¶ An Apology or defence for the Christians of France which are of the evangelical or reformed religion, for the satisfying of such as will not live in peace and concord with them. Whereby the pureness of the same Religion in the chief points that are in variance, is evidently showed, not only by the holy scriptures, and by reason: But also by the Pope's own Canons. Written to the king of Navarre and translated out of french into English by Sir Iherom Bows Knight.  
AT LONDON Printed by john Day dwelling over Aldersgate. And are to be sold at his Shop under the gate. 1579.  Cum Privilegio Regiae Maiestatis.  

¶ To the right high & noble Prince, henry the second, king of Navarre, Prince of Bearn, Duke of Vandome and Albret, Earl of Foyze, Arminack, Agenois, Bigorie, Marle. etc.,  
SIR, it is not without cause, nor without example, that I dare take upon me to dedicate unto your highness, this little apology, which containeth a defence of the reformed Religion, and of the Professors of the same. For in as much as your Majesty hath even from your youth, undertaken the defence thereof with the hazard of your life & goods for the same: I could not more fitly prefer the justification of so holy a cause to any, than to your Highness, who have always maintained the same: not only in words, but also by deeds, and that with most noble and Princely courage, following the renowned footsteps of the late Queen of Navarre, your mother, whose godliness, courtesy, and other heroical virtues, are consecrated for ever to most honourable eternity. And I have been led to take upon me this defence & to dedicated it to your Majesty, by the example of many good and godly men in the Primitive church, who in their times wrote divers Apologies, in defence of the Christians against the misreports and illusions of the heathen, and did put them up to the Romayn Emperors that were in those days: who (notwithstanding that they were heathen Princes, and ignorant of the true Religion) were moved by them to succour the Christians, and to surcease the persecutions that were made against them.  
Quadratus and Aristydes wrote Apologies in their times, in defence of the Christians against the heathen, and dedicated them to the Emperor Adrian, who having read them, and perceiving thereby that the Christians worshipped the great God which governeth all the world: and that in the exercising of their Religion, they did not any thing that was prejudicial to the laws of the Roman Empire, but rather prayed for the prosperity of him and of his Empire: sent a Proclamation to Fundanus the governor of Asia, wherein he forbade the persecuting of them any more, as in respect of Religion, and commