereth yet in his folly) I will bring here certain of his fellow Ministers and such as himself is, which may a little remove his bonnet from his eyes, and show him the glass, where he may see his own impudent face, and shameless look that blusheth not at so loud a lie. 
The first testimony of the Lutherans disagreeing.  Nicolaus Amsdorfius in his book entitled Publica Confessio purae doctrinae evangelii & confutatio praesentium Swermerorum vel factiosorum, writeth thus:  
The matter amendeth never a whit, but waxeth daily worse and worse: It is no other wise likely but that we shall utterly lose the gospel and in stead of it have nothing but mere lies and heinous errors: and that for no other cause then that every man followeth his own wit: and desireth not after the truth. In the diet and conference had lately at worms. 
In the year. 1557.  Brentius and the adiaphorists would not condemn Zuinglius and Osiander, because they were men learned in the tongues and liberal sciences. But hissed us out of the company and laughed us to scorn because we refused to agree unto the conference and diet unless those men were condemned. Some of our fellows (the Lutherans) pretend that they condemn the Zwinglians, but Brentius his preface upon Master james Smidelins' book testifieth the contrary. For here they go about to reconcile godly Luther and Zuinglius, which is impossible. For who ever heard that two contradictories could agree? Such childish and impossible matters they be not ashamed to affirm, which will be counted teachers and Masters of Christian religion, as though we and all other were stocks and blocks. But surely we can not embrace with quiet conscience the heresies of Zuinglius and Osiander. Neither can we subscribe and yield to such as have departed and severed themselves from Luther. 
The definition of a zealous Lutheran.  Truly if they had constantly cleaved unto the word of God and Luther and had not given themselves to alteratious, or yielded to them which first altered from Luther, there should have been no dissension nor variance amongst us, and all these mischiefs which we see now hang over our heads had been escaped. Farther although the Ministers which after our departure remained in the conference at worms, wrote after and published it abroad that they would not depart from the Confession of Augspurg, yet in deed they do clean contrary. For while they will not condemn the Zwinglians and the Osiandrines, they can by no means agree with our Confession off Augspurg: but in so doing, they be all ready departed from it. So have they caused dissension and removed all means of agreement. 
Our protestants have well marked this.  For if they would condemn with us the foresaid errors of Zwinglius and Osiander, then might we agree together against the papists. But no we whereas the Confession of Augspurg teacheth that the Blood and passion of Christ is our righteousness, and that the bread in the lords supper is the body of Christ, this can not possibly agree with the madness of Zwinglius and Osiander. Therefore these two repugn, to say, they remain in the Confession off Augspurg, and yet go about to defend Zwinglius and Osiander.  
We therefore first and formest do condemn for heretics Caspar Swenckfeldius and the anabaptists which do contemn and refuse the external preaching of God's word. secondarily we condemn the Sect of Osiander which holdeth no less gross and impudent heresies. 
Our protestants a-recondemned by the Lutherans.  Thirdly we condemn the Sacramentaries, Zwinglius and his fellows, fourthly we condemn the Indifferents because in their churches beside the gospel they will have men's traditions to be observed. For the gospel admitteth no commandments of men to be kept in their churches. But these indifferents colour and counterfeit all things. to please the Emperor they embrace the papistical Mass and religion, which yet they love not in deed, and with all this will seem to remain in Luther's doctrine. Is not this to deny God and his holy word? Is not this to beguile and mock the Emperor? Is not this to feign the papistical religion and counterfeit the Lutheran? This is if any thing be, to halt on both sides, to serve God and Baal, to please God and men. fifthly we condemn this proposition: good works are necessary to salvation. 
The master Lutherans of Lipsia be Pelagians  Beside these five some there are (as D. Pfeffinger bishop of Lipsia and his fellows) that teach man to be able and sufficient to dispose himself to grace, and make himself meet to receive the holy ghost by the natural power of his own free will, as the same Sophistes Thomas and Scote taught. 
The school doctors never taugh so.  For this Pfeffinger in a disputation made about two years passed of free will rashly and boldly concludeth with these words. A man may by his own natural power assent to the gospel, apprehend the promise of Christ, not withstand the holy ghost, etc. Thus far Amsdorfius. Here we see this Lutheran Master condemneth six divers sects and schisms, which all (except only the Swenckfeldians) do yet depend of the Confession of Augspurg, and defend, and embrace even to this day their doctrine. For though some peradventure do ween that the Swinglians be excluded from the Confession of Augspurg, yet I find the contrary in John of lasky writing to the King of Pole, 
Calvinus in ultima admonitione sua ad Ioach. Westphalum.  and in John Calvin. in the which places both of them affirm directly, that the Confession of Augspurg teacheth the very same touching the Sacrament of the altar, that Zwinglius and the Sacramentaries do. Seeing then these foresaid sects so bitterly vary one with an other in the chief points of our religion, that each pronounceth the other heretic, truly right it is, they be taken for such as they pronounce themselves to be. In the mean yese by this process of Amsdorffius how well and truly M. Doctor Smidelin affimeth and maketh him self sure that among the Lutherans is no dissension touching the articles of the Confession of Augspurg. Yet to make this matter more clear, I will add hereunto some other testimonies of their own fellow ministers, if peradventure their own conscience may touch them to acknowledge the truth. Nicolaus gallus in Thesibus & Hipotiposibus. in the last leaf writeth thus.  
The altercations and contentions between us (Luth●ran preachers) are not light nor of light matters, 
The second testimony.  but of the principal articles of Christian religion, of the law and the gospel, 
Special articles of contradictions among the Protestants.  of justification and good works, of the Sacraments and use of Ceremonies, so great that they seem impossible to be brought at one. For some are plain contradictions that can not be reconciled. as. That the law must be preached in Christ his church and must not be preached. That our righteousness is the very substance of God in us, or his operation, action, and omission, within us, or the imputing of his obedience without us. That the Blood of Christ doth justify no man, and that (which the Apostle saith) we are justified in his blood. 
Rom. 6.  That no man hath been saved without good works: that good works are necessary to salvation. And contrairely that good works are not necessary to salvation, or as the psalm saith, happy are they whose sins are forgiven, happy is the man to whom God hath not imputed sin, which seeketh not after good works nor can have none to be saved by. That Christ is in the Supper and is received there corporally under bread and wine both of the believers and of those which believe not, and again that he is there only spiritually and is received only of them which believe. Thus far Nicolaus Gallus. who although he rehearse with no less stomach the contrary and repugnant heresies of the Lutherans his fellows, then Amsdorffius doth, yet beside he confesseth there are many more a coining and ready to come to light. And no doubt but it is so: for not long since the princes of Saxony and Countess of Mansfeld, 
The third testimony  each off them hath set forth severally great volumes touching this matter, where they reaken up unleven sundry sects lately sprung up, condemning them all for heresies to wit.  

The anabaptists.  
The Seruetians.  
The Antinomi.  

* Although in very deed the jesuits are no more to be counted among these he retikes, than pigeons among crows.  The jesuits,  
The Osiandrins,  
The Melanchthonistes,  
The Maioristes.  
The adiaphorists or Indifferents.  
The Swenckfeldians,  
The Sacramentaries.   
Now where Smidelin denieth that among the ghospellers is no heresy, no dissension in religion, no variance in the Confession of Augspurg, I would he told us what is it that those Superintendents, Amsdorfius and Nicolaus Gallus, condemn in their former sentences? What meaned the princes of Saxony and the Countess of Mansfeld? Do not all these forenamed sects acknowledge the Confession of Augspurg and belong thereunto? The anabaptists in deed do not, and much less the jesuits. But all the rest walk under the wing of the new gospel and uphold themselves under the pretence of the Confession of Augspurg. For Lasky in Pole, and Calvin in Savoy labour continually to persuade men, 
The Sacramentaries desire to be under the wing of the Lutherans.  thrt their sacramentary doctrine is express in the Confession off Augspurg. Here I would demand of Master Smidelin whether the articles condemned here and recited of the princes of Saxony, the Countess of Mansfeld, of Amsdorfius and Gallus, and defended of those ten sects above mentioned, do properly appertain to the Confession of Augspurg or no. Surely I see not what answer this doctor of Gopping is able to make us: for if he say these articles touch not the doctrine of the Confession of Augspurg. then would I desire him to take the pains for his estimation sake only to affirm the same in one printed leaf of paper, against those Superintendents Amsdorffius and Gallus and against the princes and Counts aforesaid. Which if he dare not for his life to do, then must he needs be an impudent fellow and past all shame and honesty, to affirm openly that the Lutherans do all agree in the ground and chief points of their Confession off Augspurg. Here I hold this wily fox, and be he never so ssipper yet shall he not escape here my fingers. And therefore yet we will lay hand on him more surely.  
In the book of the Countess of Mansfeld against the unleven sects, 
fo. 179.  the Ministers say in this wise The reader need not to marvel that Osiander to avouch his matter allegeth plenty of scripture, but rather aught diligently to mark how wickedly he wretheth and corrupteth the right meaning and understanding of holy Scripture. Thus much say they. 
In lib. contra longiorem Catalogun.  But what now saith Master Smidelin hereunto? In the book he made this year against the long table, where he goeth about to reconcile together the Masters of Wittenberg and Osiander thus he writeth. Then both parts prove their opinions by holy Scripture, and truly with the very same sentences, but not the very same interpretations, although yet not contrary. Let us hearken I pray you how sweetly these bells agree. The Ministers off Mansfeld say that Osiander wickedly wretheth and corrupteth holy scripture: this man saith, that the interpretations of them both are not contrary. Again in the same book of the Countess of Mansfeld thus we read. 
sol. 166.  Neither is this error of Osiander sightely to be passed over, by the which he bindeth the benefits of Christ to certain circunstaunces, to bring men thereby to desperation, while the mind of man hangeth in doubt whether he be fit to receive the benefits of Christ or no. 
Fol. 1. & 2.  But clean contrarily writeth Smidelin in the book above named. If that Osiander saith he or his adversaries because of this contention inschole points only are to be counted heretics what shall we say, I pray you, of the old fathers? But how sweetly agree the semen? The Ministers of Mansfeld say. that the doctrine of Osiander hath such a notable error annexed unto it, that it forceth men to desperation. Smidelin saith, it is but a light contention in school points. But this fellow perceiving that such manifest and divers heresies can in deed by no means be reconciled together, he bringeth in the old fathers for example, as though they had used to confute heretics by false interpretation of holy scripture, which can never be proved of them. Yea it is impossible that heresies may be overthrown by false doctrine. 
Li. 8. Top.  For as Aristotle teacheth, it is impossible that of a false ground any truth may be concluded. 
Fol. 152.  Farther in this book of Mansfeld the Ministers say. We ought to suspect the doctrine of Osiander, 
Now Lutherans can abide no new doctrine.  because it is new and not heard of before in the church and we find nothing in holy scripture that is anything like to the doctrine of Osiander. Let us now here what saith Master Smidelin in his book alleged. A child of seven years old, which had learned but his catechism may evidently perceive that both these doctrines, 
Fol. 1. 2.  of Osiander and of the Witenbergers, disagree never a whit. If there were in our german tongue any one word, that might thouroughely express an impudent and shameless fellow, surely it would now serve well the turn to trick this doctor in his terms. So impudently and so past all shame in the face of all the world, he lieth so loudly, and boasteth so bestly, that among them all, is no difference in doctrine, no variance in opinions, but all smooth, all quiet, all uniform and agreeable. yea and that so evidently so sweetly so like pigeons they agree and coll together, that a very child of seven year old would be the better to see it.  
But seeing this good man sleepeth so soundly in the sweet consent and uniform harmony of his brethren, that it seemeth he hath forgot all the world, and remembreth not the pretty pageants they have played of late, and what notes of discord hath fallen amoge, I will be so bold as a little to wake him: and call him to remembrance of the fourteen Lutheran churches, 
The fourth testimony.  which all of late wrote and set forth in print their writings against the Confession of Andreas Osiander, among the which the chief are, The Ministers or divines of Wittenberg, the Ministers of the younger Lords of Vinaria, the Ministers of Magdenburg. The ministers of Frankford on this side of Viader. The ministers of John of Costrin the Marquis, of the dukes of Pomerain, and of the cities on the seacost of Saxony as of Lubek, of Hamburg, of Breme, of Luneburg, and divers other. Unto all the which churches and Ministers Osiander in his book entitled Schmeckbier awnswered, 
Vide joannis Functij scriptum de rebus Osiandri.  paying them home with such coin as they laid out, so that now they are both on fire one against an other cursing and charging each other with heinous and abominable heresies. He that listeth not to believe me, let him prove and try the truth in their books that are abiode in all men's hands, let him search the printers shops of Germany, and he shall find bitter contentions and grievous controversies between the Lutherans and the Osiandrins. Yet Smidelin winketh and noddeth still and will not see all this. But if he be an upright and plain dealing man let him come forth, and prove in open writing that any thing here said in false or feigned.  
Well Smidelin goeth forth after his fashion, and laboureth against all reason to make the world ween That among the Lutherans and the Zwinglians there is no variance of any weight or force touching any articles of our faith of Christian religion. But against this saying of Smidelin, 
The fift testimony Luther himself.  Luther himself directly pronounceth, codemning the Swinglians in these words. 
Tom. 2. I●o. 260.  I must needs eschew and avoid them as men condemned by their own judgement: neither may I join with them in any means, nor by letters nor by writings, 
Math. 18.  nor by word nor by deed, as the Lord hath commanded, whether he be Swenckfeldius, Zwinglius, or what soever he be called. For I account them all a like (as in deed they are) whosoever believe not, that in the Supper of the Lord, the bread is his true and natural body, which as well judas and the wicked man doth receive as S. Peter and all the Saints. Whosoever will not believe this, 
Luther excludeth Suinglius and Swencfeldius from his grace.  let him not meddle with me, or in writing or in talk, nor let him not look for any communion with me. For he shall but lose his labour. And a little after. It shall nothing help the Swermers or Sacramentaries that they trifle about the Sacrament of the spiritual eating and drinking of the body and blood of Christ: and of the charity and unite of Christians, 
Fo. 263.  etc. It is in vain that they believe in the father, the Son, and the holy ghost, and in Christ our saviour. All this I say nothing availeth them, how truly and sincerely so ever they pronounce this faith with their false and blasphemous tongue, as long as they deny this one article, or reprove it as false where Christ saith of the Sacrament. 
Note.  Take (bread) and eat This is my body. For this is the manner of all heretics, first to begin but with one article and then after to deny all the rest, 
Luther did which he reproved in his scholars. Note how heretics may be used.  even as a ring if it be one's broken or cleft, it is unprofitable and unfite, and as a bell, if he be cracked, or crazed in any part, he loseth his so wnde and is worth nought. Thus far Luther Let us now on the other side here the answer of the Swinglians of Zuri●h In the third treatise of their book made against the last Confession of Luther thus they writ. 
The protestants of Zurich against Luther.  Luther craketh himself to be the prophet and Apostle of the Germans: which never learned of any man but all other of him, that no man did any thing but Luther hath done all: and whatsoever he hath not done, hath remained undone. Whatsoever he hath said it must stand, and no man so hardy to gainsay it. if men speak not just as Luther doth, than they are cursed and persecuted as heretics. And a little before. Luther hath forsaken god and all his honour calling us a condemned and cursed sect. But let him take heed lest with this tasty and wicked talk, he condemn not himself, and prove himself an arch-heretic seeing that he neither will nor can have the society of such as sincerely teach and confess Christ our Lord. And how wonderfully doth Luther here betray himself with all his fellow sprets, and devils? What foul words useth he meet only for the devil? For he saith that there dwelleth in the Zwinglians a malicious devil, 
Ani●●um in sa●hanasiatum, super satha●a●atum persathana, a●um.  both now and ever, that their heart and mind hath the devil dwelling in them, raining over them, and piercing thorough them. that their mouth is full of all lies, and the devil himself is poured in them, poured over them, and poored thorough them. Did ever any man hear such talk of any sober or reasonable man's mouth, yea or of any furious devil or raging spirit? Again in the same place. Luther seeketh only after his own, he is obstinate, proud and high minded condemning boldly and delivering up to the devil, all which will not agree unto his mind. He raileth and curseth like a devil. There is no token of meekness or benevolence in him. Here would I wish M. Smidelin to come forth, and tell us what Luther meaneth by such words of his, as we have here alleged. I am very sure, he is never able to make accord between the opinions of Luther and Zwinglius touching the Sacrament, although he laboureth much about it. As when he writeth in an other place. W●en the one part (saith he) teacheth bread in the holy Supper to signify the body of Christ, to be the figur● of the body of Christ, to be the value of the body of Christ, to be the pledge of the body of Christ, yet all these teach, believe and profess one doctrine and one opinion, the difference is only in the interpretation as Luther Witnesseth, and in the phrase or manner of speaking, not in the thing itself. This saith Smidelin. and Amsdorffius in his confession objecteth it unto him with these words. There be (Lutherans) which say they condemn the Zwinglians, but the preface of Brentius upon Master james Smidelins' book testifieth the contrary. For here they go about on god's name to reconcile godly Luther and Zwinglius together, which is utterly impossible. For who ever heard that contradictories could be made one? Such childish matters and impossible things they are not ashamed to warrant which bear themselves for Masters of Christian religion, as though all we were stocks and blocks.  
Let here the Christian reader confer together these debates a●d contentions of the two prophets of god, Luther and Swinglius, and set Smidelin as a pacifier and arbiter to bring them at one. surely I doubt not, but he shall soon perceive that Smidelin in this enterprise, other hath lost some peace of his brain, or hath utterly cast away all honesty and shame. Luther saith directly and plainly that the Swinglians doctrine is not only contrary both in word and in deed to his doctrine, but also that their opinion is so pestiferous and execrable, that he doubteth not to pronounce them all stark heretics that subscribe and agree unto it. yea and this with such a vehemency he uttereth that he affirmeth: who so ever swerveth in this artikle of the sacrament, he is an heretic in all other artikles and points of the faith. Now cometh Smidelin and saith, that the opinion of Luther and Swinglius touching the Supper is all one, and that all the controversy remaineth only in words. And in his latin book, set forth against me, he saith of them. It is most certain that their opinion and mind is all one, therefore they agree in doctrine.  
And where as I noted that among the Suinglians were eight sects that Smidelin denieth also. and saith Although Zwinglius varied and swerved some what from Luther yet of their schism there were but two parts. Therefore in his book against my table he raileth in this sort. 
Folly, 3. libri contra catalogum.  Of these two parts this nightraven (so terming me) hath made eight sects. The first part whom he calleth Adessenarii, which believe the presence of the true body and blood of Christ in the Supper, he divideth in to four sects as the Significativi the Tropistae, the Energici, and the Arabonarij. wherein who looketh near to the matter shall see he hath played the wicked and naughty man's part. I know very well that the unlearned man reading these his words, must needs suppose that I have iniuriousely slandered the Swinglians, and done like a false fellow, to charge honest men with eight divers heresies, whereas the Lutherans and the Swinglians, are divided only in two parts, and those two parts also (as Smidelin saith) consist only in the phrase, or manner of speaking not in the thing or deed. What then have we here to answer? Luther shall take the pains to do it for me. which in his brief Confession writeth after this sort. At the very first these men 
Luther against the Sacramentaries.  (meaning the Sacramentaries) were well warned of the holy ghost, when upon that one text, they divided themselves in to seven spirits, each one differing always from the other. First Carolstadius would have the text so, that This is my body should signify, Here sitteth my body. Then Zwinglius saith, that could not be well said though the father of heaven had revealed it therefore being moved with another holy spirit of his own, thus he turned the text. Take, eat, This signifieth my body. The third Oecolampadius, brought forth his third holy spirit, which turned that text in to another hew: as this. Take eat, this is the token of my body. 
Luther calleth Swencfeldius by the name of Stencfeldius in mockery, as one that stinketh.  The fourth Stencfeldius thinking to make his stench to smell as musk, brought us forth out of his holy spirit this rule. These words (This is my body) must be removed from our sight: for they do let us of the spiritual understanding, etc. The fift holy spirit being but the excrements of that other do thus read that text. Take and eat. That which is delivered for you is this my body. The sixth holy spirit saith: Take and eat. This is my body in remembrance. as though Christ had said, Take and eat: this is the monument of my body. The seventh holy spirit joannes Campanus bringeth this exposition. Take and eate● 
Corpus pancum. Of this mid was Melanchthon at his later days. In judicio Heidelbergensi.  This is my bready body or body of bread. Beside all these an other spirit flieth about (for the devil is an holy and a great spirit) which persuadeth men, that herein is no article of our faith, and therefore we ougth not to contend of this matter, but leave it free to every man to believe herein what he list. Thus far be the words of Luther. Is not here Smidelin an honest and an upright man? is he not a kind scholar toward his Master, Luther? The master saith, There are among the Swinglians eight divers factions or sects. The scholar saith. That the Zwinglians among themselves do perfectly agree: and from Luther, they differ only in words and manner of speaking. Is not think you Master Smidelin a trim pacifier? doth he not by good reason reconcile these protestants together? In the book against my table he raileth, and saith, he must needs be a wicked person which would say, that among the Swinglians were eight divers and several opinions: 
Doctor Smidelin proveth Luther to be a wiched man.  and who is so blind that seeth not Luther himself in his words above alleged to recite eight contrary opinions of the Swinglians? It followeth then by the judgement and sentence of Doctor Smidelinus, that Luther is a wicked and pernicious fellow. Surely very well and as it should be. for such honour use kind scholars to give to their masters. But truly they are both used according to their deserts: while the Master proveth his scholar a liar, and the scholar proveth his Master a knave. and now it happeneth as we commonly see of a froward cur a peevish whelp.  
But what will Smidelin say, if that among the Lutherans themselves, 
Sacramentary sects and divisions among the Lutheraus. The sixth testimony Melanchthon.  be sacramentary sects and schisms, and that not a few? This present year 1560. in the second of Octobre was printed at Heidelberg the judgement of Philip Melanchthon, touching the Supper of our Lord, dedicated to the honourable prince elector Count palatin of the Rhine. where he writeth thus. It is not hard but somewhat dangerous to answer, yet I will declare that debate and controversy which happened at Heidelberg, and admonish men as much as I may at this time. I will also pray unto Christ our Lord that it will please him prosperously to direct these our advises and their doings. Great and grievous contentions shall undoubtedly arise in the world, upon the Controversy of our lords supper for the world must needs be punished for their idolatry and other heinous offences Let us then pray that the Son of God teach us and direct us. But seeing that many are yet in many places feeble in the faith and not well instructed in this doctrine off the church, but rather nuzzled in many errors, it is meet that first we take order for such. I like therefore very well the advise of the most honourable prince elector that all such as contend of the Supper of the Lord be put to silence, 
So in the Alcoran of Mahomet all disputing of religion is forbed.  lest dissension and variance arise in the church yet tender and weak, whereby the feblein faith might perhaps be seduced and disquieted. And I would wish also, that the contentious persons on both sides were some other where. Which being sent away, the rest might agree into some form of words. 
Melanchthon would have us change th● institution of Christ in the Supper, and say this is the participation of my body, whereas Christ said, this is my body which is up and d●wne Suinglians heresy.  And in this controversy me thinketh it were best to keep the words of S. Paul. The bread which we break is the participation of Christ his body much also must be said of the fruit of the Supper to stir up men more to love this pledge, and the oftener to use it. Again the word Participation, is to be declared and expounded. For S. Paul saith not (as the papists do) that the nature of bread is changed. nor that the bread is the substantial body of Christ as the ministers of Bremesaie. Nor as Heshusious saith, that bread is the true body of Christ: but that it is a participation or communion, that is, by the which we are coupled and made one with the body off Christ. Which copulation and making of one consisteth in the use: not without it. imagining that mice could gnaw that bread. The papists and such as are like them to earnestly contend that the body of Christ is under the form of bread, or included in the bread beside the use, and when it is not received. they will have it adored also as Doctor Morlin of Bruns wick saith. Thou must not say. Mum. Mum: But what is that which the priest hath in his hands. Sarcerius would have all the parcels that shall down, to be gathered up, and to be burned together with the earth on which it fell. Two years past when we were at worms, a question was asked us out of the Court whether the body of Christ passed down in to the belly and so forth. Such absurd questions ought not to be moved better it is that the form of S. 
A question of the ghospellers disproved ●y Melanchthon.  Paul's words be kept and that men be well instructed of the use and fruit of this Sacrament. The form of words of the Supper ye may see in the ordination of the church of the Megapolians, where also advertisement is given of the fruit thereof. The Son off God in the ministry of the gospel is present, and worketh also in those that believe. But he is present not for cause of the bread but for man's sake, as he saith him self. Tarry in me and I in you, 
joan. 15. joan. 14.  I in my father and you in me and I in you. And with this true Comforts he maketh us his membres, and testifieth that he will raise up and quicken our bodies. Thus do old writers expound the Supper of the Lord. but some term this true and plain doctrine, buskins or shows meet for every foot. and will have that the body is in the bread or in the form of bread: as though the Sacrament were made for the breads sake or to be adored papistically. Then other imagine that the body should be enclosed in the bread. some will have it every where and in all places. Melanchthon dallieth here at his pleasure: 
The words of Staphylus.  but all holy fathers and old writers, have continually hitherto taught the conversion, transmutation, and changing of the creature of bread in to the body of our Lord, that we may truly say with Christ, This is my body. Heshusius saith, he can not agree with Origen terming the bread and wine the signs of the the body and blood. So he rejecteth Clemens Alexandrinus, ready to do the like to Augustin, Ambrose, Prosper, 
O the impudence of Melanchthon. for these fathers do all teach the contrary.  Dyonisius, Tertullian, Bede, basil, and Gregory, Nazianzen (which calleth the body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to Theodoret which writeth that the nature of bread remaineth. 
* No nor your authority Mclanchthon.  Is then the authority of Heshusius so great, that we will rather believe him than the old writers 
* This is a loud lie.  which testify clearly that the church in their time had no adoration nor no such doctrine as the papists no we teach? For seeing these are 
* Is not the doctrine of Melanchthon new? the fellow raveth.  new and strange in the church, we doubt whether it be convenient to bring in new doctrine in the church. And I am not ignorant, that many allege forged books under the name of old writers: but let the learned judge hereof. I will not make any long debate of this matter presently. nor entre to dispute with contentious men defending the idolatry and robberies of their forefathers. Whose tyranny and cruel persecutions I feel also. I thought good only to declare my mind herein what were best to be done in respect of our weak and tender church. 
Ergo it is new.  Therefore I am still of that mind that both parts be put to silence, and that one form of words be used. Which if some like not, 
Hoc videlicet est Syn●retisare.  and will not therefore come unto the Sacrament, they may be permitted to do as they see good, so that yet they stir up no dissension among the people. This much Melanchthon. 
Melanchthon a dissembling ghospeller.  who although he would never before this time openly in writing profess his mind of the Sacrament, yet he always told his familiar friends and men of worship, that in this point he condemned Luther, and clave unto Swinglius, correcting yet a little his opinion. For where as Swinglius said, This signifieth my body, he will have it said This is the participation of my body, which new interpretation is plainly a new Sacramentary heresy, and never heard of among the rest of the Swinglians. And to maintain this his proper and new heresy, he useth two points of subtlety and falsehood. first when he saith the holy fathers taught no conversion or transubstantiation of the bread, which is a very impudent and loud lie. 
See the x. article of D. hardings awnswer to Master juells challenge fol. 124. Five sects among the Lutherans of the Sacrament.  For the conversion of the bread and real presence of Christ his true body and blood in the Sacrament may evidently be proved out of all the fathers above named and many more: and the contrary opinion clearly condemned. secondarily when he rebuketh his own scholars, and chargeth them with five other sacramentary heresies. For he saith some be of Heshusius mind, some of Sarcerius, some other follow the ministers of Breme, and some joachimus Morlinus, than he allegeth other whose opinion is that Christ his body may be in every place. These five heresies, which (as Melanchthon testifieth) are among the Lutherans, and the other eight which Luther showeth to be among the Swinglians, make all together thirten heresies. which all noweadaies upon the Sacrament only are followed, 
Thirten heresies among the protestāns touching the blessed Sacrament.  professed, and defended among the protestants.  
Here again we may consider the honesty and truth of M. Doctor Smidelin, which is not ashamed to term such open schisms, manifest to all the world, a sure and certain agreement of Catholic religion, who beside all this knoweth well enough, what agreate and vehement altercation there was this present year 1560, at Heidelberg among the divines and ministers there, touching only this point of the blessed Sacrament. of the which matter Guilelmus Klebicius of Brandeburg hath written very bitterly and sharply. And this much hitherto of the dissension among the protestants touching only the point of the blessed Sacrament.  
The dissension and variance of the Lutherans touching the doctrine of Penance, 
Nicolaus Gallus libr. cui titulum fecit, Fundamenta Nic. Galli etiamnumperstant & in Thematibussuis  I have noted before in a little book. For some of them put two, some three parts of penance. But doctor Smidelin will accord all this discord with a word: saying, it is all one to put two or three parts of penance. As though that all other Superintendents and ministers of Luther's sect ought to couch, and obey the pontifical authority of Doctor Smidelin taking upon him like a pope of protestants. But Illyricus will not abide that, persuading himself that he is of as good metal to make a Lutheran pope, 
The seventh testimony Illyricus.  as any other is. and therefore he will not grant to the Masters of Wittenberg, no nor to his own Master, Luther, to define, divide and determinat the gospel at their pleasure. For in the book, which he entitled, 
Fol. D. 3.  An information upon certain articles of Christian religion, he writeth in this sort. But not so much he (meaning Melanchthon) as his proctors do exasperate this matter: although they agree not among themselves: for one interpreteth the matter after one sort, and the other after an other, as it happeneth in evil causes. One saieh that the word Penance signifieth only sorrow or contrition an other, that it signifieth contrition and faith with al. One saith that the gospel preacheth repentance of one sin 
The ghospellers doubt what the gospel preacheth  only, as of infidelity: an other saith, of all sins. Some imagine this gloze, that the gospel preacheth repentance unproperly, undirectly and by occasion only: some say that consequently it preacheth repentance. An other saith by a figure of contrariety: the fourth saith, after a sort and in some point. The fift saith, it doth but argue men's incredulity or slackness of belief. The sixth saith that it rejecteth the small faith. The seventh saith that it preacheth repentance not principally. Thus they disagree among themselves no less than the Sacramentaries or Babylonians, or those builders of idols that isaiah speaketh of: where one thinketh to hold up the idol with glue, another with nails, 
Esaiae. 41.  and the third with chains. But all these gloss both destroy themselves one another, and the definition also. Thus far Illyricus. Doth not Illyricus affirm here that Melanchthons' divines vary one from an other, and set up seven sundry opinions, never a true: and all repugnant one with an other, no less than the sects of the Sacramentaries? and that they agree as the builders of the tower of Babylon in old time? saith not directly all this Illyricus? And what saith Smidelinus? We in the principal articles and ground of our doctrine do not vary. Which if it be true, then must we say, that the doctrine of penance and of the Sacrament of the altar appertain not to the ground of Christian religion, nor are not necessary articles of the same. For Smidelin in his little book, which he set forth against me, standeth stiff in this mind. 
Libello contra trimem brem Theologiam. fol. 80.  That it forceth not whether two or three parts of penance be taught: nor skilleth any whit, whether you believe uprightly, or embrace that sevenfold heresy contrary in itself, in the matter of penance. Again in his book against my table writing of the altercations between the Illyricans and the adiaphorists, he saith. Although one writ bitterly against the other, yet in their churches there is no alteration of doctrine, but they profess and teach the pure doctrine of the gospel in perfect agreement with us and themselves, even as before this altercation began. How soundeth, think you, these words of Smidelin with the saying of Illyricus? In like manner doth he defend Andrea's Musculus. For where I writ, that he teacheth, the Godhead of Christ to have as well died in the Cross as the manhood, Smidelin goeth about to purge him in these words. 
Fol. o. 3.  I have understood now that Staphylus doth injuriously slander Andrea's Musculus. For Musculus in open writing published and printed hath purged himself against Staphylus. Thus saith Smidelin. It is the nature and custom of all heretics not to continue long in one mind. But to deny to morrow which they said to day. So doth Musculus. And although Smidelin, as he confesseth himself, be utterly ignorant of the debate between Musculus and Stancarus (wherein those words be uttered) yet he sticketh not to write that I slander Musculus. Truly because he would be counted a common pacifier of all contentions, a physician for all sores, and a reconciler of all unruly heresies. But what will both Musculus and Smidelin say unto me, if I bring their own brethren and fellow heretics, witnesses against them? 
The eight testimony.  The Lutheran churches of Pole sent to the university of Lausana for the determination of this matter between Musculus and Stancarus, and the doctors of Lausana sent them this answer. Although well beloved brethren, 
In epistolis Petri Statorij Galli Pinc●●uiae aeli●is anno 1560.  we can never say enough against the opinion of Islebius and Andreas Musculus teaching that Christ suffered in both natures of God and of man, and yet bringing no argument against the contrary. Nevertheless seeing you desire to know our judgement and mind of this opinion, we can not conceal it from you, etc. Thus therefore you shall understand. We deny utterly that God can suffer any mutation, & cae. Here thou mayest perceive, gentle reader, what kind of men these Lutherans are. Sometime hot, sometime cold: sometime white sometime black. And yet not withstanding Smidelin writeth, It is a great lie to say there is any difference among our divines, touching the articles of our Confession of Augspurg. 
In praefatione libelli contra Staphylum.  It is a world to see how this fellow hath hardened his face against all shame, and how proudly he persuadeth himself to blind all the world, seeing and feeling that the Lutherans disagree in the articles and ground of their Confession of Augspurg.  
For the better Declaration whereof, let us yet a little more diligently weigh and expend the articles of their Confession of Augspurg. Clere it is that their chief and principal articles are, of the Blessed trinity, of free will, of justification, of the law and the gospel, of good and evil works, of faith, of Christ jesus our Mediator, of the numbered of Sacraments, of Baptim, of the Supper of our Lord, of Penance and such other. These are the principal and chief articles of the Confession of Augspurg. Which if Smidelin deny, I appeal to the printed copy of their confession: being very sure that all these articles are there. But if he grant me they are all there, than I demand of him as I have often times done before, whether he will confess or deny that the Ministers and Preachers of this new gospel agree in all these articles or no. 
A brief recapitulation of the schisines and dissensions among the protestants. Epistola Illyrici ad M. Wernerun Barben. calvinus de pre destinatione et Illyricus in articulis ineundae con cordiae, etalijs plerique omnets. Illyricus in libro suae informationis. Gallus in exceptionum libro & cae. Anisdorfius lib. opera bona esse perniciosa. Illyricus contra Mentum et ali●i.  If (as he hath done hitherto) he deny it, I must needs rest upon my former sentence, and pronounce that surely his wits be not his own, he is brainsick and beside himself.  
For he knoweth very well (as anon in the Genealogy of Luther or table of the heretics we shall at large declare) that first as concerning the blessed trinity, divers heresies have in a short space sprung up. As the heresies of servetus, of Illyricus and of divers other in Bohem, and in the upper Silesia. Again evident it is that the calvinists and the Illyricans can not abide to hear of free will, whereas the Melanchthonistes and the adiaphorists contend hereof bitterly against them. Nor it is not unknown what grievous altercations be among the ghospellers about justification. In so much that there have risen fourteen contrary opinions against Osiander, only upon this word of justification. And how terribly fight Illyricus, Gallus, and such as take their parts, against the Melanchthonistes and the adiaphorists about the name of the law and the gospel, how one differeth from the other, and what each one is? Now how the ghospellers like the brethren of Cadmus, rail and brawl about good works, some saying they are profitable to salvation, and some that they are pernicious, all the world seeth and feeleth. As touching faith, how many years have the ghospellers had as though it were open war thereupon? while some cry that Only faith justifieth, some that faith for the more part justifieth, and good works for the less part, or as some other writ, faith principally and good works partly. What shall I tell how they storm and rage in contradiction about Christ, 
Calvinus in institutione Christiana. Melanchthon in ultimis locis communnibus. Lutherus libro de capt. Babylonica Zuingliuscontra Vrbanum Regium de Baptismo. Lutherus in postrema confessione. Illyricus in suae informationis libro. Gallus in exceptionibus ●ontra acta Wittem bergensium Professorun.  how he is our mediator and how he doth justify us? For some teach that Christ justifieth man only by his manhood, some only by his godhead, some again teach that the godhead of Christ died in the Crosse. About the numbered of the Sacraments there hath been a long time and is yet among them cruel variance and dissension. For some say, there are but two Sacraments, some three, some four, some none at all. The calvinists think otherwise of Baptim and the virtue thereof, than the Lutherans do: but the anabaptists differ from them both. As touching the Supper of our lord, Luther hath noted eight divers sects among the Swinglians, and Melanchthon of late five among the Lutherans. About penance Illyricus reakoneth up seven contrary heresies among the adiaphorists. But what should I recite all that may be said? Here again I demand of Smidelin, let him tell me, whether those articles, by reason of which the princes of Saxony and Countess of Mansfeld condemned the ten sects of heresy, be of the Confession of Augspurg or no. Again whereas Amsdorffius, Illyricus and Gallus in open and printed books do testify that the Melanchthonistes and adiaphorists have swerved in six or seven principal articles from the Confession off Augspurg, whether that altercation and contention be not of the articles of this Confession or no. Howsoever Smidelin here answereth, he can not escape, but he must buckle with the Illyricans. Yea Gallus hath of late set forth a great commentary, wherein he doth not only accuse the Melanchthonistes and adiaphorists, but proveth plainly that they have departed like Apostatas from the Confession off Augspurg in the most principal and weightiest articles thereof. By these articles therefore above rehearsed, and by divers other which you may see in my table of heretics, it is evident and can not be denied that very few articles of the Confession of Augspurg remain, which are not distracted and torn in to sundry and divers heresies.  
Surely any common lay or unlearned man if he desire to know the truth hereof, he needeth not much learning of skill to espy the contrarietes of the protestants: only he may diligently read, weigh, and think upon the places that I have alleged out of their own books and writings, and he shall find to be (alas) to true, all that I have noted of the divers, contrary, and repugnant sects of the Lutherans. I ask then of Smidelin whether ever he read in the Confession of Augspurg the articles above reakoned. Again whether they belong to the ground of the same Confession. Or if these articles were clean taken out of the Confession, what would be left? if he answer that the above rehearsed articles be not of the Confession of Augspurg, every man that hath seen the books, can prove him a liar. For I appeal to the book of that Confession: and I am very sure that the whole ground of that Confession lieth in those articles. If he grant that those articles are the chief points and ground of that Confession, he must be driven to say, that the Lutherans in those articles agtee very well and vary in no point, or that they vary not so, that for that variance they may be charged of heresies. Now then let Smidelin come forth and tell us, if he stand stiff in his opinion, how he esteemeth the Princes off Saxony and Countess off Mansfeld: 
Lib. contra 9 sectas. Li. contra●. sectas.  whether he think that Illyricus, Gallus, Amsdorffius, Morlinus, joachimus westphalus, be all liars, when they writ and condemn their own schismatical brethren and fellow heretics, and all professing the Confession of Augspurg, of more than fourteen sundry heresies: yea and that about the principal articles of their Confession of Augspurg. And whereas Smidelin laboureth to colour the matter, and like a pacifier to reconcile all that is a miss, surely he doth but utter his folly: and varieth from other himself. For Amsdorffius, Gallus and Illyricus (pretended bishops of the Lutherans) write and cry out that these debates and variances, are mere contradictories, not able to be justified until the one part be cast. If Amsdorffius with his fellows say truly, than doctor Smidelin lieth. If they lie and say all untruly, let them try it among themselves: and keep their estimation as well as they can.  
We said in the beginning of this last part, 
The second part off this book.  that the Lutherans lay to my charge, as though I fathered upon them certain articles which they never wrote nor taught. I have in deed gathered out (as they may know, which have read my other treatises) above a hundred articles of the Lutherans, 
De materia Lutheranae Theologiae.  partly directly false: partly mingled with falsehood: and have quoted the places of their writings, where every article might be found. Now the Masters off Wittenberg have picked out of the whole sum three or four fragments only, and deny that these pertain any thing to their doctrine. Hoping thereby that if under pretence of innocency, they could shake of those few, than their other heresies and absurdites would the less be espied, or molested. 
Theologiae Lutheranae trimembris epitome.  But this goeth the matter. In my book offered up at the diet of worms, in the which I gathered certain principal points wherein the Lutherans differ and vary not only from us Catholics, but also strive bitterly among themselves, 
Lib. de capt Babyl. titulo de matrimonio.  among other things I noted Luther's doctrine about Matrimony out of his own book, where it is written, Let then Marriage be the figure of Christ and his church, and a Sacrament not instituted of God, but invented of men in the church, being lead with ignorance as well of the word as of the thing. This the Masters of Wittenberg utterly deny, and therefore inveigh furiously and beyond all reason against me, 
Note here the modesty of protestants.  after this sort. Tell us thou wicked hypocrite, where ever it was said or written of any man in our churches, that matrimony was invented of men by the ignorance as well off the word as off the thing. Surely I think sober and wise men will not like this malapert and over hot talk of the Masters of Wit tenberg, although I had injured them in very deed. But how may they now like it, where as in this sentence I have neither added, neither taken away any one syllable or jot, but have even so recited it, word for word, as it lieth in the second Latin tome off Luther's works printed at Wittenberg with the preface of Melanchthon?  
But a man peradventure may here object, that of these only words the doctrine or mind of Luther can not certainly be gathered, for that in other places he hath otherwise written of Matrimony. Unto whom I answer thus. How constant and sure Lu there and his scholars have always been, and are yet in their doctrine, I have declared to the whole world in my little book entitled, Trimembris Theologia. But what was the sure and settled opinion of Luther touching matrimony, he hath declared himself in a certain sermon of matrimony printed at Wittenberg in the year 1522. And that no man may think that Luther ever changed or recanted that doctrine (as he did divers) the very same sermon, even word for word was printed again at Wittenberg in the year 1553. and is extant in the sixth german to me off Luther's works. Where thus he writeth word for word. 
Sexto Tomo germanico. Fol. 172.  Truly this I said, if a woman fit for the act of marriage have a husband unfit thereunto nor can not openly marry any other, and yet would be loath to commit any dishonesty, 
A wholesome lesson for the Lutheran dames.  because the bishop of Rome requireth about it many witnesses and much business to no purpose, she ought with these words talk unto her husband. You see good husband that you can not do your duty unto me, and you have disappointed my youthely body, and brought me beside in danger of my good name with great hindrance of my health: you see there is before God no marriage between us two. Let me therefore by your good leave marry privily with your brother or next Kinsman, so that always yet you bear the name of my husband, lest your goods come into other men's hands, and suffer yourself of your own accord to be deceived of me, as you have deceived me against my will. I said also that the husband ought to grant hereunto, and provide her the duty of marriage and children. 
The marriages of new ghospellers.  which if he refuse to do, she ought privily to depart from her husband in to some other country, a●d there marry an other. Such counsel I gave then, when I was yet fearful. But now I would give freer counsel: and that husband that beguiled his wife, I would handle more roughely: and likewise the woman that beguiled her husband: although this happened seldomer in women then in men. In such weighty matters that toucheth our body, our goods, estimation, and health, it is not enough to compass slightely by craft our neighbour: 
Note the justice of Luther.  a just and equal recompense must be required of him. That is, the woman lustily aught to play the hoore and commit adultery. 
Tom. 9 f●. 177.  And a little after. There be women so froward and so obstinately set, that although her husband fall ten times into incontinency, 
A spiritual lesson for the protestant husband.  she passeth not upon it. Here it is time that her husband speak thus unto her. If thou wilt not, an other will▪ if the wife will not, let the maid come. so that yet the husband warden her twice or thrice before, and open the matter to other, that her frowardness be known and punished before all the congregation. if she will not, 
Ester. 1.  then dimisse her from the. put a way Vasthi and take Hester, as king Assuerus did. Thus far Luther. I know very well the Lutherans be angry hereat, and would that there were no more talk of these matters. for that being discovered and brought to light, they work them much shame and dishonesty. Unto whom I awnswere that I am not the first that have discovered this their shameful doctrine of matrimony. divers have done the like before me: and especially the virtuous and Catholic Prince, of most worthy memory George Duke of Saxony, in his aunsuer against Luther. Which if Melanchthon have forgotten, yet I trust he remembreth what he wrote himself generally of all the sacraments, in his annotations upon the first epistle to the Corinthians the second chapter. where he writeth thus. There be in all two sacramental signs, baptim and the Supper of the Lord, the other which are called sacraments are but men's imaginations. Now what difference is there between the words of Luther saying, that Matrimony is but the invention of man, and these words of Melanchthon saying, That the rest of the Sacraments (among the which matrimony is counted) be but men's imaginations? And see the wicked doctrine off these ghospellers, calling the blessed Sacraments, but men's imaginations. 
Matth. 19 Marci. 10.  for what saith our Saviour of holy matrimony? What God hath coupled, let not man separat. Is this now the invention or imagination of men, and not rather the institution and ordonance of God himself?  
When the gospel of Luther first sprang up, 
The inconstancy of the Lutherans.  Melanchthon wrote that only faith justified, the Sacraments endued men with no grace, baptim and the Supper were only Sacramental signs. 
In locis communibus medijs & ultimis.  A little after he wrote they were true Sacraments and of two he made three, and at length four, so that in the space of few years that which he first laughed to scorn and called imaginations of men, suddenly they proved holy Sacraments, and weighty ordonnaunces of the living Lord. I intend not here to dispute of the number of Sacraments, what is the Catholic doctrine and what is the heretical, it is not now our purpose.  
Farther the Lutherans will not be a known, 
The Lutherans have corrupted the Crede  that they have corrupted our Crede, scraping out the word Catholic in the article, I believe the holy Catholic church. Thus I said before of them, and say it yet again, reporting myself herein to their Confession of Augspurg, where they describing their church, omit clean the word, Catholic. In the Apology Melanchthon being accused thereof maketh a little mention, but so that he calleth Catholic. that which heretics in corners do imagine. In his common places and in his book Examen examinandorum he babbleth and prattleth to no purpose very much of the church, but the word Catholic, he can find in no church. In the great and in the little catechism of Luther, and in his little book of prayers where he reciteth the Crede and expoundeth it, 
Children are taught a corrupted Crede.  in every place for the Catholic church, he writeth the Christian church. And hereof it cometh that through out all Germany where the gospel of Luther is received, children always learn their Crede and say it at table, even as it is corrupted of Luther and Melanchthon. Who like crafty heretics laboured by all means possible that the word Catholic might by little and little utterly be forgotten. And all heretics have ever shunned and avoided this article of our Crede I believe the Catholic church. and that not without good cause: for certain they are if their doctrine come to examination to be bolted out by learning, that this only word Catholic will cut their throats.  
Sithen then we see clearly and evidently by this which we have said, 
Protestants are proved to be heretics.  that among the Lutherans are not only divers and variable, but pernicious and heinous heretical schisms, divisions and opinions, as out of their own sayings, doings, and writings we have before declared, surely it must of necessity follow, that the Lutherans be and remain pernicious and detestable heretics. 
Smidelinus extrema part libri contra S●a phylum.  For doctor Smidelin himself and all heretics do confess this that whereas in the doctrine of faith, that is, in the principal articles of faith are heretical dissensions and schisms, that then the teachers and setters forth of such haereti●all schisms, must needs be heretics themselves. But no man can now deny that the Lutheran preachers do set forth, uphold and defend heretical schisms. Wherefore it followeth that these Lutherans, ghospellers, protestants, or howsoever they call themselves, be pernicious heretics, and for such are to be taken, and avoided of all Christendom.  
And truly there is no better means, to reduce heretics to the right and common high way of the Catholic church, then to put before their eyes their heinous and heretical dissensions, wherein they have run a stray: one this way, an other that way, but all out of the way of the Catholic and Christian belief. Or if heretics will be obstinate always, and continue wilfully in their error and presumed opinions, the readiest way to bring them to nought, is to beseech god to suffer them to continue in the spirit of dissension, that being severed into divers parcels, and scattered into sundry schisms, they may the sooner perish and vanish away, 
Dissension destroyeth heresies.  even as the builders of the tower of Babel, and all heretics yet hitherto. For the only destruction of all heresies hath been their mutual dissension and schisms. This Luther himself testifieth, writing thus upon the fift psalm. Every kingdom divided within itself shall be desolated: 
Lutherus in 5. psal.  for heretics were never overcomed by force or by art, but only by their own altercations and dissensions. 
judic. 9 Genes. 11.  Nether Christ by any other means overthroweth heresies, then by suffering them to fall in to the spirit of dissension and variance as the Sichimites and builders of Babel in the old law, and the Arrians, Pelagians, and Donatists in the new law. The jews also were destroyed only by discord among themselves. For as Hilarius writeth, The war of heretics is the peace of the church. Because by their contentions, they perish even bodily, not only in their souls. Thus far Luther. 
Dissension always accompaneth heresy.  And truly so it fareth, when one heresy is once sprung up, and that divers Masters profess it, strait upon many schisms and factions arise. Martion that arch-heretic brought forth many absurd opinions, which once being scattered in to the wild brains of his scholars, his heresy incontinently began to break in to sundry parts: so that of him proceeded Appelliani, Severiani, and Manichei, Again of the Manichei grew the Priscillianistae, Encratitae, and divers other, all horrible heretics, and yet almost in all countries suffered. Epiphanius in the third book confuting the Hemiarite and Arrians, writeth of the Arrians thus. For we say the army of the Arrians is divided into three bands, so that Eudoxius, Germanus, George of Alexandria, Euzoius of Antioch be departed in to the first band, cutting themselves of from their fellows. In to the second band basil (not the doctor of the church) Eleusius, Eustachius, Georgius of Laodicea, Sylvanus of Tarsus, and Macedonius of Constantinople have strayed. In the third company (as I said before) is Acacius, Meletius and Eutychius. All their doings be vain and wicked. For that as any one taught, the other would not receive, but with mutual hatred and malice they descent and disagree each from the other. Thus far Epiphanius. 
Vide historiam tripar titam. lib. 9 cap. 40. & Nicephorun lib. 12. cap. 29. & li. 13 cap. 1. & lib 18. cap. 45 & 50.  Who listeth more at large to see the schisms and divisions of these and of other heretics, he may read Eusebius and other ecclesiastical stories. S. Augustin maketh mention off dissension of the Donatists, objecting unto them that Donatus his sect was distracted into son dry schisms. For thus he writeth in his first book▪ De Baptismo contra Donatistas', Cap. 6. This part of Donatus is cut in to many small pieces, all which parcels reprehend very much this great portion where Primianus ruleth, for approving the baptism of the Maximinianiste▪ and each of all those parcels do stoutly affirm that the right and true baptim is only among them and no where else. Thus much S. Augustin.  
But what need we be long in these old and ancient heresies, whereas (alas) even now presently in our dear country of Germany such a plentiful brood of heresies groweth and increaseth? for how sundry and how divers sects hath that only brain of John Hus begot? Some of them are called Fratres Waldenses, some Thaborite, some Picardi and some Grubenheimeri, with divers other names which were here tedious to recite. For among those which now call themselves ghospellers, sprung up of the seed off Luther, there are (alas) so many factions, so divers sects, so sundry heresies, that they can scant be numbered. Yea and many more (as Gallus writeth) hang yet in the pen: but I will somewhat shake the pen to see whether any will fall out. Truly this is most evident. Such an arch-heretic, as in our days Martin Luther hath been, never yet was seen in the church: and therefore God never so declared his wrath in this our miserable time. Yet God of his mercy hath given us clear tokens and sure arguments to know and espy out this heresy, suffering such strange dissensions and horrible schisms to come to light: and that so clearly and manifestly that every man may easily perceive, and surely pronounce, that even as God is the author of peace and unite, so the devil hath been the father, inventor, and setter forth of all this Lutheran discord and contentious doctrine. If therefore any good Christian man desirous to save one, coveteth evidently to see and behold what, and how great the schisms and factions of these Lutherans are, all challenging to themselves the truth and light of the gospel, let him read and peruse this table of sects that followeth, which I set forth before in latin, but now have augmented it in my mother tongue for my dear countremens' sake.   

THE GENEALOGY, posterity AND SUCCESSION OF MARTIN LUTHER THE fift evangelist.  
NOthing is more natural, saith the philosopher Aristotle, then that every thing bring forth his like, and that not only because the nature of things should not be confounded, (wherefore the lion bringeth forth a lion, and the man engendereth man, and as the Poet saith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The rock Scylla bringeth forth no rose) but also to the intent that every kind by it self should be like in manners and disposition: wherefore of the valiant father cometh not lightly a cowardly son nor as the poet euripides saith, Of an unthrifty father cometh a wise child. This then being a constant and perpetual law of nature, it hath pleased God by consideration of the natural course and issue of temporal things, as if it were by a similitude, to lead us to the knowledge of spiritual matters: as for example, to know and discern the true prophets of God, which are the right and natural brood of the church, from the false prophets and preachers, which are as monsters or evil begotten children in the church. therefore he saith. By their fruits you shall know them. 
Mat. 7.  and why by their fruits? Because of thorns no man gathereth grapes nor figs of brambles. And this it is, which is commonly said, every thing followeth his kind.  
What a prophet Luther was, his brood and issue hath well declared. For as soon as Luther pricked first with desire of promotion and praise, was straight inflamed with the fiery lusts of the flesh, and that to accomplish this matter, 
Apoca. 16.  Luther the false prophet and that sevenheaded best (whereof the Apocalypse speaketh) were joined together, the old Dragon (the devil) giving her to wife, incontinently these three unclean spirits, of the Confessionistes, of the Sacramentaries, and of the anabaptists, creeped out of their mouth like frogs. And although these three unclean spirits, like the foxes of the Philistians bear their heads far a sunder and distant, yet they are so tied together by the tails, to burn up the corn of Christ's church, that now in all Europe no heresy can be found, which hath not the mark either of the Confessionistes, or of the Sacramentaries, or of the anabaptists. That you may if ye list, evidently know to which of these spirits every heresy is bound.  
And to the intent you may espy of out every and singular marks of these unclean spirits, note what followeth. God punisheth the world for sin with seven principal plagues. But those especially he uttereth in three elements, in water, 
Apocal. 16.  in air and in fire. For as it is written, 
Sap. 11.  Look wherewithal a man sinneth, by the same he shall be punished. This also in an other place is notised. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the father, 
1. joan. 5.  the word and the holy ghost, and these three are one. And there are three which bear record in earth. The Spirit and water and blood, and these three are one. This latter kind of bearing record Christ himself instituted and confirmed in earth, especially hanging for us on the Cross, where he shed water and blood out of his side, and yielded up his Spirit into the hands of the father. And as Eve was made out of the rib and side of Adam, 
joan. 19  so undoubtedly the church took his root and beginning of the side of Christ, as the Council of Vienna learnedly expoundeth it. For the church by three Sacraments is specially holden by baptim, the Sacrament of the altar, and by Penance. The seal of baptim is water. The mystery of the blessed Sacrament is blood off wine, which is of the air. The holy Spirit, which Christ inspired to his Apostles, gave the keys of the church in penance. And the token of it appeared, fire in the mouth of the Apostles. Now these three manner of bearing record in earth which Christ hath instituted, and by the which the church is upholden, are all at this present profaned, broken and corrupted. The anabaptists have corrupted the water of baptim. The Sacramentaries, have profaned the blood of our Lord. The Confessionistes have broken the keys of the church. And these heinous crimes have partly already been punished: but the end is not yet come: because the profanation, corruption, and breach of these holy institutions cease not yet. Let him beware, that understandeth. Let him fly that can escape. Let him shake of the dust of these heresies that feareth the wrath of God: But now to the table.   

THE TABLE OF LUTHER'S OFFSPRING.  
THe Dragon, 
Apo. 16.  the beast, the false prophet (mentioned in the Apocalypse) Martin Luther, the fift evangelist, out of whom proceeded principally three unclean spirits, In the year of our Lord. 1517. upon S. Martin's eve, to wit, the anabaptists, the Sacramentaries, and the Confessionistes, which are commonly called protestant preachers.  
The first unclean spirit or toad Muntzerus and Bernard Rotman, son of Luther and father of the anabaptists began in the year of our Lord. 1514. out of these proceeded.  
Muntzerans, 
The late rebels in France are of this sect.  which are named of Thomas Muntzer. for when that man read in the books of Luther De captivitate Babylonica and contra duo mandata Caesaris, that, There was no hope of remedy unless all men's laws being extinguished the people did rule, and that we ought to pray to God, that subjects obey not their magistrates, He stirred up the commons through out all Germany against the nobility. whereby after sundry battles had, there perished more than a hundred thousand of the commons. Read the story of Sleidan.  
anabaptists who first sprang up by reading in an epistle of Luther to the Waldenses or Picardi, That it is better, baptim were omitted in children than that they should be baptized without their own faith. Of these arose divers sects, among the which these are accounted the cheafest  
Adamitae, 
The sects of anabaptists.  the Adamites, which profess to follow the innocency of Adam. they wander in woods, and sometime naked, as Adam and Eve did.  
Stebleri, which teach that scripture forbiddeth to carry sword or wallet. item that it is not lawful for Christian men to accuse in judgement, that it is not the part of a Christian man to repel violence by force, but to him that striketh on the one cheek he ought to turn the other. This Luther taught in his articles condemned of the Sorbon in paris.  
Sabbataries, which observe the Sabbaoth day like jews. despise the Sunday, and do invocat the father only, and seem to contemn the Son and the holy ghost. See Luther in his book against the Sabbataries.  
Clancularij, Close anabaptists, which being asked whether they be anabaptists, think they may lawfully deny themselves to be such, supposing it enough to know privily what they ought to believe, and that it is not needful to confess openly. And these be commonly in great cities: they enter in to no churches, they learn and teach at home in their houses, or else meet in gardens. Such are commonly called ●arrenbrijder, that is, garden brethren.  
Manifestarij. Open anabaptists, which being asked whether they be anabaptists, think it a wicked thing to deny it. In Prussia this sect is common.  
Daemoniaci, which believe (as the Origenistes in times passed) that the devils shall be saved after the enof the world.  
Communia habentes, Commonholders, which are of the opinion, that wives, children, and all other things in the common wealth ought to be common, as Plato in his Common wealth taught, and in old time the Nicolaite, and off late the gospeling prophets off Monster. 
The Spirit  They say one to an other. My spirit lusteth after thy flesh: come therefore, and let us do marvelous things. See Sleidan in the battle of Monster.  
Condormientes, Byslepers, which command that for the vehement love of the new gospel, men and women; young men and maidens, aught to live in one place and parlour, and sleep in one chamber. So did other heretics of old time in Burgundy, and afterward in Bohem the Grubenheymeri. which putting out the candles, cried one to an other, Increase and multiply.  
Eiulantes, Howling anabaptists, which think no devotion pleaseth God so much as to weep and howl continually. great store of this sect are in the upper Belgia.  
Georogianidavidici, Davigeorgians, which began in Friselande in the year of our Lord. 1525. They say there is no devil, they deny the resurrection of the flesh. See Sleidan. The Author and Master of this sect said himself, he was the third David, as Luther that he was the third Elias, and Osiander the second Enoch.  
Memnonitae, which deny that Christ took flesh of the Blessed Virgin.  
Polygamistae 
Bernardin Ochin Peter martyrs scholar defendeth this sect by scriptures Tom. 6. fo. 177. an. 53.  Many wivers, which teach that one man may lawfully have two wives at one time. Iten that the brother may marry his brother's wife, he yet living. So practised John Leiden king off Monster (See Sleidan) and so taught Luther in his sermon set forth of marriage. Where he saith. If the wife will not, let the maid come. There be many other sects of anabaptists, which here to avoid prolixity we let pass.  
The Second unclean spirit, and toad, son of Luther and father of the Sacramentaries, Carolstadius, began the year of our Lord 1521.  
Carolstadius and Zwinglius took occasion to raise up again the old heresy of Berengarius by these words of Luther in his assertions against pope Leo, and in formula Missae. Nether kind (of the sacrament) is necessary to salvation. And again in his Resolutions. Only faith of the Sacrament doth justify, not the Sacrament. These and other saying of Luther moved Carolstadius and Swinglius to believe that the Sacraments were but bare signs, as Melanchthon upon the epistle to the Romans teacheth. These Sacramentaries are many and divers. First there are eight Sacramentary factions, which Luther, him self in parva Confession attributeth to the Swinglians, as we have noted and recited before. Then Philip Melanchthon declareth six other sacramentary sects among the Lutherans, in his determination written a little before his death unto the Count palatin of the Rhine, and printed at Heidelberg in the year 1560. which we have also before touched. But these which follow, are the most famous and most renowned sacramentary sects.  
Significativi, Signifiers, which affirm that in the Supper of our Lord (for so they call the Sacrament of the anltar) is not the true body, but only the sign of the body. So Swinglius writeth in many and son dry books set forth De Caena Domini.  
Tropistae, Figurers, which say that in the supper of our Lord is the figure of the body not the true body. So taught Oecolampadius in many places.  
Energici, Valuers, which teach, that in the Supper of our Lord, is not the body itself, but the virtue and value of the body. so Calvin teacheth in many books: and lately in his last admonition against ●oachimus Westphalus. Melanchthon also (as Calvin layeth to his charge, and as it may appear in his determination printed at Heidelberg) affirmeth the same.  
Arrhabonarij, Pleadgers, which are of the opinion, that the Supper of our Lord when it is given, is given as a pledge of the body, as though it were like the investing, or taking possession of a farm or any other thing which is given. So Franciscus Stancarus teacheth in Pole and in 
* Transsiluania.  Sybenburgen.  
Adessenarij, Presentaries, of whom there are sundry sects. For some write that the body of our Lord is in the bread. Some about the bread: some with the bread, some under the bread. see the assertions of Wilhelmus Klebitius of Brandebourg against the disputation lately had at Heidelberg, in the year. 1560.  
Metamorphistae, which affirm that the body off Christ after it ascended in to heaven, was made god itself. And that it ought properly de said. The body of Christ is God. Therefore if ye ask how the body of our Lord is in the Supper, they answer. That the true body is there, but such a body, as is the very substance of God and God himself: not flesh, which is of the same substance that man's nature is of. So writeth Swenck feldi us in many books: but chiefly in his book De dupli cista'u Christi.  
Iscariotistae, judaistes, which deny that in the Supper of our lord judas Iscariot received the true body of Christ. So writeth Swenck feldius in a little book entitled of this very matter, and Calvin in his last admonition against Westphalus and other where.  
The Neutres Sacramentaries, which teach that neither one kind, nor both kinds are necessary, but that only faith sufficeth. Again that if the Council should determinat, that all should communicate under both kinds, then contrairely the lay men ought other communicate under one kind, or utterly refuse both. they are the words off Luther in his book de formula Missae, 
O hot communi cants.  and it is the common practice of all Lutherans: where by it happeneth that some not in ten years come to the communion, some never at all.  
Iconoclastae, image-breakers, which cast out of the church the images of Christ and all saints, putting up in their places their own pictures and their wives marvelous finely and amorousely painted, as in times passed Simon Magus and his bawd Helena did as Nicephorus witnesseth. Our gospeling protestāns practise it daily. The examples testify.  
The third unclean spirit or toad, son of the false prophet Luther, is Melanchthon: father of the Confessionistes in the year. 1530. off these there are three contrary sects and factions. 
Zealous.  Some are rough and zealous Lutherans which without choice or exception defend all the doctrine of Luther, be it never so absurd: taking all that Luther hath written filthy or carrion as it is, for the holy and pure gospel of God. next are the soft, 
Civil.  gentle, Civil and moderate Lutherans, which have departed in many points from the doctrine of Luther. And feigning as if they would join nearer to the Catholics, by making their Interim (that is a delay until a Council come) have yet fallen from error to error the later contrary to the first, as sometime of Manichees becoming Pelagians. The third sort of these Confessionistes, we may call Extravagants, and unruly Lutherans, which although they pretend to be Confessionistes, for because off the authority of ●uch Princes as have subscribed to the Confession, yet in deed they run and rove farther from the doctrine of Luther, than the common sort of Lutherans do. But now first of the zealous and rough Lutherans.  
Antinomi, 
The zealous Lutherans.  lawless Lutherans, which so extol the gospel, that they affirm the law of god to be utterly unprofitable, and neither before justification, nor after necessary. That men of the gospel are not bound to the good works of God's law. So Luther taught in the beginning, and of him learned joannes Agricola as he writeth in his annotations upon S. Ihon. And Luther in his Antinomicall disputations.  
Samo satenici or new Arrians which deny that this term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word, in S. John signifieth a person of the blessed trinity. The university of Wittenberg witnesseth that Mathias Illyricus is of that opinion. In a little town or village of Silesia, called Zary there is an other Mathias Minister off that village, which utterly denieth that there is any trinity. In Czeshau a town of Boheman other Minister with like madness inveighed against the blessed trinity, preaching in the hills called Guttni, and divers other in other places. 
O blessed fruits of the new gospel.  Yea they are come to this fury and madness, that they call the Blessed trinity, the three headed Hellhound Cerberus, some other deny there is one God: and affirm there are three Gods. So a certain Minister preached openly in Prussia.  
Infernales, 
Certain Lutherans deny an article off our creed.  Hellmasters, which deny hell, and that Christ descended in to hell, affirming that every man's grave is called in hebrew hell. Therefore where our Crede saith that Christ descended in to hell, they say it must be meant of his grave. This is a common doctrine in the seacost towns of Germany, as at Breme, at Hamburg, at Lubek and such other places. It seemeth also to be the opinion of Brentius. Read his great Catechism.  
Infernales of an other sort (helltormenters) are, which affirm that Christ not only descended in to hell, but also suffered the eternal torments and pains of hell. So teacheth Nicolaus Gallus at 
* Ratisp●na.  Regenspurg in his printed Catechism: and james Smidelin preacher of Gopping, and Calvin in his Institutions.  
Antidaemoniaci, which deny there is any devil or evil spirits, or any witchcraft, or enchantments wrought by the devils. So teach the Davigeorgians and Andreas Osiander.  
Amsdorffiani which teach that good works are pernicious for man to salvation. So writeth Nicolaus Amsdorffius in his little book entitled, That this proposition is true. Good works are pernicious to salvation. So the scholars of Flaccius and many preachers of Saxony do teach and write.  
Antadiaphoristae which admit no ancient cerinonies in the church, nor no jurisdiction of bishops. so writ the Illyricans and the Flaccians in many books set forth against the adiaphorists off wittenberg.  
Antosiandrini or Osiandromastiges, which deny that man is justified with that justice, whereby God is essentially just: teaching that he is justified by imputing of righteousness, that is (as Illyricus doth gloze) he is called just in word only: he is not so in deed. fourteen Lutheran churches have written against Osiander: but each of them bringeth a peculiar definition of justice and contrary to his fellows. seethe writing of joannes Functius de origine Osiandrinae litis contra Staphylum.  
Antiswenck feldianis, which teach that by the external preaching only or vocal ministry we attain to the Christian faith. Illyricus in divers writings set forth against Swenck feldius.  
Anticaluiniani which although they do well affirm the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, yet they do falsely and wickedly deny transubstantiation and adoration. Again they falsely hold that the Sacrament consisteth only in the use off it. joachimus Westphalus in his answer against Calvin, and divers other.  
Manus impositorij, which will have that the laying on of hands of lay men is a Sacrament. This sect swarmeth in Saxony, in Pomerania, and in the seacost towns. See Illyricus against justus Menius.  
Bisacramentales, which admit only two Sacraments. so teach Calvin and the Flaccians.  
Sacerdotales, which teach that men and women and all lay persons may preach the word of God, in the church, may minister the Sacraments, may bind and lose. For all men are equally priests. that holy order is but a tale and imagination of men. This is the doctrine of Luther in his book De captitutate Babylonica. and of Illyricus in his Apology against justus Mentus.  
Inuisibiles, which teach that no church is visible because only God knoweth who are his. So Luther and Melanchthon taught in the beginning, as it appeareth in the Apology off the Confession of Augspurg. but although they afterward secretly recanted this error, yet nevertheless the Illyricans, the Swenck feldians, the Osiandrins, and the anabaptists keep it still.  
The second Sect of the Confessionistes, in the which are (as we said before) the soft Philosophers and Masters of Wittenberg: which will be counted moderate, 
civil Lutherans.  meek and more civil than the rest (for the most part of these protestants are hot and seditious) and after a sort keep unite and peace with all other sects: as in times passed the heretics Meletiani (among the Arrians) and Rhetorij.  
Biblijstae, Scripturians, which affirm that nothing is to be admitted, read, or set forth to the people in the church, or to the youth in schools, but only the bare text, and holy scripture of the Bible▪ and that there needeth no interpretation, for that we be all instructed from God. So writeth Melanchthon to Georgius Spalatinus in his preface upon the Canons off the Apostles. Again that no part off Philosophy, is to be learned, 
Colloss. 2.  because S. Paul forbiddeth us to follow vain philosophy. And again because it is written of Moses that men ought to eat their bread in the sweat of their brow. 
Ge●e. 3.  Therefore while Luther remained in his Pathmus, Carolostadius and Melanchthon persuaded the scholars of Wittenberg, that burning their humanity books, every man should get him to some handry craft work. Many did as they were counseled. Carolostadius in a certain Village by, in the ground of Wittenberg (being before archdeacon of the city) 
Melanchthon is a baker.  became a labouring husband man. and Melanchthon getting him to a bakehouse, learned to bake. This decree of so great divines was dispersed abroad in to many cities of Germany. And to omit the rest, it is well known, that in Silesia at Breslau and Suidnicia, grammar schools were for the space of two years shut up and abolished. all which time the scholars of the Master ghospellers did read nothing but the very text of scripture. There be at this day living which can well testify all this. The same also appeareth well in two books of Luther set forth in the year. 1522. written to the Magistrates and cities off Germany for the setting up again off schools.  
Adiaphoristae, Indifferents, which teach that the lawful constitutions of the church and of Counsels, also the ceremonies are things indifferent: which to observe or to break is no sin. So teach the Masters or divines of Wittenberg and of Lipsia, in their Interim made at Lipsia.  
Trisacramentales, which admit only three Sacraments, Baptim, the Supper of our Lord, and Absolution or penance. such is the practice in the Ordinance of Lipsia.  
Quadrisacramentales, which allow four sacraments Baptim, the Supper of our Lord, Penance and holy Order. so is it observed in the Ordinance of Wittenberg out of Melanchthons' common places.  
Lutherocaluiniani, which counterfeit that the Lutherans and the Zwinglians accord smoothly in the matter of the Sacrament, and would make men ween that the contention is in words not in the thing. See james Smidelins' book of the Supper of the Lord. See also Nicolaus Amsdorffius in his Confession: who vehemently reprehendeth this guile and deceit of Smidelin.  
Semiosiandrini, which against Osiander, taking the part of the Antosiandrini teach that man in this life is accounted just and righteous by imputation only▪ and again taking Osianders' part against the Antosiandrins teach, that in the life to come, man must in deed be justified with that very justice where with God himself is essentially just. of this opinion are the divines and Masters of Tubing. Read the duke of Prussia his book set forth upon this controversy of Osiander, and the epistle of Brentius written unto his prince of the very same controversy, and printed at Wittenberg in the year .1552.  
Maioristae, which deny that any man (yea infants themselves) can be justified, or ever have been saved without good works going before. Georgius Mayor in many writings against Illyricus.  
Poenitentiarij, which have corrupted the doctrine of penance with seven gross errors. Illyricus accuseth hereof the divines of Wittenberg and of Lipsia in a writing set forth against the corruption of the gospel, printed in jene in the year .1559. and thus entitled. Beriche M. F. Illyrici von ethliken artikelen.  
Novipelagiani, new pelagians which writ that a man may dispose himself by his own natural power to receive the grace of God: so Illyricus accuseth Melanchthon in the writing above named and Amsdorfius in his Confession.  
Syncretisantes, politic Lutherans, which persuade and counsel all other sects, that they pretend at least unite among themselves, seeing they can not come to any true agreement: that like the people of Creta they may with more yoined force set upon their common adversaries the papists and overcome them the sooner. This writeth Melanchthon in his book against Staphylus.  
The third sect of the confessionistes, wherein are the disorderly and unruly Lutherans, although they manifestly oppugn and resist the doctrine of the Confession of Augspurg, yet under pretext of the same Confession the main flock of these sheep of Melanchthon bear themselves for Lutherans.  
Swenck feldians, have hitherto been all most all of one opinion, but now they begin to scatter and serve among themselves. For of the self same points in doctrine those of Breslau have one opinion (approving one point and reproving an other in Swenckfeldius) those of Suidnicia have an other, finding fault with those Swenck feldians, which call baptim ein Sewbad/ that is, 
Certain protestāns call bapti abathe for swine.  a bathe for swine: and those of Glogovia have yet an other, measuring by their proper spirit the writings of Swenckfeldius. But the peculiar and special doctrines, of that man are these. That the manhood of Christ is the begetting of the holy ghost, not the creature of God (as other men are) but a middle thing between God the Creator, and man the creature, but yet in such wise, that the same manhood of Christ after his ascension in to heaven was made very God. This testifieth manifestly his legate at Augspurg and his books offered off late to a certain friend off his there. Again that every man is endued with the same righteousness, the same wisdom, the same charity, and all the same vertus with the which God is essentially endued, of like worthiness and in like manner, and by this very divine nature is God: Beside that the same vertu or operation which is in the word of God preached, is the very son of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, the word, as scripture termeth it. Thus he writeth in his book de duplici statu Christi, de vero evangelii usu, and in many other writings, which he presented to a certain friend. Truly this man wrote many things not amiss, but these and many other very evil: a man not so malicious as unlearned in true divinity.  
Osiandrini, which say that Christ justifieth man by his divine nature only, utterly excluding his humanity, again that a Christian man ought to be just with that very justice where with god himself is essentially just. farther that Christ the only begotten son of god according to both natures (off god and man) as he was in his mother's womb, is the very same image after the which the first man was created. therefore when man in the sacrament of baptim putteth on Christ according to both natures (of god and man) that he is made the very same image generally, not particularly as the learned use to speak. And this is the meaning (saith he) of the words of S. John, 
1, joan. 4.  that Christ is come in to flesh. Martin Luther in the year 1539 at Smalcaldium, where the League (or rather conspiracy) was then made, preaching unto the estates and orders of protestants, interpreted these words of S. John that Christ is come in to flesh, after this sort. That Christ came not therefore in to flesh, that he might communicate unto us his own justice or righteousness, but that he might accept us for just and righteous outwardly: so that our inward man should not in deed be justified or made righteous from unjust and unrighteous, but we should only be accounted for such before God after the manner of acceptation: as in times passed the Lacedæmonians made and decreed Alexander a God with these words. Alexander will be a God. let him he a God, and let Alexander be counted and accepted for a god, though he be no god. And Luther saith that this doctrine was the sure foundation upon the which the League of Smalcaldium for the defence of the gospel might and ought right worthily be builded, erected and absolved. But anon after when it came to Osianders' course to preach, he took the very same theme of S. John that Luther did. But leaving the interpretation of Luther, he interpreted it after his own mind: in such sort that it directly repugned Luther: as, that the very essential justice or righteousness off God, proceeding and flowing out of the foresaid image off God (which he calleth Christ) is planted in man. and at the last, though privily, he gave them to understand that this his doctrine was the very jewel and treasure of the gospel: far better than that of Luther: in consideration whereof both the League and the war of Smalcaldium should be entered, made, and finished. And this sermon of Osiander was almost the last that was made at that meeting: as I am able to show by the hand of Melanchthon. Thus Luther for the ground of his justification would have (as in his own printed disputation it is evident) a kind of relation and imputing, which is the lest of all things that are, and in deed nothing. But Osiander putteth for his ground the divine essence, God himself, which is all things. See how jump these two ghospellers and Archeprotestants meet in the very highest point of our religion. Upon this faint and frickle foundation of two false and contrary opinions was that league of Smalcaldium strooken: whereof ensued that lamentable and cruel war, to the great waste and destruction of Germany, with the murder of infinite thousands of men. Then experience itself declared, how true that prophecy of Luther was, when in the year .1545. in a certain little book written to two noble princes of the sight of a certain coin brought out of base Germany, (whereof we shall speak more anon) he warranted upon his oath and faith all the confederates, that by this his doctrine of imputed righteousness, they might boldly and hardly assure themselves of the victory at Brunswick, 
Vide Micha elis Rotlingis ludimagistri Norē bergensis li bellum contra Osiandrun.  and off everlasting salvation at the hand of God. But as touching Osiander, and his doctrine, it may be seen in a little book printed in the ye are of our lord .1550. with this title. De imagine dei. There be many other articles of the Osiandrins: which to be short I omit. See the disputation of Osiander had at 
* Regiemons.  Coiningsberg, in the year 1459. and his open confession set forth there also, in the year 1550.  
Stancarians, which against Osiander urge and affirm vehemently, that Christ justifieth us by his manhood only, not by his godhead at all. So Stancarus both taught openly, and wrote against Andrea's Musculus at Francford by Odera.  
Antistancarians, which to refute the opinion of Stancarus do so far affirm that Christ justifieth man and worketh our righteousness both by his manhood, and by his godhead, that they doubt not to teach, the very godhead of Christ to have suffered on the Cross with his manhood. that Musculus is of this opinion, his extemporal treatise (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) off Luther's doctrine witnesseth: and the condemnation of the Swiceran ptotestants for this opinion: as it is notised in the writing of Petrus Statorius the french man, printed this year 1560. at Pinczovia in Pole.  
Novi Pelagiani, New Pelagians, which say thereiss no original sin in children, but that it is only an infirmity not worthy of death. 
Suinglius is a Pelagian.  So teacheth Swinglius in his little book of baptism against Vrbanus Regius. Again that Numa, Cato, Scipio, and such other notable men of the ethnics, although they lacked the true faith in Christ to come, yet that they are saved by the virtue of the law of nature. It is the doctrine of Swinglius in the book above alleged: and Luther entwiteth the Swinglians with it in his last confession of the supper of our Lord.  
Novi Manichei, 
Our new protestāns are new Manichees.  New Manichees be and have been divers protestants in our days. First Luther: then Melanchthon, Calvin and many other, as Amsdorffius, Illyricus, Gallus, Beza, Westphalus. Luther and Melanchthon teach, that all things both good and bad, come to pass by absolute necessity. that God is not only the cause of sin by permission, but also by operation: as the worker of it. It is the doctrine of Luther in his Assertions against pope Leo, and in his Resolutions: of Melanchthon in his annotations upon the epistle to the Romans. Again that. The adultery of David, the cruelty of Manlius, the betraying of judas, be as well and as much the work and operation of god as the very Conversion of S. Paul. Melanchthon in his annotations upon the epistle to the Romans. But he recanted this heresy afterward, as it may appear in his common places of the last edition. Luther continued still obstinate in his error: whom also all the obstinate and zealous Lutherans follow yet as Illyricus, Amsdorfius, Gallus, and other.  
Manichaei & Marcionitae Caluiniani, which as scholars of John Calvin do profess, and spread abroad these detestable and blasphemous doctrines against God and man, as follow. That god chiefly created mankind for to be perpetually damned, that god created Adam not only that he should die, 
Detestable doctrines off Calvin  but also from the beginning predestinated him to mischief, and therefore he could not choose but sin. That the sins committed by men are not only done by god's permission, but by his will and compulsion. That all sins committed of men are absolutely the works of god. That god worketh in men theft, whoredom, adultery, and all such sin as man doth. That the law of god and the will off god be oftentimes contrary, one to an other. That the devil by god's commandment and will lieth in men's hearts. That not only God is the cause of evil, but also doth inspire in men's hearts evil thoughts to work evil: so that men sin not, but God is the willer and efficient cause of sin. This is the doctrine of John Calvin in his book of predestination, and of Theodore Beza (the arch-heretic of France) in his defence for Calvin.  
This year 1561. one Lucas Sternberger in Omoluke a town of Moravia being cast in to preson, preaching among the Sternbergers, and in divers other places, bearing himself for a Minister of the gospel and scholar of Luther and Melanchthon, preached and persuaded the people this doctrine that followeth for the true and express word of God.  
First he openly taught and confessed, That all such as worship the name of the Blessed trinity do imagine falsely the Gods. That the name of the trinity is vain and superfluous, because that word is no where expressed in holy scripture, being also but one God in heaven. Therefore he forbade that the same song O veneranda Trinitas, O blessed trinity should be song, and commanded in his place to sing O blessed goodness of God. 
Horrible blasphemies of a gospeling Minister.  He wisheth also that all the devils of hell would come and carry away this trinity: saying he can not tell whether it be a man or a woman: yet that he is sure that the same trinity was once a woman, which had three husbands.  
secondarily he confessed and taught, that Christ was not true god but man only like other men, For if he had been god he should have descended out of heaven in to earth and committed the government of the world here to Angels. That he was borne only of Mary and joseph the carpenter and that he exercised that craft with joseph until the thirtyth year of his age. Beside he teacheth, That Christ rose from death not by his own power but by the power of god almighty: and that he worked no miracle, but by the power and operation of almighty god, which had endued him with more excellent gifts and graces then all the other prophets: adopting him for his son at the leghth for his virtuous and honest life, when he was baptized of John in the jordayn, and the voice from heaven came down saying This is my well-beloved son in whom I am delighted, so that Christ is not the son of god but touching his soul only, because in the cross he commended and gave up but his soul to god.  
Thirdly he mocketh at the holy ghost, saying, that it is nothing else but a pigeon. affirming beside that nothing is written of his divinity in all scripture neither of the old testament neither of the new and that it is not known what is this holy ghost. Finally he had rather return to the cloister, and be a papist, then to believe in the holy ghost.  
fourthly. he will not the blessed virgin Mary mother of god to be a perpetual virgin, but that she had before two or three sons, and that she nothing differeth from the rest of women: and therefore neither she nor any other saints ought to be worshipped, or have their holy days kept. Again that men ought to work the Sunday. and rest the Saturday, 
Note the ground of new heresies noweadaies.  because in holy scripture the Saturday is commanded to be kept holy. But of the Sunday nothing is prescribed nor appointed. for (as Luther taught) nothing ought to be admitted or observed, which god hath not in express words commanded or forbid in holy scripture.  
fifthly he rejecteth holy baptim, calling it a devilish institution: affirming also that it procureth nought else, but hell and eternal damnation, for circumcision was instituted of god, not baptim.  
sixthly as touching the blessed Sacrament of the altar he can never satisfy himself with mocking, jesting, and scorning at it. for he saith the jews have long ago eaten up the paschal lamb. and if any thing were left they burned it. Finally he confesseth he is of that opinion in this Sacrament, as Melanchthon is. For at a certain time having some communicating with him, but fewer than he thought, he invited all other by speaking to them in these words. Come hither: for ●am not able to devour him up alone. as for other sacraments he followeth Luther in all points as his school master, of whom he received this doctrine.  
Now that these heresies here reakoned up, be rife in Moravia, and that many a soul is miserably in veigled and seduced with them, the experience showeth. They also which are seen in the Alcoran of Mahomet, and in Luther's doctrine, may well consider and perceive, 
The Issue of Luther's gospel.  that this fift gospel of Luther prepareth and fostifieth the way for Mahomet's Alcoran to come in to Germany.  
And though the Lutherans to excuse themselves and their gospel will here object, that Luther never invented, never thought, nor taught these detestable heresies published by Lucas Sternberg, it may and ought well be awnswered unto them, that though Luther never taught these matters expressly, (which yet is to be doubted of) yet he gave abundant and sufficient occasion for these and all other heresies and schisms, 
Luther's doctrine (to have nought but express scripture) cause off all heresies.  only in that he writeth and babbleth all ways, that nothing ought to be received, approved or observed in the church, which was not manifest, evident and express in holy scripture. And what other ground hath this Lucas Sternberg to abolish all truth of our Christian religion, and to plant his devilish doctrines, than this lesson of Luther? For ever he crieth. Where is it written, where is it in holy scripture that there be three persons? Where is it read that Christ in the union of his godhead and manhood, should be the Second person in trinity? or that Christ is the true and natural son of God, and not a creature according to his everlasting and divine generation? Where is it expressed in scripture that the holy ghost itself is any other than the everlasting father? Where is it noted in holy scripture that Mary the mother of Christ was a Virgin before and after the birth, and that she continued a Virgin always? In what place of the Bible can we read that the Sabbaoth day should be abrogated, and the Sunday instituted? And what heretic I pray you may not say the like of all the articles of our catholic faith? For what scripture hath say the anabaptists that infants should be baptized? And the Swinglians. What Scripture, say they, affirmeth that the true body and not the figure off Christ his body is in the Supper of the Lord? Again the Lutherans. What place of scripture, say they, doth testify that Christ instituted the Mass in his Supper? Therefore if Luther had raised up no other particular heresy, yet this was detestable and cursed enough, that he taught nothing to be observed, or received in the church, but which god had expressly, directly, and in plain words commanded or forbed in the Bible.  
To this heresy of Lucas Sternberg an other sect directly repugnant and contrary rose up very lately at Pinczovia in Pole. in the which place two new ghospellers Petrus Statorius and Georgius Brandata teach that there is not one God, but three gods, and they so divers one from an other as three men. yet that the son is somewhat less than the father and the holy ghost. Again that the Crede which the church useth to sing, is not to be called the Crede of Athanasius but of Sathanasius. as you would say of the devil. Certain noble men of Pole demanding of Petrus Statorius and Georgius Brandata where they had learned this doctrine being new and never heard off before in Pole, they awnswered, It was the pure gospel and very word off god, and the very same doctrine which they had learned of their masters, Calvin, Bullinger, Peter Martyr, and Wolfgangus Musculus. But the cause why it was not before heard of in Pole nor abroad in the world was that it pleased god to reveal to the world this high mystery and great treasure now in these later days by his faithful Ministers. The Lord Stanislaus Baron, Mathias Stadnitzky, and Franciscus Stancarus by their patent letters written to to the Swinglian doctors above mentioned, in the year 1561. and sent by their own Messenger, do testify and write these things of Petrus Statorius and Brandata.   

IN WHAT ARTICLES THE CONFESSIONISTES, SUCCESSORS OF LUTHER, DO YET Agree and accord.  
Hitherto by the sundry and divers factions of heretics of us rehearsed, it may appear how and in what matters they serve and disagree among themselves. For who readeth now all the articles of the Confession off Augspurg, he shall see that swerving and scattering in all the rest, they have remained only in these few of one accord and agreement. And of those articles this is the first.  
first they agree all in this, that all sects will be called ghospellers, all boast themselves to follow the word of God, the gospel, the Crede of the Apostles, and of Athanasius. they all say, that the word off God is clear and open: and needeth no interpretation, that women and men, lay and priests, may all a like handle and treat off the word off God. And whatsoever sense of holy scripture shall like any man, that he may follow and defend it for the word of God itself.  
The Second Article, wherein they do all agree is, that they do all with like endeavour and malice, strive against the Catholic church. that none of them all admitteth any Catholic or universally received exposition of holy scripture, that they all account the bishop of Rome for antichrist, all bishops, Prelates, Priests, for the members of the devil. that they do all abhor constitutions and ceremonies of the Catholic church. That all hate and detest a like the blessed sacrifice of the Mass. that all go about to take out of the church all priesthood and clergy.  
The third article, wherein all the protestants agree is, that for the most part all leaders and Masters off sects forge some notable lies upon the Catholic writers, and then persuade the people they are the doctrine of the papists. As for example. They make the people ween that the papists taught man to be able to merit the grace of God, and the benefit off justification with his only good works. This and such other lies they have already so persuaded the people, that although never Catholic man taught so, yet they put this absurdity as the foundation and ground of papistical doctrine.  
The fourth article wherein all protestants agree, is that to confess and reaken up our sins, to do any satisfaction whereby the temporal pain due for sin may be released, to labour and endeavour to purchase everlasting life by good works proceeding of the grace of God, and depending of the merits of Christ, is nought else but a papistical buchery, and torment of consciences. that Confirmation, Matrimony, and extreme unction be man's inventions, not Sacraments of the church. They agree also all in this, that no man can live chaste, 
Above in the leaf. 16.  no more than he can live without spitting, as Luther writeth: and that to fast certain appointed days, is the worshipping of devils. In these articles off the Confession off Augspurg, in these articles of the fift gospel, all sects of our time agree wonderfully. But in all other points they brawl and snarl one at an other like cats and dogs.   


A SHOW OF THE PROTESTANTS PETIGREW as ye have it before at large deducted.  
An ugly Monster brought forth of a cow, in the year 1523. in Waltersdorff one mile from Friberg, in one Steckers farm, much resembling the cowl of a Friar. Whereby Luther's Monstrous life and doctrine was boded.  

Because no colours might express Luther the friars grace,  
As also that such Champions might be known by their race,  
Nature therefore in his chief time of wedding and of preaching  
Did blaze his arms in this Monster to give the a warning.   

Such fair figures, such like truths, such foul roots, such offspring.  
Such holy fathers, such good sons, such gospel, such blessing.  
Yet thou which mayest read, upon this Monster do not mus●  
But to have more deformites', his brood in this book peruse.   
A. Martin Luther of an Austin Friar, an ambitious Apostata. A wicked deviser of damnable doctrines. Father of all the sects of protestants: The arch-heretic of our time.  
Katerin Boar, a Nun, by Luther's procurement, ran out of the Nunnery of Nymick in Saxony, Easter eve at night, in the year of our Lord 1523. Came to Wittenberg, lived two years a lewd life with the scholars there. Then coupled herself in pretenced wedlock with Martin Luther, a Nun with a Friar, Apostatesse with Apostata. B.  
C. Bernard Rotman an unlearned lay man: by reading of Luther's epistle ad Waldenses. 〈…〉 Lutheran 〈…〉meth 〈…〉. Of him sprung up the buds off this branch. 

Adamites  
Sabbataries  
anabaptists  
Holder's in common  
Howling anabaptists  
Mennonites  
Manywivers  
Davidgeorgians  
Byslepers  
Daemoniacalls  
Close anabaptists  
Steblers    
D. Zwinglius, of a spiritual pastor a secular soldier. Reading the Assertions, the Resolutions of Luther, and his book de formula Missa. Becometh Father of the Sacramentaries, multiplying in to the sects above named. 

Signifiers  
Valuers  
Presentaries  
judaistes  
image-breakers  
Neutersacramentaries  
Metamorphistes  
Pleadgers  
Figurers    
E. Philip Melanchthon, first the slave of Luther: always a variable and inconstant fellow. Ever learning, as S. Paul saith, but never attaining to the truth. Father and founder off the Confessionistes spreading themselves in to three famous factions: each faction breeding a plentiful issue. 

Zealous Lutherans divided in to 

Lawless Lutherans  
Hellmasters  
Antidaemoniacalls  
Antidiapherists'  
Antisuenckfeldians  
Handlayers  
Priesters  
Inuisiblers  
Twosacramenters  
Anticaluinistes  
Autofiandrins  
Ams●●rsians  
Helltormenters'  
Samosatenicalls    
disorderly and unruly Lutherans parted in to 

Suenckfeldians  
Stancarians  
Newpelagians  
Manichees and Marcionite alumisles  
Newmanichees  
Antistanckarians  
Osiandrins    
Civil Lutherans scattered in to 

Scripturians  
Thresacramenters  
Lutherancalicinistes  
Maiouristes  
Newpelagians  
Politic Lutherans  
Penitentiaries  
Halfosiandrins  
Foursacramenters'  
Adiaphoristes        

THE PLACES AND COUNTRIES WHEREIN THE FORESAID PROTESTANTS AND Heretics, either dwell openly or be conversant secretly.  
THe anabaptists dwell freely and openly in east and west Friselande: and especially about Geddan, Dantsch, Elbing and Coiningsberg, also in Moravia abundantly, in Bohem not so come mon. Yet under pretext of Lutherans they live here and there privily upon the Rhine: in Flanders and Henaut, in Holland, in Westphalia, and now upon Danubius, and in Silesia they are common.  
The Swinglians, rule almost every where, and above all other sects are most dispersed. In Schueytzerlandt they have possessed five of the better Cantons. 
basil, Zu rich, Berna, Schafusa, Clarona  And a good part of Savoy, and the lake of Geneva. In England also and scotland they are thick. Yea and of late they have privily invaded the Count Palatins Dominion of Rhine, and the dukedom of Wirtenberg. At Augspurg Luther beareth the name, but in deed Swinglius and Calvin bear the stroke. Yea Calvin is of so great power, that he hath his guard in France, 
It appeared well of late in France.  and divers places of Hungary. The Swinglians doctrine is not utterly banished at Witten berg nor at Lipsia.  
The Zealous Lutherans and Confessionistes, have possessed the territory of Vinarium, and the most part of Saxony, Magdeburg, Brunswick, Luneburg, Lubeck Hamburg, Breme, and all most all Denmark, and Holste, 
Holsatia, Ratispona.  and the greatest part of the dukedom of Megaloburg, and in Byerlande the cite of Regenspurg.  
The Civil Lutherans, and Melanchthonistes bear all the rule in Misnia, in the greater part of Franconia, and at Norimberg. In the upper and lower part off the Palatins Dominion. and in some part of Swethelande. At V●mes, in the dukedom of Wittenberg and the Marchie. But here they are somewhat divers: for some will be Flaccians, some Melanchthonistes and adiaphorists, 
Vratislavia  But in Silesia especially at Breslau, and Brige, the masters of Wittenberg bear the greater stroke.  
The Swenck feldians in Swethelande and at Augspurg, live privily, 
A●gusta vindelicorum.  but yet are many and common. In Silesia among the nobility they flourish. at Suidnicia also and at Glogovia they be not obscure.  
The Osiandrins have showed themselves openly in that part of Prussia which is under Albertus the Marquis: but at Norimberg they keep close.  
Stancarians, in the lesser Pole and in Sibemburgen: 
Transsilua●ia.  for these disorderly Confessionistes are yet but green, and dare not show their heads, expecting a time, when the blast of their heresy shall once infect the people.  
But how long o lord shalt thou be angry? for ever? how long shall thy zeal and wrath be kindled like fire? Poor out thy wrath upon the nations which have defiled thy holy temple. Nether remember, o lord, our old iniquities, let thy mercies praevente us. Make us all of one mind, of mutual charity, of one faith, doing nothing contentiousely or for vain glory, but in all humility to acknowledge the one God and whom thou sendest, Christ jesus. AMEN.  
This table of Heresies hath already divers times been printed in the Latin tongue, sold abroad, and read of many: and although all protestants have maruailousely been offended therewith, yet it hath displeased none more than Smidelin and his companions the politic protestants. For these consider the matter depelyer than the other common sects do: and perceive very well, that this foul dissension of the Lutherans being known will bring at the length their fift gospel to nought. But howesover Smidelin turn and wind himself herein, will he nill he, he must of force confess, that the Lutheran protestants, which call themselves ghospellers, be at heinous dissension one with an other, and do breed and foster up, detestable and heretical schisms, so divers, so repugnant, so plain contradictory one to an other, that sooner you shall make fire and water, hot and cold agree, than their doctrines, and opinions. Where of undoubtedly it must ensue, that the evil thing consuming always itself, and nothing being worse than these cursed and dissentious schisms, they will in time spend themselves, consume, and come to nought.  
But how miserably comforteth Smidelin him self with this slight and slender argument when he crieth out, Behold, the doctrine of the gospel doth not only not decay, nor go to wrack, as the papists hope, but increaseth daily in many places, and is spread through out Christendom even in those places where the gospel before was never heard of? First how true and worthy a comfort this is, I report me to Smidelins own conscience. For, but if he be a very block, or else beside himself and stark mad, he must needs confess, that these new and fresh doctrines which daily arise and springe up to destroy the old and ancient religion, can in no wise be called the pure and express gospel. Smidelin and his fellow Lutherans, which cleave yet only to Luther's doctrine, are not so betle blind or ignorant, but that they know and see very well, what evangelical doctrine hath sprung up of late in France, in England, in scotland and in Pole. If they know it not, I will tell them. The doctrine preached in those countries is partly of the Suinglians, partly of the calvinists, some Laskonicall and some anabaptistical, but all together devilish and heretical. 
In libello contra Staphylum.  And although the doctrine of Smidelin be not much better than these, yet in his printed writings he openly confesseth, that he accounteth none of the foresaid doctrines for Christian or evangelical. And in deed if he be of the opinion that the Brentians are (as he pretendeth) he must accurse and condemn as Brentius doth, the doctrine of the Swinglians, the calvinists, the anabaptists and of the Stancarians, not only for their doctrine of the Sacraments, but for many other articles also, 
The gospel of Luther decayeth daily  especially the article of justification and faith. Here let Smidelin behold the judgement of his own conscience, lay his hand to his own breast, and ask of himself, whether he think in deed that the gospel which Luther planted, do increase and multiply, or rather be plucked, and rend daily in to sundry parcels and pieces, clean hewed from the first shape, and so hared of this sect and that sect, that of that poor gospel now (as Luther left it) neither head nor hear, nor tail nor foot doth appear. Or if he can not espy this by examining and inquiring of himself, let him counsel his brethren the divines and masters of Vinaria, which can well instruct him hereof, and though it be to their great grief, yet they will assuredly tell him (for these are their words) that the gospel and doctrine off Luther remaineth no where (alas) so pure and incorrupted as in the dominion of the princes of Vinaria. And where is then the worthy and weighty comfort of Smidelin, where is the triumph and joy he maketh, that the gospel of Luther (for that is the gospel he meaneth) groweth on daily more and more through Christendom?  
But now Smidelin findeth an other sorry shift to comfort his poor brethren withal. 
This sorry shift our Apology of England allegeth also in defence of their dissension. Libro contra Catalogum  Because in deed he can not deny the heretical schisms that are among them, he turneth the blow upon the Catholics and chargeth them with the like saying. that among the papists also are sects and schisms: for some monks were black cools, some grey some white, some eat flesh some fish, some will take money, some take none. some use long portises. some shorter. Is not this think you, a horrible and perilous dissension among the papists? If our doctors and divines should use such arguments against them, how would they scoff and scorn at it? But these gospeling preachers using such, must not only not be found fault withal, but must be highly praised and commended therefore, as men of excellent virtue and knowledge. Which although it be very injurious, and may well be complained of, yet sense that it liketh them so to use us, we must take it in good part and bear it. But as touching the matter, even as in our Christian religion we have learned of S. Paul to acknowledge and believe in one God, even so we must profess one faith, and one baptim. Although therefore among religious men and women there be divers orders, and sundry rules, likewise between the clergy and the laite divers professions and vocations, and that by the sure and certain providence of almighty God, yet among these all, there is but one God, one faith, one Christ, one church, one and the self same interpretation of holy scripture. We by the true understanding of God's word, have learned in the church the difference between the Catholic faith of all men, 
Faith in one in all but trade of life civers.  and the private hope of everyman. First in the articles of our belief, we believe all one thing and all after one sort. But to every man privately it is permitted, that upon right conscience, and due consideration, for the increase and confirmation of his hope (which lacketh not his sure reward) 
Heb. 2.  he may take and chose unto him some such honest trade of life and conversation, as is agreeable to his nature, though he differ hereby from the common life and vocation of other men. Therefore as concerning the agreement of our faith, we read in the Apostle. 
Philip. 2.  If there be therefore any consolation in Christ if there be any comfort of love, if there be any fellowship of the spirit, if there be any compassion and mercy, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having one love, being of one accord, that no thing be done through strife or of vain glory. And again. Nevertheless unto that which we have attained unto, 
Philip. 3.  let us proceed by one rule that we may be off one accord. Many such sentences are in holy Scripture, whereby we are admonished, that the doctrine of our faith and belief ought not to be referred to any one state or person, but to the whole communite off Christ his church. Wherefore S. james commandeth, That we esteem not the faith of our Lord jesus Christ in respect of persons. 
jacob, 12.  Whereof it appeareth evidently that the unite, consent, and agreement of our faith is builded and grounded upon the communite off Christ's Catholic church. Whereby all schisms and particular heresies are excluded. But that the diversity of grace, of gifts, and vocation is to be referred to the condition of every man. And what is the reason hereof? Because as we have many membres in one body, 
Rom. 12.  but all membres have not one office, so all Christian men are one body in Christ: but every one hath his singular and peculiar gifts, grace, and vocation. And this blessed Apostle saith also in an other place. 
Galat. 6. Ro. 2. & 14.  Let every man try his own doing, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in an other. For we shall all stand before the judgement of Christ, that every man may receive the works of his body according to that he hath done whether it be good or bad. 
2. Cor. 5.  Seing then these two points, the agreement of faith and diversity of vocations, are in the Catholic church by due reason to be weighed and each in his place to be osberued, I can not sufficiently marvel at the subtle shift and wily deceit off these Lutherans, 
A wily deceit of the Lutherans.  forcing the Catholics to suffer among them heretics believing as they list, and sowing schisms at their pleasure, bidding them withal dissemble and wink at the matter, whereas yet themselves will not suffer the like liberty in diversity of vocations among the Catholics, but will persuade Princes and Magistrates to force their subjects, both temporal and Spiritual and Religious of all sort, to forsake their godly vocation and perfect profession, and to take such a frame of faith as it shall please the Prince or Magistrate to prescribe them. 
The protestants confound uniformite and diversity.  What other thing is this, then to make that divers, and different in the Catholic faith, which should be one and uniform, and that one and uniform in persons and vocations, which should be divers and different? O horrible confusion. If there were not beside this point, manifest and outrageous impietes of the Lutherans, repugning both to right reason and to the word of God, whereby we might judge how pestiferous, abominable, and wicked the doctrines and doings of these Lutheran preachers and protestant Ministers are, yet of this only matter it might appear evident, while they confunde Vniformite and diversity. Teaching that which ought to be in our belief consonant and agreeable, that it may vary and be divers: and contrairely those things which in every man's peculiar vocation should be proper and distinct, may in no wise vary or differ.  
Whereof sprung the insurrection of the commons in Germany, the sedition of the anabaptists in West phalia, 
The fruits of this confusion. The late rebellion also in France.  and the rebellion against their high rulers and magistrates? Surely of no other root, then that Luther and all protestant preachers have taught, and do yet teach, and write to, that seeing, There is no respect of persons before God, 
Ephes. 6.  therefore there ougth to be no difference of persons, no magistrate in the church, but that all Christian men are free, and therefore all other distinct estates, dignities, and qualities as well great as small ought to be all one, and all a like. And whereof arise these great and enormous dissensions in religion, but only of this occasion, that the Lutherans take away from the Catholic faith all unite and agreement, and teach that every man may be saved by his own private faith, which he forgeth him self, and that he may for his own person freely believe what he listeth? Thus they would force the Catholics to a certain dissembling deceit, such as never was heard of. As that they should suffer every man to believe as he list, and set up new factions and schisms against the unite and agreement of our faith: But the difference of vocations, qualities and degrees, as is between low and high, temporal and spiritual, private and public, they should no more suffer, but make all estates common, all vocations equal, all trade of life one and uniform. If this be not to confound heaven and earth, surely I know not what heaven and earth meaneth. Cold which proceedeth of water, is of this nature that it knitteth and fasteneth together divers things in to one mass and substance, and conserveth them also in the same, as gold, silver, bras, tin, lead, clay also, dirt and wood. But heat contrairely resolveth and severeth all these substances. So likewise the property of faith is to knit join and fasten together in one belief, and in one uniform understanding of God's word all nations and all kind of men, noble and base, princes and subjects, men and women, rich and power, young and old. But the works of charity, the perfectness of living, the choice of our vocation is left fire to every man, according to the quality of his person, and condition of his power and ability. Wherein every man bestoweth his talon that God hath lente him, and beareth the yoke laid on his shoulders gladly, going all ways forth, and pricking himself forward with a sure and certain hope in God, 
2. Cor. 6.  who shall reward every man according to his good deeds and measure of his charity working severally with the common faith of Christ's church.  
Now than if Smidelin be, I will not say learned, but at the lest of any reason or judgement he may well think with himself, that there is great and evident difference between the common nature (which is one in all men) and every particular man, which hath his proper and peculiar qualities and gifts from God as it pleaseth his goodness, some of more price and value than other: even as we see in counts and weights. And therefore the old holy fathers have so taught, that the grace of God is due neither to the nature, nor to the person: and that, because god oweth nothing to any creature. It is therefore a very cursed doctrine of the Lutherans, and abominable before God to change the faith of Christendom which ought to be common, 
Lutherans do change faith in to hope and confidence.  one, and uniform in all, in to hope which every man hath differently according to his vocation. And contrary wise to make that every man's particular hope, confidence, and trust is the common faith of the Catholic church.  
Great is the misery and greater the shame off us Germans that have thus been deluded. We persuade ourselves we are wiser, and see more. than all Christendom beside, yea then all our sweet forefathers ever saw. But I think, and not without reason, that it were great wisdom for us, if we could but see and perceive how wise, grave, and circumspect our forefathers were.  
As for doctor Smidelin, I would earnestly counsel him that giving up his Lutheran doctourship in some Smiths shop, 
Smid. soundeth in the germane tongue Smith.  he begin again his divinity, and learn of some parishclarke, why when he ringeth to sermon he ringeth but one bell and that the greatest: but when he ringeth to even song or other service, he ringeth many bells at ones, 
A pretty similitude.  both great and small. For here Master Smidelin may learn that the ringing of one bell to sermon representeth the unite of the Catholic faith taught at sermons, which ought to be but one and uniform in all men. But the jangling of many divers bells to common prayer signifieth the diversity of men, some praying fervently some coldly, some serving god one way, some an other▪ yet so that every way cometh to one end.  
But now M. Smidelin practising his smothered smithish divinity, runneth in rudely with his hammers, and tongues, and will needs persuade men, that the variety of vocations must be reduced to the unite of faith, and contrary wise that by their scattered and ragged faith (which they define to be every man's trust and confidence in Christ) all men may freely believe as they list, and frame them a faith after their fond fantasy. Such is forsooth the wisdom and policy of our time passing our forefathers simplicity: and yet this blindness they will have us to wink at, and run headlong with the rest. Not withstanding we, grounded upon the authority off god's word comfort ourselves herein, that the unite and agreement of our Catholic faith is the ground of all truth. But the variety among us off divers vocations in the Catholic church, serveth as a guide and means to trade every man: that he so direct his course in perfect hope and godly works off Christian charity, 
Ro. 13. 1. Cor. 15.  that at length for his deserts (available only through the merits of Christ our Redeemer) he may be counted for a star or part in heaven little or great.  
To answer therefore directly to Smidelins' accusation, charging us of schisms and dissensions (by reason of divers religions and vocations) we do plainly confess, that in the doctrine of the Christian faith, according to S. Paul's commandment, we be of one mind and of one accord. And again every man for his quality and vocation endeavoureth to bear his own yoke, and carry his own burden, some more carefully and diligently then some: some this way, some that way: according to the grace and gifts of god, and as each man useth the same. And off this diversity of the gifts of god, 
Philip. 2. The cause of divers professions of religion in the catholic church.  and of man's infirmity or ability it cometh to pass, that among us some for example of their conversation, and to set before them as though it were a glass of perfection, do follow and embrace the rules and steps of old holy fathers: some of S. Augustin, some of S. Bernard, other of S. Benedict, of S. Dominicke, and of S. Francis, every man as his devotion serveth.  
But let us now see and consider the agreement and variety of the Lutheran churches. In this point first they do all agree, that according to their Christian liberty planted first of Luther, 
Luther reacheth this in his book de saeculari potestate in the 6. German tome fol. 602. and in many other places.  and now received off his scholars, there be no Emperor, no king, no Magistrate, no prince. Again that where such are, yet they ought not be obeyed, but all must be equal. that the country man ought to be as high as the Noble man: the Noble man as the Prince: the Prince as the Emperor: that the parish clerk ought to be as good, as the vicar, and the bishop no better than the vicar. And this wild and unruly doctrine of Luther hath so far proceeded, that not only many notable foundations, as Monasteries, bishoprics, and other churches erected for god's service are wasted and destroyed, but also in many places the commons against the Nobles, the Nobles against their princes, yea and against the Emperor himself, have of late years divers times rebelled, labouring to suppress nobility, to overthrow all superiority, and to confound all princely sowerainte. Not consideringin the mean season, how daily experience showeth us, that heretics against Catholics or subjects against their princes never prevaileth, 
Heretical rebellion never proveth. In the year 1325.  as Athanasius writeth. For what success had the commons in Germany rising against the nobility? more than a hunred thousand of them perished. What got the people of Denmark, making insurrection against the Nobles? what availed the nobility of Swethland and France rebelling against their Soweraines? 
We have late examples of our own country.  they wrought all their own destruction. And if ye list to know, what triumphs the heretics have had over Catholics in civil rebellion, 
The triumphs of late heretics over the Catholics.  see how the Swinglians sped in Switzerland, the anabaptists in Monster, and among the Saxons, the Lutherans in Liflande, the calvinists in France. Every one was rewarded according to his desert: miss of their purpose, and lost their lives. And although the Moscovites in certain ceremonies vary from the church of Rome, 
Vide prodr● mum Staphyli.  yet their faith and belief touching such articles, as the Lutherans have swerved in from the Catholic church, is in most points agreeable to the Catholic doctrine.  
If therefore, o true and virtuous Germans, 
A good lesson for our country also.  we list to put out this great blot of our good name, to avoid the utter destruction and desolation of our dear country, and purchase the eternal salvation of our souls, this is the only way for it, to seek after again the steps and paths off our dear forefathers, to join ourselves with the whole corpse off Christendom, and to call back again and restore that doctrine, that faith, that church, and that gospel, by the which we were first made Christian men and have continued so many a hundred year. For what so ever the Lutherans babble of their new forged religion, how so ever the protestants prattle in pulpits of the primitive church, yet they can not deny, but that this their doctrine, their trade of ecclesiastical government, 
Even so it is with us.  their manner of common prayer, and all other ordinances was never yet seen nor heard of in Germany, sense it was first Christened, until Luther.  
Charlemagne the first german Emperor with his successors brought the Saxons to Christian religion: 
Vide Carionem. So did S. Augustin the first Apostle of English men Vide Bedan.  founded among them their chief bishoprics, churches and Colleges, planted in Germany the very same doctrine, the very same religion, the very same ceremonies, the self same Mass and service of god as it is at this day used among all Catholics: and so left it to all Emperors after him. Likewise those holy bishops and Martyrs, the Apostles of higher Germany, which first brought Christendom in to it, instructed it not with that doctrine or ecclesiastical government as the Lutherans use, but with the very same understanding of holy scripture, with the same religion and government of the church, which the Catholics even to this day do practise.  
S. Severin archbishop of Ravenna converted ostrich to Christendom. 
The first Apostles of the high almains.  S. Eleutherius and Quirinus the country about Anisus. S. Maximinus and Rupertus the bishopric off Salispurg. S. Valentin and Wolfgang the city off Passau. 
Bedurum, Ratispona.  S. Paulinus and after him S. Emeranus Regenspurg. S. Corbinianus Frising. S. Richard and Vilibaldus the city of Eystat. S. Narcissus and Viricus Augspurg and Algovia. S. Kiliaenus and Burchaerdus Virtzbourg. S. Columbinus and Gallus Suethelande. 
Herbipolis.  S. Maternus and Valerius the inhabitants of Rhine. 
Constantia.  S. Paternus and Laudo Costnitz. S. Amandus and Argobastus Strasbourg. S. Victor and Seruatius Worms. 
Argentina Wormatia Moguntia.  S. Crescens the disciple of. S. Paul and Maximus Ments. Which all beside many other blessed Martyrs and learned bishops, in other countries where they planted Christ's religion, and instituted gods service, taught no other doctrine, preached no other gospel, practised no other religion, said no other Mass, used no other clergy than such as from the Apostles time through out all Christendom hath been hitherto kept and used. In this religion we germans were traded first to Christendom. With this religion our godly and virtuous forefathers attained to everlasting life. By this religion the Roman Empire hath been translated to the nobility of Germany. Through this religion the ancient germans have had great victories, have dilated their dominion, hath brought infidels to the Christian faith: as Hungary, Bohem, Pole, Vandale, Slavony, Prussia, Liflande, Denmark, and Swetheland: which partly by force of arms they have constrained, partly by instruction of holy bishops they have persuaded to receive Christendom. All this may be seen in our Chronicles and ancient foundations. But now we see to our great grief and shame, that within the space of forty years all these countries are all most come to destruction. The heinous heresies, the sundry schisms, and the horrible blasphemies every where practised prove it to clearly. Farther the great decay of the Germane Empire, the contempt off our nation (being now in obloquy with all the world, whom before all nations other loved or feared) testify this abundantly.  
Where is now become Thiethmarsh, which belonged before to the diosece of the archbishop of Breme? 
Countries lost in Germany by heresy.  The Danes have taken it. Where is Lifelande the old sojourn and retire of the Saxon nobility? The Moscovite by main force hath wronged it out of our hands Prussia what is come of it, which was wont to be the receipt and sojourn of higher germany? The Polonians have challenged it and enjoy it. And these two countries of Liflande and Prussia be no small territories, but two rich and large Realms. especially Prussia which hath in length above 
* Above three hundred of ours.  threescore miles, and in breadth 
* Two hundred of our miles.  forty: and containeth divers cities, ports, and villages great and small, so rich and full of commodities as no place of Germany beside. And although Lif●lande be not comparable to Prussia either in riches or in power, yet is it a goodly, beautiful, and large country, from whence not only the Nobles of Saxony and towns of the seacoste, draw sundry commodities, but all the state of the Empire also, and many foreign countries. And these two countries, Prussia and Liflande are as two sure feet of the german Empire: which now by our dissension being both cut from the Empire, it is easy to conjecture, how handsomely and surely it is like to stand. And how have we lost these noble countries and provinces? 
Prussia lost by Luther's heresy.  by the force and power of our enemies? No truly. For the knights of the Order in Alemaigne, forced the Prussians being yet heathen to receive the old Christian religion which they had learned off their Apostles and forefathers, and until our days have stoutly kept them in the same. And as long as that worshipful Order continued in this godly purpose, 
H. Muti●s Cuspinianus in vita Henri●i. V & alij.  that country flourished and increased in all wealth. But as soon as that Order received the new gospel of Luther abandoning the true gospel off Christ, and forsook the spiritual Cross of that Order, following the fleshly doctrine of Luther's cross, incontinently that whole country being got and kept so many years under the old gospel, was suddenly lost through the new gospel of Luther: the nobility of Germany thereof berefted, and yielded to the prince of Pole. so that now they rule over the germans, which in times passed paid tribute to the Emperors of germany.  
The like happened of Liflande. for as long as the knights of the Order in Lifelande kept and maintained the Catholic faith (whereby they first subdued 
Liflande lost by Luther's heresy.  that country) ten thousand of them could in open filled put to flight fourscore thousand of the Moscovites: but since that the same worshipful Order put down the ancient religion, whereby they obtained such victories, planting in the place of it heresy, all the victory hath inclined to our adversaries, and the Moscovites have obtained the country. For so it is. 
Gala. 5. Colloss. 3. The fruit of only faith. Lutherus in epist. ad Gallum Amsdorfium.  By agreement small things increase. by discord great things fall away. The old Catholic faith worketh by charity, which is the bond of perfection and all prosperity. The Lutheran faith abideth not charity with it, but will justify man alone. And therefore all charity, agreement, and unite is broken among them. And no marvel. For God is the author off peace, 
1. Cor. 4.  as the Apostle say thee, and the devil of dissension.  
The Turk hath possessed Hungary, 
Hungary lost by Luther's heresy.  only by dissension of religion. For as soon as these Lutheran preachers had spread abroad their cursed heresies, and stirred up thereby among the estates of the Empire, much variance, hatred, and malice, neighbours began so to mistrust one an other, that all honesty fidelity and friendly fellowship utterly decayed. Whereby every man sowghte after his own profit, nothing regarding the common wealth and good estate of the Empire. In the mean season they that bordered on the Turks were destituted of all comfort and secure of us. Yea and the enemies of the Empire hath divers times had of the Empire itself secure and aid. Beside that we have many ways hindered and kept back our own countrymen and Princes which both aught and desired gladly to withstand the enemies of our country, getting and winning ground daily upon us. And to make short herein, it is much to be feared that we Germans have ministered sufficient occasion to the accomplisment of that old prophecy, 
Lactan. lib. 7. cap. 16. Rupertus Taitien. super 20. cap Apocal.  which Lactantius mentioneth and divers other writers. That the north shall rule over the south, and the east over the West. And so Magog from the east and Gog from the north shall come and destroy the Roman Empire: which yet though weak and all most spent, hangeth by a weak thread in the hand of us Germans.  
We have the examples of two great nations, which give us good occasion to fear the fall of the Empire in Germany▪ 
The destruction of grece through heresy.  to wit, of the Greeks, and off the Liflandmen. For what other thing did Grece in times passed, then that we do presently in Germany? The Greeks resisted the bishop of Rome: would not acknowledge the sea of S. Peter to be head of the church. They made themselves at home bishops and prelates (against all canons and rules of the church) whom they made all of equal and of like authority. And what I pray you followed of the government of this headless church? First in the clergy sprung up many heresies and schisms. Then the Emperor of Constantinople and other princes of Grece fell at war together, and utter deffiaunce one with an other. Thirdly every bishop and Minister being of like authority, having no head or chief bishop whom they might follow and obey, as their spiritual Magistrate, every man expounded Scripture as it pleased him. brief new sects and schisms were so plenty in all Grece, that by reason of parts taking in religion, the Emperor rose against the other Princes, and they against him: spoiling, wasting, ransacking one an other, country against country, Prince against Prince, until all came to nought. For the Venetians in this confusion and dissension got from the Greeks Peloponnesus, Epirus, Cor●yra, and other countries. The hungarians won in to their hands Croatia, Dalmatia, and other provinces: Vntell at the length the Turk entering in to Grece under pretence of reconciling the Princes and the Emperor, 
Note and beware in time.  slew, murdered, and extinguished miserably all the remnant of the greeks, both Spiritual and temporal, the Emperor, and all other princes and Rulers: overthrew and took in to his own hands the whole Empire of grece, spoiled also the Hungarians and the Venetians of that which they had got, and so at the last utterly abolished and destroyed all the Sects and heresies: making his slaves all the remnant of the catholic Christians. as they remain yet to this day presently. Now the state of Germany to be as Grece was before the coming of the Turk, 
Our state in England touching religion is the same.  every man seeth. And that we may fear the like end as the greeks had: the like invasion of the Turk, or Moscovite, or some other tyrant, I leave it to every wise man to be weighed and considered.  
another example of the calamity hanging over our heads which now we see in Liflande, maketh me remember the miserable destruction of the cite of jerusalem, and the jews. For what is more like than the overthrow of these two people, 
The cyto of Jerusalem destroyed by schisms.  the jews and the Liflandmen? There were among the jews three sects repugnant to the right doctrine of Moses and the Prophets. As the Pharisees, the Saducees, and the Esseni. The ground of the Pharisees doctrine (as josephus writeth) was this. That men did all things by forced necessity from God, not by liberty of free will. 
Lib. 2. cap, 7. de bello. judaico.  And this is the very ground of the zealous Lutherans doctrine, 
Matth. 21. Luc. 20.  as Illyricus witnesseth. The Sadduces affirmed (as the gospel witnesseth) that there should be no resurrection of the dead. And although the Suinglians profess not openly this doctrine of the Sadduces, 
read Vil legaignon against Calvin and our discourse.  yet it followeth necessarily of their doctrine, that our bodies shall not arise, if (as they say) we receive not the true body of Christ really present in the Blessed Sacrament. For this most holy Sacrament through the natural and corporal conjunction of Christ his body with our bodies, 
1. Cor. 15. In 〈◊〉. li. 4. ca 14. et seque●●.  is a most assured warrant of our resurrection as Cyrillus and other doctors of the church do teach. The third sect of the jews, the Esseni, accord maruailousely with our anabaptists, as in the place of josephus above noted it may appear. These three factions and sects of the jews, at what time Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, caused the horrible dissension and strife which was then within the city among the jews themselves. 
josephus de bello judaico. li. 6. c. 1.  For notwithstanding the strait beseaging of the Romans, and the great danger they stood in, yet dividing themselves in to three parts, some followed Zelotas, some Simon Gerasenus, and some other johannes Giscalenus, the Masters and ringleaders of these sects. Yea they destroyed and mangled one an other in the city, no less than Vespasian did abroad. Now let us confer the state of Liflande with this. 
The miserable estate of Lifland through heresy.  I doubt not, but we shall find them like in every point. The Moscovite hath three great armies and well appointed in Liflande: layeth sore siege to the archbishop of Runebourg, and hath all ready got his cheafest forts in to his hand: Riga and Revalia. And what doth the worshipful Order in this perturbation and tumult? what helpeth the Prior and Master of the Order? What sucker bring the foreign protectors of the country? Let me now with good leave speak that all the world seeth and crieth out at. It fareth among them now, even as it did in Jerusalem among the sects of Ze lotas, Simon and john. For among them some are Lutherans, some Zwinglians and some anabaptists▪ and while every sect under pretence of his gospel hopeth to get some part of the country from the Moscovite to himself, the Moscovite marcheth on, winneth ground daily as Vespasian did in Palestine, and the Turks in grece: and this he doth under a plausible pretence of reconciling the dissensions, and extinguishing the sects in Liflande: and of restoring the country in to that mighty princes hands. It is much to be feared, that all this is to us a warning piece, and but a preamble of a terrible tragedy which we see already played in Hungary these many years, and is now of late begun in Liflande: the end whereof (as we may conjecture) is stayed only by two eyes: which being put out, the jews and the greeks may read the story off their own fall in our blood, and sing us that song that the Romans once song unto them. 
josephus lib 6. ca 7. de bello judaico.  DISSENSION HATH DESTROYED GERMANY. THE TURK AND THE MOSCOVITE HATH DESTROYED DISSENSION. God grant that I dame herein amiss. For if that calamity should happen (which our Lord of his tender mercy forbid) I, all mine, and all such as I am, shall have our part therein: and perish with the rest. God is my witness, I have brought in all this upon a good intent and purpose. And that I have here touched the state of our present time, I did it not (God is my judge) to offend any man of whatsoever condition or quality he be, but by this charitable admonishment of my most dear country, to declare my good will, and desire to serve, help, and secure her at all times. For undoubtedly the axe is now put to the root of the tree: and if we bring forth no better fruit than we have done, we shall surely all be hewed down. And as S. Austin saith. 
De fide & operibus & serm. 181. de tempore.  It is an unfruitful repentance, which purposeth not to amend. And certain it is we have highly offended the wrath of God, as well by abominable heresies and schisms yielding unto them, and suffering them among us, as by our wicked and dissolute life.  
As touching our living, it is not enough to hear sermons, have the gospel always in our mouth, and live not after the gospel. But we must follow the lesson of the prophet saying. 
Ezech. 18.  Be converted and turn you clean from all your wickedness, and your iniquity shall not destroy you. and an other lesson of the Apostle, He that stole let him now no more steel. 
Ephes. 4, Epist. 54.  And the saying of S. Augustin is worthy to be remembered: That the sin is not forgiven unless restitution be made. Which in all other sins is likewise to be understanded.  
But as touching the horrible errors, 
Luther calleth himself an evangelist in the sixtetome of his works.  wherewith Luther the fift Evangelist, and other new ghospellers in Germany have plucked and removed from the Catholic church both themselves, and many a thousand more, working this lamentable estate, variance, and dissension in Christ his church, this surely is of all sins the greatest and most grievous that may be. And hereof our Lord saith, 
Luc. 17.  Woe unto that man by whom offence riseth. And although this word Woe spoken of Gods own mouth be a dreadful signification of his wrath and high displeasure, yet his mercy far passeth, ready to receive us again in his favour, and embrace his lost children, if utterly forsaking the stray paths of error and heresy, we come again to the high way of Christ his church, and casting away all wicked thought out of our hearts and fancy of gross heresies (as the feeding of the prodigal son upon bean cods with the hogs) we return home to our father's house which is the church of God. Unto the which the prophet exhorteth us, saying. 
●ere. 25.  Turn again every man from his evil way and from your wicked imaginations: and so shall ye dwell for ever in the land that our Lord gave you and your forefathers.  
The only means therefore to avoid this great calamity hanging over us, is utterly to forsake this new forged and dissentious gospel, and retire home again to the Catholic church, embracing the right and ancient doctrine thereof, wherein we were borne and brought up, and joining ourselves to the whole corpse of Christendom, letting go by, these scattering schisms and seditious factions.  
Which counsel of mine I trust is more sincere and godly, and will have better success, than the cruel and unmerciful advise of Martin Luther in a little book which he made last of all, shortly before his sudden death at Wittenberg in the year. 1545. dedicating it unto two honourable Princes the Duke of Saxony, and the Landgrave of Hesse, that they should not dismiss their prisoner the Lord Harry of Brunswick. The title of that little book is this. Ad Electorem Saxoniae & Lantgravium Hassiae D. Martinus Lutherus decaptivo D. Brunsuicensi. And to the intent that in these countries and every where the world may know, how Martin Luther took upon him in his papacy, and how proudly he behaved him self, I will out of his own book declare you word for word the whole matter. These than are the words of Luther.  
For my part I would not pass, 
An example of the pride and presumption of Luther.  if that captive of Brunswick were king of France and his son King of England. For what could that hurt me? But to counsel you to let him go free and at liberty, that I can in no wise do. He hath lost that hope and confidence. For seeing God doth punish him, who dare be so bold as to absolve him from God's punishment, unless he first do penance, and make due satisfaction, so that we may boldly trust, that God is appeased and reconciled? otherwise it should be no other thing but to tempt God: which in no wise must be counseled.  
Luther would forsooth that the Duke of Brunswick were king of France. A likely matter truly. But why suffered they him not to remain Duke still? who gave Luther authority to punish the Duke? Is not this against all laws Canon, civil, and law of nature, that a man in his own cause may be a party and the judge? The civil law hath hitherto so prescribed, that though any debate fall out between man and man for injury taken or given, that the ordinary judge and lawful magistrate should determinat the matter: what? is the authority of this law wiped away also with the gospel? or was not the Emperor the high and ordinary judge of all Dukes and Princes here in Germany? what hath Luther to do herein? Is it against the doctrine of the gospel that the Apostle commandeth us to obey the higher powers? There is no power 
Rom. 13.  (saith he) but from God. and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance off god. which who do, purchase themselves damnation. But we must not obey, say they, an evil magistrate. but what evil magistrate mean they? forsooth the Emperor. And who saith he is an evil ruler? Luther and his fellows. But he should well and substantially have proved it, before he said it. And would god we had more such Emperors. The day will come that we would be glad to scrape such Emperors out of their graves with our nails, if we might so come by them. But grant they were tyrants: which yet who affirmeth, loudly belieth them. Doth not S. Peter say, 
1. Pet. 3.  Be ye subject in all fear to your rulers not only good and gentle but also such as are froward? It was not then Luther's part, but the emperors bearing the sword as an higher power and minister of god, to revenge and punish malefactors. Nor Luther hath no cause now so proudly to demand, Who dare be so bold as to restore to liberty the presonner prince? 
Rom. 13.  For he whose part it was to do it, was not only bold and able to do it, but did it in deed princely: and scourged worthily those which had offended. But now let us see what punishment and satisfaction this pope of Germany enjoineth the Duke.  
Whereas this captive, saith he, is deprived of his estate and dominion, he ought not to think that this is a worthy punishment for his deserts, but that, being touched only gently, as with the flap of a fox tail, he is but provoked and invited to penance: 
Luther's penance.  and thus he must say. O most merciful god, whereas I have deserved a great deal worse, and thou yet dost but whip me with small rods, verily I will gladly bear this punishment all days of my life: and I will utterly renounce my dominion and estate: as of the which thou hast most justly, nay rather most mercifully deprived me, and from the which I am rightly and worthily thrust out. for I am not as I perceive now, fit to govern the same. Thou art just o lord, and thou hast dealt justly with me, yet not according to my desert. for as I said before, we must entreat with god from the bottom of our heart, and obediently yield to his punishment if we do not so, he as the trier and searcher of men's hearts, from whom nothing is privy and whom no man can deceive, will easily espy it: and if any man go about to deceive or delude him, he maketh his cause be it never so god, stark nought: which all we Christian men know well enough, or aught at lest to know. Mark here now diligently good Christian Reader. Now Luther will have this poor prince being prisoner not to make his confession after the Lutheran order, that is, that he confess his faults only to god in his heart, but even after the papistical manner (as touching the confessing of his sins by mouth) 
Luther is become a papist for a vantage.  will that he keep nothing privy from him or them that shall be his confessors, nor be not so bold as to deny any thing. what then must this penitent of Luther confess? Forsooth all those things, which his open and notorious enemies do falsely accuse him of: to the intent that, if being forced by cruel imprisonment he hap to yield up his own right, than all the world might think that his voluntary confession was the cause of such satisfaction: for they will have him confess, that he suffereth such imprisonment worthily, and that for his deserts he is thrust out of his estate and dominion: and that he will never require it again, but will of his own accord yield up all his right, and the right of his heirs for ever to his adversaries and mortal enemies here in earth, abiding for and expecting an other estate in heaven. Is not this think you a sweet and pleasant satisfaction, and merely invented of Luther, and very gospel like? when the Lutherans offend against the Catholics then in the whole penance there can be found no satisfaction. contrition sufficeth. But now in this case, we must have all three degrees of penance, Contrition, confession, and satisfaction.  
But now Luther to show that he is not only the holy Father, the high bishop, and pope in Germany, but also that he is a prophet and the third Elias, he comforteth the princes underneath him, and doth prophecy of things to come: taking occasion of a certain coin brought unto him out of base germany, unto Wittenberg in the year. 1545. whereof in this his little book thus he writeth. This year there goeth a talk that certain strange coins are brought hither out of base Germany: which both declare the great knowledge off the Papists, and threaten wonderful perils to the two princes the elector Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse. These coins of one side have two pillars Crowned: the one with the Emperors, the other with a kings Crown. between the two pillars are fetters and gives and two chains prepared for two men. 
O cleanly spirit of Luther.  I think this shitten prophet, would bind the Prince elector off Saxony and the Landgrave there with. for in the circle of the coin, thus it is graven. Ad alligandos reges eorum in compedibus. that is, to bind their princes in fetters. 
Psal. 143.  The other side of the coin hath a spread eagle climping in his claws the two sword which are painted in the Duke of Saxony his arms. Beside, the points of these sword strike through a virgin lying on her side underneath. and fire droppeth on her like rain. the virgin is tituled, 
Psal. 143.  infidelity: the writing about is, Ad faciendam vindictam in nationibus. that is, to work vengeance in nations. whereby they declare what they wrought against us, and how they would have interpreted the league of defence, if those things that they said, had come to effect. 
At Smal●●ldium.  We need not here to ask whether of these two in this foresaid prophecy was the true, or (that I may by your good leave use Luther's civility) the shitten prophet.  

* This day the Duke of Saxony was taken  The four and twentieth day off April in the year, 1547. in Locher filled: and 
* The ●ant grave submitted himself.  thee, nineteen. day off june off the same year at halls in Saxony hath manifestly declared it. I can not without great grief remember how our Noble country of Germany hath suffered a rennagat monk thus to blind them, and delude them to our perpetual shame and ignominy in the face off all other countries, to the utter destruction of thousands off souls, murder of our bodies, and spoiling off our goods. Truly I fully persuade myself, that this foresaid coin was sent unto us out of the low countries not without the instinct of the holy ghost, either mercifully to admonish us to look better to our matters, or that the vain prediction off this false prophet Luther might by so evident and true a prophecy be convicted. For he that can not see may yet sensibly feel that this whole matter had the very same event that the coin foreshowed, clean contrary and repugnant to Luther's dream. Luther persuaded the simple germans that this prophecy was fulfilled in Duke Harry then prisoner: and that thereby the pope's dominion was utterly destroyed. and therefore pricked forward the Duke and the Landgrave to fight and rebel against their liege Sowerain. For thus he addeth yet farther in the same book.  
But now for whom they have painted these gives and fetters we see, thanked be god, which hath judged according to the saying of the psalm. They have opened the pit, and digged it up and have fallen in to it themselves. their sorrow shall be turned upon their own heads, and their iniquities shall fall upon their own crowns: therefore we thank the just and almighty god and praise the name of the highest. Amen.  
See how this proud prophet boasteth and triumpheth as though all the element rung of trumpets and music, and as though this article, I believe the Catholic Church vere scraped out of the Crede. 
Math. 16. Ephes. 3.  or as though that were no more true, that Christ hath said, that the Church is builded upon a sure rock not able to be shaken. or as though it were false that the Apostle writeth, calling the Church the pillar and ground of truth. Who then fell in to the ditch? was it not he that first threw his neighbour in, and after 
* The Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave by Charles the Emperor  was constrained to pluck him out again, and fall in himself? all the world knoweth and seeth it. This then lo is the first prophecy of Martin Luther in this foresaid book. Now let us here an other strait following hereupon.  
To the intent, saith he, that our conscience be not burdened with the sins of an other, and we be counted afore God as wicked Achab. For if he be delivered out of preson, the papists without doubt will blaspheme 
* Note the Luthe rans God  our God, and will crack after this sort. Lo be not our prayers heard of God? We have prayed for the Duke Harry of Brunsuicke, and God hath tried our patience, but he hath heard us at the length. For although he suffered the Duke Harry to fall in to the heretics hands for our temporal punishment, yet they have not been able to keep him still, but were compelled off God to dismiss him. 
The prayers of the Carholikes.  Thanks be to our God, which hath not forsaken the church and ancient religion. And in deed true it is that this argument hath most moved me. For we know the pope and his parasites be incurable therefore they can do nought else, but even in their most miseries, and wicked deeds comfort, colour and trick up themselves. His other prophecy whereby he would be counted a third Elias, he confirmeth by this reason. That the same must needs be the right church off Christ, which was able by their good prayers to restore their princes in to liberty. Therefore if the Duke Harry through the earnest and continual prayers of the papists were dismissed of his enemies, them every man will think verily that the papists are the true and right church of Christ. And this is true in deed. For this reason therefore Luther (as he writeth) was most moved, in no case to suffer the Duke to be set at liberty, lest perhaps the papists should be taken for the true church of God, and he and his fellows for the malign church. Here let every man that lacketh not common judgement, consider whether Luther be not such a prophet as Caiphas was: 
joan. 11.  For he prophesieth now the truth, but as Caiphas did against himself and for the contrary part. The Catholics in deed prayed continually and earnestly for the emprisonned prince, that he might escape out of his enemy's hands. Luther wrought by force and by craft all that he could to keep him continually in preson, and in his enemy's hands. Which part then did God hear? undoubtedly the righter and more just. For God is no unjust judge, but payeth every man according to his pains. Therefore he succoured the prisoner, delivered him, and so dealt with him that he might say, judge me o Lord according to my righteousness. 
Psal. 7.  God therefore gave the right and true sentence: and now which part and whose prayers were heard, the event declared.  
But how laboureth Luther to overthrow the reason of the papists (wherewith he was so much moved) and by that overthrow to set up his proud and arrogant prophecy? The first part of the reason he letteth stand, and granteth that God heareth the prayers of his church. But he layeth at the other part, and denieth stoutly that the papists are able to obtain any thing of God. For so he goeth forth in his foresaid book.  
Their prayer therefore is not to be feared, 
3. Reg. 20. Fol. E. 4, & F. 1.  no more than Elias feared the prayers of the prophets of Baal. But as he laughed to scorn their prayers and their God, so we may lawfully laugh to scorn the papists and their God. For we know their prayers are execrable as their doctrine and belief is. According to that of the psalm, 199. Let their prayer turn in to sin. And whomsoever they teach, he can not chose but be condemned. Nether are their prayers other, than such as the devil once mocked, at what time a certain priest being well tippled saying his complete in his bead, and spitting, as he prayed, 
O the civilite of Luther's spirit.  letted also a great farte: well quôd he, Devil▪ such prayer, such frankincense. The like may be said of all their mumbling in churches and monasteries. For they can not pray nor will not pray, nor know not what to pray, nor how to pray. The heretical doctrine of Luther is so printed in some men's hearts by the instinct of some evil spirit, that they pass upon no prayer, believe no truth no miracle, not God himself: but one word of Luther's mouth more persuadeth them, be it never so false, than God himself, or his word, or the whole Catholic church. Therefore if any man at that time had been so bold as to have said, that the Catholic church should through her devout prayers obtain the victory against her enemies, and that this Duke them prisoner should be delivered, and the other (the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave) cast in preson, that man had been mocked and scoffed to death: presuming so to contemn the authority off the third Elias Luther. And I doubt whether yet until this day some simple men are deceived by that his prophecy: though the end of this tragedy being so open to all the world, giveth evident testimony that almighty God hath heard the prayers of the papists, and rejected those of the Lutherans: delivering the Duke Harry, and bringing the other two Princes in to the emperors hands as presonners.  
Now Luther to absolve and consummate this his last work (for with this wholesome piece he ended his fift gospel) he provoketh men of arms and power to fight courageously against their chief and Liege Soweraines. For thus he writeth. Only God must be honoured, only god must be praised, to him only thanks are due to the intent that he which maketh all things, may give also the victory. For god can abide none of these twain, either that man tempt him, or that he trust to much to himself, We must walk the high way turning neither on the right hand, neither on the left. Whosoever taketh not weapon when he may, he useth not the gifts of god: he turneth on the left hand, and seeing a blow coming layeth out his head. He tempteth god. wherefore it happeneth well and worthily that such men's heads bear away the raps. This counsel of Luther is true and good touching Magistrates, Kings, Emperors, Princes, and rulers. But not for them which are subjects and private men. For Luther himself writeth and teacheth, that no Prince or Lord (which is under a higher power and oweth allegiance unto him) can rightly make war against any other prince or Lord: 
Tom. 6. fo. 612. in lib. num milisint in stat● salutis.  much less against his own Liege and Sowerain. Therefore it should at that time diligently been provided, that men followed not this seditious and false high way of Luther, which no subject can tread without his princes leave. Especially perceiving that this high way of Luther hath ever an unhappy and miserable end, repugning manifestly to the word of God, all written law, and Luther's own doctrine.  
Demosthenes the learned and eloquent orator saith, 
Orat. 2. contra Philip.  wise men deliberate before the fact and fools after the fact. For as Livy writeth, the event teacheth fools. And we Germans use to say, the Italian taketh advise before he begin, the french man when he is a doing, and the Germane when he hath done. Which although it hath hindered much our country in divers affairs, yet this is in us no voluntary negligence, but a natural infirmity. For Hesiodus the poet noteth three sorts of men to be on the earth. saying.  
Who knoweth all himself, is the best man alive.  
He is the next that counsel can use.  
But he is the worst, that woteth not to thrive,  
And yet of an other doth counsel refuse.  
Seeing then we Germans are not so quick of judgement (which peradventure proceedeth of our cold country) as the Italian is, to foresee what is to be done, yet we may now by this lamentable calamity that we see hath befallen us, 
A counsel good and necessary for us also  and the present great waste of our dear country learn and remember, how within this forty years it flourished and prospered in all respects, before this Germane prophet and fift evangelist Luther ran out of his cloister. And although our duty had been at that time to have remembered that saying of our Lord, Beware of false prophets, 
duty. 13. Matthae. 7. 1. joan. 4.  and the words of S. Ihon. Try the spirits whether they be of God, and so to deliberat before the fact: yet seeing we have forslowen that, let us at the lest, after the smart be wise, and have recourse now at last to that commandment of almighty God, where he commandeth the simple people to ward themselves from false prophets and teachers. For this question being in holy writ propounded, 
Deuter. 18.  How shall I understand the word that our Lord hath spoken? God answereth and saith. This token I will give the to understand it. That which the prophet hath foresaid in the name of the Lord, and cometh not to pass, that word the Lord spoke not, but the prophet of his own vain fantasy forged it. If we draw the line of Luther's prophecy to this rule, we shall evidently see that he is not only a false prophet, 
joan. 8.  but also as his great grand father Satan is, a cruel murderer.  
Is it not a great pride and rash arrogancy of Luther to prophecy and write that the god of the Catholics, whom he calleth papists, will not hear their prayers for the deliuraunce of the Duke? by what revelation had he this? 
Luther is a false prophet.  Again that no man living should be able, or so bold as to restore him in to liberty? Again that those his princes (the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave) should not be bound with those fetters, which the coin brought from base Germany pretended? Farther that the war them ensuing should have a prosperous success? last of all that S. Brigids' prophecy was false, and his true, saying that the See of Rome and estate of the Pope should then utterly perish and never rise up again? All these things did Luther prophecy in the book above mentioned. And did the event prove all this? Not one jot. But in every point it hath proved clean contrary. Then this word of Luther was not the word off the Lord, as Moses teacheth, but it was the word of the devil in the person of Luther.  
Again that Luther hath been a very murderer of men, 
Luther is a murderer and a strong thief in the church.  and a strong thief in God's church, it is evident hereby that his doctrine and vain prophecies (setting together the princes by the ears) hath been the only cause of all seditions, war and bloodshed that within this forty years have happened in Germany. The first book that Luther made to spoil and ransack the church, was his book De Captivitate Babylonica & Christiana libertate. In the which book he so debaseth, revileth, and bringeth in contempt not only the ancient true and Catholic religion of Christ his church, but also the laws both Canon and Civil, that it may seem he lacked but a head and captain to make a perfect sedition. But whereas at that time there was yet among men more fear of God and reverence to their magistrates, than that they would be moved with Luther's light talk, few were found to help blow the fire which he had kindled, until at the length Luther himself moved peradventure more hotly with the spirit, rung the alarm himself in the year. 1523. setting forth a book entitled, De saeculari potestate. in a part whereof he writeth these words.  
These are our Christian princes which defend the faith and devour the Turk. 
In tomo 6. germanico. Fol. 602.  In deed worthy men, and such as you may trust that by their great wisdom they are likely to do some what, as to break their own necks first, 
Luther proveth contempt of princes by scripture.  and then lead whole countries and people's to break neck after. These blind princes I would well advise, to be ware only of one small sentence of the 166. psalm, which is this. He pooreth out contempt upon Princes. I swear unto you by God, that if through your negligence this poor sentence ones take hold on you, you are undone, were you as mighty and of as great power as the Turk himself. Nether will your storming any thing profit you. The matter is now all ready well begun. For few princes are now that are not counted for villains and fools: and that because they show themselves for such: and the people beginneth now to wax wise, and the plague of princes which god calleth contempt, increaseth daily in the people's hearts: and I fear me it will not be stayed, unless princes behave themselves, as it becometh them, and begin again to rule more modestly. 
Luther's counsel to princes  For men ne will ne can longer abide your tyranny, O well-beloved Princes and Lords. Therefore provide for yourselves: God will not suffer this your tyranny any more. the world is not no we as it was in times passed, 
Thanks to the Luther.  when you were wont to hunt and chase men like beasts. away therefore with your pride, power and haugtynes, and labour to do that is right and good: suffer the word of God to have his course, which yet it must have and shall have, and you shall not be able to let it. If we teach heresy, let it be confuted by the word of God. If you will try the matter with the sword, take heed lest some man command you to put up your sword not in God's name. But you will say peradventure. If among the Christians there ought to be no secular sword nor Civil government, how then shall men be kept in order, how shall they be governed? For among Christian men must be magistrates and officers. 
Luther proveth there must be no magistrates among Christian men, by scripture.  I answer you. Among Christian men there can not be, nor ought not to be any Magistrate. but every man is subject one to another all a like. as the Apostle saith. Philip. 2. Thinking every one superior one to another: and S. Peter. 1. Pet, 5. Every one show humility one to another: unto the which Christ also consenteth, saying. Luce. 14. when thou art called unto a marriage, go, sit down in the lowest place. Among Christian men there is no superior, but only Christ: and what superiority or magigistrat can there be where all be equal, of one right, dignity, and vocation? and where none desireth to rule over the other, but every one is glad to be under? Where such men are, if any would make a Magistrate, yet he can not make one that should be superior to the other. for it is against nature to have superiors, where no man will be, nor can besuperiour▪ and where such men are not, there are not true Christians. Again in the next leaf before he writeth thus. They be princes of the world. But the world is enemy to God. Therefore they must needs do those things that are contrary to God, 
T●m. 6. Fol. A 1.  and acceptable to the world, lest they lose their honour and be no more worldy princes. Marvel not therefore if they storm and strive against the gospel and play like mad fools. For their doings must needs correspond to their name and title. Mark also that from the beginning of the world a wise prince hath been a seldom bird. but a good prince much more dainty. 
The reverence off Luther toward Princes.  The most of them are other principal fools, or the most wicked knaves on the earth. And therefore we can hope for little good of them, but fear always the worst. Especially in matters of God and pertaining to our soul health. For they are as the hangmen and tormentors of god: etc. And anon it followeth. Therefore if perhaps there be any wise, good or Christian prince, that is to be counted for a wonder and a singular token of gods great grace and clemency toward that country.  
I beseech you all good Christian readers, of whatsoever degree or quality you are, remember your vocation, and suffer not yourselves to be abused of this fond friar, or to be lead in to his seditious errors and contempt of Magistrates, from the true belief and ancient obedience of Christendom. For the true gospel of Christ commandeth directly all subjects to obey their Liege's, 
1. Pet. 2.  Princes and Soweraines in all dread and obedience not only good, virtuous, and merciful, but also froward, wicked and cruel.  
But what effect had this fift gospel of Luther and his prophesying of the fall of Princes? forsooth in the year 1525. 
Sleidan in the 5. book.  (that is two years after the setting forth of that his seditious book) it stirred up that notorious rebel Thomas Muntzer: whom yet Luther (as it may by good evidence be proved) at the first excused and defended before the Duke of Saxony: hoping that Muntzer should have sped of his purpose: But afterward perceiving the princes to make great preparation, and to gather power against the rebels, feeling that his Christian liberty was like to fall in the dung, strait he writeth unto the Princes and nobility, to hew down the rustical rebels.  
And to declare unto the whole world the great thought and grief that father Luther took of that his former pernicious and deadly counsel, 
The marriage of Luther.  even at the very same time, he took a nun out of her cloister, and for mere pity of the poor commons so deluded, 
Vide Erafmum in epistol. ad Thomam Lupsetum. an. 1525  celebrated the solemn sweet marriage of the fift gospel. But to the intent the Princes and Rulers might not espy these his privy fetches and devilish inventions, the very same year. 1525, he set forth an other book quite contrary to the former. Which he entitled. Whether soldiers be in state of salvation. In that book he writeth thus.  
Here the law itself speaketh, 
Tom. 6. germanico. fol. 612.  that no man ought to take weapon against his superior. For unto superiors and magistrates honour, reverence, obedience, and dread is due. Rom. 13. For he that hacketh wood over his head, the chips will fall in his eyes: 
Ecclel. 27.  and as Solomon saith, he that throweth a stone upward it will fall down upon his head. even such is the law made of god and received of men. For these two can not agree, to obey and yet to rebel: to be a subject, and yet to abide no ruler. Thus much Luther in that place. Here I beseech almighty God to give the light of truth to all good and godly readers hereof: that laying a side all affection to the person or man, they will weigh and consider uprightly the whole cause itself, as it standeth.  
Luther's books De Captinitate Babylonica, 
Contrari eat in the doctrine of Luther  and of Secular authority, teach according to his gospel. that among Christian men there can not be, nor ought no to be any higher power, or power at al. And why wrote he so then? because that if the Emperor or other princes would perhaps have persecuted the heresy of Luther, than the commons and citizens might lawfully have slaien the Catholic Prince, higher power and magistrate. Now in his other book, Of the state of soldiers, the gospel of Luther teacheth plain contrary, that the higher power must be obeyed: not only good, but also the bad: to punish the seditious and put to death rebels. Again in his last little book written to the Duke of Saxony and the Landgrave, his gospel preacheth after an other sort: as that subjects may take weapon and stand in the field against their liege Sowerain. But so that they walk the high way: that is, that spitting well in their hands and falling to it lustily (as he was wont to say) they hew down their princes apace, and if it prove prosperously, then give honour unto the Lord. Behold the honour of God, that heretics seek. They teach the subject to murder the Prince against the express commandment of God in holy write, teaching us to honour God in the higher power.  
Awake ye o Germans, 
A godly exhortation.  stir up yourselves, see and acknowledge the merciful visitation of almighty God. Now god knocketh at our hearts, and looketh for repentance, and that with this fatherly lesson of king David. 
Psal. 94.  Todaie if ye have heard his voice, harden not your hearts. and the words of the Apostle. Knowest thou not that the mercifulness of god and long bearing draweth the unto repentance? 
Rom. 2.  Let us therefore ask and cry unto god. O Lord convert us, and show thy face, and we shall be saved. 
Psal. 79.  Let us also hear the word of our Lord calling upon us by the prophet. 
Anchar. 1.  Turn ye unto me (saith the Lord of Hosts) and I will turn unto you. And to the intent that all the honour be given to God, and yet that our good intent and purpose lack not, if we will do true penance, we must from the bottom of our heart lament with jeremy the prophet, and cry with tears unto our lord, 
therein. 5.  O Lord turn us unto thee, and we shall be turned. And what necessity driveth us to this cry and lamentation? surely even the very same which moved that Prophet so to bewail and lament, when, he saith. Woe be unto us, because we have sinned. For truly I think we germans have sinned ten-times more grievously than those jews. And what was the plague of their heinous offences? the prophet declareth. The crown and garland of our head is fallen of. I fear me, we germans shall have the self same plague, unless we speedily do penance for our wickedness. It followeth in the lamentation. Therefore my heart is heavy and full of grief. We, alas, are not yet come so far toward penance, that our heart hath been heavy for our sins. For we yet continue in them. and why speed we not to penance? Because our eyes are darkened. and wherefore? for the hill of Zion, that is, the Catholic church. why? what is befallen it? because it is destroyed. O Merciful god, this is to to true with us Germans. For among us, one saith Here is Christ: 
Matt. 24.  an other saith, there is Christ. this man saith, Among the calvinists is the church, an other saith, Among the Illyricans. the third, among the Indifferents. the fourth among the Osiandrins, the fift among the Swenck feldians, and so with the rest. whereas yet it is unpossible it should be among them all. why so? because it is destroyed, it is scattered, it is undone. And how cometh it, o holy jeremije, that the holy hill of Zion (the Catholic church) is so wasted and destroyed? Foxes have walked in it. In deed foxes, that is, as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin expound it, 
Ambros. in 9 cap. Luc. Aug. in psa. 80.  subtle, crafty, deceitful, stinking and lurking heretics. These foxes have onerrunne, spoiled, and destroyed the holy hill of Zion, the Catholic church of Christ. And as soon as the light that shineth from this hill (the Catholic church, 
Esa 42.  of whom it is said, I have set the up as a light to all nations) was once in Germany darkened and extinguished, men's eyes and hearts were so blinded, that with open eyes they see nothing, and are so sick that they feel no pain at all, nor perceive not how daily the Crown falleth away from their heads. Let him therefore pray that can pray. and who so ever feareth the smart of god's rod, let him labour to escape it: and cry with the prophet. 
Thren. 5.  Turn us o lord unto the. and that he fail not also on his part, let him say with mouth, and perform in deed, And we will be turned.  
But because that (as S. Augustin teacheth) repentance which proceedeth not of faith is unprofitable, 
August. de vera & falsa pae●it cap. 2.  there is no hope of true repentance among us, unless we embrace the true doctrine of Christian faith. To the intent therefore that every common lay man may be sure and perfect of the faith and religion which he followeth, I will add hereunto to knit up this our simple treatise, a little piece out of a book that Vincentius lyrenensis wrote above twelve hundred years past, under Theodosius the Emperor, for the maintenance and setting forth of Catholic religion.  
A man peradventure may demand (saith he) seeing the Canon of holy scripture is sufficient off it self for all points, what needeth the interpretation off the Church to be added thereunto? to the which question he answereth. For because forsooth holy scripture being deep and mystical, is not of all men after the like sort expounded: but the sentences thereof some man expoundeth one way, some an other: that almost as many men, so divers expositions may be drawn thereof. For the Novatian expoundeth it one way. Sabellius an other way. Donatus, Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus, iovinianus, Pelagius, Celestius, and Nestorius all founders of sundry heresies, follow each of them their own proper and peculiar way of interpreting holy scripture. Wherefore it behoveth that in consideration of so many creaks and by erroneous paths, the line of interpreting holy prophets and Apostles be drawn and directed according to the rule of the Catholic and ecclesiastical exposition. In the Catholic church itself we must seriousely provide, that we follow only that which is received in every place, at all times, of all men. for this is Catholic in deed and properly (as the word itself emporteth) comprehending all universally. This we may so do, 
universality antiquity Consent.  if we follow universalite, antiquity, and Consent. universality we shall follow, if we acknowledge that faith and belief which the whole church through out the whole world acknowledgeth. antiquity if we depart not from those expositions which the holy ancient fathers have left unto us. Consent likewise, if in the antiquity we cleave unto the determinations of all or almost all priests, prelates, and teachers of the church. What then shall the Catholic and Christian man do, if any part of the church cut itself of from the communion and society of the general belief? What other then that he must prefer the whole body before the diseased part? What if some new infection plague not only some part but the whole church? Then must he diligently cleave unto the antiquity or awncient received faith which can be seduced by no guile of novelty. What if two or three men, or some one city or country serve from the antiquity, and received doctrine? Then against the rash ignorance of a few he must set the ancient and universal decrees of some general Council. What if such doubts arise that no such decree can be found? Then let him labour to seek out and confer together the saying of the fathers, such as though in divers times and in divers places, yet remaining in the unite and belief of the Catholic church, have been approved for teachers and doctors of the same: and what soever he shall find that not one or two only of them, but that all with one Consent have clearly taught, oftentimes written, and continually held, this without all doubt and stagger he ought to be leave. Thus far that holy father, Vincentius Lyren.  
It were much to be wished that this good and profitable book were soundly and truly translated in to the vulgar tongue, 
The book is in our english tongue already translated, and is most necessary to be read in these●imes.  and so set in print to be read of all men. For this holy father above twelve hundred years since hath so written of this matter, that he seemeth thereby to call to the Catholic unite, and provoke to amendment off life, not only the heretics of his time, but also even these of our time. To th'intent that shaking off all sin and heresy, we might live here in peace, unite, and concord: and obtain hereafter the everlasting life, praising with all the saints our Lord and God for ever: the which his dear son our Saviour jesus Christ by his tender mercy and blessed merits grant us. AMEN.  
FINIS.   

A DISCOURSES UPON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PROTESTANTS TRIED BY THE THREE FIRST FOUNDERS and fathers thereof, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon and especially john Calvin: out of whose works are gathered sundry old heresies, absurdites and contradictions by him avouched.  
Our Saviour in the gospel forwarning us off false teachers and prophets, 
Matthe. 7.  which coming in sheeps skins are inwardly ravening wolves, and checking the proud Pharisees corrupting the word of god with their fond inventions, making thereby a sect by themselves as josephus recordeth, 
Lib. 2. cap. 7. de bello judaico. Matth. 15.  pronounceth of them in this wise. Coeci sunt & duces coecorum: Coecus autem si coeco ducatum praestet, ambo in foveam cadunt. that is. They are blind and the guides of blind men. and if the blind lead the blind, both fall in to the ditch. Likewise the blessed Apostle S. Peter, according to the charge given him off our Saviour above the rest of the Apostles, 
joan. 21.  even as above the rest he loved Christ, forwarneth also his flock of heretics that should springe up among them, 
2. Petr. 1.  as in the old law before some had sprung: and writeth thus. Fuerunt & pseudoprophetae in populo etc. There were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be lying masters among you, which shall bring in damnable sects, even denying God that hath bought them, and bring upon themselves swift damnation: and many shall follow their damnable ways, by whom the way off truth shall be blasphemed etc. In these sayings both of our Saviour, and of S. Peter his vicar here on earth, we learn both that false heretics were like to arise in Christ his church, and what a perilous thing it is to follow the straypathes of such blind guides▪ which is, as our Saviour saith, to fall in to the ditch with them. and as S. Peter telleth us, to blaspheme the way of truth, to wit, Christ himself who is the life, 
joan. 14.  the way, and the truth. And truly though we endeavoured ourselves as S. Paul biddeth us, 
Philip. 3.  to observe and follow those which walk after such sort, as we have him for an ensample, 
Ephes. 4.  if we were solliciti servare unitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis, diligent to keep unite of mind in the bond of peace, if we would, as he most charyly warneth Timothe save that which is given us 
1. Timo. 6.  to keep (the treasure of our faith) and avoid profane novelties of talk, and oppositions of false named knowledge, we would not so rashly have followed a few false teachers against the common consent of Christendom, 
2. Petr. 2.  we had not departed from our first faith, and after the knowledge of truth have turned away from the holy commandment, being so (as S. Peter saith) in worse case, then if we had never known the truth: briefly we had not fallen in to so many and divers pits of heretical doctrine, 
1. Timo. 3.  forsaking the ground and pillar of all truth the Catholic church of Christ. For verily who so earnestly and diligently would consider with himself, whereby it hath happened that in these late years so many have departed from the catholic faith and yielded to new doctrines not heard of before, he shall surely find the principal means thereof, to have been the only light credence given to new preachers, and rash believing every new tale in matters of conscience and salvation. The cause of this our rashness I will not search out, though it be ready to find, our only sins and wicked life being the very proper cause thereof, and nothing else. But the means as I said, hath principally been light hearkening to every such as listed to talk new doctrine: the doctrine itself being plausible and gladly received of those, which burdened with sin and wickedness, were greedy of the liberty, that in the doctrine was preached. according as S. Paul prophesied saying, 
2. Timo. 4.  The time shall be, when men will not abide wholesome doctrine, but as such whose ears doth itch, they shall get them such teachers, as shall withdraw them from the truth, and turn them to fables. For hereof it happened, that not regarding what he was that taught, or upon what reasons he grounded his doctrine, only the pleasantness of it, as a bait, choked the hearers and prisers thereof. For even as in the old law, the children of Israel when they fell to iniquity, would not hearken to the prophets, but bad them to speak pleasant doctrine unto them, 
Esaiae. 30.  and seek them out errors, so many these late years pressed with sin, hearkened greedily to such doctrine as might deliver them from the discipline of the church, from due repentance, confession, and satisfaction of their sins, from obedience to pastors and curates, from fastings, from prayer, and all necessity of good works, briefly from all clog of conscience, 
In libro. de capt. Bayloni●a.  from which Luther craked he had delivered the hearts off men.  
Now as we are suffered to fall in to sin sometime, not only of infirmity, or for trial of our strength, but also for the plague of other sins, as S. Paul in the first to the Romans declareth, so in punishment of this lewd liberty so greedily embraced in smaller points of our faith, God hath of his secret and unknown justice suffered us to fall beside in to such enormous heresies, though nothing pleasant otherwise, to such detestable doctrine, to so divers and contrary opinions, that considering now the trade of this tragedy, and seeing to what issue it hath proceeded, (though truly I fear it be far yet from the issue and end) I have thought it a good and convenient means both to stay somewhat this headlong race, that men so blindly run in, and to call back such as have passed all bonds of right belief already, by the very same means, by the which they first began to break the array of Christ's church, and to run this mad and lamentable course. And because we may work the matter even from the ground, I have thought good to consider the very first sowers of the schismatical seed of our time: which I do find to have been Luther, and his scholar Melanchthon, and john Calvin.  
The first broker of this cursed bargain, whereby many have lost heaven and purchased hell, was Martin Luther. The setter forth of the bargain and greatest Merchant of these perilous wares, was Melanchthon: who seemed partly to perfect that which Luther began, partly to amend with civil conformation, that which the other furiously and beyond all reason blamed. Of these two heads are now two monstrous sects swarming in all such places, as protestants and ghospellers prevail. That is the zealous, rough, and rigorous Lutherans cleaving fast to every jot and parcel of Luther's doctrine, as being the very evangelist of this fift gospel: and the civil, soft and Philosophical Lutherans, which after the trade off Melanchthon pluck up in Luther such things as they mislike, and plant of their own such as they list. The third chief Master of late heresies, and principal founder of wicked doctrine hath been john Calvin: the head and capitain of the Sacramentary sect. For though Zuinglius and Oecolampadius may seem his ancestors of a few years, yet he beareth now the name and the stroke of all that cursed sect, both because he hath written most thereof, and also hath done most harm of any other.  
Truly who so knew what manner of men these were, what abominable doctrine they have taught, how variable and inconstant they have been in their own sayings and doings, if he be a Christian man and feareth God, he will never forsake the whole corpse of Christendom, and the Catholic faith of so many hundred years, to follow the private, new, and variable doctrine of their brains. But it seemeth they are of a number unknown, and hereupon rashly believed. I will therefore add unto this work of Staphylus a short discourse, touching the doctrine of these three Archeprotestants of our time. For even as the intent and purpose of that virtuous and learned man Fridericus Staphylus in this his Apology by us translated, was to reduce his dear countrymen of Germany, wandering like stray sheep, to the flock off Christ's church again, partly by discovering the falsehood of their guides craking of God's word without the right meaning thereof, and abusing the unlearned with false forged translating off the same, which in the first and second part of his Apology he hath done, partly also by setting before men's eyes their great variances and most clear dissensions in doctrine (an evident argument of heresy) even so our intent and purpose is for the edifying of such of my dear countrymen, as have not of malice, but of ignorance cleaved unto the plausible and pernicious doctrine of these three arch-heretics Martin Luther, Phil. Melanchthon, and john Calvin, to make an especial discourse of their doctrine, because they are in our country above all other sect masters most followed. For not only, the common sort of deceived protestants but the learned and pretended prelates, and ministers of our country, are partly Lutherans, partly Sacram●taries. And of the Lutherans, some (though the fewer numbered) are zealous and rigorous Lutherans: that is, such as will in all points follow Luther, taking him for the ver● prophet of God, the fift Evangelist, and the third Elias of our time. Some are civil Lutherans, gentle and courtly protestants, which admit Luther so far as then list, professing a kind of indifferency in many matters of religion, as Melanchthon their first Master taught them. The third sort of protestāns, the most common and allowed sect in England, are the Sacramentaries of Geneva. Who are so great in numbered and authority, that the other are almost of no account or reputation. To these men Luther is a papist, and Calvin is the right and undoubted prophet.  
To the intent therefore that beside the general discourse of Staphylus, the particular humours of our country may somewhat be served, I have thought it necessary to annex here unto a particular discourse of these three sects, by examining the three first founders and fathers thereof. But especially and most largely we intend to treat of the Sacramentary sect, as being the greatest sore of the corrupted body off our country: And although we say not herein all that may be said, (which would require a large volume, and perhaps; more tedious than profitable) yet these few that we shall bring, may be sufficient arguments to discredit the authority of any one of them: which in many men's eyes seemeth so great, that at the warrant off their mouth, they stick not to cast away all credit off all the learned men in Christ his church this fifteen hundred years and upward.  
For if I declare unto you most manifest and clear heresies, 
The argument off this discourse.  such as have been condemned above a thousand years paste in that state and time of Christ's church, as our protestants yet acknowleadg, or ●eme at the lest to acknowledge for pure and uncorrupted, to be in the doctrine of Calvin: If I show most manifest contradictions and brutish absurdites out off his writings, in the weightiest articles of our belief (as of the blessed Sacrament, of Baptim, and of free will of man) if I declare unto you such inconstancy of Melanchthon, as would scarce become a mean scholar in matters of common learning, if I discover a numbered of old heresies condemned also in the primitive church, renewed by Luther (generally received of all protestants) beside divers other most certain tokens of heretical doctrine avouched by him, all this I trust shall be a just and sufficient cause not only to suspect, but utterly to mislike the residue off their doctrine and opinions, whereby they have inveigled the hearts of men to the utter destruction off thousands of souls. For truly if they be men sent especially from God, to restore unto us the light of his holy word after the darkness of so many hundred years (as they pretend to be, and are taken for such) it can not possibly be, but that their sayings and doings must savour of the Apostles, holy Martyrs, and ancient fathers of Christ's church, by whom the faith of Christ was first planted here on earth, and spread through out the whole world. That is, they must have Cor unum & animam unam. 
Actorum. 2.  One heart and one mind as the Apostles had, they must Obedire excorde in eam formam doctrinae in qua traditi sunt, 
Rom●. 6.  Obeyeven from their heart to that m●ner of doctrine wherein they were brought up, as the first Christians did, they must have the ensample of wholesome words and doctrine, 
2. Timo. 1.  which they heard of their first fathers and teachers, as the church of Christ hath always continued. But iff their sayings and doings repugn directly against the manner and usage of these holy men, if they be at variance among themselves, and with themselves, (as especially you shall see in Calvin) if they forsake the trade of old doctrine, and renew in their place old condemned heresies: if they forsake the ensample of other, forging doctrine of their own: no Christian man may doubt, but that they are not off that race nor line, but rather of the issue of the old heretics, whose doctrine they renew, and behaviour they follow. For undoubtedly the saying of our Saviour can not be false: 
Matth. 7.  By their fruits you shall know them. But now to the matter, and first of Luther.  
It is well known by all the histories of our time as of Fontanus, Reverus, Sleidan, and other that the first breach of the well ordered array of Christ's church was by Luther attempted, not of revelation, conscience, or learning, but only for the grief of a repulse taken touching the publishing of that famous pardon of the Croisad. For hereupon began he first to open his lips against the abuse of pardons, after against the pardons themselves, them against the whole authority of the church not only in that matter but almost in all other necessary articles of belief. And because we will not go by conjectures but by most●● redemonstrations, I will bring you the words of Luth●● him s●lfe.  
In a disputation before the Duke George of Saxony held openly at Lipsia with D. E●kius, he doth plainly pronounce, That the quarrel of religion then by him enter pr●s●d, was not begonn for the honour of God, nor should not end to his honour. 
Fonta●us lib. 2.  Luther in all his doings declared well this his intent and purpose, but now because Ex abund●ntia cordis os loquitur, as the heart thinketh, the tongue speaketh, he uttereth it also in words, and be wraieth his devilish intent. rashly perhaps and unprovidently on his own part, but not without the merciful providence of almighty god in our behalf. And in very deed according to his talk the matter proved. For see how he made his entry to this jolly enterprise. He knew right well, that the authority of learned writers standing, he could not plant his devilish and wicked doctrine. Therefore at the first he persuadeth the world that the gospel hitherto hath been trod under foot, and men's constitutions have prevailed. Wherefore nothing ought to be received, but the only clear and express text of holy Scripture. 
L●●e Eras man in ●y 〈◊〉.  For these be his words in his book De s●ruo arbitrio against Eraesmus. Lay aside all the armour and defence, which the old Catholic writers, all schools of divines, authority of councils, and pope's, the consent of all ages, and all Christendom do minister unto you. We admit nothing but Scripture. Whatsoever the old writers taught, the authority of the church hath delivered, Christian people hath embraced, Schools have defended, it is all the pestilent poison of the devil. I will no judgement, but I require obedience. Nor let not any man be any whit moved with the miracles or holiness of the Saints off the church. They are all damned, if they thought as they wrote. Thus far Friar Luther.  
Be these the words, think you, of a Christian man? If Porphirius, Lucian, julian the Apostata, or any Turk or Pagan should go about to withdraw Christian men from the faith of jesus Christ, and of his holy word, what surer ground could he use of his persuasion, what sutler entry could he make, then to persuade them that all Counsels, all doctors, all Popes have erred damnably and taught Satanical doctrine?  
There arose in Holland about twenty years past one George David, first a Lutheran protestant, and after a most detestable Apostata, affirming himself to be the true Messiah and Christ. He lived afterward in basil certain years under pretence of a Lutheran protestant, and naming himself john of Bruncke, he died at basil: and but two years after his death was espied to be that George David, whom so many anabaptists followed and believed. At what time his books and writings being searched, containing the reasons and persuasions of his doctrine, among many other this was found, and is the viii. th' in number. If, 
Vide historian Daui●s Georgij. Antuer p●● impressam. anno 1560.  saith he, the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles had been the true and perfect doctrine, truly the church which they planted and framed by their doctrine, should necessarily have continued, and never perished. Because hell gates them selves, as jesus said, should not prevail against his church. but now it is evident, that Antichrist hath utterly overthrown the doctrine and building of the Apostles. For this, saith he, is manifest in the papacy. Whereof he will have it necessarily ensue, that the doctrine of the Apostles be unperfitt and false: but the doctrine that he bringeth for the be the perfect and true. These are the very words of the history of his life, set forth by the university of basil. Behold the reason of Luther to plant his new gospel, and the reason of George David to overthrow the gospel is all one. Luther groundeth upon the error of the church: George David groundeth upon the same. Luther maketh his entry by condemning the church: George David maketh the same. Only this is the difference. David goeth plainly to work: and openeth his devilish intent at the first: and therefore he prospered not. Luther craftily pretendeth the defence of God's word (though he condemn the church) and therefore it succeeded ioylely with him. For tenfold worse is a privy enemy then an open: and sooner is the Turk avoided, 
The heretic more dangerous, than the Turk.  than the heretic: though they bring us both to one pit. the Turk walketh naked: he asketh all at ones: his filthiness appeareth at the first sight, and therefore the Christian man at the first blush, abhorreth him. But the heretic is cloaked with the name of a Christian: asketh but the denial of some part of our saith, pretendeth the word of God, and therefore is not off many espied.  
Our Saviour in that most tender and long prayers, that he made for mankind after the mystical Supper, prayeth thus. 
joan. 17.  O holy father keep them in thy name whom thou hast given unto me, that they may be one as we are. I ask not only for them, but for all such, as by their word shall believe in me: that they all be one as thou father in me and I in thee, that they also be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Christ here prayeth for unite in his Church, and that to continue for ever. For he said before, 
joan. 14.  he would pray the Father, and he should give a comforter to tarry with us for ever, the Spirit of truth. And why doth our Saviour pray for this unite and truth to continue for ever in his Church? forsooth he protesteth it unto his Father, and saith, to the intent that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. Lo Christ would have the continuance of truth and unite in his Church, to be a most evident argument to all the world that he was the true Son of God, the only Saviour and Redeemer of the world. Now Luther and George David deny this unite and truth to have continued: and our protestants appeal to the first six hundred years, condemning wickedly the whole corpse of Christendom off these last ix. hundred years, of errors, superstition, and idolatry. And what other consequent look we hereof to follow, then that with George David and his sect, they deny Christ himself? In the preface off Staphylus to the bishop of Eistat you have seen, how the protestants of Bohem are already come to this point, 
In the jeafe 18.  where this heresy first began, and hath most continued.  
But here peradventure some civil Lutheran will be offended with us for urging these words of Luther, and charging him so far therewith: and answer with their common distinction, saying. The writings of Luther are of three manner of sorts: to wit. some written before he thoroughly espied what popery was, some again written in vehemency of contention, wherein sometime he showed himself to much passioned. some again that he wrote in meekness of spirit, and such to be taken for the very pure kernel, and undoubted verity of his gospel. This distinction and poor shift, 
Sleidanus lib. 3. histo.  though Luther used it before the Emperor at Worms, and be a common cloak of the civil protestants, to cover the filthiness off their father, Luther: yet both it standeth little with the truth of an Evangelist, as he termeth himself, or of the third Elias, 
In epist. ad Argentoratenses. Melanchthon de vita & morte Lutheri.  as his scholars call him, and will never be granted of the zealous Lutherans, Illyricus, Gallus, Amssdorffius, and such other, which will not depart from any one jot of Luther's doctrine. No nor Luther himself cannot abide it. For thus he writeth in his presumptuous book against our late Sowerain, 
Tomo 6. fo. 436. editionis. an. 1553.  king Henry the eight. It repenteth me, saith Luther, that I submitted myself so much before the Emperor at Worms, that I would suffer any man to sit judge on my doctrine, or hear if any man could convince me of any error. For I should not have declared so foolish an humility, being sure and certain of my doctrine. Beside that the same submission nothing availed me before that tyrant. A man must be so sure and certain of his doings, that although all the world be set against him, yet he depart no one jot from them. Thus far Luther. Where you see, he confesseth not that he speaketh amiss sometime by infirmity, sometime of a passion, but he maketh himself to stand upon a most sure ground, so that he can not say a miss. 
Tomo 2. fol. 35. sac. 2. contra caelestes prophetas.  Likewise at what time Carolostadius suaruing from Luther, would so have excused himself, that at the beginning he was but weak in the spirit, etc. Luther answereth him, that the spirit of God useth no such excuse.  
Well then: if the doctrine of Luther, be so sure and constant, that it may not vary, will our protestants and new Masters at home stand stoutly to the same? Will they condemn all councils, all holy Fathers, all authority of the Church, all that Christian people have hitherto believed? for these are the very words of Luther, quoted you before out of his works. Truly this were a compendious way, not only for their purpose, but for the Turks to. Yea and for Antichrist himself. For when he cometh, can he devise any more politic engine to undermined Christendom, can he wish for any better harbingers to prepare men's hearts and good wills to lodge him in? weight the matter who listeth wisely and diligently: he shall find none like to this.  
Yet Luther, they will say, leaveth us holy Scripture, which Antichrist will not do. Yea truly, but how leaveth he it? I mean to be read of the unlearned lay man. Forsooth he translateth it in to the mother tongue. And how? sincerely and truly? I report me to the second part of this Apology, where you have seen, how uprightly he hath dealt herein. As for the common text which our protestants after their Master, Luther, do use, and command to be read in Churches, we have in our preface noted you in part the truth and soundness thereof. But to show to the world their fidelity and sincerite yet farther, I will here specify some other places of holy Scripture altered and corrupted by them. And this I will do but in part, and briefly: noting such as it hath been my chance here and there to espy, not making any special discourse upon the whole translation of the english Bible, which may with time and more diligence hereafter be done.  
Where as S. Paul hath, Haereticum hominem devita, Avoid the heretic man, 
Tit. 3.  our new english translations read, Avoid a man that is an author of sects, 
A numbered of places corrupted in the english Bible. printed in the years. 1549. 51. 52. and 62.  as though an heretic and an author of a sect were all one. By this false forged text, the doctrine of our protestants being proved heretical, yet Luther, Calvin, Su●n●k feldius, Osiander, and such other were only to be avoided (as being the authors and first beginners off these present theresies) but our protestants being no authors themselves of sects, but followers of other, may (notwithstanding S. Paul's woods) be embraced and supported. But an heretic (as S. Augustin defineth) is he, 
In lib. de●tilitate credendi. ca 1.  which, for tempor all commodity, honour or wealth, either forgeth himself new doctrine, or followeth. And all such S. Paul biddeth us avoid. But no marvel if these men did so alter this text. It is good reason a man favour himself. for else perhaps the people reading this text of S. Paul, would begin to avoid our protestants, whom they see to be heretics. And therefore in an other place, where S. Paul saith. Oportet haereses esse. There must be heresies, 
1. Corin. 11.  they likewise turn it, There must be sects, avoiding always the name of heresy, because it touched them to nigh. And verily it were not amiss for them, if the name of heresy and heretics were quite forgotten: se●●g their whole doctrine which they have learned of Luther and Calvin, is nothingels but old condemned heresies patched together and newly scoured, as in this discourse we shall evidently declare unto you.  
For this purpose also, where S. Paul writeth to Timothe, 
1. Timo. 6.  P●ophanas vocum novitates devita, avoid strange novelties of words, whereby he meant new heretical doctrine, these men turn it, avoid unghostely vanities of voices, altering quite both the words and the sense of the Apostle. for it standeth upon these men to have novelties allowed.  
With the like vain of evangelical sincerity, because they may not abide to hear off altar, (having plucked them down against the express● practice of the primitive church and all ages) where S. Paul writeth, 
1 Cor. 10.  Are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar? these men turn for the 〈…〉. The latin hath altar, and the graeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the same place they make S. Paul talk of images (as though Christian men had then worshipped images, which yet they say is but a late invention) where as he talketh only of idols and idolaters.  
In like manner because traditions are a great eye sore to all new ghospellers, they put out of S. Paul the word Traditions, 
2. Thessaly. 2. & 3.  and put in his place sometime Ordinances sometime Institutions, as oft as S. Paul biddeth them to be kept. In other places, when the traditions of the jews are reprehended, 
1. Pet. 1.  than they keep the word gladly.  
All Sacramentaries that follow the banner of Calvin make light of the Sacrament of baptism, teaching that the children of Christian parents may without danger lack it, 
In institut. cap. 17. in fine.  if there be no contempt or negligence on our part. We shall have occasion in examining of Caluins' doctrine, to speak more of this cursed heresy. Now because the saying of our Saviour in S. john's gospel, 
joan. 3.  unless a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he shall not enter in to the kingdom of heaven, did utterly overthrow this wicked opinion, our protestants in their translations have found the means so to clip the text, that it might no longer directly fight against them: and therefore they leave out the word (again) in S. john, which of necessity imported a second nativity of baptim. But of this we shall have occasion to speak more hereafter. In the me one ye see the upright dealing of our protestāns. How are they to be trusted in their sermons, in their homilies, and in a numbered of assertions and articles which they teach without scripture, that corrupt the Scripture itself?  
They will say, 
A refuge for false translations of scripture confuted.  they altar sometimes the text, because of the greek, which varieth from the latin. If they did so sincerely, and in all places, it were perhaps the less fault, And yet not without great fault, the latin text being uniform, universally received, and commanded by general Council, whereas the graeke lacketh such authority, 
Vide Li●danum de optimo scripturas interpretandi genere lib. 2.  and is beside variable and most uncertain, for the great variety and discord of graeke copies. But now when the greek serveth their purpose, and may any thing further their heresies, than they grate greedily thereupon. But when it maketh against them, they keep the latin, and let the greek pass. As for example. Whereas in the Acts off the Apostles, the greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Cap. 13.  while they sacrificed, as Erasmus also hath translated it, they follow the latin, Ministrantibus illis, turning it, as they ministered. Here they forsake the greek, and Erasmus to because they will not hear that the Apostles sacrificed, as the greek text convinceth, and Erasmus truly after the greek translateth. But in an other place, where the greek may serve their turn, see how they snatch after it, and yet were foully deceived.  
In S. Paul, where the latin hath, justificati ex fide pacem habeamus apud Deum. that is, Being justified by faith let us have peace with God. 
Rom. 5.  And the greek readeth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we have peace with God, they follow there the greek, because they would set up a second justification by only faith, as if S. Paul had said. Now being justified by faith in our first justification, We have peace with God, we are safe and sure. But though the common greek text read so in deed, yet the graeke fathers who hath left us their learned commentaries upon that place, did read as the common latin hath, to wit Chrisostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius and Theophilact.  
In their translation also of the old Testament, their demeanour is not unlike. For sometime, when the ambiguity of the hebrewe word or phrase may import any other sense, than the common translation hath, in such places as overthrow their heresies, they altar the text at their pleasure: sometime they for sake both the hebrew and the greek according with the latin translation, without any ambiguity at all. As in some few places for example of many, we will now declare unto you.  
In the psalm 118. the common translation readeth Inclinavi cor meum ad faceindas iustificationes tuas in aeternum propter retributionem, that is, I have applied mine heart to fulfil thy statutes for ever, for the reward. Our english translations printed in the year. 1549. 1551. 1552. 1162. all with one accord have altered the later part of the sentence: and in stead of these words, For ever for the reward, they turn it, always, even unto the end. This text of holy scripture they have corrupted for the maintenance of their lewd liberty by only faith, and defacing of all reward for good works. And upon what ground trow ye, have they uttered this false translation? forsooth upon the ambiguity off the hebrewe text, which readeth: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. for here their peufelowe Sebastian Munster hath turned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in finem, Even unto the end. And of him they have learned to correct the text of holy scripture. What then? was the old translation always before used, false and corrupted? Was it contrary and repugnant to the hebrew original? No truly. But here it fareth with our protestants as our Saviour noted of the blind Pharisees. 
Matth. 15.  Caecus caecum ducit, & ambo in foveam cadunt. The blind leadeth the blind and both fall in to the dike. They follow Munster, and their notes of Geneva set forth by Robert Steven, both blinded with self will and malice against the common translation of the church. For although the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do signify sometime Calcaneus a hele, or hinder part off a thing (and then otherwise pointed than it is in this text of the psal.) so that metaphorically it may signify, the end, yet properly it signifieth reward as Pagnin in his dictionary noteth, and as it is here pointed can signify no other thing. The proper signification hereof in an other psalm most manifestly appeareth. Where we read. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Psal. 18.  In custodiendis illis retributio multa. In keeping of them (the laws and statutes of God) is; great reward. And therefore the greek of thee, 72. elders have translated the place of the, 118. psalm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is, for ever for reward: and S. Hierom (than whom no writer in the latin Church hath been more skilful and perfect in the hebrew tongue) turneth it proper eternam retributionem for everlasting reward, keeping the propriety of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly expressed in the common latin translation. But our protestants have either ignorantly or malitiousely forsaken the propriety of the hebrew word, the greek interpretation of thee, 72. elders, the learned translation of S. Hierom, and the common latin text in all Christendom alway received, to follow ignorant Munster, and the corrupted notes off Geneva. This is lo the word of God which our protestants pretend only to embrace. This is the pure text which they force the unlearned to read. But let us now consider some other places, and see how ghospellike our ghospellers have behaved themselves.  
In the, 9 chapter of the ecclesiastes, the common latin translation readeth thus. Sunt justi atque sapientes: & opera eorum in manu dei. Et tamen non scit homo utrum amore an odio dignus sit. that is. there are just and wise men: and their works are in the hand of god. But man knoweth not whether he deserve to be loved or hated. The heretics of our times among other their heresies teach an assured certainty of grace by only faith. This place because (according to the saying of S. Paul, 
Philip. 2.  bidding us in metu & tremore operari salutem nostram, to work our salvation in fear and tremble, and of S. Peter writing. satagite ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem faciatis, 
2. Pet. 1.  that is, labour to make your vocation (in Christ) sure by good works) it declareth that all the doings of the just and upright man are in the hands of god, and that no man knoweth whether he be in favour with God or no, teaching us in all humility and lowliness to repose ourself upon God and his goodness, not upon our own faith and confidence as the reckless protestants of our unhappy time do, because I say this text overthroweth this their heresy, they have here, as in many other places, adventured to alter the text of god's word itself. And though in their alteration and departing from the received text, these fox's tails be all tied and knit together, yet in the new invention and placing thereof they bear their heads far a sunder. For in the translations printed in the years, 1549. and, 1551. thus they read. The righteous, the wise, yea and their works also are in the hand of God. And there is no man that knoweth either the love or the hate of the thing that he hath before him. In the translations of the year, 1552. and, 1562. thus they, read. The righteous and the wise, yea and their servants also are in the hands of god. there is no man that knoweth either love or hate, but all things are before them.  
As neither of these two translations agree with the hebrew, greek, and latin, so do they both vary from the judgement of all the learned interpreters off this place. first whereas the former translation readeth. There is no man that knoweth the love or the hate of the thing that he hath before him: this lo varieth from the hebrew, the graeke and the latin not only commonly used, but that which we find in S. Hierom, in Symmachus and in Pagnin, yea and in Munster himself. The hebrew readeth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the greek hath. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. S. Hierom turneth after the hebrew, word for word. Et quidem charitatem & quidem odium non est cognoscens homo: omnia in fancy eorum. that is. Both love and hatred man knoweth not. all things are before him. The interpretation of Symmachus alleged by S. Hierom followeth the same sense and meaning. Pagnin likewise and Munster, even as ye see the later english translations printed in the year, 1552. and, 1562. doth also follow. well then: the former translation varying from all these texts and authors alleged, is the later now perfect and sound? In this part of the sentence it hath well corrected the former, and followed meetly the hebrew etc. But in the other part where they read, Yea and their servants also are in the hands of God: they walk wide of the truth. and have forsaken therein all the learned hebricians both ancient and of these days: to follow their dutch doctor Munster, who only hath so translated it. wherein they declare their great ignorance, (to charge them now no farther) especially this translation being later, and as it should seem more corrected. for the hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having the point camets under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 can not signify (servants) but opera, works, as jonanes Mercerus the kings Reader in Paris, a man excelling any other of this time (being no hebrew borne) in the knowledge of that tongue, in his public lessons noted. Whose authority I have not doubted to allege in this place, both because for his learning I reverence him having a long time been his scholar: and for that, his conscience our men can not mistrust, being one of their own cote touching religion. Beside Pagnin in his dictionary hath noted out of Rab. Abraham in his come. and out of R. david in lib. rad. that the Radix 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 having 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after him (as he hath in this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in manu, in the hand of god) can never signify to serve, but to work. The greek also hath turned that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: S. Hierom, Symmachus, and Pagnin, opera, works. Munster therefore and his ape our later english translations have declared here their ignorance, and given good warning to the learned worthily to mistrust their judgement in other places.  
But here perhaps you will demand, how the common latin agreeth with the hebrew and greek. We answer according to the judgement of the best learned and most expert in the hebrewe tongue, that the latin translation hath expressed the right sense and meaning of the hebrew text, though it hath not followed precisely the very words. One S. Hierom in stead of many shall counterpoise the fond and perverted interpretation of Munster, and our protestants his scholars. His interpretation upon this place is this, Hic sensus est, Etiam in hoc dedi cor meum, & scire volui quos Deus diligeret, quos Deus odisset, & inveni justorum quidem opera in manu Dei esse: et tamen utrum amentur à Deo an non, nunc eos scire non posse, etc. This is the meaning (saith S. Hierom), this also I laboured to know whom God loved, and whom God hated: and I found that the righteous were in the hand of God. But yet that now (in this life) they could not know whether they were loved of God or no, etc. Thus far S. Hierom. Whom for his learning and knowledge in the propriety off this tongue, for his approved virtue, and great antiquity we may boldly prefer before these upstart smatterers of our days.  
Neither is it any unwont thing in the common translation to follow the sense of the hebrew, leaving the words: as in divers places it is not unknown to the learned. In the second psalm, where the hebrewe readeth, Osculamini filium, Kiss ye the Son, the common latin translation hath turned it Apprehendite disciplinam, Receive and embrace discipline, that is, refuse not the visitation of the hand of God, &c: which to be the right and proper understanding of that place, beside other authorities the judgement only off jonathas Targun the Chalday interpreter or paraphrastes writing before the coming of Christ, and reverenced above all other interpreters of all the learned hebricians, sufficiently convinceth. For that is his very interpretation upon this place. whereby the ignorance and blindness of john Calvin railing upon this place against the common translation, and charging it with ignorance of the hebrewe, doth evidently appear itself.  
But to return to our english translations, as we have in these places alleged, declared you their ignorance and itching folly, in following their dutch doctor Munster (to speak nothing of their malice in departing from the church, and presumptuousness in altering at their pleasure the received text of God's word) so now we intent to show with what felicity they have followed their blind presumptuous guide of Geneva john Calvin. For of these two doctors and worthy fathers (after Luther) have our protestants learned to corrupt the word of God by their false translations.  
Calvin as he hath of all other protestants uttered most detestable and blasphemous doctrine, so far passing Luther and the protestants of Wittenberg, that he accounteth them for papists, and calleth them so in his writings, so was he principally enemy to the blessed Sacrament of the altar, the most precious jewel and dearest treasure that Christendom hath on earth. Such places therefore of holy Scripture as partly prophesied, partly expressed the verity of this dread full Sacrifice, he hath other perverted by heretical and new invented expositions, or corrupted by false and wrong translations. In the 9 chapter of the proverbs of Solomon where it is said of Christ in the person of Wisdom She hath offered up her sacrifices, she hath mingled her wine, and prepared her table, is contained a clear prophecy of this blessed Sacrament, by the judgement of the learned fathers, 
a Ibidem.  S. Hieron. 
b Lib. 2. epist. 3.  S. Cyprian. 
c Lib. 17. cap. 20 de cinit. Dei.  Augustin. and 
d Homil. 5. in pasch●.  Eus●bius Emissemus: as also the words of the text do necessarily import. Now Calvin in his french translation printed at Geneva and at Lions by the heirs of john Michael turneth it thus. Ila tue ses victuailles, il a verse son vin: that is She hath killed her victuals, powered out her wine, and prepared her table. And this is the very translation also of our english Bible printed in the years. 1549. 1551. 1552. and 1562. But both the translations of our Bible and of Calvin (herein their Master) are other themselves much deceived, or do maliciously deceive other. For the latin, the greek, and the hebrew all with one accord read after the first english translation alleged by us. The hebrew hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: the greek readeth thus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The latin hath, 
prover. 9  Immolavit victimassuas, miscuit vinum suum, etc. Now I appeal to all the learned in these tongues whether the words of these texts answer not word for word to the first translation brought by us. True it is that in the greek text the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ambiguous, and may signify to mingle or to fill out. But the hebrewe text admitting no such ambiguity, from whence the greek was derived, nor the latin which followed the greek, that word must needs be taken in such sense as the greek received of the hebrew, and as the latins followed in the greek. Therefore the french translation of Calvin, and our english following the same, is not the word of God, nor the text of holy scripture, but the word of Calvin and his text. What may not heretics do, if they may set us forth their word, for the word off God, their imaginations for holy scripture, their poisonned heresies for sound faith? You have seen what conscience our protestants make of it: and how many places of holy scripture they have altered, perverted and corrupted for the maintenance of their pretended gospel. I will not in words exaggerate this wicked presumption of our protestāns. The matter itself doth, I trust, sufficiently speak it. And I do not utterly despeare their amendment, when they shall see, and feel their falsehood discovered and brought to light: seeing that in the later translations they betray sometime their former juggling: as in certain places here noted by Staphylus of Luther it is evident. For although (as we said in our preface) of all the places corrupted by Luther, and noted here by Staphylus, there is but one readen in the common translations off our country, yet that is to be understanded of the later only, 
See the places above in the leaf 71. and. 68.  printed in the years, 1552. and 1562. For in the former translations printed in the years 1549. and 1551. the place of S. Paul in the 1. to Timothe the 4. chapter, and the first to the Corinthians the 9 chapter are corrupted, even as Luther had first taught them. but in their later editions they have made the holy ghost to talk in an other language. Well. I beseech God to give them grace farther to see and to amend their own faults, and other men speedily to beware of them.  
And truly what one man, yea what one college or university of learned men, may take upon it to set forth any translation, 
Fontanus lib. 1. histo. eccles. Lindanus de opt. genere interpr. scrip. cap. 8.  other than which always hath been received? Erasmus Roterodam a learned man undoubtedly, but in this point over rash, was the first of our time that with his new translation in latin of the new Testament, controlled the old. Whereof he is worthily reprehended of divers. And what followed? Soon after Sebastian Castalion set forth an other translation in latin also. 
Vide Tiaphylum in absolu●ae apolog. fol. 62.  Likewise Luther in the vulgar tongue: which only was commanded among the protestants to be read and used in a public decree made at Lipsia. But an on after the Zwinglians of Zurich published yet an other translation of the Bible. And in the preface of it, they writ plainly, that the congregation ought to be bound to no certain translation, but that every man may turn the text of holy Scripture according to his judgement. Thus we see by this bare text of scripture left of Luther (more than Antichrist will leave, as they say) in the liberty of so many and divers translations, to be a very bare and weak stay of men's consciences, and little better, then if with Antichrist we had no Scripture at all.  
For when a doubt ariseth in holy Scripture (as thousands do) what help have we? The expositions of holy fathers, councils, and so forth, by the vardit of Luther availeth not. Translations be false, divers, and uncertain. What then? Forsooth there is yet one shift more. 
Smidelinus contra apologiam Staphyli. c. 4. fa. 1.  Places of scripture, they say, must be conferred and laid together: so one place shall give light to the other. Is this always true? May this be a general rule? Let us take for example some parcel of holy scripture. Great controversies and sundry sects are now a days upon these few words of Christ, Take, eat, this is my body. 
Matth. 36  Luther and Zuinglius, Brentius, and Carolostadius, were at defiance one with an other upon the true meaning thereof. Luther excommunicateth all that confess not the natural body with the bread to be there. 
In parna Confess. de Caeva Do.  Zuinglius and Carolostadius will have the bread to be but a sign or token of the body The latin text is plain and evident for the real presence. The greek likewise. Will they counsel the hebrewe gospel of S. Matthew? If any hebrewe text served their turn, were it never so barbarous or rabbinical, they would not spare to set it out to the uttermost. Let us then see what that text hath. I mean not the barbarous text of Munster, nor the learned exercise of Quinquarboreus, but that text, which being found in Italy among the jews, was of late years printed and set forth in Paris without points by the diligence of joannes Mercerus. That text readeth thus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is. Take and eat this which is my body. Here the hebrew text though it have some one word more than the latin and greek translation, yet it furthereth the meaning of the Catholics, and fighteth directly against the Sacramentaries.  
But let these interpretations by help of tongues pass. Let us see how by conference of other places, this sentence may be lightened. Luther compareth these words to the saying of S. john, 
joan. 1.  Verbum caro factum est. The word is made flesh. Zuinglius compareth them with an other place. 
joan. 6.  Caro non prodest quicquam. The flesh profiteth nothing. Calvin varying from Zuinglius (though both Sacramentaries) in his commentaries upon S. Matthew, saith. 
In Matthe. 26.  Corporis appellatio pani tribuitur, ea ratione qua Spiritum Sanctum joannes columbam vocat. that is. The bread is called the body of Christ, as john calleth the holy ghost a pigeon. another sacramentary cometh yet, 
1. Cor. 10.  and saith those words are like to the saying of S. Paul, The rock was Christ. Lo these men have conferred these words of Christ, This is my body, with other places of Scripture. But have they now found out the truth which is but one? are they agreed? Truly as cats and dogs. Luther never wrote so bitterly against us Catholics, as he doth against the poor Sacramentaries of Zurich. You have the grievous complaint of the brotherhood of Zurich in the third part of this book, against Luther. 
In the leaf. 85.  Read the later words of the place: and see how charitably he useth them. Calvin likewise calleth Westphalus a papist, 
In ultima admonitione. In his institutions the, 17. chapter. In libr. de ubiquitate.  and findeth fault with Bullinger, for teaching that to eat Christ and to believe in Christ is all one, And Brentius would prove against all the swarm of Sacramentaries that Christ is every where really, not only in the Sacrament.  
What then? is there no means left us sure and certain to know and understand the right meaning of holy Scripture by? soothly if you take the shameless broad way that Luther prescribeth you, none at all. But if ye acknowleadg and reverence the authority of holy fathers, of ancient councils, off the Catholic and universal Church of Christ, during continually from the time of the blessed Apostles hitherto, there is a right sure and infallible way to obtain your desire. In the preface of Staphylus to the Bishop of Eystat, and the first part of this his Apology you have a very evident and sensible declaration thereof. As you tender your soul health, and the inestimable treasure of life everlasting, which without right belief is not to be had, read and peruse diligently the Author. And you shall, I trust in God, find your self satisfied to the uttermost. For how think you? May you not worthily suspect that man's cause that disableth so many witnesses, so learned, so holy, as Luther doth, condemning all holy Fathers and Counsels? Is it not a pride comparable to the loftiness of Lucifer himself, to say, I will no judgement, but I require obedience? Is it not a most impudent arrogancy and a detestable blasphemy, to say that all holy men of the Church are damned, if they thought as they taught? Never sense the world stood, was there heretic that uttered such horrible blasphemies, as the cursed mouth and pen of Luther hath done.  
But sithen that Luther condemneth the old fathers of the Church, is he now the first father thereof? hath he no predecessors in his doctrine? 
In the Apology of England every where.  Surely the Lutheran protestants of our country cry so much upon the fathers, that seeing their Master denieth all fathers, it may much be marveled where the scholars have found them. After long study I have at the length espied, who are their fathers. And for the instruction of my dear deceived countrymen, I will not let to declare them.  
S. Paul to the Corinthians saith. Though ye have thousands of masters in Christ, yet not many fathers: For in Christ jesus by the gospel I have begotten you. 
1. Cor. 4.  Such then are to be accounted the fathers of Christ's Church or of heretics, 
The fathers of the Protestants.  whose doctrine the church of Christ followeth, or heretics. Let us see then whose doctrine Luther and his scholars, the protestants, do follow. First not the doctrine of the Fathers of Christ's Church. For they pardie by the vardit of Luther, are all damned if they thought, as they taught. Offa what fathers then hath he and his scholars learned their doctrine? We shall see by the particulars.  
Luther in his Assertions against Pope Leo teacheth, 
Artic. 36.  that free will after the fall of man is but a bare title: and that man while he doth as much as lieth in him, sinneth deadly. yea and that the just man in his good work sinneth also deadly. And Melanchthon his scholar in his Annotations upon S. 
Super cap. 8. fol. 52.  Paul to the Romans saith, that the adultery of David is as properly the work of God as the calling of Paul, blaming the gloze of such, as say that God permitteth evil, but doth none, for fond and foolish. 
In lib. de predest. contra calvini sycophantas.  So teacheth also john Calvin, and Beza his darling. This heresy they learned of Simon Magus, of Martion, of the Manichees, of Petrus Abailhardus, all condemned heretics, as in 
a haer. 46  S. Augustin ad Quoduultdeum, in 
b haer. 42  Epiphanius, in 
c In recognit.  S. Clement of Rome, and in 
d In epist.  S. Bernard it is to be seen. The allegations of these places we note only at this present, without recital at large, to avoid prolixity.  
Upon this doctrine it followed, that good works by the denial of free will being wiped away, faith must do the deed. Luther therefore and all his fellow heretics teach the sufficiency of only faith to salvation. Yea and our protestants are not ashamed to put it in to their Crede song in their churches. 
Rom. 3.  And for this purpose where S. Paul writeth. We think man to be justified by faith without the works of the law, Luther translateth it thus. 
Staphylus in prodrome.  We think man to be justified by only faith. This old damnable and most enormous heresy they have learned of old heretics above a thousand years ago. for ye may not think these men lack antiquity in their doctrine. Their Fathers herein are Eunomius and Aetius, 
August. her. 54. e● lib. de fide et operibus Epiphan. her. 76.  who taught likewise only faith to suffice, condemned therefore for heretics off the Church, as S. Augustin and Epiphanius recordeth.  
Luther and all his scholars can not abide worshipping of Saints, calling such service idolatry. Their father's touching this doctrine, 
Lib. 21. ca 21. contra Faustum & lib. 8. cap. vlt. de Cluitat. Dei.  are Faustus Manicheus the heretic, and Maximus Madaureusis the pagan, finding fault with the Christians for such devotion, as S. Augustin mentioneth.  
They condemn praying for the dead, they abhor the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass celebrated for the dead. they would make men believe it was never used before S. Gregory's time. how say we then? if the contrary opinion denying prayer for the dead were condemned for an heresy long before S. Gregory's time, was not troweye such prayer allowed and practised? S. 
Ad quoduultdeunt. haer. 53.  Augustin reakoning up the heresies before his time, writeth of the Aerians thus. Aeriani ab Aerio, qui cum esset praesbyter, dolens quôd episcopus non potuit ordinari in Arrianorun haeresim lapsus, propria quoque dogmata addidit nonuulla: dicens orare vel offerre pro mortuis oblationem non oportere. that is. The Aerians so called off Aerius, who being priest, for grief that he could not be made a bishop, fell in to the heresy of the Arrians, and added also certain doctrines of his own, saying, that men ought not to pray nor to offer oblation for the dead. The like writeth of him before S. 
Haer. 75.  Augustin, Epiphanius in his book of heresies.  
It was preached of late before divers of the honourable nobility of the Realm in the solemn funeral of the late most Catholic Emperor Ferdinandus, that prayer for the dead was both superfluous and superstitious. It was said a third place such as purgatory is, could not be justified by Scripture. and that the ancient fathers before the time of S. Gregory acknowledged no such place, nor prayer for the dead in such sense as the Catholics now take it and use it. This sermon also hath been thought worthy to be printed and set forth to the view of the whole world, being preached of a pretended prelate of the Realm before so honourable an audience, and at such a solemn memorial or Obsequy. I must here crave pardon gentle Reader of thee, if I divert a little from my principal purpose to examine that part off the sermon, as defendeth this old heresy of Aerius. Neither may you M. grindal be offended herewith, when you shall understand it, as I wish you may, iff a young scholar and puine student in divinity adventure to encounter with you. The cause of the Catholic church whom wickedly with the old heretic Aerius you blame and reprove, the honourable nobility of the realm, which in that place presumptuousely you abused, the unlearned audience of our dear countrymen, which shamefully you deceived, maketh me both to break the order of my discourse, and not to fear your person, whom authority hath more advanced, than learning or true religion commended. 
2. Cor. 13.  Non enim possumus aliquid adversus veritatem, sed pro veritate. for we can not do any thing against the truth, but for the truth.  
And what is it good Sir, that moveth you to disprove prayer for the dead? First of all (say you) in the Scriptures we find no commandment to pray for the souls of the dead, unless they will cite the place of the book off Maccabees. And then S. Hierom shall make them answer, who permitteth in deed these books of Maccabees to be read: but because they be not of the Canon of the Scriptures, they be not (saith S. Hierom) sufficient of themselves to establish any doctrines in the Church of God. This is your first reason Master grindal, why we ought not to pray for the dead: and it containeth two parts. First that we have no commandment in Scripture to pray for the souls of the dead, but the place of the Maccabees: and then that the same place is not in the Canon off the Scriptures. 
Commandment in Scripture to pray for the de ad, beside the books of the Maccabees.   
As touching the first part, I answer it, that we are commanded of S. Paul, Tenere traditiones quas accepimus sive per sermonem sive per epistolam, To keep such traditions as we have received either by word or by writing. And S. Chrisostom telleth us that it is a tradition of the Apostles to pray for the dead. these are his words. 
2. Thess. 2. Homil. 69 ad populum Antioch.  Non temere ab Apostolis haec sancita fuerunt ut in tremendis mysterijs defunctorum agatur commemoratio: sciunt enim illis inde multum contingere lucrum, utilitatem multam. Quum enim totus constiterit populus, extensis manibus sacerdotalis plenitudo, & tremendum proponatur sacrificium, quo modo Deum non exorabimus pro his deprecantes? that is, These things, saith Chrisostom, were not without cause decreed of the Apostles that in the dreadful mysteries we should remember the dead. For they do know that it shall much avail them. For when all the people standeth with their hands stretched forth, and the number of priests, when the dreadful sacrifice is proposed, how may it be but that we shall obtain of God, praying for them? Now Sir. S. Chrisostom telleth us it is a decree of the Apostles to pray for the dead, which decree being not expressed in scripture is called a tradition. And S. Paul biddeth us keep such traditions. ergo we have commandment in Scripture to pray for the dead beside the place of the Maccabees. 
jac. 5.   
Again are we not commanded in scripture to pray one for an other? How far doth this commandment extend? doth it not reach to all those whose sins are remissible, who are in the state to have their sins forgiven? What then if scripture tell us that after this life some sins are forgiven? Ought we not then pray for our brethren departed this life, and burdened yet with such sins? Let us hearken what our Saviour saith in the gospel. 
Matth. 12.  Whosoever, saith our Saviour, shall speàke against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world to come. Other sins then of less offence and importance, though they be not here forgiven, yet in the world to come they may be pardoned and released. 
Apocal. 21.  What place that is, let your wisdom instruct us, M. grindal. In hell you know, nulla est redemptio, there is no redemption: and in to heaven nihil coinquinatum intrabit: no defiled or spotted thing shall enter. How say we then? Scripture commanding us to pray one for an other, and that prayer extending to all such as are in the state to have their sins forgiven, such a state also being proved by scripture to be in the world to come, which can not be but of such as have departed this world, have we not again found in scripture a commandment to pray for the dead, and departed souls of this world beside the place of the Maccabees?  
What will you reply M. grindal, or what can you object against these arguments? The principle of S. Paul, bidding us to keep unwritten traditions, if you limit and restrain it never so much, yet must you needs suffer it to extend to such traditions, as the Apostles themselves left unto us. You will not, I dare say, prescribe against the Apostles. And that the Apostles decreed prayer to be done at the Mass time, for the dead, you hear Chrisostom say and affirm. Will you discredit S. Chrisostom? Will you as Brentius your mate said of Epiphanius (affirming that the Apostles 
In prolegoments.  had delivered and taught that the vow of virginity could not be broken) judico eum tam bonum tam pium virum ut hac asseueratione non volverit Ecclesiam Domini scienter fallere, sed cum non fuerit admodum vicinus temporibus Apostolorum, cogito multa ad eum publica sed incerta fama, nomine Apostolorum relata esse, quae fortassis alijde Apostolis ut plausibi●ior a essent confinxerunt, so say also of Chrisostom, that you judge Chrisostom, in deed so good and ●●tuous a man, that he would not wittingly beguile the church of God with so stout an asseveration, and yet because he was not very nigh the Apostles, you imagine that he might have heard many things by report, as from the Apostles, which other perhaps to make such matters more plausible, had feigned that they came even from the Apostles. Will you thus, I say, as your mate Brentius did, delude the authority of Chrisostom? Truly other shift you have none. And then we may ask you, whether you were nearer to the Apostles and more assured what doctrine they left behind them, than Chrisostom was. There is no less, you know, than twelve hundred years between you and Chrisostom. And yet not only Brentius, but yourself, and all such as with you have departed from the Catholic doctrine of Christ's church, do stoutly affirm that the Apostles never prayed for the dead, nor never decreed any such matter. 
In his institutions the 18. chapter.  Now then let the Christian Reader judge who is herein more to be trusted, Chrisostom or you. and if one Chrisostom fuffise not, let S. Augustin, a most trusty witness (by the verdict of john Calvin, whose judgement you will not, I suppose, discredit) of antiquity in the doctrine of the church, come and affirm as much. Who writing to Paulinus of praying for the dead. saith. 
Lib. de cu●a pro mor ●uisgerenda cap. 5.  albeit it were not read in the old scriptures, yet the authority off the universal church is not small, which in this custom is evident. Where in the prayer of the priests which are offered to our Lord God at his altar, the commendation of the dead hath his place. Io here S. Augustin calleth it a custom of the universail church to pray for the dead at the altar of God. 
Lib. de vnita●e Eccles.  And universal is that, by the meaning of S. Augustin which every where, and at all times is and hath been: which in all places even from the Apostles themselves hath been observed. Epiphanius also coufuting Aerius affirmeth it to be a tradition of the Apostles to pray for the dead. 
Her. 75.  Thus much then of the first part of your first reason M. grindal that we have no commandment in Scripture to pray for the dead, but the place of the Maccabees.  
Now Sir as touching the second part, that you say the same place of the Maccabees is not in the Canon of the Scriptures, I marvel not much hereat, considering of what race your doctrine proceedeth. For as you have learned of the old heretic Aerius condemned above twelve hundred years past, 
The custom of heretics to deny parts of Scripture.  to disprove prayer for the dead, so have you learned off a numbered of old heretics, to deny for scripture such places as overthrow your heresy. For even so did the Marcionistes allow but 9 of S. Paul's epistles, 
Tertul. li. 4 contra Marcionem. Contra Fan●●um Manich. ubique & in haer 46. ad Quo awlt Haeres. 76. Cap. 17.  whereas the church alloweth. 14. So did the Manichees take away the first chapter of S. Mathewes gospel, and rejected almost all the old Testament, as S. Augustin witnesseth. So the Arrians disallowed the epistle of S. Paul to the hebrews, as Theodoret recordeth in the prohem of his commentary upon that epistle. So Aetius also denied much of the old Testament, as Epiphanius mentioneth of him. Briefly it was the manner of all heretics so to do, as Tertullian in his prescriptions noteth. Therefore as I said, I marvel the less at your demeanour herein, considering that it is no new thing for an heretic to deny scripture itself, when all other shifts fail. What than M. Grindal? Must we prove unto you that the books of the Maechabees are in the canon of the Scriptures? O the blessed days of our time, wherein not only all the articles almost of our belief, but the Scriptures themselves also are called in controversy, and that of such men, as bear the people of Prelates and rulers in Christ's church. What authorities then may be sufficient to prove that those books are of the Canon? You bring against us S. Hieron. you tell us he saith that these books of Maccabees be not sufficient of themselves to establish any doctrines in the church of God. You quote us his preface upon the books of Solomon. Sir if you read the place again, and mark it well. you shall find that he saith this of the proverbs of Solomon and of the Ecclesiastes, not of the Maccabees. though in deed he say in that place, that they are not of the Canon. And this saying of S. Hieron in that place, I may well expound by his words in an other place. In his preface upon these books of the Maccabees he saith expressly, that they are not in the Canon of the jews, but of the church of Christ they are received inter divina volumina, among God's books. But what if S. Hieron do not acknowledge them for Canonical scripture? What if in reakoning off the Canonical Scripture, 
Vide Me●chiorem canumia locis theolog. lib. 2.  he follow the Hebrews and josephus especially, as learned men have noted of him? What if in his time they were not with full authority received? The whole corpse off scripture was not, you know, at one push approved. It was long doubted of the epistle to the Hebrews, off the second epistle of S Peter, of S. john's Revelation, and yet afterward without doubt and controversy they were in all Christendom received and reverenced for holy Scripture Shall it now be lawful for every heretic to condemn such parcels of holy Scripture, as have been so many hundred years of all Christendom uniformly received because they were once doubted of? It is not sitting for the wisdom of a Prelate, it standeth not with the charity of a Christian man, to renew such doubts, and to make a schism in the church of God upon private presumption and affection.  
But to match the authority of S. Hierom, 
The Maccabees proved to be of the Canon.  (whom only you allege) and to knit up this matter shortly, you shall see what we can say for the books of the Maccabees. The, 85. canons of the Apostles, allowed for such by the general Council held at Constantinople in T●ullo, 
Can. ultima.  in reakoning up the books of Canonical scripture, recite the three books of the Maccabees among them. The third Council of Carthage held not long after the time that S. Hierom lived, 
Can. 47.  reakoneth them up also for Canonical Scripture. 
Lib. 6. E●y molog. c. 1.  Isidorus declareth also that in his time they were undoubtedly approved for holy Scripture. S. Augustin is most clear in this point: for not only in his books de doctrina Christiana, 
Lib. 2. c. 5,  where of set purpose he reakoneth the whole corpse of the old and new Testament, 
Lib. 18. cap. 30.  he placeth these books of the Maccabees among them: but also in his books de civitate dei he doth constantly affirm, that they are approved of the Church for holy Scripture. And behold a most clear testimony of S. Augustins judgement herein. A sort of Donatists called Circuncelliones, murdered and show themselves commonly being persecuted for their heresy of the Catholics. they defended this their devilish fury and rage, with the example of Razias who slew himself as in the Maccabees it appeareth. They builded upon this fact of Razias, as upon an example of holy Scripture. What answered them here S. Augustin? It had been truly a ready answer for him to say, those books are not of the Canon off holy Scripture, and therefore the example of him can nothing help you, if he had so thought in deed off these books. But S. Augustin denieth them not to be of the Canon, as you do M. grindal, for the maintenance of your heresy, though it had been much then for his vantage, and might soon so have stopped the heretics mouth, if he had thought it the duty of a Catholic bishop, to flit from scripture when vantage served. His obedience to the Church off God, his learning and virtue taught him to cleave unto the Church in determining holy Scripture, and to seek other means to answer heretics. Therefore notwithstanding the fact of Razias, who seemeth in that book to be commended for killing himself, he acknowledgeth the books for Canonical Scriptures, and teacheth us also how such examples in holy Scripture are to be read. These are his words. Landatus est itaque iste Razias amator civitatis, ut valde bene audience, & c? 
Contra 2. Gaud. epist cap. 23.  I stam vero eius mortem mirabiliorem quam quam prudentiorem narravit quemadmodum facta esset, 
1. Thes. 5.  non tanquam facienda esset scriptura laudavit. Nostrum est autem sicut Apostolus admonet, omnia probare, quod bonum est tenere. Et hanc quidem scripturam que appellatur Machabaeorum non habent judaei sicut legem, & Prophetas & psalmos: sed recepta est ab Ecclesia non inutiliter, si sobrie legatur vel audiatur. that is. Razias therefore was praised as one that tendered the city, and a man of a very good name etc. But his death more strange and wonderful then wise and discreet is declared of the scripture how it was done, not commended as if it ought so to be done. But it is our part as the Apostle teacheth us, to prove and try all things and to hold that good is. And this Scripture which is called the Maccabees, the jews in deed receive not, as the law, the prophets, and the psalms. But it is received of the church not unprofitably, if it be read and heard with discretion. Thus far S. Augustin. In whose Words you see M. grindal that not only he acknowledgeth the books off the Maccabees for Scripture, and that received off the Church, but also he telleth us how Razias is commended in these books: not (as you object in your Sermon) because he killed himself, but because he was amator civitatis etc.  
How think you? 
Cap. 16. Cap. 19 Cap. 38.  shall we condemn the books of the judges because we read there of Samson, that he killed himself? or the Genesis because we read there of Lot that he lay with his daughters, and off judas that he compained (as he thought) with a hoore by the high way? shall we not rather reverence the holy Scripture, and say with S. Augustin, that Scripture declareth these things how they were done, not commending them as if they ought to be done?  
As for your other sorry shift, where you guess that the place of the Maccabees commending prayer for the dead, hath been put to the text by some addition of late years, because you say certain of the oldest copies in greek have no mention thereof, I answer, to charge the Church with any such addition, having no proof thereof, 
August. contra Faust. Manic●.  as yet you bring none, is the manner of old heretics, the Manichees by name, who said also the genealogy in S. Matthew was added to his gospel by some they knew not who. And as for greek copies that lack that place of praying for the dead, if you have seen any such M. grindal, you may rather think they are corrupted of some old or new Aerians, heretics, as you have heard, in that point, then to doubt of the common received text of holy Scripture. else what heresy is there that may not escape by this shift, if it may be lawful upon variety off copies (which may rise of sundry causes, as well the printed as the written) to call in doubt the authority of holy scripture, which ought without all doubt being once universally authorized, assuredly and constantly be believed and followed? And thus much to the reasons and arguments brought against the books of Maccabees.  
You go forth M. grindal and you say. 
Prayer for the dead aught to be used, though no Scripture commanded it.  secondarily we have no example in the Canonical Scripture of any invocation for the dead: What then M. grindal, if that were true as we have proved it already false? will you therefore condemn the practice of the universal Church, which is clear and evident in this point? What example in Canonical scripture have you off celebrating the Sunday holy day? Will you therefore drive men to their crafts that day with the Sabbataries, a sect of the anabaptists of our time? 
See the Apology in the leaf. 113.  what example of Canonical scripture have you of invocation of the holy Ghost? Will you therefore (as that protestant Minister of Moravia preached) rather be a papist, then believe in the holy Ghost? What example have you in Canonical Scripture of baptizing infants before the years of discretion? Will you therefore with the anabaptists baptize no children hereafter in the Realm, and call us all to the font again? And did not think you the Anabaptiste laugh in his sleeve, when he heard you make your reasons in pulpit, upon lack of example of Canonical scripture? Especially when you concluded afterward so stoutly and solemnly. For most certain it is, if prayer for the dead had been so necessary, as many now adays would have it seem, it had not lacked all authority and example of the Canonical Scriptures as it doth. Surely M. Grindal you can never speak better word for heretics, then granting them this your proposition, that without example and authority of Canonical scripture nothing is to be admitted. And yet this one sentence is the ground and foundation of all your new doctrine? For why? May not the Anabaptiste say unto you, iff you had him in consistory before you? Most certain it is my L. if baptizing of infants and babes were so necessary, as you would have it seem, it had not lacked all authority and example of the Canonical Scriptures, as it doth? And could you then repel him for so saying, seeing you preach it in pulpit, and make it your strongest argument to overthrow prayer for the dead? Again might not Nestorius have told Cyrillus and all the fathers of the Ephesin Council, We have no example in the Canonical scripture, that Our Lady is called the Mother of God. And certain it is, if it were so necessary a matter to have her so called, and believed for such, as you will have it seem, pronouncing me an heretic for denying it, and assembling yourselves so from all parts of the world for approving and defending it, it had not lacked all authority and example of Canonical Scriptures, as it doth, might he not, I say, thus have told them, as you M. grindal do tell us, if that argument had been thought worth the telling? Might not Arrius have quarreled in like manner with the fathers of the Nicen Council for the words, Consubstantial and ingenitus, might not helvidius have used the like against S. Hierom for the perpetual virginity of our Lady, and Novatus with S. Cyprian for reconciling of such as had abjured Christ? For none of all these had any authority or example in the Canonical Scriptures. And yet M. Grin dall the anabaptists, the Nestorians, the Arrians, the novatians, the Heluidians, be all condemned heretics, even by your own judgement, I doubt not, though the Catholic doctrine in confuting of all those heresies, lack all authority and example of the Canonical Scriptures. Where is then now become your argument against us for lack of Scripture, supposing it were true, we did so lack? Where is now that stout and great assertion, Most certain it is, & cae. But to overthrow with one word this fort and shooteancker of all your pretended religion, tell us I pray you, if without authority and example of Canonical scri pture you admit nothing, where find you in all the corpse of the Canonical Scripture from the beginning of the Genesis to the end of S. john's Revelation, this very rule and saying of yours, that If it were a necessary matter to pray for the dead, it had not lacked all authority and example of the Canonical Scriptures? Where find you in Scriptures, that without Scripture nothing is to be admitted? will you drive us for lack of holy scripture to pray no more for the dead, and bind us to your own rule having the same lack also? Will you make a rule of yourself without Scripture, and will not admit the rules and laws of the church, except they bring you example and authority out of scripture? I trust your wisdom considereth how unreasonable the request is. and I doubt not but the Christian reader will by this consideration, beware off such deceitful persuasions, whereby great part of our faith in Christ jesus may by the guile of heretics be deluded.  
To pass therefore to your other reasons, let us consider the remnant of your talk. Thirdly (say you) where in the old Testament be Sacrifices and expiations appointed for many and sundry things, whereof some seemed small offences, yet was there never any Sacrifices appointed for any purgation or expiation of the dead. What if there were any such sacrifices for the dead in the old law, would you then now practise them M. Grindal, in your common prayer and service of the church? 
levit. 4. 6. & 7.  If you would, why use you no sacrifice for the sins and trespasses of the quick, as you see in the old law practised abundantly? 
Exod. 12. & 16. Levi. 16.  Why reject you the blessed Sacrifice of the Mass clearly figured and foreshowed in the ceremonies of the old law? Why leave you the Realm without any sacrifice at all, as well after the order of Melchisedech which, you know, was proper to Christ, 
Psal. 109. Heb. 7.  and should endure for ever among Christians, as after the order of Aaron which was proper to the old law and should end, when the light off the gospel appeared? If you would not use any Sacrifice for the dead, though in the old law you had found example thereof (as it is most evident you would not, no more than you use the other) why then find you that lack, and refuse to offer sacrifices for the dead, because you have no example in the old law? Do not wise men see your collusion and false play herein? I will not spend time and paper in amplifying your guile. I leave it to the prudent Reader to be considered. I come to your other reasons that I may once return to my principal purpose again. You say.  
Now if they shall allege, that the ancient doctors make for them, first it is to be said that men's writings alone are not sufficient in matters of faith and Religion. I answer we have not only men's writings, but holy scripture even beside the Maccabees, as we have sufficiently proved. Again, make you so light of men's writings? what are Calvin, Beza, Bale, and such other, whose writings you reverence and read? are they not men also? why command you the priests of England to read the Institutions of Calvin? why in your notes upon the Bible refer you us to bawdy Bale for the right understanding of it? 
In the 16. chap. off the Apocal and other where.  last of all why make you so vaunting a challenge against all the Catholics that live, and offer to yield, if they can bring but one poor sentence of any one doctor or Council against you? As touching the writings of men, we know that Animalis homo non percipit ea que dei sunt, 
The writings off men in the church to befolowed. 1. Cor. 2. duty. 32.  the fleshly man knoweth not those things that appertain to God. Yet we are bid in holy Scripture Interrog are patres nostros etc., To ask our fathers and they will declare us, to inquire of our elders and they shall tell us. And S. Peter saith, Spiritu sancto inspirato locuti sunt sancti Dei homines: The holy men of God have spoken as inspired with the holy Ghost. 
2. Pet. 1.  Neither can we forget that beside the prophets, the Evangelists, and the Apostles, of whom we have received the holy write of God's word, 
Ephesi. 4.  Christ hath left to his Church also, pastors & doctores, Pastors and doctors, as men by whom the Scripture ought to be expounded and the church directed. And according to these lessons of holy Scripture, heretics have been confuted by men's writings without holy Scripture, as in the conflicts of 
a In lib. de decretis Nic. Con.  Athanasius with the Arrians, of 
b In apolo gi● post 8 anathem  Cirillus with the Nestorians, of 
c In ●uliā. libro 2.  S Augustin with the Pelagians, of 
d In lib. contra valentin.  Tertu●lian, and 
e lib. 4. ca 43.  Irenee with the Valentinians, of 
f ep. 60. et 69.  S. basil with Eunomius you may read and see M. grindal if you have not yet seen. But let us pass on and see what you say farther.  
It can not be denied but from Gregory's time &. But the eldest writers and doctors of the Church speak not at all of praying for the dead. well then M. grindal at one push you condemn all the Christian people of England that ever hath been, of error and superstition. For sense the time of S. Gregory only, you know, we englishmen have had the faith of Christ, and of that blessed Pope we received it. But let that pass: your stomach is good that can digest so many hundred years without grudge of conscience. The eldest writers say you, speak not at all of praying for dead. Not at all M. grindal? will you abide by it? Before so honourable an auditory, at such a solemn funeral, in so open and public a place, blush you not at so loud a lie? I am sorry you did so far forget yourself. You spoke then in pulpit, and now you speak in print. These two conditions require deliberation, truth, and honesty. And how shall I prove you the contrary? where shall I begin? I showed you before out of S. Augustin and Epiphanius that Aerius was condemned for an heretic, even for this cause that he disallowed prayer and oblation for the dead. Be not Augustin and Epiphanius elder than S. Gregory? Your friends Carion and Pantaleon can tell you they are his ancestors, the one above a hundred, the other almost two hundred years. But these words may seem to have escaped you (though if they had in pulpit escaped, yet in print they might have been corrected) for even in your words following, you remember yourself better, and then you run to your distinctions, and you say. If the ancient fathers when they pray for the dead, mean of the dead, which are already in heaven and not else where, then must we needs by their prayer understand either thanks giving, or else take such petitions for the dead for figures of eloquence and exornation of their style and oration, rather than necessary grounds of reason of any doctrine.  
How can you suppose M. grindal any such meaning in the old fathers, 
The meaning of the father's praying for the dead, imagined by M. grindal: vain and foolish.  as though they were either of so little wisdom, as to pray for those that needed no prayer, or of so small faith as to doubt of their rest and perfect bliss which are already in heaven? Let us consider your manner of reasoning. It is manifest say you, that those holy fathers meant nothing less than by praying for the dead to establish purgatory or third place. This you suppose as manifest, without any proof at all, which you ought well and substantially to have proved. For hereupon depend your distinctions that follow. But how better and truelier say we M. grindal, it is manifest that those holy fathers, seeing they prayed for the dead, that they meant undoubtedly there was a purgatory or third place? You suppose they prayed only for such as were already in heaven, and hereupon you make your distinctions. But as your supposition is a point of sophistry called petitio principij, and beside all reason and truth, so are your imagined distinctions vain and foolish. Will you have clear and evident proofs that the father's praying for the dead meaned nothing so, and that your supposition is void of all truth? Or will you be contented hereafter that prayer for the dead be solemnized in your churches, if we prove unto you, the practice of the eldest fathers to have been such? S. Denys you reject for an ancient writer, because of the judgement of Erasmus. Let us give you leave to reject him, whom the sixtgenerall council and second of Nice allegeth for ancient, even for Denys the Areopagita S. Paul's scholar. Whom then may we allege to testify against you, of such authority, that you will be contented to rest upon him? Your old friend and Master John Calvin calleth oftentimes S. Augustin in dogmatibus ecclesiae fidelissimum vetustatis interpretem, the faith fullest reporter of antiquity in doctrines of the church. Let us then see what S Augustin reporteth of praying for the dead and of the meaning of the church therein. 
De. 8. Dulcitij quaest. quest. 2.  Awnswering to the questions of Dulcitius demanding among other things how the souls departed were relieved by the prayers of the church, after long debating the matter, he concludeth in these words. Cum ergo sacrificia sive altaris sive quaruncunque eleemosynarum pro baptisatis defunctis omnibus offeruntur, pro valde bonis gratiarum actiones sunt, pro non valde malis propitiationes sunt, pro valde malis etiam si nulla sunt adiumenta mortuorum, qualescunque vivorum consolationes sunt. that is, Therefore when the sacrifices either of the altar, or of any aulmes giving are offered for all Christian folk departed this life, for the perfect and very good they are thanks givings, for mean evil, though they are no relief to the dead, 
* they are propitiatory: for the wicked and very evil, though they. etc. as in the next.  yet they are certain comforts for the friends that live. Thus far S. Augustin. In these words M. grindal we learn the meaning of the father's praying and offering sacrifices for the dead, not to be always thanks geving or figures of eloquence, as you would have them mean, but to be then only thanks givings, when they are offered for such as have departed this world in a perfect estate, and uprightness of life. For other departing as sinners but not extreme heinous, and wicked, they are, he saith, Propitiationes, propitiatory sacrifices, that is, such as purchase favour and mercy at God's hand. The third sort of men though Christened, yet being Valde mali, that is, so evil that they die without true repentance, they avail not at al. We know well M. grindal your doctrine being builded upon only faith, admitteth not these distinctions of the estates of men. But the Catholic church which condemned your heresy of only faith in Eunomius and Aerius above twelve hundred years past, as you heard before, acknowledgeth them and teacheth them. By the which distinctions also we learn the meaning of the church praying and offering sacrifices for the dead.  
As for the figures of eloquence Master grindal, which you imagine the fathers used praying for the dead, is a figure of your own called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. and in latin is called Mendacium, we english men term it, a lie. But you say, you can show by examples that the fathers so meaned. Let us hear and consider what they are. You say.  
But I will make this matter more plain by an example or twain, & caete. And then you bring the words of S. Ambrose affirming first, Theodosium frui luce perpetua, tranquillitate diuturna, & pro ijs quae in hoc gessit corpore muner ationis divinae fructibus gratulari: to enoiye perpetual light: and continual quietness, and for those things that he did in this body to rejoice in the fruition of God's reward: and yet afterward praying for him in these words. Domine da requiem perfecto servo tuo Theodosio, requiem quam parasti sanctis tuis. Lord give rest to thy perfect servant Theodosius, the rest, I mean, which thou hast prepared for thy Saints. In the first words, say you, he pronounceth plainly that Theodosius was undoubtedly saved, and in the later he prayeth for him, using a figure of eloquence and vehemency of affection. Here once again M. grindal you turn the cat in to the pan, and reason tout au rebours as the french proverb goeth, even as you did before: for as than you would overthrow prayer for the dead, because you supposed there was no third place, whereas the third place must needs therefore be, because the church prayeth for the dead, so now the praying off S. Ambrose for Theodosius, you call a figure off eloquence and vehemency of affection, but his words commending Theodosius you call a certain persuasion, and plain pronouncing of his undoubted salvation: whereas in deed the words of S. Ambrose commending Theodosius proceed of a vehement affection, and love towards that Emperor (for how could he be assured in deed of his blessed state, seemed he never so perfitt in his life, without some special revelation from almighty God, which yet M. grindal, I dare say, you will not say he had) but his prayer for the Emperor was the usual practice of the church, used at all funerals in all age's sense christian religion began.  
Again these words of S. Ambrose pronouncing Theodosius to enjoy the perpetual light and continual quietness & cae. may well be a figure of eloquence of Amplification and exclamation, but the praying for him, tell us I pray you M. grindal, in what figure of Rhetoric you will put it.  
Farther if that saying of S. Ambrose. Domin● da requiem perfecto servo tuo Theodosio, & cae. Lord give rest to thy perfect servant Theodosius, & cae. be a figure of eloquence, used in that solemn funeral of that mighty, and virtuous Emperor Theodosius, how well might it have becomed you also M. Grindal, occupying the place of a Bishop, as that blessed Doctor S. Ambrose then was, and preaching at the funeral solemnite of that most high, mighty and virtuous Emperor Ferdinandus: as he did of Theodosius, to have said also Da requiem Domine perfecto servo tuo Ferdinando, Lord give rest to thy perfect servant Ferdinandus? Feared you, that if you had so said, you should have been thought to have prayed for Ferdinandus, and when S. Ambrose saith so, will you not have us think that he prayed for Theodosius? Might not you ha●e used it for a figure of eloquence and so have followed the manner of the old fathers, as you would seem to do in all your doings, if that manner of speaking were but a figure of eloquence, as you say it was no more.  
Again what difference is it M. grindal to say. Lord give rest to thy servant, and to say, Lord have mercy upon the soul of thy servant? For to the departed out of this world no other rest can be given but to his soul: iff his be so, why are they called papists, which use so to speak, and yet S. Ambrose so speaking is no papist?  
But what stand we so long hereupon? I will ask one question, and so pass to your allegation off Chrisostom. Faustina a virtuous woman lamented much the death of her Sister. S. Ambrose writeth unto her, 
Epist. 8.  and saith. Non tam deplorandam quam prosequendam orationibus reor: nec moestificandam lachrymis tuis, sed magis oblationibus animam eius Deo commendandam arbitror. That is. My advise is, that you lament not your sister, but pray for her, and commend rather her soul, to God with oblations, than moan and morn it with tears. I ask here. Did S. Ambrose will Faustina to leave her lamenting, and fall to figures of eloquence, and so to utter her vehement affection to her sister? doth your wisdom judge so Master grindal? Or do not rather all wise men see, how far from all wit and wisdom this shift of yours is?  
Well; though perhaps ye spoke but merely here, yet you have a sad testimony out of Chrisostom. For he offereth the sacrifice of the mass even for the Pariarches, prophets, Apostles, yea and the blessed virgin also▪ what if he do so M. grindal? Marry say you, shall we now gather hereof that these are in purgatory? It is to great an absurdity. I grant it is so. What then will you gather hereof M. grindal? This oblation therefore, say you, is only a thanks giving to God for the Saints of God departed. Will you gather so M. grindal? that is to great an absurdity. Have ye not heard S. Augustin say, that the sacrifice of the altar is for some a thanks giving, for other a propitiation? This your conclusion of only thanks giving in the oblation of the church is much like to your concluding of only faith. The scripture saith justus ex fide vivit, 
Abacu●. 2.  the just man liveth by his faith. LO say you, faith only justifieth; and you forget it is written again, 
Rom. 1.  Factores legis iustificabuntur, the performers of the law shall beiustified, whereby it is clearly proved that good works must concur with faith. Even so now you forget that although Chrisostom here offer up the oblation for the Saints, as in thanks giving to God for them, yet that in the same liturgy in the next petition after he maketh an other especial prayer for the dead, saying. Sancti johannis Baptistae, prophetae & praecursoris, sanctorum & nominatissimorun Apostolorum & sancti huius cuius memoriam agimus, & omnium sanctorum supplicationibus, visita nos deus, & memor esto omnium in domino dormientium in spe resurrectionis vitae aeternae, a● requiem presta eye, etc. that is. By the supplications of S. john baptist, the prophet, and precursor of the holy and most renowned Apostles, and of this Saint whose memory we keep this day, visit us good Lord, and remember all those that sleep in our Lord in the hope of resurrection to life everlasting and grant them rest & cae. this lo M. grindal you forget, and conclude very absurdly that the oblation is only a thanks giving. But let us now again have a tendresse to S. Augustin, the faith fullest reporter of antiquity in the doctrines of the Church, by the verdict of Calvin himself, and let us learn of him how, and in what sense the Church used the memory of saints in the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, and whether that sacrifice be only a thanks giving, as you conclude M. Grindal. These are the words of that learned and holy father.  
Habet ecclesiastica disciplina, 
De verbis Apost. serm 17.  quod fideles noverunt, cum martyres eo loco recitantur ad altare dei, ubi non pro ipsis oretur, pro caeteris autem commemoratis defunctis oretur. Iniuria est enim pro martyr orare, cuius nos debemus orationibus commendari, that is. The doctrine of the Church hath, which the faithful do know, when the Martyrs are in that place reakoned up at the altar of God, where they are not prayed for, but the other souls departed there reakoned up are prayed for. For it is an injury to pray for a Martyr by whose prayers we ought to be ourselves commended. In these words of S. Augustin we learn M. grindal that the martyrs are not prayed for, though they be named at the altar, as you heard in Chrisostom the patriarchs, Prophets and Apostles named. We learn that other souls departed, not Martyrs, are prayed for. last of all we learn that the martyrs pray for us, we pray not for them. Where is now your imagined supposition M. grindal, that the eldest fathers praying for the dead meaned such dead as were already in heaven? S. Austen denieth that the church prayeth for them, he saith the doctrine of the church hath otherwise taught, and that the faithful know it. If you be of the church M. grindal, if you be of such a faith as was in S. Augustins time, you know that Martyrs were not prayed for: you know that other souls departed were prayed for. Last of all you know that the Martyrs prayed for us. But you deny all these matters, you mock and scoff at it, and therefore you are not instructed in the doctrine of the church, you are not of such faith as was in S. Augustins time. To conclude, you hold with the heretic Aerius condemned for an heretic a hundred years afore S. Augustin flourished. And yet you were not afeared to abuse the honourable nobility assisting at that Funeral solemnity, nor ashamed to preach in pulpit for the very pure word of God, an old cursed heresy. I beseech God to lighten the hearts of our most gracious Sowerain and Lady the queens Majesty, and of the most honourable nobility of her realm, that they may see, avoid and exterminat this cankered vermin of heresy, corrupting no less the temporal wealth and prosperous estate of our dear country, than the spiritual hope of our salvation, and all right faith in Christ jesus. I have answered all such reasons as you have brought in your sermon M. Grindal against prayer for the dead. I have done in part my duty to the church of God, as my vocation required. I have declared my good will to my dear country, as nature and just indignation moved men. I have done this but slightly and shortly, and yet I trust sufficiently, having first entered the printing of this book, before I understood of the sermon, and yet desirous to say somewhat, rather than to suffer a preached and printed heresy uncomptrolled, or the truth untold. I desire the catholic reader, to take this short digression in good part, and I wish the protestant rather to mark the weight, than the copy of that I have said. Let us then now return to the old condemned here sies, renewed by Luther, and followed of all protestāns of our unhappy time.  
Luther with all his scholars contemn fasting days ordained by the church, abusing Christian liberty for a cloak of their fleshly fantasy. They have herein right ancient Fathers, the Manichees, as 
a Epi. 93. cap. 4.  Leo witnesseth. Aerius as 
b Haer. 75.  Ephiphanius, and 
c Lib. 30. cap. 3. contra Faustum Man.  S. Augustin write, and Eustathius, as the 
d In praefat.  Council of Gangra above thirten hundred years past recordeth.  
They wed freres and nuns, Luther leading the dance of that wanton trace, with Kater. Boar, 
Lib. 1. c. 7. de peccat. merits & remissione.  and break vows of chastity without scruple of conscience, following the steps of their father jovinian, condemned therefore for an heretic as S. Augustin recordeth.  
They throw down Martyrs towmes, scoff at the devout visiting of them, inveigh and rail against pilgrimage, holy relics, and places of devotion. Nothing truly was in the primitive church more frequent than going on pilgrimage: 
Homil. 5. in ●. job. ●ome. 1.  in so much that Chrisostom crieth out in one place. if I were of a strong body and without ecclesiastical charge, I would not refuse so long a pilgrimage, as to go see only the chains wherewith, and the prison wherein Paul was bound. if I had lived then to have seen those holy hands bound for our lords sake, I would have put my very eyes on them, and continually have kissed them. Thus speaketh Chrisostom an ancient and learned father of the Catholic church, and Bishop of the great city of Constantinople, and thinketh it no superstition to preach it to the people: for these words he spoke in pulpit. But what fathers have the protestāns in their contrary opinion. Of whom learned they to mock, and scoff at such devotions? Of right worthy masters, I warrant you. First (beside the Pagans of whom The odoret maketh mention) of julian the Apostata, as you may see in the works of Cyrillus against him: 
Lib. 8. d● curate. Grae car. affectionum. lib. 10. cap. 20▪ Lib. 3. de imag. Cu●●.  them of Eustathius as the Council of Gangra reporteth. After these of Vigilantius, whom S. Hierom refuteth: and above seven hundred years passed off one Claudius, against whom jonas Bishop off Orleans in France wrote.  
Luther, and all that follow his banner, be mortal enemies to the images of Christ and off all Saints. Their holy fathers be old cursed heretics the Marcionistes, the Manichees, Aerius, Felicianus, and all the wicked sect of Iconomachis, as it is at large mentioned in the sixth general Council, and second of Nicaea. Nicephorus also recordeth off one Xenaias, 
Lib. 6. ca 27.  who held this heresy under Anastasius the Emperor about a thousand years past.  
Luther taught first in our time, 
In li. de captiuitate Babylonica.  that holy Orders is no Sacrament, that every Christian man, and woman is a priest. And all the zealous Lutherans to this day believe and teach the same, though Melanchthon and many of the Civil Lutherans be departed from that fond and absurd opinion. It is also a currant doctrine in the pulpits in certain dioceses of our country. 
De haeresibus hae. 27. Epiph. hae. 79. et 49.  The fathers of this heresy were Pepuziani, as S. Augustin maketh mention, and Collyridiani, as Epiphanius writeth.  
It is common to all Lutherans and protestants of our time to abhor the name and profession of a Monk. This was the manner also of the Donatists, and of the Circumcelliones. What meaneth said these heretics, this name of Monks? 
In Psal. 132.  Unto whom S. Augustin answereth, How much better may we say, what meaneth this name off Circumcelliones? Against such writeth Chrisostom whole treatises, entituling them, 
To●o. 5.  Against the dispraisers of monastical life.  
The Lutherans and present protestants of our days protest that they have departed from the see of Rome, and other Catholic Bishops for the evil and wicked life of the Popes and prelates in Christ's church. The Apology of England pretendeth the same excuse. 
Contra Cres. lib. 3. ca 6. Contra 2. epist. Caud. li. 2. ca 9 contra Donat. li. 6. c. 4. contra Parm. lib. 2. cap. 5.  But was this their own imagination, think you, and devise? No truly. It was the very ground of that cursed sect of the Donatists. And their fathers herein are Cresconius, Gaudentius, Parmenianus, and other. As S. Augustin writing against them eftsoons declareth.  
It is the doctrine of Luther in his book de Christiana libertate, and divers other places, that faith ought to be free, and no man constrained thereunto. In our country also, when the sword was against them, Frithe and his fellows cried for that liberty, though now they cease not continually to cry for the contrary. It was the old accustomed manner of all heretics, 
Epi. 20 4. et contra Petilianum saepe.  especially of the Donatists as S. Augustin in sundry places witnesseth.  
Likewise before these heresies were favoured off Princes and authorized of higher powers, the riches and possessions of Bishops was a great eye sore to all Lutherans and protestants. Now they can like well the pomp of Prelates, being placed themselves in such preferment. But their former grief was an heretical grudge of the old heretics Vadianis as S. Augustin writeth, 
Aug. haer. 50. Epiph haer. 70.  or Audianis as Epiphanius calleth them.  
What is now more common in the mouth of all protestants, then that nothing ought to be added to the commandments of God? For by this short blow they wipe away all constitutions and ordinances of the Church. They learned this argument off julian the Apostata, who used it against the devotions off the Christians, 
Lib. 9 contra julian.  as in Cyrillus it appeareth.  
Protestants will be counted martyrs being cut of by the secular sword, that their cankered doctrine infect not the sound sheep of Christ's flock. Great cracks are made, and great works set forth of their stiff standing to the stake and glorious embracing of the fire. None do this more stoutly than the anabaptists, whom yet the greater part of protestants detest and abhor for heinous heretics. But not only these new heretics, but much more the old as the Marcionistes, and especially the Circumcelliones excelled in this pretended patience, 
●d Quodu●●●deum haer. 69.  and proud persuasion of Martyrdom. See S. Augustin, and the ecclesiastical history of Nicephorus libro, 4. capite 23. S. Cyprian also. lib de simplicitate praelatorum.  
Luther at the diet held at Augspurg in the year. 1521. being much entreated of divers (tendering) him for the authority of Friderik duke of Saxony) to leave all singularites and not to reject so rashly ancient Counsels of Christ's Church, 
Fon●●nus lib. 2.  he awnswered, he disproved none except the council of Constance, and thereto he said he was moved with an unvincible reason and most assured argument▪ that was, because that council had condemned john Huss, affirming that the church of Christ consisted only of such as were predestined and elected. And in this opinion he would live and die. All the brood of that fond friar sing the same song. Beza and his companions at the late Synod of Poissy in France, were stiff in that opinion along time, but at the length were driven from it. whereupon they changed the tenor of their supplication, calling themselves Les esleus de Dieu, the chosen of God. This wild persuasion is almost received of all protestants. It is the very heresy of the Pelagians condemned therefore in S. Augustins time, 
Heres. ●●  as in his book De heresibus he reciteth at large.  
What a great corrupter of holy Scripture Luther hath been, in the second part of this Apology it is at large declared by Fridericus Staphylus. How our protestants also have followed his example therein, and how manifoldly they have perverted the very text of holy Scripture, I have in part touched, to give good warning in the rest. Who list to see how this hath been the gui●e and manner of old heretics, Let him read Tertullian in his prescriptions, 
Cap. 17. Capit. ulti. Lib. 1. c. 1.  S. Ambrose upon the epistle of S. Paul to Titus, Iraeneus also, and S. Augustin writing against Adimantus the manichee cap. 12. 14. & 16.  
What should I proceed farther in declaring how Luther and his scholars follow the race of old heretics, both in their doctrine and in the manner and setting forth thereof? The very refusal of the ancient fathers in Christ's church pronounced (as you have heard) so impudently of Luther, and followed with no less impudence of his scholars, is no new point, but even the very shift of their forefathers cursed heretics of old time. This appeareth well by the disputations of Athanasius with Arrius, 
Coram Probo Indice. Socrates. li. 5. cap. 10. Actione 1. Epist. 28. lib. 1. contra Eu●●mitū.  by the counsel of Sisinnius to the Emperor Theodosius: by the manner of Eutyches in the Council of Chalcedon, by the writings of Cirillus touching Nestorius, and of S. Basil concerning Eunonius. For all these learned fathers could not draw those unruly heretics to the rule of the ancient and holy writers in the Church of Christ. They appealed to only Scripture and would be tried only by that, as Luther would, and the protestants of our time will, though many heretics received not the whole corpse of Scripture, but such parts only as liked them, rejecting all that made against them, even as now a days also Luther and his scholars reject the books of Maccabees, and the epistle of S. james, the one because it prayeth for the dead, the other because it writeth directly against their only faith. Of what heretics they learned this shift, we have already declared defending the Maccabees against M. grindal.  
Advise yourselves now (good Christian readers) whether you think the surer way to salvation, to for low the steps of these fathers of Luther and all new ghospellers, all condemned heretics above a thousand years past, or embrace the doctrine of the holy Fathers and learned approved writers in Christ's church. May we not well judge and assuredly persuade ourselves that the very spirit of heresy spoke in Luther and speaketh in all new ghospellers, preaching and defending old condemned heresies? Why have protestants departed from the old Catholic religion, and embraced the new doctrine of Luther? they say forsooth because all things are reform after the pattern and practice of the primitive Church. What mean they trow ye herein? truly I do not otherwise think, but that a great numbered, the unlearned and deceived sort, take them to mean well, and that all is reduced to the doctrine and religion approved and generally received in the primitive church for the space of five or six hundred years after Christ. But undoubtedly the learned and ringleaders of this new-fangled faith, if they mean truly, must needs mean the renewing of such heresies, as were in that time condemned. For thus and no otherwise do they follow doctrine practised in that time: that is of heretics, as in a numbered of particular assertions you have seen.  
But to return to Luther, 
Luther ● ved an he retike.  what point of a right heretic is there, that hath not in him been verified? He condemneth the Church and holy Fathers, appointed of the holy Ghost to govern and direct his church, as you see by his own words before alleged. He corrupteth holy scripture by false translations, as the second part of this Apology hath declared you. He denied parts hereof at his pleasure, after the accustomed manner of all heretics. He holdeth, teacheth, and defendeth old cursed, and long condemned heresies, as we have before deducted unto you. He hath bred divers sects by his own doctrine repugnant and contrary one to an other: to wit, the anabaptists, the Sacramentaries, the S wenck feldians, and divers other, as it appeareth clearly by the Table of his Offspring in the third part of this Apology. Finally because all heretics are known by their fruits, 
See the●efe. 29. and following  what the fruits of this man's doctrine have been, it is in this Apology of Staphylus in divers places expressly set forth, 
Also the leaf. 127. b. etc.  as well for the great decay of devotion and spiritual vertus, as for the temporal waste and misery, that of this heresy hath ensued. Of his terrible arrogancy and pride (the most evident token of a wilful heretiken and void of all grace and goodness) all that have read his writings can testify abundantly. None more complain thereof then his fellow protestants, the Sacramentaries of Zurich, 
In the leaf. 84. b. and 85.  as partly by their words in the third part of this book alleged it may well appear. Never bawd in bridwell, nor scold in the stews so railed, as this man doth, being controlled of his doctrine. His awnswers against all such as wrote against him, abundantly declare the same. For hereupon the civil Lutherans do serve in many points from such doctrine, as he was wont to utter in the vehemency of spirit (as they call it) and in his choler. He wrote himself an Evangelist off Christ: even as Manicheus called himself an Apostle of Christ: as S. Augustin witnesseth. 
In epist. ad Argentoratenses. Contra epi. fundamenti. cap. 6.  And off his scholars he is called the third Helias, as in the story of his death we read written by Melanchthon, jonas and Pomeranus. Even as Manicheus was of his scholars called the holy ghost, 
Ibidem.  and Montanus of his sect also. He writeth, that he is sure and certain he hath his doctrine from heaven, even as Aetius said also of himself. 
Vide Rofensem contra cap. Baby. Epiphanius in haer. 76.  I know God most clearly and even as perfectly as I know my self. The cause and original of Luther's departure from the church was ambition, as all the ecclesiastical histories of our time, Fontanus, Roverus, and other do testify. to wit, because he was not preferred to the publishing of the famous pardon of the croisad. The same ambition made Aerius an heretic, because Eustathius was preferred before him in a certain bishopric as Epiphanius recordeth. 
Haer. 75.  The like writeth Tertullian of Valentinus, 
Lib. contra Valentinianos'.  and Nicephorus reporteth of Montanus lib. 4, cap. 2. of Novatus libro 6. capite 3. of Florinus. libro 4. capite 20. 
Lib. 4. cap. 7.  and of Thebutes one of the first heretics in the Apostles time, the very same cause of falling in to heresy. And truly even as the beginning and course of Luther's doctrine hath thouroughely resembled the manner of old heretics, so his end was not much unlike, to wit, a sudden and unprovided death. For being merry and making great feast over night, he was found dead in the morning. Such sudden death was never read off any Apostle or Evangelist of Christ. But of divers heretics, 
Sleidanns & Fontanus lib. 17.  especially of Arrius, though as by that the Arrians were nothing moved, so the Lutherans of this make small account.  
And this much of Luther the father protestant of our time, as touching the points of his doctrine: where you see both what a godly ground he laid, and how in the course and issue there of, he hath showed himself to be but a scholar of old heretics, as he hath been the Master of many new. For this man worse than any gutter or sink, which receiveth only the filth that is brought unto it, breedeth none, not only took old heresies of other, but added also thereunto some of his own: breeding of his own filthy brain as foul fond doctrine as any foolish heretic before him. And of these his proper inventions one of the maddest is, that he teacheth the bread remaining bread, to be the very natural body of Christ in the Sacrament. 
The pro● heresy off Luther touching the Sacrament hath wrought his confusion.  Which hath seemed such a fond doctrine even to the ghospellers themselves his scholars and brethren, that the far greater part off them hath in consideration of this point chiefly, not doubted to condemn him for an arch-heretic▪ as you may see by the words of the brethren of Zurich in the third part of this book. 
Fol. 68  And by reason of this absurd doctrine not only at the first Zuinglius, Oecolampadius and Calvin drew with them divers countries from the unite of Luther's gospel, but also the Lutherans themselves having many years served the idol Luther, daily fail and shrink from him, cleaving to the cursed Sacramentaries, proceeding always in mischief, and increasing with time their heresies and abominations.  
About this time two year, 
Surius in epist. nuncupatoria praefixa Prodro●●c.  Brema a great city of Saxony, and one of the first that had received the light of Luther's gospel, having continued in the foresaid doctrine of Luther about forty years, as zealous and upright Lutherans, now after great strife and contention among themselves, hath openly condemned the same, and are become calvinists. Likewise in Augspurg where the famous Confession of the Lutherans was made, ●●fred to the Emperor, and confirmed by all the nobility of the protestants, yet now there are more calvinists then Lutherans, more that disprove that Confession and doctrine of Luther, them that approve it. How other countries also have flitted from Luther, having many years served him, you have in the third part of this book declared. 
Pagi. 121.   
Our country also being at the first change, all Lutheran, is now become for the most part Caluiniste, and Lasconicall, as not only our doings at home declare, but other countries abroad have noted of us. Peter Martyr at his first coming to Oxford was a right Lutheran in the matter of the Sacrament, as he declared himself not only in private communication, but also in his open lessons, where inveighing at a time against the argument of the Sacramentaries, Christ is in heaven, ergo he is not here in the Sacrament, he cried out, Profecto est nodus Diaboli, that is, soothly this is a shift of the devil himself. He was wont also at his first coming to Oxford to complain, Anglos nimium vergere ad Zuinglianismum that we english men inclined to much to the Zwinglians. Afterward as all the world knoweth, he condemned Luther, and became himself, a Zwinglian. For he had learned an other lesson in the Court.  
Philip Melanchthon himself, the very darling of Luther and father of the Confessionistes, in his later days became a very Sacramentary: as his familiar letters to the Count Palatin of Rhine printed at Heidelberg in the year 1560. hath declared to all the world. Thus the proper heresy of Martin Luther, that he himself by the spirit of the new gospel had invented in the despite of the Pope (for so he protesteth himself in a letter of his to the brethren of Strasburg) was at the first much misliked, and is now almost everywhere utterly abhorred.  
joachimus Westphalus, the only stay and pillar of this Lutheran doctrine complaineth himself hereof. For thus he writeth. 
In lib. Rectafides de c●●a ●●i.  No false doctrine is so far spread, none with so much labour and hypocrisy defended, none hath more beguiled the world, than this false doctrine of the blessed Sacrament▪ meaning the heresy of the Sacramentaries. And Nicolaus Amsdorfsius an other zealous Lutheran writeth thus. The anabaptists and the Sacramentaries do blind and deceive Germany with their pretended holiness even as the monks before blinded the whole world.  
And this verily hath happened on Luther and his fellows not without the just judgement of God. For whereas upon dispiteous malice he laboured by his new doctrines to overthrow the church of Rome, (where it hath pleased our Saviour to place his vicar here on earth) as in divers of his writings it appeareth, he hath wrought his own destruction, and shame. for though in very deed through the pernicious persuasions of that wedded frere, certain places and corners of Christendom have swarned from the Catholic church, and authority of that Apostolic see in these north parts of the world, yet it hath thousands fold more been enlarged in the west parts, and the new lands found out by spaniards and Portugals in these late years, as the letters off the jesuits directed from those countries in to these parts do evidently and miraculousely declare. And truly even so befell it, at what time Grece and the east church departing from the head and unite, of Christ's church, gave themselves to sundry schisms and heresies. 
Vide throvologiam Alexandri Sculte●i.  For than sprang up the faith in Germany, Pole, Dennemarke, Swethen, Norway and other north Countries. For thus from the east to the north, and from the north to the west of the faith of Christ passeth, donec, 
Luc, 21.  as Christ saith, impleantur tempora gentium. Vntell the times of the gentiles be accomplished. Our Lord grant that it pass not from us by heresy and schism, as it passed from the greeks, and from Africa the south part of the world. 
Grece and Africa ●oste the fa●●ithe by he resy.  For both these people through schisms (especially of the Arrians and their offspring) lost the faith of Christ, as the histories declare unto us. But to return to our matter, the church of Rome, the see Apostolic, that Luther laboured by heresy to overthrow, standeth yet in his full force and interest, notwithstanding the miserable loss of a numbered in our country and otherwhere. Truly Luther himself cometh very short of the count he made being rejected now almost every where. The Catholic also may learn to avoid and shun hereby all manner of protestants what so ever name or sect they be of, proceeding all of this head, being all the corrupted issue of this unclean spring, and the branches of this root.  
Much more might be said of other proper heresies of this arch-heretic Martin Luther. But this one of his may serve for a taste to the zealous Lutherans of our country, that they glory not so much of this their Elias, and fiffte evangelist, as though all that ever he wrote or said were the gospel itself. But now to the civil Lutherans.  
The civil Lutherans are those, 
Of the civil Lutherans.  which not with such zeal and rigour as the other, force men precisely to every doctrine and article of Luther's gospel, but are content civilly to conform themselves to better judgement, and take so much of their Master, Luther, as they shall think good and convenient. But these men by this their civility and philosophical moderation have conformed themselves to so many frames and fashions, as there be among them Superintendents and Ministers. As for example in the administration of the Sacraments, through their civility, see in what marvelous unite their churches be directed. At Wittenberg where the see of these civil protestants is, four Sacraments are approved and administered: to wit. baptim, the Supper of our Lord, Holy Orders, and Penance or absolution. At Lipsia three only take place, holy orders being wiped away. At Magdeburg but two are allowed: even as among the calvinists of our country. And hereof jesting once merely a learned man though with a heavy heart being demanded why in the Lutherans Churches were not 7. 
Staphylus in Def. contra Melanchthon.  Sacraments, yes forso the quod he: there are 7. and two more. For at Wittenberg four, at Lipsia three, at Magdeburg are two: which in all make nine. And these three cities be little distant one from the other.  
The father and head of these civil Lutherans is Philip Melanchthon: who so long dallied in this kind of perilous civility, that at the length, as you have heard before, he fell to the pestilent heresy of the Sacramentaries. And see I pray you how light, variable, and inconstant a person this man was.  
In the year. 1540 
Staphylus in prodromo.  he wrote bitterly against the Pope defending Luther miserably, as if he had been his slave or bondman. In the year. 1548. 
Vide Lipsen Interim & literas ad Carolwitzium. itemque postremas a● Com. Palatinum.  heenclined again to the Pope and embraced the Interim that was made in Germany, that is, the delay and deliberation until a general Council were called. But of late even a little before his death in the year. 1559. writing to the Count Palatin he condemned the proper doctrine of his M. Luther, and joined himself to Calvin and the Sacramentaries.  
This grand Captain was the inventor or rather scribe and writer of that famous Confession made at Augspurg in the year. 1530. But how he altered and corrected the same, not only in his Apology in the next year after, but at divers other times, sometime for better, sometime for worse, I report me to the divers editions of that book. For who so conferreth the first edition and certain next to the first, with the last, he shall clearly see what settled judgement, and constant or grounded knowledge was in that man. But after the death of Luther, how miserably it hath been mangled, Nicolaus Gallus a zealous and rigorous Lutheran in open writing bitterly complaineth. For thus he reporteth in general, after the reticall of certain particulars. Here then, 
In libell●. Vox Vigilū● fol. d. 3.  saith he, all Christian men may easily perceive, if they will yield to reason, and consider and confer together their doctrines, how all those positions which our adversaries in the foresaid articles after the death of Luther do teach against us blasphemousely, do in deed in the very ground touch Luther himself and his doctrine, though we bear the name thereof: yea and beside the person of Luther, they belong properly to the true Confession of Augspurg, which in the mean while is of them changed, perverted, and racked in to express contrary meaning. And this false foisting and juggling of the civil Lutherans (though truly very uncivil in this point) is not only evident in the confession of Augspurg the ground of all their new broached gospel, but also in the works of their Master, Martin Luther, which they change and correct daily at their pleasure. For Amsdorfius, Illyricus, and Georgius Rorarius, all zealous Lutherans in open treatises and books entitled de depravatoribus librorum Lutheri, 
Vide epist. Hosis all Henri. ducen Brun●uicen sem.  of the depravers of Luther's books, charge the masters of Wittenberg but Melanchthon especially, of certain hundreds of places changed, left out and corrupted by them, and that (as they say) against the gospel, 
Luc. 6.  quia non est discipulus super magistrum the scholar is not above his master.  
Again as touching the inconstancy of Melanchthon, those which have read and seen his common places, can not be ignorant thereof: which as oft as he set forth, so oft he altered and corrected. In the numbered of Sacraments what divers mind he hath been of, and upon what occasion he so changed his mind, 
See in the I●a. c. 45. and 72.  it is very well declared of Staphylus in the first and in the second parts of this book. In one other pointeas touching justification, and the works of man, I will show you how contrary he hath been to himself, changing his mind with every wether. At the first to gratify Luther his master, denying free will in man, In his annotations upon S. Paul to the Romans thus he writeth. 
In cap. 8. fol. 53.  We say that God doth not only suffer his creatures to do and work, but himself doth and worketh all things properly. as we confess the calling of S. Paul was the proper work of God, so we confess all other are the proper works off God, whether they be indifferent actions, as to eat, to drink and such like, or evil works, as the adultery of David, the cruelty of Manlius putting to death his own Son. And a little after. We need not therefore make that gross gloze commonly used, to say that God suffereth evil and doth not work evil & caetera. Thus far Melanchthon: where you see he agreeth with the bond fire will off Luther, and the wicked destiny off Calvin. And in this mind he continued long and many years. But at the length in a conference held at Worms, 
Staphylus in absoluta apologia. fo. 126.  he was persuaded by doctor Eckius to reject this abominable doctrine. And at the next edition off his common places he declared it to all the world. 
Cap. de humanis viri bus & lib. arbitrio.  The zealous and rigorous Lutherans could not abide this his recantation, especially Nicolaus Gallus and the Superintendents of higher Saxony. 
Gallus in librosuo. Wechterhan. Theologi Saxonici in libellis supplicatorijs ad conventum Numburgensem.  But accused him in open writings of apostasy. Farther when divers universities, especially those of Lipsia had subscribed to this later doctrine of Melanchthon directly repugning to Luther's gospel, Nicolaus Gallus a rigorous Lutheran and zealous ghospeller in his book entitled, An answer to the book of the Professors of Wittenberg, examineth this their doctrine, and chargeth them with Pelagians heresy taken out of Erasmus writings. Also in an other little treatise of his entitled, Vox vigilum, by certain antitheses and conferences off Luther's sayings, he setteth forth to the world the incostant and changeable mind of this Archeprotestant.  
Who list to know more of this man, and how he with all his civil sect is misliked of the zealous Lutherans, let him read the books of Heshusius and Hieronimus Menczelius de pastoribus (not that I wish such books to be read, but that who will needs read them, may note this in them) where they grievously complain of the licentious liberty of these civil and conformable protestants Melanchthon, and his complices. He may read also the book of johannes Spangenbergius set forth in the year. 1561. which beareth this little: A true declaration of the benefits bestowed especially upon Germany from God, by D. Martin Luther of holy memory, and of the great unkindness of divers toward so great benefits received. In the which book he inveigheth not so much against us Catholics, which have always worthily abhorred the cursed heresies of that lewd friar, as against the civil Lutherans, and disorderly extravagants, which have swerved from the holy word of that fift evan geliste. Which they have done in such sort, that now none beareth less rule, than he that first stirred all this storm, and was the inventor of this terrible tragedy.  
At what time the general council of Trent, by the consent of all the estates of the Empire, 
Sleidam●s lib. 6. et 11. Histor.  and other Christian princes was gathered together, and be gone, the protestāns of germany, especially the Lutherans, having their safeconduct, and provision after the largest and surest manner granted, Melanchthon drew back, and retracted the time by all means possible. Whereupon first he came to the Emperor 
Ponta●us Roverus li. 5. rerum memora. pag. 410.  Charles sojourning at that time at Inspruch few days journey from Trent, and made great suit both for himself, and his fellows, that they might not present themselves at the council. For himself he alleged first his age: then that he was no divine, 
Non theol● gum sed philotheol● gum.  but a lover and favourer of divinity. And yet this is that Master of Wittenberg, successor in the schismatical see of Luther, father of that famous Confession of Augspurg, which not only the Lutherans, but the calvinists themselves do reverence no less than the four gospels. But this answer no thing satisfing the Emperor, he pretended he would shortly repair to the council, returned to Wittenberg, and from thence took his journey thitherward. but at Norimberg he stayed, 
Erasmus Reinhold. i● epist. sua ad amicum.  until his prince the duke Mauritius concluded the council with fire and sword.  
And this charitable devise of Melanchthon agreeth well with other his doings: as that he wrote, yea and put forth in print a little book to the people of Bohem wherein he stirreth them against their lawful Prince, and counseleth them to rebel against their Sowerain: 
In libel. ad Bohemoset Si● sios.  whereupon ensued civil war and calamitous seditions in that country: as also that he and other masters of Wittenberg in the year. 1548. at what time the duke of Saxony and the Landgrave off hesse rebelled, wrote openly against the Emperor Charles and all his adherents. 
Illyricus in informati●ne sua de quibusdam a●itulis.  Whereof Mathias Illyricus a zealous Lutheran chargeth them, and reproacheth it unto them bitterly, in a certain little book which he made, called An Information upon certain articles, etc.  
This Philip Melanchthon father of these civil protestants, as in wavering and oft changing his doctrine, he was a right civil Lutheran, so corrupting the general Confession of his brethren, and the works of his Master, he showed himself very uncivil truly, but a right heretic I assure you. For this was the practice of ancient heretics to fly and flit from their saying, being pressed with the learned Catholics. And truly of this famous Confession of Augspurg and of Luther's works daily thus altered and corrected, 
The civil Lutherans resemble old heretics.  I would say corrupted, of these civil Lutherans, we may worthily pronounce as Tertullian doth of the Marcionistes, who had made also a gospel of their own, whereof he saith, Quotidie reformant illud, 
Lib. 4. adversus Mar●ionem.  prout a nobis quotidie revincuntur, aut erubescunt de magistro suo ubique traducto. They frame it a new daily, as they are of us daily convinced, or be ashamed of their master all wheres reprowed. And see, I pray you, if these civil reformers of Luther's gospel represent not unto us the face and behaviour of old heretics, of whom Tertullian in an other place thus speaketh. 
In praescriptionibus.  Mentior si non etiam a regulis suis etc. Let me be accounted a liar, if they vary not from their own rules, while every one tuneth at his pleasure the song he learned, even as he that first taught it, did set it at his pleasure. The Valentinians were as bold as Valentinus their Master, the Marcionistes made at their pleasure a new faith, as their Master Martion had done before them. Briefly all heresies well considered shall be found to vary from their first heads in divers points. Thus far Tertullian. which how true it is in the scholars of Martin Luther the arch-heretic of our time, these civil Melanchthonistes declare unto us: and that to the great grief of the zealous Lutherans, as the sundry writings of Gallus, Amsdorfius, Illyricus famous Superintendents of that sect do evidently show.  
This practice of Melanchthons' inconstancy flitting from his own doctrine, the ecclesiastical histories witness unto us to have been the manner of old heretics. Off Thedotus, Asclepiodotus, 
Lib. 4. cap. 21.  Hermophilus and Apollonides thus writeth Nicephorus. Quilibet etiam illorum castigationem propriorum scriptorum edid●●: idque varianantium & dissidentium inter se exemplarium discordantia indicat, that is. 
though Synods of the Arrians resemble the confession of Augspurg and meetings of protestants. Nicephorus lib. 9 c. 5.  Each one of them did set forth their own writings corrected and altered, which the diversity of the sundry and contrary copies doth declare.  
The great variance and inconstancy of the Arrians no less than of the Lutherans, appeareth well by the ecclesiastical histories also. First in their private Synod at Antioch, having concluded and agreed upon a certain confession of their belief, shortly after they put forth an other much different from the first. Not long after three of these Arrian bishops being 
Li. 9 c. 7.  convented before Constans in the west and being demanded a declaration of their belief, they uttered it in a far other sort, than they had decreed at Antioch. 
Li. 9 c. 13.  In Nicephorus their divers confessions are set out at large. F●we years after the Arrians meeting together at Sirmium, 
Rover. lib. 3. pa. 172.  published three sundry and divers confessions of their belief all contrary to the former. Let us now see whether our Lutherans have not practised in like manner.  
In the general meeting of the protestants at Ausgpurg before the Emperor Charles in the year 1530, First those of Strasbourg, Costniz and Memming offered up a confession of their faith as far different from the Saxons as they were from the Catholics.  
Then in the Confession of the Saxons devised by Melanchthon in the description of Christ's church, 
Staphylus in absolutae Apologia.  the word Catholic is clean left out. The next year after Melanchthon writing his Apology put the word Catholic in: but with a strange and false exposition added unto it, even such as the Donatists made unto S. Augustin, 
August. ep. 48. ad Vincentium.  when they said, that the word Catholic was not meant of the society and communion of the whole world, but in observing of all gods commandments, and all his sacraments.  
Thirdly the protestants of Lunneburg and of the 
Rovers li. 5. pag. 439.  landgraves dominions were offended with the Saxons in the publishing of their confession, because they yielded to much to the Catholics in the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority off bishops: whereupon Melanchthon was expressly commanded to yield no farther.  
Fourthly whereas in that confession presented to the Emperor in the year 1530. in the tenth article we read this, They teach that the true body and blood of Christ is truly present in the Supper under the forms of bread and wine, the next year after the same Confession being printed at Wittenberg, they frame the same article after an other sort, and write. That the body and blood of Christ are truly present and distributed to those which receive in the supper: By the which addition they exclude all reservation of the blessed Sacrament, for the sick, and tie Christ to the pleasure of the receivers. But in the year 1540 wading further in the moire of heresy they make that same article yet fouler. For this they say. That with the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ is truly exhibited to those which receive in the lords Supper. Thus lo at the length this monster of Luther was brought to perfection, I mean his proper heresy about the Sacrament. But what? Doth all the brotherhood of that Confession stay here? Nay the zealous Lutherans deny it and complain of it. 
Vide Rouerum. lib. 5. pag. 439.  For from this their Confession Brentius and the Masters of Wittenberg in their conference held at Worms in the year 1557. have departed openly, 
In publica Confession pure doctrine, etc.  yielding to the heresies of Zuinglius and Osiander, directly repugning to that Confession, as Nicolaus Amsdorffius a zealous Lutheran chargeth them in open writing. His words you may read in the beginning of the third part of this book. Thus you may see how the spirit of Melanchthon and his fellows agree with the doings and behaviour of old heretics.  
And although Philip Melanchthon, 
Fontanus li. 11. Melanchthon malicious and cruel.  at the first visitation of the protestants in Germany was praised for his modesty and meekness, yet afterward as he grew in heresy, so did he in malice and cruelty. The thrusting in of Osiander in to Prussia procured by him displacing Morlinus by force, his open writing against the visitation of Bavaria, his bitter and dispiteous invectives against the learned, virtuous, and Noble man Fridericus Staphylus, hath sufficiently declared to all the world, that as good men eunt de virtute in virtutem, increase and go forward in virtue, so he proceeded in mischief and malice of heart, 
Vide Staphylum in absoluta apologia. pagina 242.  as the property of heretics hath always been. Illyri●us and other zealous Lutherans ceased not daily while he lived to entwit this unto him. And I have here recited only for the intent (God is my witness) that his credit hereafter may be the less among such, as by his heretical civility have been deceived and trained into heresies from the unite of Christ's church, where only salvation is to be hoped for. For that is the body off Christ as S. Paul saith and the pillar of truth. 
Coloss. 1.  and as S. Augustin writeth. 
De unita e●cclesiae cap. 4.  Whosoever believeth that Christ jesus is come in to flesh, and in the same flesh hath suffered for us, hath risen again, and is ascended up, and that he is the son of God, God with God, and one with the father, by whom all was made: and yet do so dissent from his body, which is the church, that they do not communicate with all the whole corpse of Christendom, certain it is that they are not in the Catholic church. What Christian man therefore is there so destitut of the grace of God, and all good reason, that will hazard his soul to follow that guide, which woteth not himself which way to walk, or to learn a new belief contrary to all Christendom beside that now is, and ever hath been, of such a Master as knoweth not him self, what he may say, and was even to his death but a learner and scholar? For then only began he to profess himself a Caluiniste and a Sacramentary, having all his life time before taught and deceived a number after the trade of Luther. And how can his scholars be assured that then he found out the truth? We will therefore now come to Calvin himself to whom Melanchthon hath yielded, and see whether he be a ghospeller worthy to be followed against the uniform consent of Christ's church.  
Perusing diligently the doctrine of john Calvin in his Institutions, 
Of Calvin and his doctrine.  commentaries upon the holy Scripture, his resolutions upon the Sacraments, and other his works, touching his doctrine of the blessed Sacrament of the altar, which he always termeth the Supper off the Lord, and recording with myself how the greatest sway of the lost flock of our time, forsaking Christ the heavenly shepearde and his vicar here on earth, have followed more that wolf of Geneva john Calvin, than the foxes of Germany, Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, and other, truly I both lamented much the loss of so many Christian souls straying after so perilous a guide, and marveled yet more at the blindness of our wicked time, that would be so soon lead out of the high way of Christ's church (wherein only salvation is to be sought) and follow the trade of such a doctor or Master, which like a mad will full man being out off the way, runneth up and down among the bushes and briars this way and that way, seeking of purpose any way, rather than he will take the common high beaten way, that all Christian people have walked in. I say this good Readers, not as enemy to the man (whom thanked be God I never saw nor heard) but as finding him such in his writings as I have said, and intending by God's help to set him so before your eyes that you shall also say and judge no less of him then I do. unless you are (which God forbid) of the number of those obstinate jews, who saying would not see, and hearing would not hear. I trust rather in almighty God, that no man hath so pinned his soul to Caluins' doctrine, but that he will yield to the express word off holy Scripture, and evident reason, when he shall see the same doctrine to fight directly against them both.  
And first we will consider how is doctrine fighteth against evident reason, which by two manner of ways we will declare you. First by certain of his propositions importing absurd consequences and impossibilities, next by clear and most evident contradictions of his own saying: whereby not only the faithful Catholic, but the deceived protestant may evidently judge and pronounce, that this man's doctrine can not be of god, and his holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of truth and unite, but is of the devil and his wicked spirit, which is the spirit of falsehood and dissension. For truth is always uniform and agreeable with itself. And as the philosopher saith of virtue, so in truth there is but one way to hit the mark: a man may shoot aside divers ways. Wherefote two contrary sayings may both be false and untrue: but truth can never stand with a contrary. Who then teacheth contradiction, as he must needs teach some falsehood, so possibly he may teach all false, and beside the mark: even as it happeneth with all heretics, that leave the common high way of their forefathers, and seek out by paths of their own inventions, wherein the faster they run, the farther they stray, and the harder they find the right way again.  
secondarily as touching the repugnance that is in Caluins' doctrine against the express word off God, I will also by two manner of ways declare. First by a number of his propositions and assertions contrary to the express words of Christ and his Apostles, next by the avouching of such doctrine as concurreth with old heresies condemned above a thousand years past, in that state and time off Christ his church, as Calvin himself doth in sundry places (especially upon the prophets, and in his epistle to Sadoletus) allow and reverence. We recited you before divers old carrion heresies that Luther stirred up, but Calvin beside all those hath nuzzled yet a little farther, and digged deeper than Luther did. 
A similitu de.  For even as a a bestly sow coming in to a fair garden set with divers sweet flowers and pleasant herbs, if in some corner thereof she espy a donghell, or heap of rotten weeds, or other filth cast aside, will strait nousell there and tumble herself in the filth and carrion thereof, not meddling with the sweet flowers or pleasant herbs: so truly these bestly heretics of our time, especially Luther and Calvin living in the church of Christ compared in scripture to the garden of the bridegroom, 
Cant. 5.  wherein are both sweet herbs of heavenly doctrine, and most delectable flowers of virtuous living, lacking not yet her spots and wrinkles of evil life, which she alloweth never, but tolerateth of necessity and lamenteth, having also not in her, but by her, and cast out of her, a number of old condemned heresies, they like bestly swine neither embrace the virtuous living that she useth, but raiseth at the infirmities whi●h she is constrained to suffer, neither follow the steps of her heavenly discipline and upright belief, but getting them to the donghell, novel themselves in the old condemned heresies, and vent them abroad to the world.  
But now to come to the matter itself, let us consider first the absurd doctrine, that he leaveth us in his writings. I intend not to discourse upon all the points of his heretical doctrine: but for a taste off the rest, I will examine his assertions about the blessed Sacrament of the altar, because this article doth most nearest touch the glory and majesty off our Saviour, being the most precious jewel, that he left unto his church. After also we will note divers heresies, both old and new, in his doctrine upon the sacrament of baptim. Last of all a few notable contradictions about his doctrine of the fire will of man. But now to the first point.  
Calvin in his Institutions in his treatise of the lords Supper, 
Cap. 18. In stitutionun impress. A● gentorati. an. 1545.  teaching how by his imagination we receive Christ in the Sacrament, after long dallying as though he would grant a real receiving off Christ his body, at the length he concludeth in these words. Corporis communionem Spiritus sui virtute Christus in nos diffundit. that is. Christ pooreth down upon us the communion of his body by the virtue of his Spirit. Which is as much to say: Christ communicateth unto us his body by the virtue of his Spirit. This is in few words the communion of Calvin and all the Sacramentarie●● denying that we eat in deed the body of Christ otherwise then by faith. Now let us see what absurdites follow thereof.  
First no scripture hath this doctrine. 
That we receive not a communion of Christ his body poured upon us in the Sacrament▪ Cap. 8. de fide.  And how absurd a thing it is to follow any doctrine without Scripture Calvin him himself telleth us. In his institutions thus he writeth. I ought not to seem to any man contentious, that I stay so earnestly upon this point that it is not lawful for the Church to make any new doctrine, that is to teach or deliver for truth any more than the Lord hath revealed by his word. For wise men do see how great a danger that is, if so much authority were granted to men. They see what a window is opened to the mocks and scoffs of wicked men, if we sayie that to be taken for truth among Christians which men shall think good. Let now then any scholar of Calvin show in all Scripture where it is written, that Christ by the virtue of his spirit pooreth down upon us the communion off his body. For Calvin as he writeth in his Harmony upon the gospels, thinketh it an absurd thing to say that the flesh of Christ itself should be derived unto us. But he sayeth the communion of Christ his flesh is derived unto us (which he interpreteth to be, a quikening virtue out of Christ his flesh) correcting Christ promising us his very flesh. 
In comment. in. 1. Cor. 11.  Now (as I said) of the derivation of any such communion of Christ's flesh no Scripture mentioneth. But it is a sophistical subtlety of Caluins' imagination not revealed in any place by God's word. This is lo then one dangerous absurdity by the confession off Calvin himself: unless perhaps he have some privilege more than the whole Church hath. For in the Church he alloweth nothing beside the express word off God.  
Again let us consider what is the communion of Christ his body poured down upon us. It is saith Calvin, vis quaedam vivifica ex Christi carne in nos diffusa, that is, 
In comment. ut. 1. Cor. 11.  a certain quickening power poured down upon us out of the flesh of Christ. Christ saith in S. john, that his flesh is meat in deed, and biddeth us eat his flesh and drink his blood, 
joan. 6.  and in the other three Evangelists he saith Eat: this is my body: 
Lut. 32.  but Calvin saith, we eat the bread, 
Mar. 14.  and have a certain quickening power out of the flesh, 
Matth. 26.  not (as in his Harmony he saith) the flesh itself, and that we have a communion of his body poured down upon us, which is not to eat the body, as Christ bad us. This lo is not only beside scripture but expressly against holy Scripture.  
Thirdly where Christ biddeth us eat his flesh, saying, 
joan. 6.  he that eateth my flesh abideth in me, he teacheth an action on our part, touching the receiving of Christ: But where Calvin telleth us, that a communion of Christ his body is derived unto us, he putteth no action on our part, touching the receiving off Christ, but only touching the eating off the bread. For we eat not the body of Christ by Caluins' doctrine: but a communion of the same body is derived upon us, and poured down upon us, we suffering such derivation and infusion. Therefore between the saying of our Saviour and the doctrine of Calvin, there is as much difference as between doing and suffering, action and passion.  
Fourthly what meaned Calvin to imagine this communion of Christ his body to be derived unto us, and not the body itself? He might have much peevish meaning beside, which perhaps they only know, that are admitted to the secrets of his mysteries, as the Electi of the Manichees were. But this one thing I am sure he meaned, that because communion importeth a number of communicants, and one alone can not communicate (which is the cause, why these sacramentaries require always a number at their table) therefore he would have no receiving of Christ without a communion, nor any other receiving of Christ, then by having a communion of him derived unto us. Let us suppose then (as it may easily happen) that among the numbered of all that communicate, one only be a true and upright believer, and all the rest evil and miscreants, as among so divers sects of protestants none other are to be found, but such as for fear or otherwise sit down amongst them, being no protestants in deed, though in this point no good catholics neither. But let us suppose that at the table of the protestants, one only were faithful and duly prepared thereunto. 
The communion of Calvin destroyeth the necessite of cōmunicā●s.  It will follow that because according to the doctrine of Calvin the infidel and wicked receiveth only the sign and bare bread, the faith full person remaining alone through the infidelity of other, shall not receive Christ neither. For being alone he can have no communion of Christ his flesh derived unto him, every communion importing a number, as these men say. Now what an absurdity is this, that the good man shall not receive Christ in the Sacrament, because evil men receive with him, or because he can have no company of good men?  
fifthly if the communion of Christ his flesh be derived unto us by the Spirit of Christ, than the Spirit of Christ serveth the flesh as an instrument. 
Cap. 18.  Which Calvin in his institutions expressly saith, calling the Spirit of Christ, a cundyt pipe by the which the flesh of Christ is derived unto us. 
A horrible blasphemy of Calvin.  Now beside that this is a horrible blasphemy, to make the Spirit of Christ which is his godhead, inferior to the flesh of Christ as an instrument of the same, it is also contrary to all reason and common course of nature. For the flesh serveth well in things created, as an instrument whereby the Spirit showeth forth his operations, as by our eyes we see, by out hands we feel and so forth: but the Spirit never serveth the flesh, nor never may be said to be an instrument of the same.  
Last of all if the due eating of Christ, is to have the communion of flesh derived unto us by his Spirit, whereby we receive life, than the unworthy eating of Christ is the communion of damnation. How shall that be derived unto us? by the Spirit off Christ to? what can be a more horrible blasphemy? by some evil spirit? that were the doctrine of the Manichees. And yet if it be true that the due receiving of Christ is no other thing, but to have a communion of him derived unto us, them truly the unworthy receiving of Christ must needs be a communion of damnation derived also unto us. Lo in what absurdites Calvin hath entangled himself by departing from the Catholic faith. For keeping the Catholic doctrine, none off all these absurdites shall ensue. Wherefore it seemeth I may well say now to Calvin, and all such as follow this his doctrine, that which S. Augustin said to the Arrians. 
Tract. 20. in joan.  Ego secundum fidem Catholicam Video quomodo exeam (de questione) sine offensione sine scandalo, tu autem circumclusus quaeris qua exeas, that is. I following the catholic faith▪ can easily find a way to rid my self out this of question without offence or inconvenience. But thou being all compassed in, arte to seek which way to get out. And even so fareth it with Calvin. For leaving the sure known doctrine of the catholic Church, teaching us according to the tenor of Christ his own words, that we eat his flesh and drink his blood in the blessed Sacrament, and imagining a communion of Christ his flesh to be derived unto us by the Spirit of Christ, as by a coundit pipe, you see what heinous blasphemies and brutish absurdites he is forced withal to confess. And this point by us now examined, is the chiefest Kaye of all the Sacramentary doctrine, which being proved nought and full of absurdites, declareth that all the store within is of no better stuff. And that shall you anon see, and sensibly feal, if private prejudice have not utterly bereaved you of common sense.  
Calvin in his commentaries upon the first to the Corinthians, 
In 1. Cor. cap. ●1.  disputing how we receive Christ in the blessed Sacrament, concludeth his whole disputation in these words. I conclude saith he, the body of Christ is given us in the Supper really, as they commonly speak, that is truly, to the intent it may be wholesome food for our souls. I speak after the common fashion, but I mean that our souls are fed with the substance of Christ his body, to the intent we may be made one with him, or, which is all one, that a certain quickening virtue is poured upon us out of the flesh of Christ by his Spirit, though it be far distant from us and be not mingled with us. In these words Calvin uttereth two strange doctrines. First that our souls are fed with the body of Christ, secondarily that we receive the body of Christ really and truly, though he say after that body to be far distant from us, meaning that it remaineth only in heaven: as in the very next words following he declareth.  
As touching the first point, if our souls are fed with the body of Christ by eating the sacrament, we must learn whether he mean the soul only to be fed and not the body or the body also to eat the flesh of Christ as well as the soul. Calvin meaneth the soul only to eat the body of Christ. For in his commentaries upon the sixth of john, he pronounceth our eating of the sacrament to be the work of our faith, and saith farther in express words. I confess we eat not Christ any other wise then by believing, which doctrine how absurd it is, we shall anon speak off. Now let us see what absurdites follow, granting the eating of Christ his body only to the soul. 
That the soul only is not fed of Christ in the Sacrament.   
First if the bread of life which Christ giveth in the Sacrament, be eaten only off the soul, than Manna the figure of this sacrament was more available to the jews, than this blessed food is to us Christians. 
Exod. 16.  For that the jews did eat Manna bodily not only by faith, 
joan. 6.  and that it was a corporal food unto them, the scripture doth clearly testify. Again that it was also a spiritual food, yea and the very same which we receive in the Sacrament, the doctrine of Calvin defendeth though blasphemously, as you shall see anon in the conferences of his doctrine with holy scripture. Hereof will it follow by the absurd doctrine of Calvin, that the figure shall excel the verity, Manna shall pass the body of our Lord, the synagogue of jews shall be off more perfection, than the Church off Christ ransomned with his precious blood.  
Again if the soul only be fed in this blessed Sacrament, the paschal lamb shall also pass and excel it. 
Exod. 12.  The paschal lamb was eaten contra spiritum percussorem against the destroyer spirit, for a sure preservation of the jews both bodily and ghostly, even as this heavenly passover wardeth us both body and soul from the assaults of the devil. And our Saviour beginning with his disciples this heavenly banquet, calleth it a passover, as Tertullian expoundeth it and Origen, saying I have inwardly desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer▪ 
Lib. 4. adversus Marcionem Luc. 22. Homil. 35. in Matth.  if the jews passover excelled this, as the sacramentary doctrine of John Calvin importeth, why desired Christ so inwardly to eat this passover with his disciples? doth the lamb of God Christ himself, not so much profit the due receivers thereof, as the paschal lamb of the jews? Whereunto think you tendeth this doctrine, but by little and little to train us even to infidelity? who tendereth his soul health and life everlasting, let him speedily beware of it.  
Thirdly I might ask Calvin and all the rank of sacramentaries swarming now so miserably in our dear country to the utter destruction off the same, where they read in holy scripture, that the soul only feedeth on Christ, and receiveth the body off Christ. The words of holy scripture declaring unto us the promise of this heavenly food, be directed unto men consisting of body and soul, not to the soul only. Beside that life and resurrection (the promise of this blessed Sacrament) are no less requisite to the body▪ then to the soul, as we shall hereafter more at large declare, when we come to the old heresies depending of Caluins' doctrine. Where you shall see, that this doctrine of the Sacrrmentaries granting only to the soul the eating of Christ's his flesh, denieth the resurrection of the body.  
As touching the second point, 
Real receiving can not stand without real presence.  to wit, that we receive the body of Christ truly and really, and yet so that the same body of Christ is as far distant from us, as heaven is from the earth, I know not what can be more absurdly said. Calvin in deed will have this to be a miraculous operation of the holy ghost: For, saith he, the virtue of the holy ghost is such, 
In Matth. Cap. 26.  that it is able not only to gather together things by distance of place separated one from the other, but also to unite them together and make them one. Mark and ponder well the saying of Calvin: for this reason is the only ancre off this point of his doctrine. He seemeth perhaps to some that lightly overrun his words, to speak reason. Let us then consider his words. It is most true that the holy ghost being god himself, can do all things that can be done, and therefore can (as Calvin saith) knit in one those things that are far distant: as, God can by his omnipotency join heaven and earth together, which we see are most distant. but then they being so joined shall no more be distant. We grant that by the virtue off the holy ghost the body off Christ which is in heaven, may be the food of our souls. But than it shall not only be in heaven, but here also (or else our souls shall be there to, and then seeing our bodies remain here, I see not but whosoever communicateth after Caluins' doctrine, he must die, the soul being separated from the body) and we say not only he can do so, but the Catholic church teacheth us, he doth so. Now Calvin because he will deny the real presence of Christ▪ in the Sacrament, imagineth that we eat the body of Christ really without the real presence. But this imagination is a plain contradictition. And contradiction is of those things that can not be done. A thing can not be present and distant to. A thing can not be hot and cold to in one very place and moment of time. And therefore all learned men have ever said, that God worketh no contradiction. This then being a plain contradiction to have Christ present, and not present, to have him in the Sacrament, and not in the Sacrament, we say the holy ghost doth not work it. Not because off any impossibility off God, but because the thing itself is impossible. And even as we may well say, God can not sin, and yet deerogate no whit from the omnipotency of God, so may we say, God can not work a contradiction, God can not make a thing present that is in deed absent and not present, and yet we diminish not the omnipotency of almighty God. For that consisteth in such things as are seemly for his divine Majesty and are of themselves possible. Now contradiction is of itself utterly impossible. Again the works of God are permanent and uniform, the one of them destroyeth not the other. But in contradictions one part destroyeth the other, as a thing to be present, taketh away the absence thereof. And likewise the absence destroyeth the presence. To say therefore, as all learned men say, that God can work no contradiction, argueth not an impopotency or lack of ability in God: But rather the doctrine of Calvin, making God the author of contradiction, argueth it.  
Theodore Beza and his companions at the late Synod off Poissy in France, praesenting up their confession touching this blessed Sacrament, though they were all scholars of Calvin, yet they did not attribute this contradiction to the operation off the holy ghost, but unto faith. The words of their Confession presented the last day of September unto the council are these. 
An. 1561  Because the word off God, upon the which our faith is stayed, warranteth us the true and natural body by the virtue of the holy Ghost, In this respect we acknowledge that the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ is in the Supper. By these words (Encestesgard In this respect) we mean that we apprehended this great and excellent mystery by faith, which is of such virtue and efficacy, that it maketh things absent to be present. Hitherto the words of their confession. Wherein they attribute that to faith, which Calvin their Master attributeth to the operation of the holy ghost. But be their faith never so strong and vehement, yet shall they never obtain thereby that one self thing shall be both present and not present. For this being a contradiction, is a thing impossible, and such as God himself worketh not. Faith, 
Heb. 11.  saith S. Paul, est argumentum rerum non apparentium. Is a certainty off things which are not seen. By faith we are assured of such things as seem not to be, but are in deed. But a thing to be which is not, our faith can not assure us. So by faith we believe the present being off Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament, which appeareth not present unto us. Now then if Calvin shooteth much amiss to attribute his fond imagination to the miraculous working off God, how much were his scholars beside the mark, that seeing God's power failed, would fly to their faith, and attribute such operation to it, as God himself worketh not? And this doctrine being so absurd, Calvin hath invented because he would destroy Transubstantiation. That is to say. Rather than with the Catholic church he will grant that Christ may be in many places at ones, as in heaven, and in the blessed Sacrament to, which is no contradiction but a work though above the common course of nature, yet well agreeable to the omnipotency of almighty God, and uniformly of all holy fathers acknowledged, he inventeth an imagination of his own, making God the author off contradiction, saying we eat Christ in the Sacrament, and yet being as far distant from us, as heaven is from the earth, which both is a thing that God never worketh, and such, as never man before the days of john Calvin, taught in Christ his church. I have been good readers some what long in debating this one point, because I wish every man to understand me. As for the deceived scholars of Calvin in our dear country, if they will not believe the Catholic church, touching the omnipotency of Christ to be in divers places at ones, they are confuted by the great work of Brentius a Lutheran de ubiquitate set forth this very year for the proof of that only point. though it be otherwise heretical.  
Calvin in his commentaries upon S. john saith in express words. 
In cap. 6.  I confess we eat Christ by no other means then by believing. And what believing he meaneth in his Catechism he doth express. In believing that Christ is dead for our redemption, 
Dominica. 51.  and hath risen for our justification our soul eateth the body of Christ spiritually. Finally he meaneth no other eating of Christ in the sacrament than by faith. For upon the sixth of John he affirmeth eating to be the work of faith, and in his Institutions he calleth it the effect of faith. 
Cap. 18.  And this again is a great stay of all the Sacramentary doctrine to make men ween, that we ought to look for no other eating of Christ his flesh, and drinking his blood, in the blessed sacrament, then by faith. For this their faith is so precious a thing in the eye of Calvin, that he is not ashamed to write in his commentaries upon S. Matthew these words. 
In cap. 26.  If we could sufficiently be mindful of the passion of Christ, it were but superfluous, to have the common use of Sacraments, for they are remedies of our infirmity. This doctrine because it is a most perilous and most blasphemous doctrine, and yet, as I understand to my great grief, much rooted in the hearts of many of my dear deceived countrymen, I will labour with such reasons as I may, to remove it from their hearts. For truly this proud confidence of faith planted by Luther, watered by Calvin, and increased by the pricking forth of the devil in his Ministers, excludeth all means to call for grace, all due preparation to the holy Sacraments, all endeavour of virtuous living.  
First if by believing in Christ, 
That we eat not the Body of Christ only by Faith  we eat Christ, and eat no otherwise then by faith, then is all excommunication vain. Both the Catholic church hath always practised, and the protestants of our country for the maintenance of their wicked doctrine do greedily practise, that for certain heinous crimes men are kept from the holy table as they call it, or embarred the receiving of the blessed Sacrament, as the Catholic church termeth it. The doctrine off the Catholic church teaching us, as the words of our Saviour expressly import, to eat not only by faith, but in deed the flesh of our Saviour in the blessed Sacrament, worthily excludeth from that most holy mystery open penitents (as the primitive church speaketh) that is, such as having committed notorious crimes, either wickedly persevere in the same, or though repenting thereof, have not yet done due satisfaction therefore. But the doctrine of Calvin and all the Sacramentaries, excluding the real presence off our Saviour, and granting this heavenvly food to faith only, what availeth it them to excommunicate or remove from their table any notorious offender, keeping yet not withstanding his faith, and believing always in the passion of our Saviour and resurrection also? if by faith only he receive Christ, then may he eat as well at home in his house, as if he were admitted in to the congregation. For though he be excommunicate, he loseth not yet his faith, unless perhaps, as they say (according to the doctrine of their grandfather Luther) that who hath faith, hath withal necessarily good works (whereupon they build their perilous doctrine of only faith) so contrary wise they will say that a notorious offender, a bearer of malice, a disobedient person, and so forth, loseth with all his faith, by the lack whereof he can not eat Christ unless he be absolved: if they say this, first I ask what if the person repent before the pretended bishop or Ordinary absolve him? In this case other he believeth, and so eateth Christ though he stand yet excommunicate, as being not absolved, or he believeth not, and so his faith dependeth upon the external absolution, which were to superstitious a doctrine for the new gospel. Again though we granted them this subtle shift, and suffered them so to pluck their heads out of the collar, that their excommunication were good, because their excommunicats have lost their faith, and are become infidels (though truly their excommunication be nothing else but the devils curse) 
Cyprian. in serm. de lap is, & lib. 1. Epis. 2. August. in euch●rid. c. 65.  yet by this their doctrine they condemn the primitive church, embarring penitents such as lacked no faith pardy (unless a man may bewail his sins and have no faith) some three, some seven, some ten years, some even to the hour off their death from the receiving of the blessed Sacrament. Now if they boldly condemn the primitive church, what may they not be bold to do? yet they bear men in hand forsooth that they reduce all to the state off the primitive church, and will be tried by the first six hundred years after Christ. 
jewel.  Well: this only practice in the primitive Church excluding penitents from the blessed Sacrament directly destroyeth our Sacramenaries doctrine teaching us to eat Christ no other wise (as Calvin saith) then by believing.  
Again the practice of the primitive church was, 
Cirillus lib. 12. cap. 50. in joa. Basilius & Chrisostomus in liturgijs.  that the Cathechumeni that is, such as were not yet baptized, and believed not withstanding both in the passion and in the resurrection of Christ, should not only not be admitted to receive the holy Sacrament, but were not suffered to tarry in the church at the oblation and distribution thereof. For after the gospel they were all by the deacons excluded. And to this day at Rome where Turks sometime resort, and jews always continue, some infidels and some Catechumeni, at the solemn feasts when most resort of people is, at the high mass after the gospel a stay is made and a search, whether any Catechumeni other of the jews or of the greeks be present. Notwithstanding these Catechumeni believed in Christ, some off them no less than the Christians. 
Nicephor. lib. 11. cap. 32.  S Ambrose was a Catechumin and a believer in Christ though not baptized, even when he was elected bishop of Milan. S. Augustin being yet a Catechumin wrote divers little books, 
Vide Re●ract. lib. 1.  wherein he declared himself not only a true believer in Christ, but an excellent divine, as it appeareth especially by his Soliloquia, which he made in that time. Now if Calvin had lived in those days, and seen S. Ambrose and S. Augustin not yet baptized, notwithstanding the faith and learning they had, to be thrust out of the churches after the gospel, and not to have been suffered so much as to be present at the sacring time, and the residue of the Mass, he would of all likelihood, comforted them with the faith of his gospel, and whistred them in the ear, that they received and did eat the flesh off Christ no less than the other that received at the altar, seeing they believed no less than the other. He might also have checked S. Ambrose for keeping the 
Nicephor. lib. 12. cap. 41.  Emperor Theodosius so long out of the church for the great murdre he had caused to be done at Thessaelonica. For the Emperor notwithstanding remained in his faith, as it well appeareth by the great lamentations he made at home in his house, when he sent Ruffinus one of his Nobles to S. Ambrose to be admitted in to the church. And in very deed Calvin by this his doctrine not only comptrolleth S. Ambrose and S. Augustin, but condemneth all the primitive church excluding the Catechumeni from receiving the blessed Sacrament, if, as he say, faith only giveth them this food. I beseech here all good Christian men, and such as fear God and love their own souls, diligently to advise with them selves, how they follow the Sacramentary doctrine of our preachers of Geneva, lest that in following them they depart from the Catholic church, both that now is, and ever hath been, which in their Crede they profess to believe.  
Thirdly if when our Saviour said to his disciples, Take, eat, this is my body, by the word eating he bad us believe, what did he bid us in the word taking? do we take by faith as we eat by faith? why then call they men so earnestly to their table? may I not as well eat and take by faith at home, as at their table? doth not my faith serve me as well in the house, as in the church? they are wont to say, we may as well pray at home, as in the church, and why may we not also as well believe at home, as in the church? Then if both taking and eating the body of Christ, be but a matter of faith, what need they storm and trouble such as will not receive at Easter or other times? may not good men tell them, that by their own doctrine they receive at home believing in the passion and resurrection of Christ? Again when Christ bade the Apostles take, and eat his body, did they look upon him believing him, and received nothing outwardly? yes they will say they received the bread. what? was the bread the body of Christ? the Lutherans indeed would be glad to hear that. For so should Calvin, be a Lutheran, and agree with Westphalus which while he lived, he would not do for his life. What will here the Sacramentary say? What shift hath he yet? He will perhaps say, that Christ bade them take bread, and eat his body. This were in deed to make Christ a very sophister: to wit, that bidding the Apostles take and eat both together, saying withal it was his body, he should mean they should take bread, and eat his body. Briefly this I conclude. If Christ in these words, Take, eat, this is my body meaned this, Take and eat this bread, which is my body, than Calvin agreeth with Westphalus, and is become a Lutheran, against his will. If he meaned this, take bread, and eat my body, than was it a sophistication. For it is a point of sophistry to join two terms together, taking one properly and the other improperly. As here by this last meaning, Christ bidding them take, meant properly they should take in deed and bidding them eat, meant unproperly, that is, they should not eat in deed, but believe. For as all the world knoweth, believing is a very unproper signification of eating: and such as never was heard of before the days of john Calvin, being meant of sacramental eating.  
But will you see, that by the doctrine of Calvin. 
By the doctrine of Calvin the Apostles did not receive Christ in the last Supper.  the Apostles did not eat Christ at all in the last supper? I mean by faith. For Calvin as you have heard by his words in his Catechism, meaneth such faith as believeth that Christ died for our redemption, and hath risen for our justification. Now what faith the Apostles had when Christ made is mand, touching his death, I will not now dispute. Although it may seem they doubted much thereof, 
Luc. 22  when they wondered so much at his words signifying his death, as that judas should betray him: as also S. Peter after denying him. But as touching the resurrection, the scripture telleth us plain, that divers of the Apostles at that time believed it not. For first S. John in his gospel writeth of himself, 
Cap. 20.  that after he looked in to the grave and saw nothing but the winding sheet left, Vidit & credidit, he saw and he believed. And strait after he writeth of S. Peter and himself. Nondun enim sciebant scripturam, etc. for they knew not yet the scripture that he should rise from death. S. Thomas also an other of the Apostles would not believe that Ghrist had risen, until he put his finger in to his wounds. And therefore our Saviour said after unto him, Quia vidisti me Thoma, credidisti. Thomas thou hast believed because thou haste seen me. Lo then S. Peter, S. John, and S. Thomas believed not in the resurrection of Christ when they received the blessed Sacrament in the last Supper. therefore if Caluins' doctrine be true, the Apostles did not eat Christ at all in the last Supper. See what godly doctrine ensueth of this gospel of Geneva.  
But here perhaps some scholar of Calvin will object: what Sir? Will you then conclude that because in the last Supper the Apostles without such especial faith received the body of Christ, therefore now any man may receive it without that faith? Truly such manner of reasoning of itself were nought. But yet enjoining with Calvin it were not amiss. For he useth the like against the doctrine of the Catholic church. In his Institutions, disputing against the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, 
Cap. 18.  and awnswering to those which for possibility of being in divers places at ones, allege that the body of Christ is glorious and immortal and not subject to place and measure, as our corruptible bodies are, he writeth thus. Some again, saith he, seek a more subtle escape, to wit, that the body of Christ given in the Sacrament is glorious and immortal, and therefore that it is not absurd he be in divers places, or in no certain place, or in any certain form under the Sacrament. But I ask them. What body gave our Lord to his disciples the day before he suffered? Do not the words sound that he gave his mortal body and the same which should forthwith be delivered? Thus far Calvin. If then this manner of reasoning be currant and allowablein Calvin, Christ before he suffered, gave his mortal body to be eaten, ergo he giveth not now any other in the Sacrament, why then may not we also reason against him, The Apostles before Christ suffered, believed not in the resurrection, and yet notwithstanding received the body of Christ in the Sacrament, ergo it is not now requisite and necessary for the eating of Christ his body to believe in his resurrection. If this manner of reasoning be nought and vicious, than you learn that Calvin in reasoning against the church speaketh not always the gospel, but uttereth sometimes his ignorance. And if this manner of reasoning be good, than Calvin misseth much of the mark in his doctrine, where he teacheth that to eat Christ, is to believe in his passion and resurrection. Again we do not reason in this sort. The Apostles at the Mand believed not in the resurrection, ergo such faith is not now necessary: as Calvin reasoneth. The body of Christ was then mortal: ergo it is not to be considered here as a glorious body or immortal. But this is our reason. The Apostles in the last supper believed not in the resurrection: ergo Calvin defining the eating of Christ in the Sacrament to be a believing in the death and resurrection of Christ, excludeth the Apostles from eating of Christ's body in the last Supper. This is lo the effect of our reason. Now if we would infer beside that because the Apostles did not then believe, such belief now is not necessary, I grant the argument were nought. and yet were it such as Calvin useth against us, as you have heard. I have troubled you here somewhat long. But this you have gained: that not only the present point of his doctrine, whereof we now purposely do entreat, is proved to be absurd and detestable, as the which excludeth the Apostles from the true receiving of Christ in the last Supper, but also we have farther declared you an other false point of his manner of reasoning against the Catholic doctrine in this most blessed Sacrament.  
The fift absurdity against this point of his doctrine may be this. If the eating of Christ his body be (as Calvin saith upon S. John) the work of faith, 
In Cap. 6.  or (as he writeth in his Institutions) 
Cap. 18.  the effect of faith, that is, if by believing in Christ, we eat and receive Crist in to us, 
1. Cor. 14  then to what purpose did S. Paul bid men prove themselves first, and so to eat Christ? For he that proveth, trieth, and examineth himself, first he believeth. 
Hebr. 11.  For without faith there is no trial of our hearts, and he that cometh to god (saith the Apostle) must first believe. then if he believe before he prove himself, he eateth by Caluins saying, the body of Christ, before he be proved. How standeth this with S. Paul bidding us first to prove and so to eat? Surely S. Paul meant that the eating of Christ was not by faith only, which we must needs have before we can prove and try our own worthiness or unworthiness, but by receiving really after due probation and trial the very true and natural body of our Saviour jesus Christ.  
Last of all, if the eating of life which Christ promiseth in the Sacrament, is the effect of faith, the eating of judgement and death is the effect of infidelity. That is, if by faith we duly receive the blessed Sacrament, through infidelity and lack of faith we receive our own damnation. By this reason the Turk shall through his infidelity eat judgement and damnation, though he never eat the Sacrament, nor the bread which S. Paul spoke of. This doctrine therefore of Calvin may have good rhyme, but surely it hath small reason, it may sound well in the ears of ignorant persons, that we eat Christ no otherwise then by believing in him: but it standeth with no reason at all, as you have I trust sufficiently heard: and yet when we come to the contradictions of Calvin you shall here more, and see Calvin confute himself. I will note only more most notable absurdity in this their doctrine, whereby you shall perceive to what point they bring this holy Sacrament, and so come to the contradictions of Calvin, as we promised.  
Calvin teacheth in his Catechism, that we receive the communion of Christ his body as well in baptim, and by hearing the gospel, as at the lords supper. But that in Baptim and by the gospel we receive him but in part, in the Supper we receive him wholly and fully. And in his resolution of the Sacraments he teacheth that we receive Christ in the Supper, even as we had him before continually dwelling in us. 
Art. 19  For, saith he, Faith being required of us before we come to the Sacrament, we have Christ also before: for our faith is not without Christ: And even as the use of the Sacraments profiteth no more the unbelievers, then if they used them not at all, so the believers communicate and have the verity figured by the Sacraments (which is Christ) 
Art. 20.  even without the use of the Sacraments. Farther the profit which we receive at the Sacraments, ought not to be restrained to the very time we receive them, as though the sign being given us, we received withal incontinently the grace of God. It may well happen that the receipt of the Sacrament that in the act profited nothing through our default or slackness, may afterward bring forth better fruit. Hitherto Calvin. In these words Calvin concludeth his doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament. Let us now examine it.  
What meaneth Calvin so to debace the excellent vertu of this blessed Sacrament, as to compare it to baptim or hearing of the gospel? forsooth to persuade men that it were nought else, but a morsel of bread, a mere figure, badge or token. For see I pray you, what his opinion and doctrine is touching baptim.  
Baptim, saith he in his institutions, 
Cap. 17.  is a sign of the entering whereby we are received in to the fellowship of the Church, that being graft in Christ we may be accounted among the Children of God. Here he meaneth baptim not to make us enter in to Christ as a Sacrament having efficacy thereunto, 
The opinion of Calvin touching baptim refuted  but to be a sign of that entering: to the intent that being first graft in Christ (or being borne of Christian parents by the virtue of God's promise, or being borne of infidels, by faith and repentance, as he teacheth manifestly in his institutions) being (as I say) thus graft in Christ before, then by baptim as by a sure token we may be accounted for Christians, not made such. And this to be his very meaning I will by his own words declare you out of his Institutions. In his chapter of baptim not far from the beginning, thus he writeth. Baptim promiseth us no other cleansing then by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, which is figured by the water: who then will say that we are cleansed with this water, which doth assuredly testify that our true and only cleansing is the blood of Christ? Lo here he teacheth baptim to figure our cleansing procured by the shedding of Christ his blood, which he calleth our true and only cleansing.  
It is most true that by the precious death and passion of our Saviour we are purged from the sin of our father Adam, and all other actual sins. And yet it hath pleased God to use means for the applieng of this sovereign benefit unto us. Those are among other, his holy sacraments. And Calvin himself writing upon S. Paul to the Corinthians, saith plainly that by the blessed Sacrament of the altar Sacrificij beneficium nobis applicatur, 
In. 1. Cor. Cap. 11.  The benefit of the sacrifice is applied unto us. And writing upon the sixth of John, he blameth them which teach the flesh of Christ to profit us only as it was crucified, and saith: Quin potius comedere eam necesse est ut crucifixa profit. that is. Na rather we must of necessity eat it, to the intent it may profit us, which was crucified. And again in in the same place he saith. Nihil nobis prodesset victimam illam semel esse immolatan, nisi nunc sacro epulo vesceremur that is. It should nothing avail us to have that sacrifice once offered, unless we did now also eat of this holy banquet. Calvin himself therefore acknowledgeth that not only the passion of Christ sufficeth, but that also this Sacrament of Christ his body and blood must feed us. 
joan. 6.  The like truly we say of baptim. For as our Saviour said. Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you, 
joan. 3.  so he said, Unless a man be borne again of water, and of the holy ghost, he shall not enter in to the kingdom of heaven. And though Calvin call here the blood of Christ our only cleansing, yet S. Paul is not afeared to call baptim also, Lavacrum regenerationis, the cleansing of our new birth. saying we were saved thereby. 
Tit. 3.  Again Calvin himself writing upon S. Paul to the Romans teacheth no less. 
In comment. in Cap. 6.  For there he saith that by baptim we are graffed in to the body of Christ, and live by the substance thereof, even as the graff by the stock: saving that the graff keepeth his natural taste and sape, but we keep nothing offour own, but change utterly our nature in to the nature of Christ. 
A contradiction of Calvin about baptim.  How then is baptim as he made it before, a figure of our cleansing, and a testimony only? You see he condemneth himself. And this I have thought good presently to declare (albeit beside our principal purpose) lest that the other doctrine of Calvin being apparently plausible, might corrupt the unlearned, and well meaning Reader. But now to the matter again.  
In the same chapter of baptism, Calvin mocketh at the whole Catholic church (as Pelagius the heretic did a thousand years paste) teaching that original sin is taken away by baptim. 
Cap. de Caena Domini.  Briefly in the next chapter following of his Institutions at the end thereof, he maketh so light of baptim in the children of Christian parents, that if contempt and negligence be not on our parts, our children, saith he, without danger may lack baptim.  
Thus lo you see how Calvin maketh baptim but a figure, 
Calvin maketh the blessed Sacraments only bare signs, tokens, and badges.  and token or testimony of cleansing: and even so much maketh he the blessed Sacrament off the altar, comparing it unto baptim, to wit, a figure, a sign, a testimony which a man may as well lack as have, and without the which a man may as well receive Christ as with it: imagining that these two most weighty and holy Sacraments (for of all the rest he maketh no account at all) are nought else but as certain marks and tokens, whereby Christ may know his flock lest perhaps in seeking for them he should miss. See to what point our Christian religion is brought by these new ghospellers of late years. Forsooth to mere signs, tokens and figures.  
As though we were yet under the shadows off Moses' law, 
Arguments to the contrary.  as though that which happened to them in figures were not brought now to a sure verity, as though the coming of Christ procured not better, and more present remedies for man's salvation, than such as were betokened in the tabernacle, finally as though the church of Christ, redeemed with his most precious blood were fed with figures, and traded▪ with signs and tokens, as the synagogues of the jews was. Would Christ think we; threaten us damnation for lack of signs, as he doth for want off baptim, 
joan. 2  saying unto Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne again of water and the holy ghost, he shall not enter in to the kingdom of heaven? Would he deny us the life of resurrection for lack of tokens, 
joan. 6.  as he doth for not receiving his precious body and blood saying unto the jews, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you? Would S. Paul pronounce damnation upon us for the unworthy receiving of a piece of bread, 
1. Cor. 11.  as he doth for the unworthy receiving of Christ his body? Was S. Peter deceived, when he wrote that by baptim we were saved, as Noah was by water, 
1. Pet. 3.  or S. Paul writing that Christ cleansed his church with the washing of water in the word of life? or the whole church in S. Augustins time condemning Pelagius for an heretic, 
August. ad Quoduultdeum haer. 88  for that he denied (as Calvin doth now) that by Baptim original sin was taken away?  
We recited you before, in this last conclusion of Caluins whole doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament, out of his resolutions upon the sacraments, that we receive Christ no less without the use off the Communion, them in using it. You have heard there his reasons why. Truly he uttereth this doctrine off his, not in one or two, but almost in all places of his works, where he treateth of this matter. In his commentaries upon the sixth of John, where Christ promiseth life and resurrection to those which eat his flesh and drink his blood, Calvin saith. Non de Coena habetur concio sed de perpetua communicatione quae extra Caenae usum nobis constat. that is. Christ preacheth not of the Supper, but of that continual communion which we surely have without the frequentation of the Supper. And this continual communion without the frequentation, use, or access of the Supper, he meaneth to be the very same which we have in the Supper, as his words following declare, where he saith. Simul tamen fateor nihil hic dici quod non in Coena figuretur ac vere praestetur fidelibus. that is. Yet I confess withal that nothing is here spoken which is not figured and truly exhibited to the believers in the Supper. Then the doctrine of Calvin is clear and evident in this point, that we receive Christ no less and have him no less dwelling in us continually, though we come not to the communion or Sacrament, then if we come and resort thither.  
What need I spend words, 
It booteth not to come to the communion by the Doctrine of Calvin  time and paper in refelling this most absurd doctrine? if this be so, why scorn they of Caluins' sect against such as list not come to their table? May not good men tell them that by the doctrine of Calvin they communicate and receive Christ always by faith in their hearts, no less then at their table or communion? and that they take nothing there, but such as they had before they came thither? Calvin teacheth this most directly as you have heard, and as they may more see, which list to read his little treatise entitled. A resolution upon the Sacraments in the fourteenth and ninteth articles.  
I will here ask one question of the calvinists and scholars of Geneva in our country. 
A question to the genevians of England  If, as Calvin saith upon the sixth of John, we have a perpetual communion of Christ no less without celebrating the Supper of the Lord, then in celebrating it, what need Christian men celebrat that Supper? They will perhaps answer, that in the Supper we receive Christ Sacramentally not only Spiritually as without the Supper we do. If this be the only difference touching our part, and the fruit that we receive thereat, them the difference only is this: that at the communion we receive a piece of bread, more than they which stand by and look on. Spiritually, saith Calvin, all true believers receive Christ and eat his body before they come to the Sacraments, 
In resolute. art. 20.  for else saith he, we should tie Christ to his sacraments. Sacramentally we receive Christ by Caluins' doctrine, 
what the communion of England is.  when we receive the signs, to wit bread and wine. Lo what the communion of our country is▪ a piece of bread and nought else.  
They will perhaps say, we celebrat in the Supper the remembrance of Christ his passion. I answer. So do they which stand by no less than those which receive. Again is eating your bread and drinking your wine, a remembrance of Christ his death and passion? A likely matter truly. You are wont to cry on scripture, and allow no doctrine without it. Tell us then from the beginning off the Genesins, uto the end of S. Ihons' Revelation, where the remembrance of Christ his passion is taught to be celebrated by eating a piece of bread at a table in the church, and drinking a drawthe off wine at the hand of a Minister, upon whom no hands have been laid by the order of priesthood as by S. Paul we learn to be necessary. 
1. Timo. 4.  Show this and them your communion shall be somewhat more than a piece of bread, and a cup of wine. Now is it nothing else. And this verily is the cause of so many dry communions in our country: this is the reason why in Germany as Friderikus Staphylus recordeth, 
Above i● the leaf. 105.  some of the Sacramentaries come not once in ten years to the communion, some never at all.  
As touching the hearing of the gospel, if, as Calvin in his words above recited, and in his resolutions teacheth, 
Vide art. 5. &, 6.  we receive Christ and are made partakners of all his benefits no less then by the communion, then is it enough to hear the sermon, and no need at all to tarry out the communion: then was the primitive church much deceived suffering the Catechumins and open penitents to hear sermons, excluding them afterward from the communion. 
De incomprehensibisi dei natura contra Anomaeos homil. 3.  S. Chrisostom in his homilies complaineth that in the pulpit he had as great audience, as was possible: but at the altar he was left alone. Truly by Caluins' doctrine he was a fool so to complain: for the people had received Christ all ready at the sermon. What needed they then to tarry out the communion? Again what scripture have these men that at Sermon we receive Christ no less then at the communion? truly if men see not these absurdites, they will see nothing. By the sermon we are instructed, not cleansed as by baptim, we learn Christ, we do not communicate Christ's body, as in the blessed Sacrament. But these men, as long as they may say and teach what they list uncomptrolled, what may we think they will at length do? truly they will have nor communion nor baptism, nor church nor minister, but a fair pulpit in the field, where every man as the Spirit moveth him, may teach what he list, and the other believe as they list. It is all ready in some countries brought to this point. And there is no cause but we may fear the like: unless speedy policy refrain their unruly liberty.  
You have good Readers the effect of Caluins' doctrine touching the blessed Sacrament, with certain of the absurdites depending thereof. We come now to his contradictions about the same matter, which when you shall see to be in him divers and most manifest, record with yourselves, that as in common plea where the witnesses are taken in contrary tales, the evidence must needs be nought, so in the controversy of this most high mystery, Calvin being the enditer against the old possession of our belief herein, and chief pleader, if you may take him in contrary tales, you may not doubt, but the evidence of his doctrine must needs be stark staring nought. Beside, his contradiction shall serve us, as a most strong weapon to overthrow his doctrine laid in against us: for thus he himself shall cut is own throat, condemn and confute his own sayings. I will first draw you out the effect off his doctrine against the real presence off Christ in the Sacrament, and show you how he accombreth himself, how he turneth and windeth seeking by some probabilite to confound the doctrine of the catholic church, and yet after many words confoundeth himself, by his own contradiction. Mark therefore his words we bring you now, and how the other that we shall bring you after do agree.  
In his institutions treating of this Sacrament, 
Cap. 1●.  see how he doth contrary himself. First he saith: We can not be members of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, which all S. Paul affirmeth we are, unless whole Christ both in Spirit and in body cleave unto us. 
Eph. 1. & 4. 1. Cor. 6.  and our Lord, saith Calvin, doth testify, offer and give in the holy supper to all that receive that spiritual banquet such a communion of his body and of his blood. And after he concludeth thus. I say therefore that in the mystery of the Supper, by the signs of bread and wine Christ is given unto us truly, yea his body and blood, to the intent that first we may be made one body with him, then being made partakeners of his substance, we may also receive the virtue thereof, 
Coalescamus in unum corpus.  for the enjoying of all his benefits. All this he saith against them, which acknowledging a certain communion with Christ in this Sacrament, make us only partakners of the Spirit of Christ, as in his words somewhat before he expresseth. Would a man desire any more Catholic doctrine then this is? truly it seemeth no. But you shall see within few lines he marreth all that he made before. For when he cometh to declare after what manner we receive the body and blood of Christ (for by evidence of scripture he was forced to confess that we receive it) them lo he stretcheth himself, and calleth his wits about him, how he may defeat the real presence of Christ's body and blood. 
In 1. Cor. 11.  He granteth we do truly, and (as he writeth upon S. Paul) really receive the body and blood of Christ. But he will not have it as the church teacheth, really present. How then shall we really receive Christ? We need not saith Calvin, imagine any presence of place to receive Christ by. How then? This benefit (saith he) Christ giveth us by his Spirit. By▪ the Spirit of Christ we are coupled and joined to Christ. and the Spirit of Christ is as a certain cundite pipe, by the which whatsoever Christ is, and hath, is derived unto us. for if we see the Son shining on the earth with his beams, for the engendering and quickening of things, give as though it were, his substance unto the earth, why should the Spirit of Christ be inferior or of less force than the shining down the son for conveying unto us the communion of Christ his flesh and blood? Wherefore scripture speaking of our partaking with Christ referreth the whole power thereof unto the spirit. One place shall suffice for all. For S. Paul writing to the Romans in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth no otherwise in us then by his Spirit. Whereby yet he taketh not a way the communion of flesh and blood that we now speak of, but teacheth us that by the only spirit we possess whole Christ and have him dwelling in us. 
According to the latin edition printed, in the jeer. 1545  These lo hitherto are the words of Calvin, even as they lie in his Institutions, the 18. chapper. The effect of his whole tale is this. That by the Spirit of Christ only we receive the body and blood of Christ. 
The first contradiction.  And is not this clean repugnant to that he said before blaming them which taught that in this Sacrament we were partakners of Christ in Spirit only? For how receive we the body and blood of Christ by the Spirit of Christ only, but spiritually only? The flesh and blood of Christ are no spiritual things: Valentinus and Martion were condemned for such doctrine. How then receive we things of a corporal substance, not mere spiritual, only by the Spirit? This is a mere imagination of Calvin, as we have before declared you. No scripture termeth the Spirit of Christ a cundite pipe. No scripture telleth us, that the Spirit of Christ convaieth us his flesh and blood. It is beside scripture and against all reason: and therefore not to be admitted by the only warrant of Caluins' mouth. We must not leave the doctrine of the church (though it had no reason to defend it) for the bare assertion of Calvin, being against all reason. For this is against all reason that we should really eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ, being not really present, though Calvin to set a gay colour on the matter, attributeth this strange means and order to the operation of the Spirit of Christ God himself. For (as we have before proved) god himself worketh no contradiction: as it is to receive that which is not present to be received. Therefore notwithstanding all the shifts that Calvin maketh, it is no real communion of Christ his body and blood that he teacheth, as he would it should seem to be, but a mere spiritual, which before he blamed.  
As touching the Son, if Calvin speak like a philosopher it is no body mixed, and made of the elements, as the natural flesh and blood of Christ is, but a pure simple and celestial body: and so we grant the substance thereof is derived to the earth by the shining thereof. For that substance is a lightsome and shining substance, and differeth no whit from the light and clearness thereof. Now Christ took very flesh in all conditions like to our flesh, except the corruption that sin bringeth. This flesh of Christ is so endued with divinity, that it loseth not his natural substance. Therefore the substance of the some and the substance of Christ his body, are things far different. Again if the substance of the son quickeneth the earth, that substance is really present with the earth. By this reason therefore Christ also should be really present with us feeding us with his substance. Which we do confess, but Calvin denieth. How them doth that similitude make for him? Truly nothing.  
farther▪ The Son by the means of his shining, saith Calvin, giveth his substance to the earth, and so Christ by the means of his Spirit giveth us the communion of his flesh and blood. Mark that Calvin saith the communion of the flesh, not the flesh itself to be derived unto us. For by the communion of the flesh of Christ, he meaneth (as upon S. Paul h● writeth) Vim ex Christi carne vivifican, 
In 1. Cor. Cap. 11.  a certain quickening power out of Christ his flesh. Now this quickening power of Christ his flesh, is not the flesh of Christ itself, Which (by Caluins' doctrine in his institutions) of it self is not quickening or giving life. 
Cap. 18.  But it is the Spirit only of Christ which giveth life and quickeneth, 
The second contradiction  saith he. Lo then again you see notwithstanding all his fair words before, his doctrine is now, that we have but a spiritual food only in this sacrament conveyed unto us by the Spirit, as the son by his shining convaieth his substance unto the earth. Is not this one's again a plain contradiction to that which he wrote before, blaming those that make us partakners of Christ in Spirit only? is not his doctrine the very same? is not the communion that he imagineth to be conveyed unto us a spiritual thing? doth he not call it a certain quickening virtue out off Christ his flesh? this quickening virtue, is it not by the doctrine of Calvin a mere spiritual thing, seeing that he teacheth blasphemousely with the old heretic Nestorius that the flesh of Christ (notwithstanding it is Propria Verbi, one person with the Son of God) is not of itself quickening. I trust you see now evidently, that though Calvin writ we receive truly and really the flesh and blood off Christ, yet he meaneth nothing so.  
But why did he thus dally, and delude the world, 
The cause of contradictions in Calvin.  a man may demand. Forsooth as I suppose even for this cause. Calvin being learned, and knowing the truth well, if he had listed to utter it, perceived right well by the express words of scripture in sundry places that Christ of his passing mercy and goodness would be joined to man not only Spiritually, and by grace, but even really and truly by the participation of his body and blood. Calvin knew all this, and acknowledged it: (as you have heard in his words before) for express scripture moved him thereunto. Notwithstanding being undoubtedly malicious, and self-willed, and in deed a very heretic, desirous to plant a new doctrine, to bring the church in contempt pricked with malice against the clergy, which in his works he uttereth many times) though he granted that man received whole Christ both in body and Spirit, as he writeth in the 18. chapter of his Institutions, yet he would not grant the real presence off Christ his body, which the church teacheth and all holy fathers have acknowledged, as a most necessary consequent to the real receiving: but as you see imagineth a communion of Christ his flesh to be derived unto us by the Spirit off Christ as by a pipe. Because therefore truth and falsehood can not possibly agree, he falleth often in to open contradictions: saying one thing as truth and conscience taught him, and then saying an other thing, as pride, malice▪ and envy moved him, the walking mates of heresy. Hereof rise the sundry and manifold contradictions in his writings, not only about this most holy mystery, but in the doctrine off baptim, and of fire will especially, as we shall in part note hereafter unto you. 
2, Reg. 15.  And truly it hath so pleased God to confound the counsel of these Achitophel's rebelling against their Liege Sovereign the church of God, that not only one against the other teacheth most contrary, but also each one with himself disagreeth. And this merciful providence of God hath been always a sovereign means for the utter confusion of heretics.  
Let us return to the words of Calvin above alleged and see why Calvin granting first a real and true receiving of Christ his body and blood, afterward denieth the real presence thereof, which is to deny that he said before. He saith, that Scripture speaking of our partaking with Christ, referreth the whole power thereof unto the Spirit. for S. Paul (saith he) writing to the Romans in the eight chapter teacheth that Christ dwelleth in us no otherwise then by his Spirit. 
Calvin belieth holy Scripture.  Mark here well good Readers, and see the truth off Calvin. S. Paul saith in that eight chapter, that the Spirit of god dwelleth in us, and again that the Spirit of him that raised up jesus from death dwelleth in us, and that he which raised up Christ from death shall quicken our mortal bodies because of his Spirit that dwelleth in us. In all these words S. Paul teacheth the Spirit off god, god himself to dwell in us, to quicken our mortal bodies, that they die no more in sin, but live to god. Other than this S. Paul in all that chapter speaketh not, touching the dwelling of the Spirit of god in us. Read the chapter and see. Now is this to say, that Christ dwelleth in us no otherwise then by his Spirit? Mark the saying of S. Paul, and the consequence of Calvin. S. Paul saith, the Spirit off god dwelleth in us. and Calvin saith Christ dwelleth in us no otherwise then by his Spirit. is this a good consequence? The spirit of god dwelleth in us. Ergo he dwelleth in us no otherwise then by his Spirit? Even as good, as this. We are justified by faith, ergo by only faith. These words (no otherwise then) are the words of Calvin fathered upon. S. Paul, not the words of S. Paul, they are the limitation of a proud heretic set upon holy scripture, not the words off holy scripture. He followed herein his father Luther, who translating the words of S. Paul per legem cognitio peccati, 
Rom. 3.  By the law cometh the knowledge of sin, turneth it thus, By the law cometh nought else but knowledge of sin. 
In the lea●e. 67. b  which text to what purpose he so perverted, you have seen in the second part of this apology.  
But what, will some scholar of Calvin say? though S. Paul say not expressly so, yet perhaps he mean so, seeing that no scripture beside expresseth any other dwelling of Christ in us than by his Spirit, I answer. All were it true that scripture expressed no other dwelling of Christ in us, then by his Spirit, yet were it not true that S. Paul said so in that chapter, as Calvin saith he doth. But the Scripture saith plain that we are joined to Christ, not only in Spirit, but also in body: heard you not before that S. Paul said, 
Ephes. 14. 1. Cor. 6.  that we are membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh? And doth not Calvin say, 
The third contradiction.  that this can not be performed unless whole Christ both in Spirit and in body cleave unto us? they are his words before alleged out of his Institutions in the. 18 chapter. And doth not Calvin here ones again write a plain contradiction? he told us even now that Christ dwelleth in us no otherwise then by his Spirit, and that S. Paul taught so. Now he telleth us that whole Christ must cleave unto us both in Spirit and body, and that because S. Paul teacheth so: saying that we are membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh. Lo you see him in contrary tales, now trust his evidence who list. Thanked be god, Calvin hath turned the weapon upon himself, minding to strike the church of Christ.  
Again Calvin disputing against the Catholics, 
The four the contradiction.  that the evil men receive not Christ in the Sacrament, maketh his argument of the body of Christ, which if evil men received, seeing they receive no life but damnation, they should saith Calvin, receive a dead body, and the body of Christ without the Spirit of Christ. If this reason of Calvin be good, them the good and worthy receiver must needs receive the body of Christ, not only the Spirit of Christ: he must needs have Christ dwelling in him bodily, not only Spiritually as he said before. His words are these in his commentaries upon S. Paul to the Corinthians. 
In 1. Cor. 11.  Ego hoc axioma teneo neque mihi unquam excuti patiar, Christum non posse a Spiritu suo divelli: unde constituo non recipi mortuum eius corpus, neque etiam eum otiosum, aut disiunctum a Spiritus sui gratia & virtute. that is. I hold this principle, and will never be brought from it, that Christ can not be divided from his Spirit. wherefore I determine that his dead body can not be received, nor he also unfruitful, severed from the grace or virtue off his Spirit. Here Calvin labouring to confute the Catholic doctrine confoundeth himself. For this is his reason. The evil man receiveth not the Spirit of Christ: therefore he receiveth not the body of Christ, which can not be without it. A man might here say to Calvin: why Sir, no more doth the good man neither. for you said even now that the Spirit of Christ only dwelleth in us: which if it be so, the body and flesh off Christ dwelleth not in us: them if we that receive Christ as much, and in as ample sort, as he may be received, receive only the spirit of Christ, what need you fear in the evil man's receiving dividing of Christ from his spirit, or his dead body to be received? it were enough to say, the evil man receiveth not the Spirit of Christ in the sacrament, and therefore he receiveth not Christ. But now you reason as though the evil man, if he received Christ should receive his body without the Spirit: and as though he good man received both body and Spirit. Which were contrary to that you said before: That not the flesh of Christ, but a communion of his flesh (which is, as you teach a mere spiritual thing, to wit, 
In commentar. in 2. Cor.  a quickening virtue out of Christ his flesh) is derived unto us by his Spirit. What could Calvin answer here, being pressed of one that would not forsake his advantage? Well: He is gone and passed all awnswering. But he hath scholars good store on live: Let them answer and defend these contradictions, if they can. Or if they ne can ne list to defend them, let them put him out of credit, and believe such a false fellow no more. I beseech our Lord they may so do.  
Calvin in his institutions, as you heard before, 
The fift contradiction.  saith. The Spirit of Christ is as a certain cundyt pipe by the which whatsoever Christ is, and hath, is derived unto us. And this spiritual pipe he imagineth to be a means to receive the communion of Christ his flesh by. Now in other places he maketh the flesh of Christ, to be as a pipe for conveyance of life unto us. In his commentaries upon the sixth of John thus he writeth. Sicut aeternus Dei sermo fons vitae est, ita caro eius veluti canalis, vitam quae intrinsecus in divinitate residet, ad nos diffundit, that is, As the aeternal word off God, Christ, is the fountain of life, so his flesh like as a pipe deriveth unto us life abiding, within the deite. Before he said. The Spirit of Christ derived unto us all that Christ is, or hath and so consequently life. Now he saith, The flesh of Christ convaieth life unto us. Before he made the Spirit off Christ a pipe for conveyance of life. Now he maketh the ●leshe of Christ to be that pipe. Doth not this doctrine confound itself? unless to establish his doctrine, he will confound the two natures of Christ, God and man, flesh and Spirit, making each one instrument to the other, and appointing to them both like actions and functions. Which were the heresy of the Monothelita.  
Calvin in his commentaries upon the sixth of John and upon S. 
The sixth contradiction. In cap. 11.  Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, disputeth earnestly that evil men receive not Christ in the Sacrament. His reasons therefore in the fourth contradiction we touched. Would it not now seem a strange matter, to hear Calvin say the contrary, and confess that all which come to the communion receive the body and blood of Christ, but the good and worthy receive only to salvation even as the Catholic doctrine teacheth? were it not a wondrous matter to see Calvin agree herein with us, and disagree with himself? Lo than his words. In his institutions the 18. chapter, 
Cap. de C●ena Dom.  proving out of S. Paul that because we must be membres of Christ his body, bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh, we must cleave unto him both in spirit and in body, he inferreth thus. Talem corporis & sanguinis sui communionem & caete. Such a communion of his body and blood Christ in the holy Supper, doth testify, offer, and deliver to all that sit down at that spiritual banquet: although (cum fructu) profitably he be received of the faithful only. Lo you hear Calvin say, that all which sit down at the spiritual banquet of the Supper, receive the body and blood of Christ, offered and delivered unto them. And because you might not doubt, but that the evil receive also, he putteth a distinction between them and the good, saying that the faithful only receive (cum fructu) profitably: giving us to understand, that the other receive, but unprofitably. else had it been in vain to say, the good or faithful only received profitably. it had been enough to say, the good only received. But it is a common saying oportet mendacem esse memorem. a liar had need have a good memory. Calvin here remembered not, that he had in other places defended the contrary: but labouring here, to set forth to the uttermost his doctrine of the Supper, and to make men ween that he taught according to scripture, the real receiving of whole Christ in the Sacrament, 
In comment. in Cap. 6. 1. Cor. 11.  pronounceth stoutly, that Christ in the Supper not only offereth, but delivereth himself, and that re ipsa in very deed (as in an other place he writeth) to all that sit down at that Spiritual banquet. Truly I may say here and in all these other contrarietes of Calvin, as oft as the one part is true (for many times both parts are stark false) that which S. Augustin wrote of the Donatists: who being in a solemn conference at Carthage, sometimes uttered the truth against themselves unwares, as Calvin doth now: that is. O Violentia veritatis. 
Contra Donat. post collationem cap. 3.  Quod semper illa tenuit, inimicorum confessio confirmavit. O the force of truth. That which truth always held, the confession of her enemies hath confirmed. Which yet in his other contradictions more clearly shall appear.  
Calvin in his institutions writeth this. Omnino isthaec pijs tenenda regula est etc. 
Cap. 18. The seventh contradiction.  This is a sure rule to be kept of all good men, that as aught as they see the signs appointed of God (bread and wine in the supper) they think assuredly and persuade themselves, 
Rei signatae veritatem ●erto adesse cogitent.  that the verity of the thing betokened is also present. For to what purpose should Christ give in to thy hand the sign of his body, but to make the right sure of partaking thereof? For if it be true that the visible sign is given us for confirmation of the unvisible thing to be given, the sign of the body being taken, let us not doubt but the body also is given unto us. 
Art. 20.  Now in his resolutions upon the sacraments thus he writeth. Oultre plus, L'vtilité que nous recepuons aux sacramens, ne sedoibt restraindre au temps de la reception d'iceux, come si le sign visible si tossed qu'l nous est proposé, nous apportoit avec soy en vng mesme instant la grace de Dieu. that is. Beside, the profit which we receive at the Sacraments, ought not to be restrained to the time we receive them, as if the visible sign as soon as it is presented us brought with it forthwith the grace of God. Be not these two tales contrary? 
In the fourth contradiction.  First he biddeth us not doubt but with the sign we receive the body, which (as you heard before of Calvin) can not be void of grace. Now he saith that the visible sign bringeth not forthwith the grace of god. First he maketh it a rule that seeing the signs, the verity also (Christ himself) be present. Now he saith the profit of the Sacraments ought not to be restrained to the time we receive them. Peradventure he meaneth, we should receive the signs and not see them. else how these two saying may be reconciled, I see not, and I think no man else doth see. But it is not once nor twice, that he thus contradicteth himself, but many times and often: and that in small space, as out of his resolutions upon the Sacraennts I will note now unto you.  
In the third article of his resolutions he writeth, Christ estant fils eternell de Dieu, d'vne mesme essence etc. that is, Christ being the eternal Son of God of one very substance and glory with the father, hath taken upon him our flesh, to the end that he should communicate us that which he had properly by nature. 
The 8. contradiction.  In these words are two doctrines contrary to his former sayings. First if Christ be (as he is in deed) of the very same substance and glory with the father, than he is not a following cause of life, as he teacheth writing upon the sixth of Ihon. We will allege you his words hereafter when we shall detect you his heresies. 
The 9 contradiction.  Again here he confesseth Christ to communicate unto us, that which he had properly by nature, to wit his flesh, 
In commentar in 1. Cor. 11.  before he granteth not us his flesh, but a spiritual communion thereof, to wit a quickening power out of that flesh.  
In the. 9 article thus he writeth. Albeit we put a difference between the sign and the things figured thereby, yet we separate not the verity from the figures. 
The 10. contrad.  The figure or sign which Calvin meaneth, is bread itself, the thing figured is Christ. Now if he sever not Christ from the bread, then is he there present really (as the bread is) with the bread. Which Calvin writing against Westphalus and other Lutherans doth always declaim and inveigh against.  
In the next article following, thus he writeth, But we must not have a regard to the bare sign but to the promise which is thereto annexed. Behold I beseech you what fond contradiction this is. 
The 1●. contrad.  For what is the promise of the blessed sacrament? Christ saith. Who eateth my flesh hath life, 
joan. 6.  and I will raise him again at the later day. Lo life and resurrection is the promise. If this, as Calvin teacheth, be annexed to the sign, how calleth he it a bare sign? But Christ teacheth us, as you see, that this promise is not annexed to the bread, which is impossible, but to his very flesh: and that full of all divinity: which is no bread pardy. It followeth in the article. Therefore the simple matter of water, of bread and wine doth not present us, nor give us Christ. Lo here again he calleth the sign a simple matter of bread and wine. How then I pray you is that weighty promise of life and resurrection annexed unto it? 
The 21. contrad.  Beside, he saith the sign doth not present us Christ. Yet before in the seventh article he wrote that the principal office off the sacraments was, that god by them doth testify unto us his grace, representeth it and sealeth it unto us. And in the .8. article he calleth them true witnesses and seals. and every where he calleth the bread the figure of Christ his body. If all this be true, how saith he now true, saying that the sign doth not present us Christ? how calleth he it a simple matter of bread and wine? Lo how many contradictions are couched in one of his articles. But let us consider the rest.  
In the twelfth article thus he writeth. Farther, as for that which is given unto us by the Sacraments, that is not by their own proper virtue, although that the promise is comprised in them, whereby they are endued with the quality thereof. Here he confesseth again, in the sacraments is comprised or contained the promise of the gospel: and that this promise remaineth in the sacraments, as the quality doth in a substance. First if bare bread be (as he said defore) the sacrament (calling it a sign, such as with Calvin all sacraments are) 
In art. 10.  how can it have any such promise or any such quality in it? 
The 13. contrad. Cap. 16. de Sacramen.  who ever heard that life, and our resurrection were promised to a piece of bread? Then if the sacraments (as in his Institutions he defineth them) be not only bare signs, but sure witnesses of gods grace towards us, their virtue being the work of God, why denieth he by their virtue any thing to be given? He would deface the sacraments, but he contradicteth himself.  
But will you see a clean repugnant and direct contrary doctrine to all that hitherto hath been said? For hitherto you hear Calvin say 
a art. 9  that he severeth not the verity from the figure, 
b art. 10,  that the promise is annexed to the sign, and again 
c art. 12.  that the promise is comprised in the Sacrament. Now at the very end of all his resolutions, see I pray you how he resolveth himself. In the last article thus he concludeth. 
Art. 26. The 14. contrad.  Although saith he, the bread be given unto us as a mark or pledge of the communion, yet because it is a sign, not the thing itself, nor hath not the thing included in it, they which stay their mind thereupon worshipping therein Christ, they make an idol of it. Lo now Calvin hath plucked of his vizard, and playeth his part kindly, now he saith the thing of the sacrament, to wit Christ, is not included, contained, or comprised in the sacrament, that it is but a sign or a pledge. In deed we agree with Calvin that Christ is not in the bread and much less is the bread a pledge or mark of our communion or participation of Christ. 
2. Cor. 1.  S. Paul saith the holy ghost is given unto us, as a pledge, no scripture saith so of bread. Again we confess that the true flesh of our Saviour is given us in this most blessed sacrament, in form and shape of bread not remaining, 
In serm. de coena Dns.  but by the omnipotency of the word, as S. Cyprian speaketh, made flesh.  
But why doth Calvin make the Sacrament now but a bare sign? 
Why C●luin maketh the Sacrament but a bare sign.  Why denieth he now the thing or verity of the Sacrament to be therein included, having granted it before? Forsooth the devil himself moved Calvin to say so, envying at the glory of god, and desiring as little honour to be done to Christ, as might be. For after that Calvin as the proctor of the devil, had for the blessed flesh and precious blood of our Saviour (pronounced to be in this most dreadful mystery by the mouth off Christ himself) substituted material bread and wine, and yet to make a colour of holiness, as the wont of the devil is, had told us, that he separated not the verity from the figure, Christ from the bread, fearing lest perhaps by this tale some scrupulous sacramentary would have worshipped the verity, not separated from the figure, to wit Christ joined with the bread, he turneth his tale, and telleth them at the end of his talk, which he thought should best stick by the readers, that the sacrament is but a sign, and hath not the thing or verity of the sign included in it. Nether doth he conceal his wicked purpose, but boldly uttereth it, even strait, saying, they that worship in the Sacrament Christ, make an idol of it. I have lo discovered unto you good readers the wicked devise of this proctor of the devil John Calvin. stop your ears at the wi●ked enchantments of this flattering Circé, and hearken rather to the doctrine of that holy, and learned Father of the Church S. Augustin. 
In comment. in psal. 98  who speaking of the worshipping off Christ in this blessed Sacrament, saith Non solum non peccatur adorando, sed peccatur non adorando, that is, We do not only not sin or offend in adoring it, but we do sin if we do not adore it. Lo this learned Father feareth no idolatry in adoration of the Sacrament, but pronounceth it a sin, not to adore it. wherein he declareth the doctrine and belief of Christ his church at that time. and he spoke these words in pulpit, preaching to his people, and expounding them the word of God. Now this cursed caitif Calvin bereaveth our blessed Saviour of his due honour, and telleth us we make him an idol. well. the devil yet hath got small worship at his proctors hand here, making him to speak such contradictions, as shall work at the length, I trust in god, his utter confusion, and all enemies of gods honour. And therefore we will yet discover you more of his contradictions, and sorry lessons learned of his master the devil the spirit of dissension and contrariety.  
In the thirteenth article of his resolutions he saith: 
The .15. Conared.  the sacrament is an instrument by the which god worketh. If the sacrament be an instrument whereby Christ worketh, how is it a figure of Christ, as these Sacramentaries will have it only to be? who ever heard that the figure of the workman as a figure were his Instrument, or the instrument his figure? Is not this doctrine a mere confusion and contradiction? The truth is: that bread is neither the figure of Christ nor the instrument whereby he worketh. No scripture saith so: The church never taught so. No reason persuadeth so. It is but a dream off Calvin.  
In the fifteenth article he saith the Sacrament doth warrant us Christ. 
The 16. Contrad.  In the tenth he said it was but a bare sign and that we should not regard it. Believe now whether part ye list. Truly both can not be true.  
In the sixteenth article he sayeth, 
The 17. Contrad.  the sacrament warranteth Christ only in the elected and predestiant. In the .18. article he saith, that in the sacrament Christ is offered equally unto all. and that the promise of god is not weakened by the incredulity of men. If the sacrament warranteth and confirmeth Christ only in the elected, is not the promise or verity of god promised in the sacrament, weakened by the incredulity of men? for they by their incredulity, saith Calvin, can not receive Christ which is the substance of the sacrament, and that which Crist promiseth. You see his constancy and agreement. Is not this a worthy guide for a man to build his faith upon, and forsake his former belief?  
In the twentieth article he saith, it may hap that the use of the Supper which profited us nothing in the act or doing of it, because of our negligence or slackness, may afterward bring forth better fruit. This point lo is contrary to all his doctrine in his institutions and commentaries upon holy scripture, 
The 18. Con.  where he teacheth the effect of the Sacrament 
a In institut. cap. 18.  that god feedeth us not with bare signs, 
b In resolute.  that he giveth life withal, 
c In comment. in 1. Cor. 11.  thath our souls are fed with Christ truly and really. For now a man may receive the Sacrament and lack all this. He may I say receive it well and worthily, and have none of all these. For if the unworthy receiver receiveth forthwith his damnation (as S. Paul saith) Calvin can not mean this of the unworthy receiver: especially saying withal, that it may afterward bring forth better fruit, which to the unworthy receiver it can not do.  
In the six and twentieth article he saith: 
The .19. contrad.  we must not tie Christ to the bread and to the wine. and yet in the ninth article he himself tieth Christ thereto. For he sayeth. Nous ne separons pas la verity d'auec les figures. we separate not the verity from the figures. If Calvin do not separat Christ, which is the verity from the figures of bread and wine, doth he not couple and tie Christ thereunto? Truly the Sacramentaries and Lutherans both do it, making the bread and the wine to remain. The Catholic church doth not, believing that the consecrated and blessed bread, is no more bread, but as Christ saith, His body. and the the wine his blood.  
Lo you have good readers a number of contradictions gathered out of this small treatise of Calvin: wherein yet according to the title thereof, he minded to give the world a full and perfect resolution of the Sacraments. But whiles he laboureth to utter his heresy under colour of some Christianite, and to persuade his falsehood under the cloak of some truth, he is miserably driven, to tell contrary tales, to say one thing and think an other, briefly to confound himself with his own words. For what better reason may possibly be found to discover false forged doctrine of an heretic, then to trip him in his talk, and take him in contradiction? Nothing can more discredit the Author of a sect or declare more his wicked pretence, then to espy diversity of doctrine and variance of opinions in him. nor never, I think, appeared it better in any heretic (except always that fond frere Martin Luther) them in John Calvin. And yet this is he, upon whose only warrant and word divers deceived persons, have hazarded their souls and lost their life. I beseech god give the remnant grace to see, know, and detest from henceforth, such a teacher as you see now Calvin is.  
divers other contradictions might be gathered out of this man's doctrine touching this blessed Sacrament, if we listed to scan each of his propositions and sayings. But because I have been over long already, and yet in so good a purpose me thinketh I can never be long enough, I will now pass to the repugnance in his doctrine against holy scripture.  
Our Saviour saith in the gospel off S. Ihon. 
Cap. 18.  Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting. 
joan. 6.  Calvin in his institutions and in his commentaries upon that place teacheth thus. Who eateth the bread at the communion he receiveth a conduit pipe by the which life is derived unto him. 
Repugnances in Calvin to holy scripture  Mark I beseech you Christian readers, how he hath altered the words of our Saviour. Where Christ saith, Who eateth my flesh, Calvin saith who eateth the bread at the communion. and where Christ saith he hath life ever lasting, Calvin saith he hath a conduit pipe by the which life is derived, calling the blessed flesh of our Saviour, one person with the godhead, a coundyt pipe or instrument, by the which life is derived from god the Father. For that is his meaning, (as you shall see more plainly hereafter, when I come to his heresies) attributing life not to the flesh of Christ, as Christ himself doth, but to the Father in whom he teacheth life to remain principally, as you shall anon see. But now to an other proposition.  
Christ saith, 
joan. 11.  I am the resurrection and the life. Calvin saith in his commentaries upon the sixth off John, The Son is as a river by the which the life abiding in the father is derived unto us. Here again Christ speaking as god and man, saith himself to be the life. For as the general council of Ephesus charyly warneth us, 
Cirilus in apologetico in defension anathematismi 4.  the words of the gospel are all ways to be attributed to Christ as to one person, though consisting of two natures▪ Calvin saith the life to remain in the father. Where blasphemousely he excludeth Christ, making him as a river or means, by the which life is derived unto us. But of this we shall have more occasion to speak hereafter.  
Our Saviour after he had said in the sixth off John, my flesh is meat in deed, and my blood is drink in deed, expounding those his words unto the carnal jews, thinking he had meaned his flesh and blood, 
Cirillus lib. 11 Cap. 22. in joan. Cap. 81.  after the bare nature of man, saith thus. The words which I spoke unto you are Spirit and life, giving us to understand (as the learned Father Cirillus noteth) that he spoke of his flesh, and blood, inseparably annexed to the godhead, and one person with the same. Now Calvin in his institutions affirmeth that by the Spirit of Christ, his flesh is derived unto us and made our food. In the which doctrine he separateth the Spirit of Christ from his blessed flesh, giving us the one without the other: whereas Christ him self above affirmed that he meaned his flesh coupled and united to the Spirit, saying, the words which I spoke unto you (to wit, of my flesh and blood) are Spirit and life, that is, not bare flesh but endued with my Spirit, the godhead itself: nor to be derived unto us by the Spirit, as separated from the flesh, or as a conduit pipe to conduct the flesh unto us (which Calvin in his institutions saith, as you have heard before) but to be given unto us with the Spirit, and deite of our Saviour jointly and inseparably, as they are in him one person, and one Christ. Thus you see how he correcteth and altereth the words off our Saviour at his pleasure.  
Again whereas Christ saith in S. John, 
I●an. 6.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting, promising us by eating to have life, Calvin correcting the saying of our Saviour, in his commentaries upon S. John, 
In cap. 6.  where Christ promiseth life and resurrection by the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, he saith, Christ speaketh not here of the Supper, but of the perpetual communion of him, which we have beside the use of the Supper. And yet that ye may not think he meaneth of any other communion (naming the perpetual communion) than the very same which we have in the celebration of our lords Supper, in few words after he addeth thus much. And yet I confess, that nothing is here spoken, which is not also figured and truly exhibited unto us in the Supper. Thus he maketh himself as sure off Christ, without the receiving of this blessed Sacrament, as when he receiveth it. which by the conference of an other place of holy Scripture you shall see yet once again.  
S. Paul saith The bread which we break is the participation of the body of our Lord: whereby we learn in this blessed Sacrament to receive the body of Christ. Calvin teacheth us without the blessed sacrament to receive it. For in his resolutions upon the sacraments he hath these words. 
Art. 19  Right as the infidel by the use of the Sacraments receiveth no more profit thereby them if he used than not, even so the verity figured in the sacraments is communicated to the faithful and believers, though not receiving the signs or sacraments. By this rule we receive Christ in the supper, which before hath b●n given unto us and dwelleth in us perpetually. And in the .9. article of the same work he saith. that such as have before received Christ, receiving the Sacrament do renew and continue that which they had before received. By this his doctrine you see, he correcteth the words of Christ teaching us to receive him by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. And the words of S. Paul, saying the bread to be the participation of our lords body: by which word he meaneth the blessed Sacrament: naming it so of that which it was before: 
Exod. 7.  as the serpent was called Moses' rod, 
joan. 2.  and the wine water in Cana Galilea.  
S. Paul saith. Who so ever eateth the bread and drinketh the cup of the Lord unworthily, he eateth and drinketh his own damnation: 
1. Cor. 11.  giving us to understand that at the receiving of the blessed sacrament, we receive other life by the worthy receiving other damnation by the unworthy. Now the doctrine of Calvin directly repugneth. For thus he writeth in his resolutions upon the sacraments. Farther saith he, 
Art. 20.  the profit which we receive at the sacraments, ought not to be restrained to the time we receive them, as if that the visible sign as soon as it is given us, should bring us forthwith the grace of god. It may happen that the receipt of the sacrament which in the act profited nothing, through our default or slackness, may afterward bring forth better fruit. Thus far Calvin. Consider now, if this doctrine be not clean contrary to the meaning of S. Paul. For if, as S. Paul saith, receiving the sacrament unworthily we receive our own damnation, why also in receiving it worthily receive we not withal incontinently the grace, and virtue thereof? Again if by our default it worketh us damnation, as the Apostle saith, how can it afterward avail us, as Calvin teacheth? Thirdly if at the receipt of the sacrament, we receive nothing, what shall the bread (that Calvin imagineth alone) signify? shall it signify that by eating it, we receive no profit thereby? In good sooth it will signify unto us, that Calvin mocketh with God, and the world, and that in eating the bread, we eat nothing else▪ And truly if you remember his doctrine before, you see he meaneth nought else.  
S. Paul speaking of our lords body and blood given us in the blessed sacrament, 
1. Cor. 11.  saith thus. He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh his own damnation, not discerning the body of our Lord. Calvin in his commentaries upon this place saith, That the wicked person therefore eateth unworthily because he refuseth the body of our Lord offered unto him, eating thereby the only sign. to wit bore bared. Mark the difference of S. Paul's doctrine, and Caluins' imagination. For how doth the wicked eat the body and therewith his damnation, which S. Paul teacheth, iff he eat but bread and refuse the body, which Calvin imagineth? I will grant who refuseth Christ, refuseth life, and thereby worketh his own damnation. But this is not to eat his damnation, in such sort as S. Paul speaketh there.  
Our Saviour in the sixth of John saith, Your fathers did eat Manna in the desert, and are dead. This is that bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. Calvin in his commentaries upon the first to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter teacheth, that the jews eating Mamna, did eat the very body of Christ spiritually as we do, and received the same effect by eating the Manna, as we do by the communion. He laboureth much in that place to prove this fond doctrine, and forgeth a sorry shift to avoid these words of our Saviour in S. Ihon. Christ, saith he, having to do with the jews preferring Moses before him, in his answer to them, expounded not what Manna signified, but letting all other things pass, framed them an answer meet for their capacity, speaking not according to the nature of the thing, but according to the meaning and s●ns of the hearers. Thus much Calvin. But behold, I beseech you, the sophistry of this wily heretic. He would make us believe, that Christ in S. John played the Rhetoricians part, and withal is not afeared to make our Saviour (O blasphemous Sacramentary) a liar. For Christ saith plainly, That the jews eating Manna died (for not by eating Manna, but by believing in the Messiah to come, they were fed of Christ) But the bread which he would give should be life everlasting to those which eat off it. Iff now as Calvin saith, the eating of Manna served their turn, no less than the bread of life Christ himself served ours, to wit, that they received also the bread of life spiritually in eating Manna, as we do in eating the blessed Sacrament, than were not that sayieng off Christ true, nor his comparison good, preferring the bread of life which he would give us before the Manna of the jews. For their Manna as Calvin saith, was bread of life to them: then was it not inferior to that which Christ would give, but all one and the same. But now to an other.  
Our Saviour in S. John hath these words. 
joan. 6.  Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. 
Institut. Cap. 18.  Calvin correcteth these words in his doctrine of the Supper, and maketh this proposition. Who believeth in the death and resurrection of Christ, the communion of his flesh is derived unto him, by the virtue of his holy Spirit. First in this doctrine where Christ biddeth us eat his flesh, and so promiseth himself to dwell with us, and in us, Calvin biddeth us believe in Christ his death, saying thereby we eat his flesh: and then in stead of Christ God and man abiding in us which our Saviour in this most holy Sacrament promiseth, and (no doubt) performeth unto us, Calvin warranteth us of a certain communion of the flesh remaining only in heaven, which shall be derived, he sayeth, by the Spirit off Christ unto us. This is lo not to have God and man Christ himself abiding in us (which because Christ promiseth us, we must undoubtedly believe so) but to have him only spiritually abiding in us: to wit, coming to us only by spirit and abiding only in heaven by flesh. How false and how far disagreble with the words of our Saviour this doctrine of Calvin is, we have in his absurdites and contradictions declared. Presently it sufficeth to know, that he doth both in terms and in sense control and alter the words and meaning of our Saviour.  
S. Paul writing to the Corinthians, of the due access and reverence of this blessed Sacrament, 
1. Cor. 11.  saith. Let every man try himself and so eat of this bread. Calvin in his Institutions and upon the sixth of John teacheth, that by believing we eat Christ. 
Cap. 18.  Now seeing that no man trieth himself, but first he believeth, and in believing we eat Christ, then before we try our selves, we do eat: contrary to the express words off the Apostle, bidding us first to try ourselves, and so to eat of this bread of life. And truly according to the doctrine of Calvin (as you have seen before) believing in Christ's death and resurrection we eat and receive the body and blood off Christ always, no less then in the use of the Supper or communion. Which excludeth all trial of ourselves required by S. Paul.  
For the maintenance of this wicked Sacramentary doctrine, Calvin abuseth and turneth from their right understanding, not only such places of holy scripture as directly make against him, as you have hitherto partly seen, but also such as by any consequence of reason, might seem to hinder the course of his wicked doctrine. For example I will pnt you in mind of one or two. 
Cap. 20.  Whereas it is written in S. John that Christ entered, where his disciples were, the doors being shut, because this miracle might import to the body of our Saviour a possibility of being in sundry places at ones, and so destroy the false ground of these sacramentaries, tying Christ to the right hand of his Father, 
Cap. 18  Calvin in his institutions saith, that Christ entered not the doors being shut, but that the doors opened of themselves. Otherwhere he writeth, that an erthequake was made, and so the doors opened.  he inventeth what shift he may, rather them he will yield to the truth of the church.  
With like confidence this presumptuous Sacramentary John Calvin perverteth by false translation the 
See the lease 158.  words of holy scripture in the proverbs of Solomon containing a clear prophecy of this blessed sacrament. We alleged you the place before, and after what sort it was by him corrupted. If we would in other points and articles of the Catholic faith by him denied and impugned use the like diligence, we could be as long in the retical and setting forth of them, as he is in the whole corpse of his works, where such doctrine is taught. But now I will proceed to the other parts of our promise, touching this one article, and after say somewhat of some other point of his doctrine.  
Our Lord in holy scripture, by the mouth off his prophet jeremy, speaking against the perilous presumption of those, which forsake him and his holy word, 
jerem. 2.  pronounceth the plague that falleth on them in these words. They have forsake me the fountain of life, and have digged themselves pits and puddles all to broken, and such as can hold no water, giving us to understand, that who so forsaketh the right way prescribed unto us by almighty god in his holy word, and refuseth the most wholesome drink of the fountain, god him self, is forced forthwith, being as a man berefted of his right understanding and sense, to lap in such puddle, as the fond imagination of his own brain instructed and supported with the devil, ready to thrust forward, when god forsaketh, can invent. Of such it is said in holy scripture. Who loveth the peril, shall perish in it, and again. Who toucheth the pitch shall be filled therewith. You have seen how Calvin hath forsaken the express words of god in his gospel, to further thereby the plausible doctrine, and pleasant poison of his own imaginations. You shall now see what pits and puddles he is feign to lap in, forsaking the doctrine of Christ in the gospel. Truly they are such and so filthy, that I fear the recital thereof may be to good Christian hearts more noisome than profitable. Notwithstanding because this man is of such credit among the deceived sort of our country, that his Institutions, the very farthel of all his beggarly doctrine, and box of his venomous heresies, is commanded to be read of such, as have charge of souls (a sufficient means truly to draw all the unlearned of England, but if god stay them, to eternal damnation) I will by the grace of God give you for a taste, such instructions touching the most blessed sacrament of the altar, and the sacrament of Baptim, which only for sacraments he alloweth, that you may hereafter little lust after the perilous persuasions of his doctrine, in other inferior points of our Christian faith, the dearest and most precious jewel that we have on earth.  
The pits and puddles that Calvin hath digged himself, are old heresies condemned above a thousand years, and now renewed by him partly in express words, partly by most assured and necessary consequence of his writings.  
Calvin in his commentaries upon S. John hath these words. 
In Cap. 6. joan. Old condemned heresies renewed by Calvin in the doctrine of the blessed Sacrament.  It is to be noted there are three degrees of life. The living Father hath the first place, as the fountain off life, but yet far distant and hid. The Son followeth him, whom we have set before us as a river by the which the life abiding in the father is derived unto us. the third life is that which we draw of him. Thus far Calvin: This doctrine, beside that it is a mere imagination of Calvin, and a broken puddle of his brickle brain, it containeth in it sundry heresies. First if the Son of god Christ himself, be a following, that is, a second cause of life, as Calvin saith, then is it not equal with the first, and so is it a creature, not god the Creator, which is first and chiefest, and second to none. Then he compareth Christ to a river and god the father to a fountain. Now the fountain is before the river, and is cause of the river: them by the doctrine of Calvin, god the father is before the Son and cause of the life in the Son. For all this he meaneth of god the Son, not of the flesh off Christ which he denieth to give life or to be quickening of itself. This lo is the cursed and detestable heresy of Arrius condemned in the first general council of Nice above twelve hundred years passed. If S●ruetus whom Calvin burned at Geneva for an Arrian, were now alive again, and Calvin to, he might challenge M. Calvin for the like, and call him worthily to the stake.  
Again this doctrine of Calvin resembleth much in words (but in effect passeth far) 
August. l●b. 20. cap. 2. contra Faustum manich.  the doctrine of Faustus Manicheus, who said that god the father occupied the chiefest and principal light: but the Son consisted in a second light. Which fond opinion of him Saint Augustin confuteth as a detestable heresy. Much more may we so do in this distinction of degrees of life, that Calvin imagineth to be in the blessed trinity.  
Thirdly he affirmeth the life which we receive of Christ, the Son, to abide in the Father: as though Christ of himself gave not us life by the participation of his divine flesh. Which to say is the heresy of Valentinus whom S. Irene confuteth.  
Calvin in his commentary upon the resolution of the Sacraments, saith that, Unto the substance of bread remaining bread, the body of our lord which is the verity figured by the bread is so coupled and united, as the godhead was to the flesh of Christ, it remaining true and natural flesh. And this his doctrine he goeth about to prove by the words of Gelasius in his epistle to king Francis prefixed before his Institutions. It is also the doctrine of Calvin that Christ is in the Sacrament only by faith not corporally▪ For so (sayeth he) he is only in heaven. Then will it follow by the reason of Calvin, that the godhead was joined and united to the flesh of Christ only by faith, and that the flesh was not deified and one person with god. This was the heresy of Paulus Samosatenus condemned all most thirten hundred years paste.  
The doctrine of Calvin in his Institutions is, as you partly heard before, that in the blessed Sacrament the manner of receiving Christ, is by the operation of his Spirit, 
In institut. Cap. 18 & in. 1. Cor. 11.  which (saith he) is as a certain ●undyt pipe, whereby what soever Christ is, or hath, is derived unto us. and by the Spirit of Christ, he saith, we receive in to our souls his body and blood, which yet departeth not from the right hand of the father. This doctrine separateth Christ, making his holy Spirit to serve as a cundyt pipe for the conveyance of his flesh in to our souls. Beside the absurdity of the doctrine, which we before declared you, it savoureth of the heresy of Nestorius. For as he denied the flesh off Christ to be inseparably united to the godhead, and therefore taught that we received not whole Christ, but his flesh only and not his godhead (for these were his words (as Cirillus recordeth) 
In oppositione ad anathematis. 11.  Qui manducat carnem meam, non dixit qui manducat divinitatem. that is, Christ said, he that eateth my flesh, he said not he that eateth my divinity etc.) so Calvin denieth we receive whole Christ, granting us a spiritual food only. 
In. 1. Cor. 11.  For so (in his commentaries upon S. Paul) he concludeth, saying that a certain quickening virtue is derived unto us out of the flesh of Christ by his Spirit, though the fl●sh be far distant from us and not joined with us.  
The doctrine of Calvin as it containeth variable and contrary assertions, so it breedeth divers and sundry heresies. You heard even now that by making the Spirit of Christ a pipe for the conveyance off Christ his flesh in to our souls (which he teacheth both in his Institutions and in his commentaries upon S: Paul) he fell in to the heresy of the Manichees no less wicked and ancient heretics than Nestorius. Now you shall see that making the flesh off Christ a pipe for the conveyance of Christ his divinity unto us, he falleth in to the heresy of Nestorius. In his commentaries upon the sixth of S. Ihons' gospel thus he writeth. As the everlasting word off God is the fountain of life, so his flesh convaieth unto us like a certain pipe that life abiding in the godhead. And in this sense the flesh of Christ is said to give life, because it communicateth unto us the life which it borroweth other where. These are the very words of Calvin. Now let us considre the doctrine of S. Paul saying. 
2. Cor. 15.  As in Adam all do die, so in Christ all shall be quickened or endued with life. Upon the ground of this doctrine which can not be denied, thus I reason. If the flesh of Christ doth not of itself give life, as Calvin saith, but serveth us as a pipe of the life abiding in god, than the sinnerfull flesh of Adam was not of itself damnable and the cause of our damnation (We all sinning and dying in Adam as S. Paul saith) but a pipe or instrument of death and damnation abiding in some evil God, from whence the flesh of Adam took death and damnation, as the flesh of Christ (according to Calvin) borroweth life of God. For otherwise the saying of S. Paul shall not be true, attributing as properly and as truly life unto our Saviour, as death unto Adam. Now to imagine a higher cause of death in Adam, than Adam himself, and an evil God in whom that death before remained, 
Tom. 6. passim & in lib. de haer.  to be from thence derived to sinners, is the very doctrine of the cursed Manichees, making two Gods or beginnings of all things one of the good, and an other of the bad: as in S. Augustin it is easy to find.  
But here perhaps some scholar of Caluins' school, 
Why Calvin may worthily be charged with such heresies.  and zealous professor of the gospel of Geneva will step in and say, that Master Calvin never taught, never allowed, nor so much as dreamt off the approving of such heinous heresies as these are. And therefore we deal not charitably herein, but rather utter our malice and stomach to no purpose. To such because I think it were hard for me to frame an answer of my own, that might please them, I will answer with the words of M. Calvin himself, which I hope shall not mislike them. Master Calvin in his Institutions having for his pleasure long jested at the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, and with a few sorry reasons laboured to prove that such as said Mass, crucified Christ again, at the length moveth the like objection as this is, against himself, and answereth unto it in these words. I know well, saith he, they have a ready answer, whereby they will charge us as slanderers. For they will say we lay that unto their charge which they never thought, and which they were sure they could never do. But we know well enough, it is not in their hands to make Christ live or die. Nether care we if they never thought to kill him. Only this I would show what absurdity doth follow by their wicked and heinous doctrine. Thus awnswered Calvin, thinking it a sufficient excuse to escape the note of a slanderer and false accuser, having well deserved it. We answer the same being no false accusers of Calvin, but true reporters of that we find in his writings, and say, that we pass not whether Calvin ever thought as Arrius, Faustus Manicheus, Valentinus, Samosatenus, Nestorius, and the whole sect of the Manichees taught. Only we intend to show that by his heinous and wicked doctrine, such heresies do consequently follow. Which the unlearned take so much the sooner, for that they come under the vizard of a favourer of the gospel. Whereas being now brought to light, and their vizard plucked of, they shall appear in their likeness, to wit, old cursed and condemned heresies. This I trust shall make men take better advisement which way they walk in matters of belief, nor lightly to trust every new Master bringing new learning, and not heard of before. Lest as Calvin hath done, by listening after new doctrine, they fall in to old heresies. But now to the residue of them.  
That the paschal lamb offered and eaten by Moses in the old law, was a clear figure of Christ the true lamb of god to be eaten and offered in the new law, for the redemption of mankind, it is a verity of all Christian men confessed and undoubtedly received. The words of our Saviour saying that it behoved him to fulfil all which was written of him in the law, 
Luc. 24.  the psalms and the prophets give us no less to understand. S. Paul also teacheth us that all things happened to the jews in figure, to wit, 
1. Cor. 10.  of such things as under Christ should be accomplished. Briefly Calvin himself in his commentaries upon S. Paul to the Hebrews, confesseth that all the sacrifices of the old law do lead us to the sacrifice of Christ: 
In cap. 9  which doctrine he learned of the holy fathers, especially S, Augustin, 
De civit. dei lib. 17. Cap. 20. & in psal. 39  who repeateth it in sundry places of his works. Calvin therefore in his Institutions treating of our lords supper, accordeth this figure of the paschal lamb with the supper off our Lord in this sort. The paschal lamb saith he, being bodily eaten did figure the spiritual eating of our paschal lamb which is Christ. Upon this his doctrine it followeth, that Christ was but spiritually, not corporally offered up for us. For the paschal lamb of Moses figured Christ not only as it was eaten, but also as it was offered. If then the figure of the lamb eaten be accomplished by spiritual eating of Christ, the figure of the lamb offered shall be also accomplished by the spiritual oblation of Christ. For both actions were true figures of Christ, and both were to be accomplished by Christ, no less the one than the other. Now to make the sacrifice of Christ, but a spiritual sacrifice, 
lib. 4. aduersu● Marcionem  is the heresy of Martion whom Tertullian confuteth. The truth is that as Christ was a true sacrifice figured by the paschal lamb to die for us, so was he a true sacrifice figured by the same to be eaten by us.  
Because the heresy of Valentinus renewed by the heretical doctrine of Calvin, well espied and tried out maketh much for the verity of the real presence in this blessed Sacrament, we will yet farther see how the doctrine of Calvin destroying the real presence, upholdeth and reneweth the heresy of Valentinus. The opinion of Valentinus was that the body of Christ was a celestial body, descending from heaven through the womb of the blessed Virgin, taking no fleshly substance thereof. Calvin calleth rem signatam the thing figured in the Sacrament a spiritual and celestial thing. 
In iustitut. Cap. 18.  In the same place not many lines after thus he concludeth his doctrine of the B. Sacrament. I say therefore, the holy mystery of the Supper consisteth of two things to wit the earthly signs setting before our eyes according to our caepacite the invisible things, and the Spiritual verity figured and exhibited by the signs. The matter also of this spiritual verity he expoundeth himself to be Christ with his death and resurrection. And in an other place of his works, writing against the council of Trent thus he speaketh. 
In antidoto.  The bread remaineth bread terrestrial and corruptible: but the celestial body of Christ is joined thereunto: and hereof, saith he by the authority of Ireneus, this mystery consisteth of two things, the one terrestrial and of earth, the other celestial and of heaven, to wit the celestial body off Christ, and the material bread of earth. Hitherto you see Calvin in the blessed Sacrament to acknowledge no other body of Christ, then Spiritual and celestial: even as the heretic Valentinus did: and to colour his doctrine also by the authority off Ireneus. Now you shall understand that Ireneus writing against the foresaid heresy of Valentinus, for the confutation thereof among other arguments, useth the common belief of the Catholic church, touching this blessed Sacrament. 
Li. 4. Cap. 34.  Our doctrine saith he, is conformable to the eucharist (terming so this blessed Sacrament) and the Eucharistie confirmeth our doctrine: for we offer unto god that which are his own, declaring accordingly the unite and conjunction of the flesh and of the Spirit: For as the material bread receiving the invocation of god, is no more common bread, but the eucharist consisting of two things the one of earth the other of heaven, so our bodies receiving the eucharist: are no more corruptible, but have certain h●pe of resurrection. Thus far Ireneus. In the which words against Valentinus he affirmeth, that the Sacrament containeth Christ himself which consisteth of two things or natures, being one person, to wit of earthily flesh taken of the virgin, and of the celestial godhead descending from heaven. Now Calvin because he will deny the real presence of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, imagineth the celestial body of Christ without flesh to be joined with the material bread, as Valentinus the heretic did, abusing also to that purpose this very place of Ireneus wherein he showeth himself other very ignorant of Ireneus meaning and disputation in that place, or very malicious in depraving it after his own brainsick fantasy. For S. Irene directly reproveth the opinion of Valentinus denying the incarnation of Christ, and his true flesh, because in the Sacrament we receive his true and natural flesh. and therefore a few lines before he saith. Quomodo constabit eyes & cae.? How will they be assured that the same consecrated bread is the body of their lord and the cup of his blood, if they deny it to be the Son of god maker of the world? Doth not here that holy Martyr, and learned Father prove the very flesh and natural body of Christ, against that heretic, upon the ground of our belief touching the real presence of Christ himself in the Sacrament? Doth not Calvin taking away this ground of our belief, and denying the real presence of Christ's flesh in the Sacrament, leaving us only a spiritual verity, consequently allow the heresy of Valentinus?  
Again Valentinus denied the resurrection of our bodies. Ireneus proveth it unto him, by the doctrine of the Sacrament, saying in the same place above alleged. How dare they say that our flesh shall come to corruption and not receive life which is fed with the body and blood of our lord? Now Calvin in his Catechism, in his Institutions, and every where teacheth that our soul, not the body eateth the body of Christ, really and truly, but not corporally: and is nourished there with in hope of life everlasting. Doth not this his doctrine granting that celestial food, and only warrant of our resurrection to the soul, destroy the resurrection of the body, as Valentinus the heretic did? Is he not once again most manifestly fallen into broken puddles of old condemned heresies?  
Our Saviour saith, Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall have no life in you, he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life, and I will raise him up again in the later day. 
joan. 6.  Now if the soul only eateth this heavenly food, 
The doctrine of the Sacramentaries destroyeth the resurrection of our bodies.  as Calvin teacheth, the soul only shall have life, and be raised up at the later day. For the only warrant of resurrection is the participation of the flesh and blood of Christ. For though the bodies of infidels, of heretics, and of evil Christians, shall arise again, yet they shall not arise to life, nor in such manner of resurrection, as our Saviour meaneth, 
Philip. 3. ●. Cor. 15.  which is (as his blessed Apostle S. Paul teacheth us) to put on immortality, to be made incorruptible. and to be glorified. For so shall only the true believers in jesus Christ, and partakners of this holy sacrament arise. As for infants baptized, though they receive not sacramentally the flesh and blood of Christ, yet even as by the faith of holy church they believe and are accounted to have faith, so by the communion of Saints and society of the Catholic church they are incorporated to our Saviour and assured of their resurrection.  
It will peradventure seem impossible to the favourers of Caluins' doctrine, and prisers of his gospel, that he should ever mean any such heinous doctrine, as this is. Verily what he thought in conscience, we will not judge: but what his writings declare● him to be, you see, I think, evidently. In his catechism labouring to wipe away this suspicion from him he saith, he hath a witness and a warrant of the resurrection of his body, and of the salvation thereof, in that he eateth the sign of life. But I pray you, could he more manifestly deny the salvation of the body, then to attribute it to that thing which can not give it? For what availeth it for the assurance of life, to eat (as he saith) the sign of life, which is nought else, but a morsel of bread? Where findeth he such assurance of life in holy scripture? What scripture telleth him, that by eating the sign of life his body shall rise to incoruption? Christ promiseth us life and resurrection by eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Is the flesh and blood of Christ a sign of life? Is he not the true bread of life? Is not his holy flesh, united to the godhead, and made one person with god, true quickening flesh and giving life? Surely this doctrine off Calvin utterly overthroweth the resurrection of our bodies.  
Peter Richier a french ghospeller, 
Villogaio no● contra Caluinu Cap. 20.  Caluins' scholar, denieth this fond doctrine of his Master, to wit, that by eating the sign of life the body should be assured of resurrection, and imagineth an other shift, that the soul being raised spiritually by eating the body of Christ, shall give life to the body and raise it also. What wicked dreams and inventions are these off proud and presumptuous heretics? The promise of life and resurrection is made to the flesh of Christ, not to the bread, nor to the soul. Thus lo it fareth with them, which content not themselves with the sure known doctrine of the Catholic church, but by drift of reason, or prick off pride, and malice search out new inventions of their own.  
It is the doctrine of Calvin and all the sacramentaries, that in the celebration of our lords supper be no consecration of the mysteries. For that, they say, the bread there is no other wise blessed than other creatures of god are by the virtue of their creation. Calvin in his Institutions saith, that Christ in the benediction which he used, directed not his words to the bread, and that to bless the bread is which craft and charming. The like he writeth in his commentaries upon S. Paul to the Corinthians. This doctrine lo is the very heresy of Faustus Manicheus. we (saith that Maniche) 
In 1. Cor. 10.  use the same religion in all creatures of god, as you use in the bread and the chalice. Lo this heretic acknowledgeth noother kind of religion, in the holy mysteries, then in other creatures of god. That is, that the one is as much blessed as the other. But what answereth here S. Augustin? 
Tom. 6.  For he reporteth these words of the heretic in his books against him. Doth he acknowledge no other benediction in the Sacrament then in other creatures of god? Is he ashamed of the benediction used in the church of Christ? Doth he call it witchcraft or charming? 
Lib. 20. cap. 13. Contra Faustum. Fit misticus non nas●●tur.  See therefore what he answereth. Our bread and chalice (saith S. Augustin) is not common: but by certain consecration is made mystical is not borne so. And therefore that which is not so made (to wit by certain consecration) though it be bread and cup, it is food for refection, not the sacrament of our religion, though always we bless and give thanks to god in all his gifts as well corporal as spiritual. Thus far S. Augustin, declaring that in the mysteries we use a certain and proper consecration, whereby the mysteries are made other than they were by nature. For he saith of the bread it is made mystical, non nascitur. it is not so by nature. giving us understand that by virtue of consecration the bread is made that, 
The communion o● the protestants is but foo●e for refection.  which by nature it was not: to wit, the body of our Saviour. Again S. Augustin saith, that which lacketh consecration is food for refection, not the sacrament of our religion. So the calvinists in their communion by the judgement of S. Augustin have food for refection, not the sacrament of our religion. Finally S. Augustin confuting the old heresy of the Manichees, doth also confute the new heresy of Calvin, yea and the order of our communion, where no consecration, nor benediction is used.  
Thus we see, Christian readers, what broken pits and puddles Calvin hath digged himself, and all sacramentaries are forced to lap in, forsaking the fountain of life Christ himself in this blessed sacrament of the altar. We see, who list to be a scholar of Calvin, a ghospeller of Geneva or a Sacramentary protestant, he must also be an Arrian, a Nestorian, a Sam●satenical, a Marcioniste, a Donatiste, a M●ni●he, and a Valentinian divers ways. These heretics with all their doctrine were condemned above a thousand years, in that state of the church, which only our adversaries approve for pure and virtuous. If that state had the right doctrine, those heretics were by them worthily condemned. If they were worthily condemned, these sacramentaries can off no good christian men be allowed, followed or supported.  
As in our discourse upon Luther, beside a numbered of old cursed heresies by him renewed and common to all protestāns, we declared you one proper heresy of his own, for example's sake, even so after the rank of these old condemned heresies, which Calvin hath incurred only in mistaking, or rather wilfully departing from the Catholic faith off the most blessed Sacrament of the altar, I will recite you one most horrible and blasphemous heresy of his own imagination, for example's sake of many more which might be brought, if we listed in this short discourse, to say all that might be said. In his institutions upon the article of our Crede Descendit ad inferos, He descended in to hell he teacheth, 
Cap. 7.  that Christ there suffered the pains of hell: and mocketh at the belief of the Catholic Church teaching us that then our Saviour delivered the souls of the fathers off the old law, according as the scripture witnesseth, speaking by the prophet most evidently of our Saviour, Tu quoque in sanguine Testamenti tui emis●sti vinctos tuos de lacu in quo non est aqua. 
Zachar. 9  that is, Thou also through the blood of thy testament hast let thy pr●sonners out of the pit, wherein is no water. 
Hieronymus in Zachariam. 9  which ●aying of the prophet the learned fathers have always expounded of the descending of Christ in to hell, and delivering there the souls of the fathers of the old law. But as touching the heresy of Calvin, which in place of this received doctrine this presumptuous heretic avoucheth, you shall hear his own blasphemous words, and learn of what a master our ghospellers of Geneva have learned their false faith. These be his words first in latin. Nihil actum erat si corporea tantum morte defunctus fuisset Christus: sed opera simul praecium erat ut divinae ultionis severitatem sentiret, quo & irae ipsius intercederet, & satisfaceret justo judicio, ut cum inferorum copijs aeternaeq●e mortis horrore quasi consertis manibus luctaretur: Correctionem pacis nostrae illi impositam fuisse propheta docet, fuisse propter scelera nostra a patre percussum, attritum propter nostras infirmitates. Quibus significat in locum peccatorum sponsorem, vadem, adeoque instar rei submissum ad dependendas persoluendasque omnes quae ab illis expetendae erant poenas, uno hoc duntaxat ●x● pto quòd doloribus mortis non poterat detineri. Ergo si ad inf●res descendisse dicitur, nihil mirum est, cum eam mortem pertulerit, quae sceleratis ab irato deo infligitur. Hitherto are his words as they lie in his institutions in latin. Now let us see the english. Nothing had been done, saith Calvin, if Christ had died only by bodily death. O heinous blasphemy of these cursed heretics. What could be said more blasphemously? Hath not now the death of Christ satisfised for our sins? Be these the ghospellers that set forth and commend so much the passion of Christ? Is the bodily death of Christ nothing? Must his soul suffer also in hell? You shall hear forth the words of Calvin. But it was also requisite, saith he, that Christ should feel the rigour of god's vengeance, whereby he might appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgement, that he should fight and combat with the Hosts of hell and horror off eternal death. Lo he saith Christ ought beside his bodily death, which was on the Chrosse, feel also the rigour of god's vengeance, satisfise also his most just judgement, and abide the horror of eternal death. O horrible blasphemy, meet for a sacramentary ghospeller. For how then said Christ in his Cross, after all the bitter torments suffered for mankind and accomplished, 
Matth. 26.  Consummatum est, It is finished? Was he yet to suffer more in hell? And how cried he in his last most blessed words, Father in to thy hands I commend my Spirit? Was that to be tormented after of the devils in hell? Did his Father keep it no better, but let it be tormented yet again? Finally how was that only sacrifice on the Cross (as S. 
Hebr, 10.  Paul saith) a perfect consummation and sanctification for ever? Must he yet beside suffer torments in hell? So saith Calvin, Master to all the Genevian protestants of England, expressly against scripture, blasphemously against God, and heretically against the Catholic doctrine. And where writeth he this? In his Institutions: a book so precious in the eyes off some pretended bishops, that it is by them commanded to be read of such, as have charge of souls. May not we worthily cry with that holy father Policarpus, O Deus in quae nos tempora reseruasti? 
Euseb. lib. 2. histor.  O God to what times hast thou reserved us? Do we yet look whether these protestants tend, that so blasphemously write of the blessed passion of Christ, and command such writings to be read of the unlearned priests, which shall teach it again to the simple and unlearned people? And yet Calvin will prove his blasphemies by scripture: truly even as he proveth the rest of his doctrine. For lo these are his words following. The prophet teacheth that the chastisement of our peace was laid on him, he was smitten of the father for our offences, and bruised for our wickedness: by the which words he signifieth that he was sent in to the place of sinners as a surety, a pleadg, yea and as a guilty person to pay and abide all such pains, as were to be required of them: only this excepted that he could not be continually stayed with the sorrows of death. Therefore no marvel if he be said to have descended in to ●ell seeing he suffered such death as God in his wrath punisheth the wicked withal. Thus far you have the words of Calvin, and his heinous heresy therein contained. As for the saying off the prophet, which (as he and his fellows do in infinite other texts of holy scripture) he wresteth from the true meaning, the Catholic church hath always taken it to have been fulfilled on the Cross, in the bodily death of Christ. For there he was smitten off the Father for our offences, and bruised for our wickedness, there the chastisement of our peace and atonement was laid upon him. But Calvin, as if he were a man privileged from God to say and teach as he listeth, will have it so meant, that Christ beside his bodily death on the Cross, be sent in to the place of sinners, which is hell (for of Christ's descending in to hell he now disputeth, unless (as some protestants do) he make no hell at all, and say that Christ descended no otherwise in to hell, but that he was tormented on the Cross) 
Read the preface of Staphilus pag. 18. and the leaf. 106.  there to pay and abide all the torments of sinners, saving that he suffereth it not eternally. This is lo the reward off heresy, and of such as forsake their faith: to fall in to most horrible blasphemies, such as a Turk would abhor: and yet to see them not, but persuade them selves they have the light of the gospel, and be only true Christians, and all the world beside blind, superstitious and idolaters, not only that now is, but that hath been this thousand years. I will no more exaggerate the matter. I wish them amendment and knowledge of the truth: and desire all other to beware in time, of such perilous heresies, as these unghostly ghospellers of Geneva bring to our deceived country. We will now pass to the doctrine of Calvin, touching the sacrament of baptism and consider how pure and evangelical his doctrine thereof is.  
In the sacrament of baptism, 
Heresies of Calvin about the Sacrament of Baptim.  though the doctrine of Calvin be almost of all protestants of our country, not only the sacramentaries, received and embraced, yet it containeth many strange and horrible heresies. Which so in that man happened, because he searched all subtle shifts, and pried out all the privy fetches he could devise, whereby he might defeat the doctrine of the Catholic church. For hereupon he wttereth in his doctrine divers heinous heresies other ignorantly or maliciously. First therefore we will discover unto you, such of his heresies as are taken off the old condemned heretics in the primitive Church: Then such as he forged himself expressly against holy scripture, and yet defendeth them no less foolishly then wickedly, as always the proper of heretics is to do.  
It was the heresy of Pelagius, as S. Augustin recordeth, that children were not borne in original sin. His words of them are these. 
Ad quoduultdemn. H●r. 88  Paruulos etiam negant secundum Adam carnaliter natos contagium mortis antiquoe prima nativitate contrahere, sic enim eos sine vllo peccati originalis vinculo asserunt nasci, ut prorsus non sit quod eye oporteat secunda nativitate dimitti, that is. The pelagians deny that children borne by flesh after Adam be guilty of death by their first nativity. For they make them to be borne so without bond of original sin, that they need no remission in their second nativity or regeneration. Here the Pelagians make children to be borne in state off grace and not guilty of original sin. This these heretics taught generally of all children. Calvin teacheth the same in children borne off Christian parents. 
2. Cor. 15.  Hear his words, out off the 17. chapter off his Institutions towards the end. Infants nostros antequam nascantur se adoptare in suos pronunciat Deus, cum se nobis in deum fore promittit seminique no●tro post nos. Hoc verbo continetur eorum salus, that is. God promising that he will be our God, and our children's after us, pronounceth that he adopteth and admitteth our children for his own, before they are borne. In this word their salvation is contained. And in an other place thus he writeth. 
In appendice contra Interin.  Sancta videlicet & c●te. The issue of Christian parents is borne holy because of the promise of God: and their children even yet in the womb before they come to open life, are admitted in to the league of life everlasting. Calvin here and the Pelagians agree in this, that children are borne without original sin and in state of grace. The difference may seem to be, that Calvin speaketh this of Christian children only whereas the Pelagians speak generally of all children. But you shall see that by the proof which Calvin bringeth for this abominable doctrine, it shall stretch to all children. For what is the proof he bringeth? Forsooth the promise of God. What promise is that? that which he made to Abrahan, saying he would be his god and his seed after him. In this word saith Calvin, their salvation is contained. Let us then suppose that by the warrant of Caluins' mouth all the realm of England being now Christian, should leave their children unbaptised, because they are already admitted in to the league of life everlasting. Those children coming to the age of men, and having other children, must they baptize their children, or must they not? If they must baptize their children, than the promise of God reacheth not unto them. For if it reached to them, it should ereache also to their children: In which case they need not be baptized, but may live by the baptism of their grandfathers. If they may not baptize their children, but let them live without baptim, them see what detestable enormites' and heinous blasphemies will ensue thereupon.  
First by this rule all the christening of children in England since the faith first planted there, and the realm thouroughely baptized, which pricketh now well upon a thousand years, hath been in vain and to no purpose, for that they came of the issue and blood of Christian parents.  
secondarily all baptism now may cease in the realm, all fontes may be shut up, and of two sacraments which only remain, they may take away one, to wit baptim, and then talk no more of the Sacraments in Christ his church, but of a sacrament: which also in what point Calvin hath left us, we have I trust sufficiently before declared.  
Thirdly Christendom shall be no more a spiritual matter, given by the administration of Sacraments, but a temporal benefit, entailed to the blood of the parents. And then great questions might arise of bastards, being not the ●ede of Christian marriage, but the fruit of filthy fornication or sinful adultery.  
fourthly we must put out of the scripture the words of our Saviour, 
I●an. 3.  Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua & spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum, that is, 
an. 1549▪ 1551. 1552. 15●2.  Unless a man be borne again of water and the holy ghost he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And truly they draw well toward to do so. For look in the English bibles who will, printed of late years, and he shall find the word (again) to be left out. And even as now they have left out that one word (by the which our regeneration by baptim is most necessarily imported) ●o may they within few years leave out the whole sentence, and then make a scripture of their own. For what other can we look for of these impudent presumptuous heretics, if they may be suffered to run their race at will? Our lord stay it, if it be his pleasure.  
last of all if Christendom so dependeth of our parents, why have all Christian men ever so charyly baptized their children, as all stories do testify? Was it as Calvin writeth, because they should not depart without the sign or badge of a Christian man? Truly he writeth so: and in so writing he holdeth the heresy of the Manichees, as in the other he doth of the Pelagians. as ye shall anon see. But now hearken what les●on S. Augustin giveth us touching the baptism of children. These are his words. Quisquis dixreit quód in Christo vivificantur paruuli qui sine Sacramenti eius participatione de vita exeunt, 
Epist. ● 28.  hic profecto & contra Apostolicam praedicationem venit, & totam condemnat Ecclesiam: ubi propterea cum baptisandis paruulis festinatur & curritur, quia sine dubio creditur aliter eos in Christo vivificari omnino non posse. that is. Whosoever shall say that infants shall have life in Christ which depart out of this life without receiving baptim, truly that man both proceedeth against the doctrine of the Apostles, and also condemneth the whole Church: where men make haste and run to baptize their infants for that cause surely, because undoubtedly they believe that other wise they can have no life in Christ. Lo the testimony of S. Augustin a most assured witness of antiquity, 
In institut. Cap. 18.  and best to be trusted in report of ancient belief, by the verdict of Calvin himself. Let us a little considre the place. Calvin as you heard before, saith that children of Christian parents are borne holy, and are admitted in to the league of life everlasting being yet in the mother womb. and that by the promise of god they are all ready saved. S. Austen saith with out baptim they have no life in Christ: and that who so saith contrary (as Calvin doth teaching them to be saved afore baptim) he proceedeth against the doctrine of the Apostles, 
Wath the doctrine of Calvin is  and condemneth the whole Church. Lo now you see expressly, what the doctrine of Calvin is. It fighteth directly against the doctrine of the Apostles. It condemneth the whole church. It is the heresy of the Pelagians. But some scholar of Calvin will say that S. Agustin here speaketh of the children of heathen parents. No truly. For mark his words. He saith. men make haste and run to baptize infants. What men trow ye were they? heathen? Would the heathen run to baptize their children, being themselves unchristned, and detesting all Christendom? Or would christian men run with the children of heathen parents? No that was against the law of the primitive church. For the child could not be baptized or Christened, 
Thom. 22. q. 10. ar. 12  against the father's will, until he came to full age and discretion. And therefore at this hour the practice is in Italy, where jews are common, that the father remaining a jew, the child under age can not be forced to baptim against the fathers wil Else by this time all jews, had been christened in Italy, and other where. By this testimony therefore of S. Augustin it is clear that Calvin by this detestable doctrine defendeth the cursed heresy of Pelagius. Now ye shall see he teacheth also as the Manichees did.  
S. Augustin reakoning up the sundry and heinous he resies of the Manichees, among the rest reakoneth also their heresy against baptism, 
Ad Quoduultdemn Haeres. 64.  writing of them in these words. Hij baptismum in aqua nihil cuiquam perhibent salutis afferre: nec quenquam eorum quos decipiunt baptisandum putant: that is. These men affirm that baptism done in water bringeth no salvation to any. And thereupon such as they deceive, they think they need not be baptized. Let us now hear whether Calvin say not even the same of baptim. 
Cap. 17.  In his institutions in the treatise of baptism, defining it to be but a sign and token, or badge of a Christian man, he concludeth with these words. Quis ergo aqua ista mundari nos dicat, quae certo testatur Christi sanguinem verum esse atque unicum nostrum lavacrum? That is. Who then will say that we are cleansed with this water, which doth assuredly testify, that the blood of Christ is our true and only cleansing? 
In the leaf. 202.  Of these words we have above disputed, and declared you the falsehood and untruth of them. Now only mark that he agreeth with the Manichees. For as they say, that baptim done in water bringeth no salvation, so Calvin saith that by the water of baptim we are not cleansed. With the other part of the Manichees saying he agreeth as just as may be, in the end of the. 18. chapter of his Institutious, where he writeth thus. Non ideo baptisantur infantes ●idelium, ut filii dei tunc fiant primum etc. that is. The infants of Christian men are not therefore baptized, that they may become the children of god, as though they were before out of the church, but rather they are with a solemn token received into the church, because they appertained before to the body of Christ, by the benefit of the promise. Therefore if we let pass this token without contempt or negligence, we are safe from all danger. This he writeth blaming the Catholic church for suffering the midwives and lay people in time of necessity, to baptize children: saying, they need not so to do: but that without baptim the child may be saved: even as the Manichees thought: and therefore esteemed it needles, as Calvin doth, to baptize those of their sect.  
another old heresy Calvin by his doctrine off baptim consequently defendeth, when he writeth that after baptim, we need no other penance, all our life time, but when we fall, have a recourse to our baptism. His words in his Institutions the. 17. chapter are these: Sic cogitandum est quocunque baptisemur tempore, nos semel in omnem vitam ablui & purgari. Itaque quoties lapsi fuerimus, repetenda erit memoria baptismi, & hac armandus animus, ut de peccatorum remissione semper certus securusque sit. that is. So we ought to think whensoever we are baptized, that we are cleansed and purged for all our life time. therefore as oft as we fall we must remember our baptism, and arm our mind therewith being sure of forgiveness of sins and careless. By this doctrine Calvin wipeth away the sacrament of penance: and therefore in the words following, he teacheth that the absolution given by the church is referred to baptim. Now to take away penance after baptism and to deny the second table of repentance, after the shipwreck of our former renewing in baptim by deadly sin (which in the 19 chapter of his institutions he calleth a wicked doctrine) is an ancient heresy of the novatians, as in S. Cyprian every where it appeareth, and in S. Ambrose, who wrote a learned work against them. Lo the laudable and sound doctrine of John Calvin, a man called of the devil to raise up old carrion heresies, and to infect therewith the well disposed hearts of good Christians.  
Truly if Hercules was a man much renowned and of great fame and reputation, for that he drew out of hell (as poets do feign) the great helhownde Cerberus with is three ougle heads, of what fame and reputation trow we, ought Calvin to be, who hath plucked out the devil himself out of hell with three times three heinous and horrible heresies (which above these thousand years have been tied to the deep dongell of hell) and hath let him lose again, to walk at his will, and preach at his pleasure about the world? In the doctrine of the blessed sacrament of the altar he raised up, as you have heard, the heresies of Arrius, of Samosatenus, of Nestorius, of Faustus Manicheus, of Valentinus, and of Martion. In this sacrament of baptism, he teacheth as the Pelagians, the Manichees, and the novatians, all famous and notorious heretics taught above a thousand years paste.  
It shall not need to discuss or examine any farther his doctrine defending these heresies. It sufficeth for any Christian man to know that they are old condemned heresies, and accounted for such of the church of Christ. And with this reason concluded S. Augustin his little treatise of heresies, having reakoned up all such as had been from Christ's time to his. I will give you here his conclusion and doctrine, for a good wholesome treacle, against the poisons off Calvin above recited. His words are these. Quid contra ista sentiat catholica Ecclesia superfluo quaeritur: cum propter hoc scire sufficiat eam contra ista sentire, nec aliquid horum in fidem quenquam debere recipere. Sed multum adiwat cor fidele nosse quid credendum non sit, etiam si disputandi facultate id refutare non possit. Omnis itaque Christianus catholicus ista non debet credere. that is. It is but in vain to require what the Catholic church teacheth against these heresies: it is enough to know that she doth teach against them, and that no man ought to believe any of all these. But it availeth much to the faithful and true believing heart to know, what ought not be believed, though by drift of reason it be not able to refute it. Therefore every Christian Catholic man ought in no wise believe these things. Lo we have a good wholesome lesson of this most reverent and learned Father. I beseech god give us all grace to follow it, and to detest all such doctrine and doctors, as forceth us to embrace such old cursed heresies by their new devised fantasies, and to forsake the Catholic church of more than fourteen hundred years, to follow the trace of new and old heresies patched together, and blasted abroad scant yet half one hundred years.  
His heresies forged of himself about baptim are these. 
In institut. Cap. 17. In commentar. in. 1. Cor. Cap. 10.  First he teacheth that the baptism of S. John and the baptism of Christ was all one. Then that the jews were no less baptized under Moses in the cloud and in the read sea, than Christian men are now in the font. And that equal grace was given in both. These are two heresies expressly against holy scripture.  
As touching the first S. John in the gospel putteth a most manifest distinction between his baptism and the baptism of Christ, 
Mat. 3.  saying thus of himself. I baptize you in water to repentance, but he that shall come after me is of more power, than I am, he shall baptize you in the holy ghost and in fire. In these words S. John declareth that he baptized in water only to repentance, preparing the hearts off men and disposing them to receive the Messiah Christ himself, who should baptize them, not in water only as John did for repentance, but in the holy ghost also and fire, that is, giving to those which by Christ were baptized the holy, ghost, as a full pledge and assurance of remission of our sins, and the fire of burning and fervent charity, whereby all vanities and pleasures of the world should be quenched and consumed.  
Again if the baptism of S. John were all one with the baptism of Christ, them we must correct holy scripture saying of S. John, praeibis ante faciem domini parare rias eius, thou shalt go before the face of our Lord to praepare his ways, and say with Calvin that he Christened men as well as Christ did, and was the Lord him self, that should wean us in to the faith by his baptism.  
Thirdly the baptism of S. John is called in holy scripture no other, but baptismus penitentiae the baptim of repentance. For repentance was the way that S. John made to bring men to Christ. Now the baptism of Christ is called lavacrum regenerationis & renovationis spiritus sancti, 
Tit. 3.  the fountain of regeneration and renewing of the holy ghost. Be these all one? Is there not a far passing difference between them?  
last of all we read in the acts of the Apostles evidently, that such as were baptized before of John, were after baptized again by S. Paul. 
Acto. 19  The words of the scripture are these. Paul coming to Ephesus found there certain disciples (that is such as bore them selves for Christians) and he said unto them, have ye received the holy ghost and do ye believe? but they said unto him. We have not so much as heard if there be any holy Ghost. Then he said. Wherein then are ye baptized? which awnswered unto him, In the baptism of Ihon. Then Paul said John baptized the people with the baptism of penance, telling them they should believe in him that should come after him, that is, in jesus. This being heard, they were baptized in the name of our Lord jesus. Hitherto the words of holy scripture. Now if the baptism of John and Christ were all one, as Calvin saith, why did S. Paul baptize them again as the scripture here declareth? Doth Calvin allow rebaptisation? Is he an Anabaptist? Or were they baptized again because they were not instructed before in the holy ghost? This were in deed a good reason for the furious anabaptists to make us all come to the font again, because when we were babes, we understood nothing of the holy ghost. What shift then hath Calvin here to defeat this most express text of holy scripture? Truly he laboureth impudently to defeat in it his institutions: but with no less folly than impudence. For whereas it is written they were baptized in the name of jesus, 
Calvin denieth scripture. Institu. C●p, 17.  that is saith Calvin, they received visible and sensible graces of the holy ghost they were not baptized again. Lo the scripture saith, they were baptized in the name of jesus. Calvin saith they received visible graces of the holy ghost. May not a man by this means come and deny baptim utterly and say that after the ascension of Christ none were baptized? For in all the new testament after the ascension of Christ we read of no other baptism, but that men were baptized in the name of jesus. So we read in the first sermon of S. Peter made after the coming down of the holy ghost. Baptizetur unusquisque vestrum in nomine jesu Christi. 
Acto. 2.  Let every one of you be baptized in the name of jesus Christ. And of the Centurion and all his house it is written, 
Acto. 10.  they were baptized in the name of our lord jesus Christ. Now all this by Caluins' doctrine was no baptism, but only a receiving of visible graces from the holy ghost. For why may it not as well mean so in other places as here? shall scripture mean sometime one thing, sometimes an other as it pleaseth Calvin?  
Again many were baptized, that received not those visible graces. Or else Calvin must say there is no baptism now in the world nor hath no been these many hundred years. Cornelius also and his family received those visible graces before they were baptized. 
Acto. 10.  Whereby we learn it is not all one to receive those visible graces, and to be baptized.  
But what need we farther refute this impudent heretical shift of Calvin? It followeth immediately in the text above recited. Et quum imposuisset manus eye Paulus, venit Spiritus Sanctus super eos & loquebantur lin guis & prophetabant. that is. And when Paul had laid hands over them the holy ghost came down upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. Lo these visible gifts were given them after they were baptized by laying on of hands. For the scripture telleth us, that first S. Paul baptized them, and after laid hands on them, which being done the visible graces were given them.  
What think ye now? did Calvin trow ye read so far? 
In institut. Cap. 17.  yes soothly. And yet goeth he forth to defend impudently that which he had once wickedly affirmed. For he saith, all this was but one action though it be diversly told, for two several actions. and he saith so only. But by what authority, by what reason saith he so? He telleth us, it is the manner of the hebrew phrase to speak first the matter shortly, and after to set it forth mere at large. What if it be the manner of the hebrew phrase? Is it so always, or sometimes only? If it be so all ways, than should he at lest have brought here one example. Now he bringeth none at al. Beside that he shooteth very wide of the mark. 
Quinquarboreus in Operegran.  No tongue avoideth more idle repetitions of one thing, no tongue affecteth more brevity and speaketh more in fewer words, than the hebrew doth: and therefore it is called of all other most chaste, frugal, and less riotous in language. I report me herein to the skilful thereof. If he mean it is the hebrewe phrase sometimes to speak so, what of that? so is it the greek phrase, the latin phrase, and the phrase of all tongues sometimes to do. What then? Because it doth so sometime, ergo doth it so in this place?  
But where trow ye was Caluins' wit and remembrance when he wrote this? 
An impudent folly of Calvin.  What meaned he to blear our eyes with the authority of an hebrew phrase in this place, which neither was written in the hebrew tongue nor of any hebrician? For whose words are those we alleged you before? Be they not written in the Acts of the Apostles the .19. chapter? Was the Acts of the Apostles ever written in the hebrewe tongue? we never heard yet, that any part of the new testament was written in the hebrewe tongue, except S. Matthewes gospel only and the epistle unto the hebrews. Again who wrote the Acts of the Apostles? Was it not S. Luke the Evangelist a greek borne, to wit at Antiochia? To what a miserable shift trow ye was this wilful proud heretic driven, when to uphold his heresy against the express words of scripture, after all other shifts, he was glad at the length to fly to the succour of an hebrewe phrase, in such a text as neither was written in the hebrewe tongue, neither of any hebrewe borne? But what will not an heretic do, rather than he will acknowleadg the truth? We read that only Christ was able to put the Pharisees to silence, and stop the mouths of the Sadduces: two heretical sects of the jews as the Lutherans and the calvinists are now of the Christians. We have peradventure been over long in this one point. But it was necessary that the subtle shifts of that wily heretic, should be discovered. This perilous book of his Institutions, is (as I understand) in our english tongue, and commanded to be read of the simple and unlearned priests. Let these few points, that by occasion in this our discourse we have discovered, be a lesson and charitable advertisement unto them, what to judge of the rest. Truly it were better for them, being unlearned, to nourish a serpent at their table, then to read this perilous poisonned book: whereby the old serpent is ever at hand to seduce them, in to most heinous: heresies, and most horrible blasphemies, as we have before in part touched.  
The second heresy that Calvin uttereth and forgeth himself about this doctrine of baptim is, that the jews were baptized in the cloud and in the read sea, as we are in the font. He teacheth this doctrine in his commentaries upon the first to the Corinthians the tenth chapter, and concludeth that & in spirituali substantia & in figura visibili both in the spiritual substance and in the visible figure, their baptism in the cloud and in the read sea, agreeth with our baptism in the font. And therefore he teacheth the jews to have had the sacrament of baptim no less than we. And this he doth, because he would bring our Christian faith to mere figures, signs, and shadows, in the which the jews in the old law were traded to a better perfection under Christ, as S. Paul teacheth. But let us see how heretical and false this doctrine is.  
First it repugneth manifestly against holy scripture. For S. Paul after he had said, the jews were baptized in the cloud and in the read sea, he saith even immediately after Hec in figura facta sunt nostri, these things were done in the figure of us. and again after a few lines, Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis. all these things happened to them in figure. And thus do all holy fathers expound this place. 
Homil. 23. in 1. r. 10. tract. 11. & 45. in joan.  Chrisostom saith. Veritatis nominibus usus est in figura. the Apostle used the names off the verity in the figure. S. Augustin sayeth: their passing through the read sea, whereby the escaped the Egyptians, 
In come. in 1 Cor. 10.  figured the deliuraunce of us from the devil through baptim. Theodoret writeth, that the cloud over shadowing them from burning heats figured the grace of the holy ghost overshadowing us from flame of concupiscence and sin. 
Ibidem.  S. Hierom likewise writeth that these things happened unto them in umbra & typo, non in veritate, in shadow and figure, not in verity. Only Calvin against express scripture, and so many learned fathers, impudently, as his manner is, defendeth that the cloud and the read sea was as true a baptism to the jews as the holy font is to us. But let us see what absurd inconveniences depend of this doctrine, though nor scripture, nor authority of holy fathers made against it.  
If the children of Israel were baptized both in the read sea and in the cloud, with the like perfection as we in the font, than they were twice baptized: and our baptism may be double not withstanding the perfection of it. Which being so, we must change the scripture in S. Paul, saying there is una fides, unum baptisma but one faith and but one baptim. 
Ephes. 4.  Calvin here answereth that these are two different signs, making but one baptim, awnswering to our baptism. But see I pray you what a sorry shift this is. For first by the doctrine of Calvin, 
justitut. Cap. 17.  (as you have heard before) baptim is nought else but a sign of the remission of sins, by the which we are admitted in to the fellowship and society of Christian men. Now if the jews had two such different signs, had they not two baptims? or else if those two signs made but one baptim, then in the cloud they were not baptized, until they had passed the read sea, which was afterward. Now S. Paul saith, they were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea. Iff the word baptized, as Calvin will have it, be meant of true baptim, such as ours is, than were they truly baptized both in the cloud and in the sea: which were two divers actions, and at two sundry times.  
Again if the children of Israel were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, with the like perfection as we are in the font, how will Calvin avoid the suspicion of an Anabaptiste, seeing they were baptized before in their circumcision by the doctrine of Calvin? For Calvin in his Institutions, in his chapter of baptim teacheth that circumcision was to the jews as baptim was to us: the only difference being in the outward sign. to wit, that by circumcision they had remission off sins, life everlasting, and were admitted in to the league of god. And our baptism (as you have heard) Calvin defineth to be nought else, but a sure token or warrant that we be admitted in to the society and number of Christian men joined in league to god. Now if the jews by Circumcision had their perfect baptism, and yet in the cloud and in the sea were baptized again as perfectly, doth not this doctor of Geneva teach us diversity of baptims? 
Calvin furthereth the cause of the anabaptists.  Doth he not much further the cause of the anabaptists? Seing it is but a matter of signs by Caluins' doctrine, have not they great occasion to cry upon rebaptisation? It is not much to be marveled, if so many Sacramentaries be also anabaptists, as experience doth show in all those countries, where Sacramentaries do swarm. The doctrine of Calvin doth minister right good occasion thereunto, as you shall see yet by one consequence more, deducted of this his heresy.  
If the jews were baptized in their circumcision, in the cloud, in the sea, and received the same baptim as Christian men do in the font, how say we to the baptism of S. John? Why did S. John baptize the jews being baptized before with the very same baptism? For if (as Calvin here saith) the jews were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, no less than we are in the baptim of Christ, and again the baptism of S. John be, (as you heard him say before) the very same baptism, that Christ his baptism is, why, I say, did S. John baptize them again? Doth he not here teach plain rebaptisation? Let us yet go one step farther.  
The jews, saith Calvin, were baptized in the cloud, and in the sea, in their circumcision, in the baptim of S. John, even as we are in the water of our baptism. Why then did S. Peter at his first sermon made to the jews exhort them to baptim again? And those of the jews which believed in Christ, why were they baptized, as the text saith they were? For it is written. 
Acto. 2.  Qui receperunt sermonem eius baptisati sunt, they that received the word of Peter, were baptized. And why did Ananias baptize S. Paul? If the jews were as verily and as truly baptized in the cloud, under Moses, 
Acto. 9  (which Calvin most impudently affirmeth) as we are in the font under Christ, and his minister, why were they baptized again of S. John, or of the Apostles, when they came to the faith of Christ? What a numbered of baptims doth Calvin teach us, beside the one only baptim of Christ, which the Catholic church hath learned in holy scripture? circumcision, the cloud, the sea, the baptism of S. John, and all these the very same and of the self same effect, and force, as the baptism of Christ. Is not Calvin trow ye a jolly Anabaptiste? Nay doth he not far pass the anabaptists? They go about to repeat one twice. Calvin maketh us five for one: off the which every Christened jew by his doctrine, hath four. and every unchristened jew hath three.  
I would now pass from his heresies to his contradictions. But I must needs put you in mind off one jolly trick of Calvin which he practised in the planting of this heresy. In his commentaries upon S Paul where he teacheth this doctrine, after long labour and strife, seeing he could bring forth no true child, but that it proved to a monster, and ougle unnatural thing, and perceiving one foul fault in it which he thought most of all those of his generation would abhor, he goeth about to cloak it and colour it, as well as he may. The great fault that he espied himself in this doctrine, is, that it had no express scripture for it. You shall hear him find the fault and see how he will remedy it. These be his words. Sed rursum obijcitur: 
Calvin avoucheth doctrine of his own without scripture.  nullum de his verbum extare. I d ego fateor: sed neque dubium hoc est quin Deus spiritu suo defectum externae praedicationis suppleverit. that is, But they will object again. That there is no word extant hereof. That do I confess, but it is not to be doubted but that God by his Spirit hath supplied the lack of external preaching. Lo Calvin now is glad to run to the refuge of the holy ghost for his doctrine when scripture faileth him. But when the Catholic church, 
Caluinwil not allow the doctrine of the church without scripture  directed always and assisted by the holy ghost, teacheth us any thing, that is not expressed in holy scripture, Calvin can not abide it. Hereupon in his Institutions he raileth at the adoration of Christ in the blessed sacrament, because in holy scripture, saith he, Nulla eius mentio ostendi potest, quae tamen non fuisset pretermissa si deo accepta foret, that is. No mention there of can be showed, which notwithstanding had not been omitted, if it had liked god. And in the matter of reservation, though he grant that the primitive church used it, yet because it is not expressed in scripture, he will none of it. Thus when it pleaseth Calvin, scripture is requisite, and when it pleaseth him not, scripture may be lacked and the spirit of god may supply it. In like manner though he cry upon scripture always, and (as we noted you before out of his Institutitions) will not allow the church no farther, 
Cap. 8. de side.  them she bringeth express scripture for her, yet not only in this place he teacheth beside scripture, and confesseth it to, but also in many other places.  
In the matter of the blessed sacrament of the altar, you have seen in how many and sundry points, his doctrine repugneth to holy scripture, while he laboureth to persuade men, that to be but bread and wine, which our Saviour pronounced to be his body and blood. It cometh now to my mind, how impudenly he shifteth away the authority of express scripture, where with he saw himself pressed. You shall hear his words. In his Institutions the 18. chapter thus he writeth. Vtcunque verborum Christi tangi se religione quiritentur, 
Calvin requireth to be heard, thou ghe scripture be plain against him.  quo minus figuraté intelligere ausint, que sunt tam aperté dicta, non est tamen hic satis justus praetextus, cur omnes quae contra obijciuntnr rationes ita respuamt. that is. howsoever they cry and complain that for the reverence of Christ his words they dare not take it for a figure which was so plainly spoken, yet this is no sufficient pretence why they should refuse all such reasons, as we bring against them. This he writeth against the Lutherans, which will not go from the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament. And see we not here the uncredible arrogancy of this proud heretic? Doth he not show him self to be a very antichrist? 
Calvin is an Antichrist.  For what can antichrist require more off men, then to have the express words of Christ yield to such reasons, as he will object against? And doth not Calvin require the very same? Doth he not bid the Lutherans believe his reasons, against the express words of Christ? And where as the Lutheran allegeth that because the words of Christ are plain saying. This is my body, he can not be brought to make it a figure, as Calvin doth, what other shift hath Calvin, then to say that this is no sufficient pretence, why they should refuse his reasons for the contrary? Which is as much to say. Though Christ speak plainly, yet you must hearken also what we can say against it: and ye must give ear to such reasons, as we can lay against him: and then follow my reason, what soever Christ or the gospel telleth you. Now what can antichrist require more? Verily as S. john said of the heretics of his time, 
1. joan. 2.  Antichristi multi sunt, there are many Antichristes', so may we most truly say of our time. there are many Antichristes': but none a more righter Antichrist, than this heretic Calui.  
You have seen good readers, what heresies and how divers Calvin hath partly renewed, partly forged of his own, in his doctrine about these two Sacraments, which only he acknowleadgeth, and taketh for Sacraments. If we would use the like diligence in other points of his doctrine, we could be long, and should be, I fear, tedious. And truly it were to be wished, that neither the heresies of this man, neither any heresy at all were known to the common and unlearned people. But because this subtle heretic hath so wined himself in to men's hearts, that he hath trained them not only from the Catholic church of Christ, but also from the Lutherans, and Melanchthonistes, which before bore all the sway of this new gospel, I thought good to discover his heresies, and other abominable doctrine about these two Sacraments, as two of the weightiest articles now in controversy, and most of all other touching our salvation: to the intent that not only the Catholics, and such as god of his goodness hath hitherto stayed in the faith of the church, may (as they do) utterly abhor his doctrine, neither yield by the wickedness of the time, to any one point thereof, but also our dear deceived countrymen, that so gladly read his works, and so greedily devour his dive lish doctrine, may learn of these few, what to judge of the rest, and by the sour taste of these mislike the remnant of his unpleasant and most poisonned doctrine. For if in these two blessed Sacraments, the one being the gate and entry of salvation, the other being a most heavenly food to preserve us therein, he sticketh not to utter so harnous heresies, and setteth himself so wickedly against the church of god, what conscience trow ye is he like to take in other points of our Christian religion, less necessary, and of less importance? well: Though he were in all the rest sound and without blot, yet these his heresies of us recited, of him uttered and taught, may be sufficient to discredit him in the conscience of any Christien heart. For I think, and trust verily, there is no Christian man in all the realm of England, be he never so far waded in heresy, but that he doth reverence the primitive church of Christ, of the first five or six hundred years, and will be ready to condemn all such heresies, as were in that time and age condemned. Now the Manichees, the Arians, the Valentinians, the Marcionistes, the Nestorians, the novatians, the Pelagians, the Samosatencall, and other, whose heresies Calvin hath renewed were in the compass of those five hundred years condemned. If we would come down lower, we could recite a number more of heretics, condemned also in Christ his church, with whose heresies the doctrine of Calvin doth agree. But in consideration of the impudent brags made now in every pulpit, that all is reduced to the state of the primitive church, I have chosen out such heresies in Caluins' doctrine, as were in that time condemned: giving you to understand that all is not the gospel which is there spoken: unless perhaps by reducing all to the state of the primitive church, they mean renewing of old heresies condemned in the primitive church. And truly so must they mean if they say truly. But let us return to Calvin.  
In the doctrine of free will, 
Contradictions of Calvin about the doctrine of free w. l.  I will make no especial recital of his heresies: But note you his contradictions, of the which ever one part is an heresy. In his Institutions the .14. chapter, he writeth, that God did not only foresee the fall of the first man Adam, and in it the fall of all his posterity, but also it was his will, it should be so. 
Pag. 57 pag. 132 & 136.  Again in his book of predestination against Pighius he hath the same doctrine, saying that God would not have suffered Adam to fall, but that he would have it so to be. Also that God so determined it and ordained it. Now in his book of free will against Pighius also, he saith in two places these words. I confess with Origen that those which take away free will from Adam before he sinned, be heretics. 
Pag. 67. 68  How agree these sayings of him? If it were not only the will of God that Adam should fall, but also that he determined and ordained it so to be, than he fell of necessity. For the determined will of God can not be frustrated. Adam therefore could not, if he had would continued in his innocency. And yet had he free will? If hot and cold be all one, then is this doctrine uniform.  
Again in his book of predestination he saith. All wsuchickednes as man committeth by malice of his own, 
pag. 243.  procedethae so of God, and that not without good reason, although we know it not. And to make his opinion herein most clear, in the same book he saith. It is a fond solution of S. Paul's saying, Esadu odio habui, I hated Esau, to say that the reprobates do work their own destruction by their own malice. And yet see what he saith in his institutions the .2. chapter. Man, saith he, can not impute the hardness of his heart to any other cause, then to himself. This lo is most true. But why then said he before, the wickedness of man proceedeth of God? Why reproweth he that solution, which he now maketh himself?  
Farther Calvin in his book of predestination, going about to mitigat his former doctrine, where he taught that the reprobates could not chose, but do evil, 
Pag. 156.  saith afterward, he meaneth not of every particular work. for a little before he confesseth Saul had done certain things well. But directly contrary to this shift is an other express doctrine of his in the very same book, 
Pag. 154.  where he saith. Men can not possibly have any affection to do well, unless they be of the chosen and elected. such as reprobates never be. For of judas a sure reprobat Calvin himself pronounceth: Certum est judam nunquam fuisse membrum Christi: 
In eom. in 6. Cap. I●●n.  Certain it is that judas was never any member of Christ.  
Calvin yet for the better advancement of his wicked doctrine against free will, pretendeth to follow S. Augustin in all points. And therefore in his book of predestination, he saith, he varieth not from S. Augustin so much as one syllable in this question of predestination. 
Pag. 18.  Notwithstanding in his Institutions he saith, 
Cap. 2.  that S. Augustin was sometime scrupulous, and would not tell the truth of predestination roundly. as when in his book De praedestinatione & gratia he saith, that the induration and blinding of the reprobates is not to be referred to the work and operation of God, 
Cap. 6.  but only to his foreknowleadg. Here in this most gracious doctrine of that good Father, Calvin chargeth him with scrupulosity. And yet he will bear us in hand forsooth, that he agreeth even in every syllable with S. Augustin. Where in the one he declareth himself a praesumptuous heretic: in the other a false contradictour of his own sayings.  
Finally Calvin as in words and doctrine, so in doings and behaviour cotrarieth his own self. 
Cap. 8.  In his Institutions he wrireth: It was never permitted to preachers of God's word to add any one syllable to holy scriptare, or diminish from thence, but to preach the only bare word, as it lieth. Now as in all his doctrine he talketh more than half beside holy scripture, so in this matter of predestination he is not afeard to add to the very text of S. Paul, words of his own, for the maintenance of his wicked doctrine. For in his Institutions labouring to refer the induration of the reprobates to the proper and eternal will of God, as a superior cause, than their own deserts and malice, thus he talketh. 
Cap. de predestinate.  Restat nunc ut videamus curid Dominus faciat, quod eum facere palam est. Si respondeatur sic fieri, quia sic impietate, nequitia, ingratitudine sua meriti sunt homines, bene id quidem & vere dicetur. Sed quia nondum patet istius varietatis ratio, cur alijs in obedientiam flexis isti obdurati persistant, in ea excutienda necessario ad illud, quod ex Moyse adnotavit Paulus, transeundum erit. Nempe quod ab initio eos excitarit Dominus, ut ostenderet nomen suum in universa terra. 
Rom. 9  That is. It remaineth now to see why God doth that, which it is now clear he doth. If ye answer that so it is done, because men by their own wickedness, malice, and ungratefulness have so deserved (to be forsaken of God) that shall be well and truly answered. But because yet we see not the reason of this variety, why some being brought to obedience, other continue indurated, in the discussion of this doubt, we must needs have recourse to that which S. Paul noted out of Moses, to wit that from the beginning the Lord had stirred them up to show his name through out all the world. 
Calvin addeth to the text of holy Scripture.  Now these words, from the beginning, are not in S. Paul, nor Moses in any text, latin, greek, or hebrewe, but are the words of john Calvin added to the text of God's word for a vantage, to wit, to make us believe, that from the beginning even before the fall of Adam, God was the cause off induration and hard heart of reprobates. For he is not you see, contented to attribute it only to their own deserts and malice, but seeketh a superior cause in God, and that by the words of S. Paul from the beginning, which he nor none of all his scholars are ever able to show us in any text of S. Paul, that is. This is lo the plain dealing of these ghospellers and reformers of Christ's Church: These be the challengers of God's word. This is the pure text they vaunt and boast of. They pretend to covet after the pure text and bare letter. But as the poet said, ex uno disce omnes. By Calvin learn what the rest are. And Time Danaos & dona ferentes. trust not an heretic though he bring you scripture itself.  
What false trick is there, 
The demeanour of Calvin, touvard holy scripture.  that Calvin hath not played? He hath corrupted the text with false translation, as we showed you in the 9 chapter, of salomon's proverbs. He belieth holy Scripture, as you heard in the S. chapter of S. Paul to the Romans. He denieth express scripture, as we declared you in the 19 chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. He requireth to be heard against express scripture, as we recited you out of his Institutions. And now you see he addeth to holy Scripture. If this archeprotestant and great gospeling doctor, behaveth himself so in his printed works, which remain to be viewed of all learned men, what will the novices of his religion, and young prinking preachers stick to do in pulpits, where they know their audience to be not always learned: and of the learned, some of a presumed prejudice to take all for good, other to wink at all & uti foro?  
Albeit the doctrine of Calvin (as you have partly seen) be stuffed with abominable heresies and most absurd contradictions, yet in all his doctrine he talketh peremptorely. He matcheth himself with the Apostles. He condemneth and reproweth at his pleasure all holy fathers. Whereby his pride and presumptuousness sure mates of heresy uttereth itself. I will for example note you a few of his sayings, where you shall see how proudly he demeaneth himself and how courteousely he ordereth the holy, ancient, and learned fathers.  
First as touching his contradictions about free will, witting and feeling himself very well, that he might wottly be charged therewith, in one place of his book of predestination he uttereth his fear, and with a word of his mouth thinketh to make all the matter smooth. 
pag. 61.  These are his words. I say again I am not ignorant what apparent absurdity and contradiction this doctrine hath with profane men, and dispisors of God. But whatsoever they babble or bark, our conscience ought to serve us for a thousand witnesses. 
A solution of Calvin to defend his coutradictions.  Is not this a gay solution trow ye? hath he not given us a substantial warrant of the uniformite of his doctrine? For what saith he? Forsooth whatsoever contradictions we see and behold with our eyes, yet we must trust Caluins' conscience, that he is so honest a man, that he would never say or utter any such thing. Now read again those few of his contradictions that we have recited, who list, and let him judge in his own conscience, what the conscience of Calvin is, and how far it is to be trusted.  
Again as touching the singularity off his doctrine, which he knoweth and confesseth to be contrary to the old fathers, what reason, think ye, bringeth he for the defence off it? In his treatise of baptism, the 17. chapter of his Institutions, he expoundeth the words of Christ to Nicodemus, Unless a man be borne again by water and the holy Ghost, he shall not enter in to the knigdom of heaven, 
joan. 2.  to be but an allegorical speech against the whole practice off Christ's church, and consent of all holy fathers, and learned writers expounding the words off Christ literally as the text hath, for necessity of baptim. This Calvin knew and confessed. But how then think you doth he excuse the matter? what cl●ke hath he for his singularity? Ye shall hear. After long talk thus he concludeth. Scio alios aliter interpretari, sed hunc esse germanum sensum non dubito. that is. I know that other men have otherwise expounded this, but I doubt not but this is the right sense. Lo Calvin doubteth not, and therefore we must believe him more than all the church beside. What is arrogancy, if this be not?  
Likewise in his doctrine and book of predestination, 
Pag. 164. & 165.  such as find fault with his doctrine, he saith they blaspheme God: and crieth unto them, as S. Paul did to such as Calvin is. 
Rom. 9  What art thou man which disputest with God? Now what the doctrine off Calvin is, you have seen partly by this our simple discourse, and more especially it appeareth in the third part of this Apology. Yet he matcheth himself with God, 
In the leaf 112.  and vaunteth the controllers of his heretical doctrine with the check of S. Paul, as curious searchers of Gods deep secrets. And therefore no marvel if he set light by the holy Fathers off Christ's church and reverence them no deal at all.  
In his treatise of baptism, 
Institut. Cap. 27  labouring to promote his heresy, touching the baptism off S. John, that it should be equal with the baptism of Christ, remembering that the Fathers of the church lay in his way and withstood him, 
Calvin disproweth the learned fathers.  to make the restafeared, he giveth the venture upon S. Augustin, and saith. Nec recipienda est illa Augustini argutia in spe dimissa fuisse peccata joannis baptismo, Christi baptismo reipsa dimitti, that is. Neither is that sutteltly off Augustin to be admitted, that by the baptism of John sins were forgiven but in hope, by the baptism off Christ they are forgiven in deed. In other places he calleth S. Augustin, 
Cap. 18. de cena domini.  in dogmatibus ecclesiae fidelissimun vetustatis interpreten a most trusty reporter of antiquity in doctrines of the church. But when it pleaseth M. Calvin, S. Augustins doctrine is but a subtlety. Likewise reprowing the doctrine of penance, where it is compared to the board after a shipwreck, which is a usual similitude off all learned writers, 
Cap. 19 de peniten.  he writeth thus. They say it is the similitude of Hierom, whose so ever it be, no doubt but it is a wicked similitude. Again in his treatise of predestination, where as S. Gregory (as all other Catholic writers) teacheth that no man can be assured off his election, 
Cap. 14. de predest. & providentia.  he vaunteth proudly that learned Father with these words. Pessimé & perniciose Gregorius etc. that is? worst of all and wickedly taught Gregory etc. In his commentaries upon the sixth of john disproving the interpretation of Chrisostom, whom Theophilact, Euthymius and divers have coveted always to follow, Fallitur saith he, meo judicio Chrisostomus, Chrisostom in my judgement is deceived. What think you would Calvin fear to utter, that setteth so light by these learned fathers, whom the church so many hundred years hath reverenced and followed? May not we say to Calvin and all such presumptuous preachers of new doctrine, we know S. Augustin, we reverence S. Hierom, we credit Gregory and Chrisostom: but you M. Calvin what are you, as it was said to the unbelieving jews attempting to work miracles under the name of jesus and Paul, 
Acto. 19  jesum novi, Paulum scio, vos autem qui estis? that is, jesus I know and Paul also, but who are you?  
Calvin yet stayeth not here, he is not contented to reject certain of the Fathers the most learned and most approved, in certain points. He goeth farther. He condemneth the whole primitive church in the whole manner of the worshipping of God. For disputing against the blessed sacrifice of the Mass, he chargeth it with jewish superstition: and thus he pronounceth off the whole order of the special and most principal service of the primitive church. 
Cap. 18. de cena domini.  They followed rather the jewish manner of sacrificing, then as Christ had ordained, or the order of the gospel required. Thus saith Calvin, not speaking of these late years, but even of the primitive church, 
Calvin condemneth the primitive church,  of the first six hundred years, unto the which time our calvinists at home dissenting in this point from their Master (at least as they pretend) do refer all their doings and make the people believe that the primitive Church used that order of Communion as they do now, telling them withal that the blessed sacrifice of the Mass and the manner thereof hath been used only sense these later hundred years. Notwithstanding Calvin their master acknowledgeth that manner off sacrificing in the primitive Church, long before that time, which because off the ceremonies thereof he calleth jewish.  
I wot not herein what more to marvel at and lament, other the untolerable pride of this presumptuous heretic condemning the very primitive church and therefore leaving us no church sense the departure hence of our Saviour, or the wicked guile of our new preachers, which doing no less than Calvin doth, set yet a better colour thereon, to entrap thereby the readier the unlearned and well meaning people in to their schismatical communion. For they condemn not openly the primitive church of juish sacrificing, as Calvin doth, but deny stoutly that any such sacrifice or ceremonies was then used, 
jewel.  and offer to yield if we can prove it. Let them now learn off their Masters own confession, that such there was, and let them learn off their Crede, where they say they believe the Catholic church, not to condemn the primitive church therein, which if they deny to be the Catholic and true church of Christ, they may as well deny Christ himself head thereof, and frustrate the whole, mystery of his blessed Incarnation, as you heard before David George did, and many Lutherans and calvinists do now in divers parts of Germany to the great grief of all good Christian hearts  
But to return to Calvin, what may not he or any other heretic do, condemning and setting light by the fathers of the primitive Church? For by them we have not only the true and right interpretation of holy scripture, but the scripture also itself: which without their testimovy we could not be assured of. Wherefore S. Augustin after he had left the Manichees, and cleaved to the Catholic church of Christ, writing against them, and commending unto them the authority thereof, he saith. evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecclesiae commoveret authoritas. I would not believe the gospel, unless the authority of the church moved me thereto. Now Calvin is nothing moved therewith, but leaneth more to his own judgement then to all the learned writers, and holy Fathers of Christ's church beside. Whereof he was worthily once checked of Bucer, telling him quoth iudicaret prout amaret, amaret autem prout libet. that he judged as he loved, and loved what him pleased. 
In Epist. a familiari.  And truly the only cause whereby Calvin in his Institutions, in his commentaries upon holy scripture, and in other his works abuseth the reader and deceiveth the unlearned is, that he feareth not expounding scriptures boldly to prefer his own judgement eloquently set forth before the judgement of S. Augustin, Hierom, Chrisostom, Cyprian, Gregory, Bernard and all the other holy learned men that ever wrote. Now what arrogancy is this? If every learned man may set forth his judgement to the world as the true meaning of God's word, and condemn the allowed doctors of so great antiquity, learning, and virtue, as the holy Fathers are, who seeth not that every country in Christendom, every university of the country, yea and every learned man of each college in the university may plant from time to time new doctrine, make new expositions off holy scripture contrary to all other, and teach daily a new faith? especially in this our time, when learned men such as Calvin was, lack not in all countries. How bitterly wrote Luther against Zwinglius, Melanchthon against Illyricus, Westphalus against Calvin, Brentius against Peter Martyr, and all the other against these? Each of them by learning laboureth to draw the world to their own judgement, while they all condemn all other men's judgements. You will say. We must cleave to scripture, and leave all parts aside. Truly all do so. And that is not the controversy between these men, nor between them and the Catholics, which of them cleave to scripture (For all do so as fast as is possible) but whether of them all do rightly expound, and truly understand holy scripture. For the calvinists do otherwise understand holy scripture, than the Melanchthonistes: The Melanchthonistes otherwise then the Saxon Lutherans: The Saxons otherwise than the Osiandrins: The Osiandrins otherwise then the Suenckfeldians and they otherwise then all these. Those which have read their writings, can not be ignorant thereof. I will make you here a brief note of the special matters now in controversy between them, 
Calvinus in postrema admonit. ad joach west. phalum. Melanchtion in literis ad Electorem Rheni.  and so make an end with Calvin.  
The zwinglians and calvinists agree with the Civil Lutherans, the Melancthonistes, in the article of good works, that they are necessary to salvation: and in the Supper of the Lord, that the figure only, not the true body of Christ is there given. Again these two sects in divers other articles vary out off measure: As in original sin, in free will, in baptim, and in Penance. For Calvin denieth all these as the Church teacheth: whereas the Melanchthonistes acknowleadg them. 
Nicol. Gallus in thes. & hypothes. Illyricus in informat. De quibusdam articulis.   
The Lutherans of Saxony, to wit, the zealous Lutheraus agree with the calvinists denying free will: and brawl with the Melanchthonistes for allowing free will against the doctrine of their Father Luther. Yet again these zealous Lutherans in the article of original sin, agree with the Civil Lutherans, and defy the calvinists. 
Callus contra acta Adiaphoristarum.  But in the articles of justification, of good works, of the Supper of our Lord, and how the law and the gospel ought to be distinguished, in these the zealous Lutherans descent both from the Civil Lutherans and from the calvinists. For they teach good works to be pernicious to salvation, they acknowleadg the real presence, which both the other sects deny.  
The Osiandrins agree with the zealous Lutherans of Saxony in the article of the Supper of our Lord, with the Civil Lutherans in the article of free will, 
Vide Osiandri confessionem fidei suc & libellum de imagine Dei.  with the calvinists in the article of good works. But these again descent from all those three sects in the article of justification, and divers other special points of doctrine.  
The Suenckfeldians agree with the Osiandrins in the article of justification, 
Swenckfeldius in lib. de usu evangelii: & in excusatione sua contra Wittenberg. mandatum.  with the Melanchthonistes in the article of free will, with the calvinists, that evil men receive not Christ in the Sacrament. But with all other sects they disagree in the doctrine of baptism, and of all the Sacraments, of preaching the word, of faith, of the church, of the humanity of Christ, and of divers other.  
Thus you see briefly set before you the unite, consent, and agreement of this late gospel. You see what man Luther was, what Melanchthon, what Calvin, the three cursed springs of three most wicked sects swarming now in Christendom, where this new gospel hath spread his branches: to wit, of the zealous and upright Lutherans, of the Civil and conformable Lutherans, and of the calvinists or Sacramentaries. You may judge by the heads, what the offspring is: by their fruits, what their spirits be: by these particulars of their doctrine (which for a taste only we have discoursed upon) what their whole gospel is.  
These are the blind guides, and lying Masters, whom in place of all approved writers in Christ's church, a numbered of deceived persons have followed. In stead of holy Hierom, lewd Luther, of learned Augustin, inconstant Melanchthon, of blessed Ambrose, proud Calvin. In place of sound religion, old condemned heresies: of constant faith, contrary opinions: of universal belief, private imaginations: of God's holy word, men's devices. A great shame to forsake ancient belief. A heinous offence to make parts in Christ's church. A wicked impiety to depart from Christ and his dear spouse, 
Ephes. 4.  the ground and pillar of all truth. But a far greater shame to embrace the lewd liberty of Luther, to follow the variable brain of Melanchthon, to cleave to the cursed heresies, fond absurdites, and clear contradictions of Calvin. The heresies of Martion, Valentinus, Arrius Nestorius, and other had colour of learning. The montanists, the Tatiani, the Manichees, the novatians had pretence of holiness and virtue. These two conditions were vehement persuasions to draw the world unto them. But the heresies of our time be gross, blasphemous, and dissolute. The denial of the blessed Sacraments and right use thereof proceed of ignorance in true divinity: The denial off free will, and wicked assertion of fatal destiny under the name of God's forekuowleadge is a horrible blasphemy. The breach of ecclesiastical authority, doctrine of only faith, contempt of all good order, and constitutions, is a mere licentious liberty and wanton dissoluteness. How then happenteh it that men are so abused? that the learned are drawn, the unlearned deceived? Will you have the truth told? Peccata nostra diviserunt inter nos & Deum. Our sins have divided between God and us. The gate of his grace is shut from us. And why? We love the world, we let slip our faith: we be nailed to our temporal trash: we make it our God. We will rather become heathen then suffer for our conscience. Otherwise if we feared God, we would mistrust this dissolute religion: if we were not blinded with selfewill and hardness of heart (the plague of former sins) we should espy the absurdity and fondness off this upstart gospel.  
How were it to be wished that at the entry of these new preachers and planters of strange doctrines, we had had a Pacwius among us? I will recite you the story of him. It is written first of Livy, 
Lib. 1. cap. 47.  and repeated of Macchiavell in his discourses. After the great bartaill lost by the Romans at Can, all Italy almost forsaking their allegiance to the city of Rome, and trembling at the power of Hannibal, the city of Capua misliking the government of their Senators and Counsellors (as it fareth in time of calamity and distress, that the fault is laid to the Rulers) conceived a great hatred against them, and deliberated to murher them every one, and to place other in their rooms, which they thought should better direct their common wealth, and more to their contentation. This Pacwius being then the chiefest Ruler of the city, perceiving well the people's furious intention, and the danger the whole Senate stood in, devised with himself a witty policy, both to appease the people, and to save the Senat. He calleth the Senate together: Declareth them the intent of the people: openeth them his meaning, and saith. My advise is you suffer yourself to be shut up in the palace, in my custody. I will assemble the people, and show them what case you stand in. For the rest if you dare trust me, I will take such order that no harm shall befall you. They trusted him. He calleth the people, and saith unto them. People: the time is now come that you may order the Senators, as you desire without any farther tumult. But yet because I know well, you will not leave the city withoult a Senate, and counsel, you must needs, if you will destroy the old, make a new. And therefore lo here the names of all the Senators. As I name you one to deliver up in to your hands, so you must name me an other to succeed him. This being said, he opened the scroll, and named an ancient and grave Senator. The people hearing his name cried strait, he was a proud and cruel man, and not worthy to bear rule. Well then, quod Pacwius, Who shall succeed him? Here the people was at a stay: and looking one upon an other knew not a long time whom to name. At the length one being named, some began to smile, some to laugh, other to disdain. All perceived well (as Macchiavell wittily noteth) that the fault appearing in the Senate universally, when it came to particular examination, was no fault in deed, but a misseconstruing and wrong judgement of the people. By this means the people knew themselves: the Senators remained in authority. Particular faults were redressed, the whole order and estate remained. Sucha Pacwius I say, was at the entry of these heresies to be wished: and presently may also be heard. For although that which is past, can not be revoked, yet it may be amended. Let us then with Pacwius demand of such, as loath their ancient and received belief, what new faith will they embrace? For without some faith, I think none yet that bear the name of Christians, will line. Will they be right and zealous Lutherans, taking Luther for the very man of God, and undoubted prophet to reveal his holy word in these our later days? Will they reject all Fathers, all councils, all that Christendom hath hitherto believed, as you have heard before Luther doth? Then beside all that we have said of his doctrine and behaviour, sufficient I trust to prove him a right heretic, if an heretic may be known by his fruits, let them satisfy the civil and disorderly or repining Lutherans: let them accrode with the Sacramentaries, the anabaptists, the Osiandrins, the Swenkcfeldians and all the remnant of Luther's branches: as you may see and view in the petigrew of his offspring drawn out by Staphylus. If they set light by that fond friar, as the more part of protestants do, to the great grief and bitter complaining of all zealous Lutherans, what sect will they be of? Will they civilly believe at pleasure, as Melanchthon did, and be everlerning (as S. Paul of heretics pronounceth) but never attaining to the truth? Who laugheth not at so fond a change, if in so weighty a cause any Christian heart can laugh, and not rather lament such wilful blindness or blind wilfulness, as in these civil Lutherans appeareth? Will they forsake Luther utterly, and become Sacramentaries? Yet than we may demand of what sect of Sacramentaries they will be: For Calvin and Bullinger, Geneva and Zurich agree not. But if they will be calvinists as most part of Sacramentaries are, who yet will not disdain there at, knowing the pride of Calvin setting light by the holy Fathers, his corrupting of holy Scripture, wicked renewing of old condemned heresies, fond avouching off most clear contradictions, rash teaching of most absurd doctrine in that article where he we was thought most to have excelled? All which (and much more) we have in this simple discourse discovered unto you, gentle Readers, to the intent that you may see what an evil change you make, to leave the ancient fathers, the Catholic and universal belief, the faith you were baptized in, and in the which all our forefathers these thousand five hundred years and upward have served almighty God, and lived as Christian men, and true membres of Christ's church, to leave, I say all this, and to become protestants or new ghospellers, that is, men of a new faith and religion, which you must learn of some one of these three, Luther, Melanchthon or Calvin, or of such as have learned it of them. By this consideration I trust, you shall pereive that though the universal name of reformed ghospellers and challengers off god's word have pleased you, though the general name of papistry have displeased and misliked you, yet the particular being now discovered, as well off the persons, as of the doctrine, you will either incontinently return from whence you departed, or at lest deliberate thereof, and of these few learn to mistrust the rest.  
Fridericus Staphylus, whose Apology we have here translated you, being a Lutheran many years, and so far in credit, with the protestants, that he might have been a doctor of divinity among them, also a superintendant at Augspurg, at Brunsuick, Lubeck and Hamburg, by this very consideration became a Catholic. For having many years been a Lutheran and a familiar friend of Melanchthon, 
Vide joan nem Lyre sium Clevensem in vita Staphili.  advised with himself to write also in defence of the Lutheran doctrine. He had not yet at that time read the ancient fathers: but had heard them much alleged of Luther and Melanchthon, and trusting to their allegations, thought undoubtedly that the doctrine of Luther was agreeable with the learned fathers and the primitive church. Hereupon he devised, after the imitation of the Master of the sentence and other school men, to set forth in one volume the whole effect and sum of Luther's doctrine. This book he entitled. Corpus doctrinae Lutheranae: the body or sum of Luther's doctrine. For this purpose he began to ●eke the doctors, and search the original of Luther's and Melanchthons' allegations. But here lo in this particular search and examinationhe found the doctors and ancient writers to condemn directly the doctrine of Luther. At this he was maruailousely astoned, broke of his enterprise, began with private study to peruse himself the ancient and approved writers in Christ's church, as well the greeks as the latins, and to confer with them these new writers of our time. 
See in the leaf 56. In the leaf, 28.  About this study he bestowed (as he writeth in this very Apology) two and twenty years, not meddling with any other civil or worldly matters in all that time. By this means though slowly and slackly (as in the preface of this Apology he complaineth himself) he shifted at length himself out of the captious controversies of this time, and became not only a right good Catholic, privately and in conscience, but openly also to all the world he declared it, and discovered more than any of our time hath done, both the false ground of all their pretended doctrine (that is, the bare title of god's word without the right understanding of the same) and also their variances, sects and dissensions among themselves. Whereby in divers parts of Germany especially in the territory of Bavaria, many have returned from the dissolute heresy of Luther, to the wholesome discipline of the Catholic church. This he did to his dear country of Germany in this Apology, written of him in his mother tongue. This I have made now common to my dear country also, having no less need thereof, than that miserable country of Germany hath. I trust herein I shall offend none, but such perhaps as first must be offended, before they can be amended. Heresy is compared to a cancre. 
2. Tim. 2.  Unless it be lanced, it festereth, and groweth to the corruption not only of itself, but of other. To make an end, I desire the protestant to make the example of this learned and virtuous man Fridericus Staphylus, to read this his labour, to consider the ground of false doctrine taught by Luther and his successors, to view the diversity and contrariete of his scholars, the numbered of sects, the blasphemies of each one, to weigh the issue off this doctrine, the dissolute life and contempt of order, the countries of Hungary, Lifland and Prussia lost by Luther's heresy, finally to behold the old heresies renewed by Luther, and other his behaviour resembling heretics, the inconstancy, variety, and wilfulness of Melanchthon, the fond absurdites, clear contradictitions, and most heinous heresies of John Calvin. I beseech the Catholic that needeth not this eure, and instructions, to thank almighty God therefore, to pray for the protestant, and all deceived persons in matters of conscience and soul health. 
1. Cor. ●.  Vt idipsum dicamus omnes, & non sint in nobis schismata, simus autem perfecti in eodem sensu & in eadem scientia, that is, that we may say all one thing, and that there be no schisms among us, but that we be perfect in one self understanding and in one self knowledge. Such perfectness of unite and agreement, with amendment of life and true repentance, our Lord for his tender mercy grant our country and all Christendom, through the merits of his dear some, our Saviour and Redeemer Christ jesus. To whom with the Father and the holy Ghost, be all honour and glory now and ever. AMEN.  
FINIS.   

Quoniam viri doctissimi (Angli) & sacrarum literarum peritissimi, apud me fide dignissimi, Apologiam hanc Friderici Staphylia Thoma Stapletono fideliter traductam attestati sunt, itemque disceptationem ab ipso scriptam, adversus doctrinam Lutheri, Melanchthonis & calvini, utilem & per omnia Catholicam iudicarunt, merito utramque typis excudendam judico.  
Ita attestor, Cunnerus Petri, pastor S. Petri Lovanij, sacrae Theologiae professor .16. Novembris. an. 1564.   

A TABLE OF THE SPECIAL MATTERS CONTAINED IN THE APOLOGY OF STAPHYLUS: IN THE DIScourse of the Translator, and in the prefaces off both. Gathered by the order off the A B C. The figure signifieth the leaf: B the second side.  

A short description of the Author of the Apology. fol. 9 b. & seq.  
Abominable heresics of the Lutherans touching Christ. fol: 17  
Heresies of Calvin about the Sacrament of baptim. fol. 231. and in the leaves following.  
The opinion of Calvin touching baptim refuted. fol. 202.  
A contradiction of Calvin about baptim. fol. 203.  
Certain protestants call baptim a bathe for swine. fol. 109.  
Certain false translations of the english Bible. fol. 5. b. Item fol. 152. & seq.  
The duty of a converted Catholic. fol. 56. b.  
What is Catholic. 49. b.  
The church ought to be obeyed. 62. b &. 63.  
Why Calvin may worthily be charged with the heresies off the Arrians, the Manichees, and other. fol. 224.  
Detestable doctrines off Calvin. fol. 112.  
Absurdites in the doctrine off Calvin. fol. 190. & seq.  
The confession off Ausgpurg resemble the Synods off the Arrians. fol. 186.  
The civil Lutherans resemble old beretikes. fol. 185. b.  
universality, antiquity and Consent sure notes off the Catholic doctrine. fol. 144  
Conferring off Scribture is no certain rule to interpret scripture. fol. 159. b. 160.  
What the communion off England is. fol. 205.  
That we receive not a communion of Christ's body poured down upon us in the sacrament. fol. 190.  
The communion off Calvin destroyeth the necessity off communicants. fol. 191. b.  
People need not resort to the communion by the doctrine off Calvin. fol. 198. b. 204. b.  
Caluins' doctrine about the blessed Sacrament condemneth the practice of, the primitive church. fol. 198. excludeth the Apostles from receiving Christ in the last Supper. fol. 199. excludeth the trial that S. Paul requireth. fol. 201.  
Calvin denieth scripture. fol. 237. An impudent folly off him. fol. 238. he furthereth the cause off the anabaptists. fol. 240 he avoucheth doctrine off his own without scripture, and will not allow the doctrine off the church without the same. fol. 241. he requireth to be heard against express scripture. ibidem. b.  
The principles off the Catholic religion. fol. 15  
The difference of the present communion from the first. fol. 8.  
Old condemned heresies renewed by Calvin in the doctrine off the blessed Sacrament. fol. 222.  
Contradictions in the doctrine off Calvin. fol. 206. and in the leaves following, Calvin belieth holy Scripture. fol. 209.  
The cause off contradictions in caluin. fol. 208. b.  
The Lutherans have corrupted the Crede. fol. 97. b.  
They deny an article off the Crede. fol. 106.  
The communion off the protestants is but food for refection. fol. 228. b.  
What the judge off present controversies ought to be. fol. 20. b. A clear example off debating a controversy. fol. 21.  
What is all the controversy between the Catholics and the protestants. fol. 35.  
Calvin teacheth Christ to have suffered in hell. fol. 229.  
What his doctrine is. fol. 233. b.  
Off the Civil Lutherans. fol. 182. b.  
The difference between Catholics and heretics. fol. 24.  
The Catholics have the word off God no less than the protestants. fol. 33.  
The late death off many great princes in a short time. fol. 26. b.  
Such death a token off God's wrath. fol. 27.  
Difference between life and doctrine. fol. 35. b.  
Doctrine how it is to be tried by the fruits. fol. 38. b.  
How to discern true doctrine from false. fol. 41.  
A brief recapitulation off the schisms and dissensions among the protestants. fol. 93. Item fol. 249.  
Testimonies off Lutheran Superintendents and Ministers witnessing the disagreement in doctrine among themselves. fol. 78. and in many leaves following.  
Dissension destroyeth heresies. fol. 98. b. It is a sure token off heresy. fol. 99  
Prayer for the dead defended again M. grindal. fol. 163. and in the leaves following. commandment in Scripture to pray for the dead beside the place off the Maccabees. fol. 163.  
The meaning off the Father's praying for the dead. fol. 171.  
English corrupted translations learned of Luther. fol. 68 71. b. 72. b. off Munster. fol. 155. b. 156. off Calvin. fol. 158.  
Excommunication off the protestants embarreth not from the communion by the doctrine off Calvin. fol. 196. b.  
A good lesson for England. fol. 126. 138. b.  
A corrupted text off Luther's in the english transl. fol. 68 71. b. & .72. b.  
Brawling among the Archeprotestants for ecclesiastical government fol. 45. & 46.  
Holy Fathers despised by old hertikes, as by our protestants now. fol. 32. b. &. 178.  
A very good faith off a coolyar. fol. 53.  
Faith is one in all: but trade off life divers. fol. 122.  
Lutherans do thaunge hope in to faith and cosidence. fol. 124.  
The fruit off only faith. fol. 128.  
That we eat not the body off Christ only by faith. fol. 196. b.  
A question to the genevians off England. fol. 204. b.  
A strange order off serving the church in Germany. fol. 43. b.  
A notable example off the sundry sects in Germany. fol. 56. b. & 57  
The gospel off Luther decayeth daily. fol. 121.  
The first Apostles off the Germans. fol. 126. b.  
The ghospellers doubt and vary what the gospel preacheth. fol. 91. The marriages off new ghospellers. fol. 96. b.  
The miracles off the new gospel. fol. 35.  
The marks off the heretics off the primitive church. 24.  
The same mark in our heretics. fol. 25.  
A ready way to try out an heretic. fol. 53.  
An answer to stop the mouth off an heretic: fol. 54.  
A lesson off S. Antony to avoid heretics. fol. 62.  
The manner off heretics. fol. 67.  
Heretics off great virtue in appearance. fol. 38.  
Off the Canonical hours off prayer. fol. 69.  
Heresies suffered in the church for our trial. fol. 2. & .3.  
The duty off a Christian man in time off heresy. fol. 3. b.  
Hungary lost by Luther's heresy. fol. 128. b.  
The destruction off Grece through heresy. fol. 129.  
Jerusalem destroyed by schisms. fol. 129. b.  
The miserable estate off Lislande through heresy. fol. 130.  
Countries lost in Germany by heresy. fol. 127. b:  
The means whereby many have fallen in to heresy. fol. 146.  
The heretic more dangerous than the Turk. fol. 150. b.  
Grece and Africa lost the faith by heresy. fol. 182.  
The end of present heresies fol. 19  
Good counsel of Sisinnius to defeat heretics fol. 21. b.  
It behoveth not to dispute with heretics fol. 22. b.  
Inconstancy of Lutherans fol. 97. b.  
Inconstancy of Lutherans. fol. 44. b.  
A loud lie of the Lutherans against the Catholic church. 33. b  
A pretty story of wrong interpretation fo. 51.  
The liberty of Luther's gospel. fo. 75.  
What parts of scripture may be read of the laite. fol. 78. b  
Liflande lost by Luther's heresy f. 128,  
The pride and presumption of Luther f. 132.  
Luther's penance fol. 133. He becometh a papist for a vantage fol. 134. b. He is a false prophet. fo. 139. A murderer and strong thief in the church. ibi.  
The Lutherans vary at their meeting and conferences like the Arrians. fo. 186. b.  
The labels of the Lutherans principles fol. 18. b  
Sacramentary sects among the Lutherans fol. 87. b  
The outward behaviour off Lutherans in Germany fol. 59  
Why protestants bark at the evil life of the clergy. fo. 61. b.  
The church ought not to be forsaken for the evil life off men in the church fo. 62.  
Say men are not commanded to read scripture f. 64.  
The hebrew text could not be read off the lay jews. folio 64. b.  
The dangers proceeding off the laites reading scripture fo. 65.  
Luther will prove by Scripture, there ought to be no Magistrates among Christian men f. 140. b.  
The marriage off Luther fol. 141. b. Contrariete in his doctrine fol. 142.  
The cause of Luther's breach from the church, and the manner of the first entry thereof fo. 149. a. & b.  
Luther proved an heretic fo. 179. His proper heresy touching the Sacrament hath wrought his own confusion fo. 181. b.  
Lutherans in Bohem teach the soul to die with the body fol. 17. b.  
Luther at the first planting of his heresy writeth against obedience to princes. fol. 16. He maketh chastity a thing impossible ibid.  
Luther clippeth the coin of God's word. fol. 66. He addeth to the text fol. ●8. Enemy to virginity and wedlock both. Ibidem. b. He teacheth pluralite of wives. fol. 69. reneweth the heresy of the Pelagians, and off the Manichees. fol. 68 Item of Vigilantius. fol 69. Changeth opinion in doctrine fol. 72. & 74. con demneth good learning. fol. 73. writeth against obedience to Magistrates fol. 75.  
A notable testimony of the calvinists against Luther fol. 25.  
All new sects have begun of Luther ibidem. b.  
The fruit off liberty preached by Luther fo. 44.  
The pride of Luther fol. 36.  
A notable testimony of Luther of the life of his scholars. lbi. b.  
The fruits of the Lutherans doctrine fol. 39  
The evil life of the Catholics and of the Lutherans proceed of divers causes fo. 40. b. & 41.  
Melanchthon teacheth pluralite of wives. fol. 69. changeth opinion in doctrine. fo. 72. becometh a Suinglian. fo. 88 is a dissembling ghospeller fol. 90. he becometh a baker. fo. 107. b.  
Horrible blasphemies of a gospeling Minister f. 112. b  
Wicked doctrine of Luther touching Matrimony fol. 96.  
Melanchthon inconstant in doctrine. fol. 183. A corrupter off Luther's books ibidem. b. A breder of sedition and rebellion. f. 185. a. & b malicious and cruel fo. 187. b.  
The Mach●bees proved to be of the Canon, fol. 166.  
The writings of men in the church to be followed. fol. 168.  
The fathers off the protestants fo. 161. 162. Item fol. 165. b. and in the leaves following.  
The doctrine of our protestants consisteth of old heresies, folio 161. 162. Item fol. 175. and in the leaves following.  
The principle off the only written text how it is meant of protestants. fol. 7.  
Protestants refusing the Council show themselves to lack charity fol. 20.  
Luther proveth contempt of Princes by scripture. fol. 139. b. his counsel to prince's fol. 140.  
Protestants are proved to be heretics fol. 98.  
The protestants are Manichees fol. 111. b.  
Protestants confound uniformite and diversity fol. 122. b.  
The fruits of protestants confusion in doctrine fol. 123.  
Prussia lost by Luther's heresy fol. 127. b  
A necessary lesson for deceived protestants fol. 58.  
A vain crack of protestants fol. 59  
No certainty of Faith in protestants fol. 18.  
Disagreement in doctrine among our protestants fol. 7.  
Outward pretence off agreement in the same ibidem. b.  
Special articles off contradictions among the protestants. fol. 80. b. Thirten heresies among the protestants touching the blessed sacrament fol. 90. b. Five among the Lutherans fol. 90. and eight among the Zwinglians. 86. b.  
The ground off all protestants doctrine false and deceitful fol. 42.  
another decitfull ground off protestants fol. 43.  
A perfect rule to discern false preachers. fol. 37.  
A charitable shift of the protestants. fol. 29. b.  
Real receiving can not stand without real presence. fol. 194.  
The cause of divers professions of religion in the Catholic church. fol. 125.  
Heretical rebellion never proveth. fol. 125. b.  
Scripture needeth exposition. 47.  
Why the protestants cry upon only Scripture. fol. 48.  
What the unlearned shall do in variety off interpretations off scripture. fol. 48. b.  
A token to know false interpretation off scripture from true. fol. 49. b.  
Every heretic allegeth scripture. fol. 59 b.  
How interpretation off Scripture is tried true. fol. 60.  
The body of Christ under one kind of the Sacrament perfect and whole. 60.  
A similitude. fol. 3. b. fol. 65. b. fol. 124. b. & .189. b.  
Scripture corrupted by Luther fol. 66. and many leaves following.  
The doctrine of Sacramentaries destroyeth the resurrection of our bodies. fol. 227.  
Calvin maketh the blessed Sacraments bare signs tokens and badges. fol. 203.  
Of the Sacrament of the altar, see in the word, Calvin.  
That the soul only is not fed of Christ in the Sacrament. f. 193  
challenging of only Scripture cause of heresies. fol. 114.  
The ground of the League at Smalcaldium, brickle and variable. fol. 110.  
The Sacramentaries desire to be under the wing of the Lutherans. fol. 81. b. they condemn Luther. fol. 84. b. Luther condemneth them. fol. 84. and fol. 86. b.  
Four Sacraments acknowledged of Melanchthon. fol. 45.  
Scripture alone sufficeth not. fol. 41. b. 42.  
Great confusion in the church by small alteration of the Scripture. fol. 70. b.  
Scripture hard to be understanded. fol. 4.  
The custom of heretics to deny parts of scripture. fol. 165. doctrine defended without express commandment in scripture. fol. 169.  
Staphylus refuseth to be doctor of divinity, because of the oath of wittenberg. fol. 10. b. Why he forsook the Lutherans. fol 11. 56. & .252.  
Why Calvin maketh the Sacrament of the altar but a bare sign. fol. 214. b.  
The Sacramentaries tie Christ to the bread. fol. 216.  
Repugnances in Calvin to holy Scripture. fol. 217.  
The law of the Turks compiled by heretics. fol. 19  
A refuge for false translations of Scripture confuted. fol. 154.  
Detestable heresies concerning the Blessed trinity. fol. 17.  
To cleave to the written text only is an old heresy. fol. 47.  
In the word of God two things are to be considered. fol. 34.  
A wicked persuasion of worldly careless men. fol. 51. b.  
A buckler for the vulerned against new preachers. fol. 52. b.  
Zuinglius is a pelagian. fol. 111.    


Faults escaped in Printing.  ●l. Pag. Lin. 3. 1. 2. Read for good, goods. 99 2. 27. for wrath in, wrath, as i● 157. 1. 28. for the righteous, the works of the righteous.  
FINIS.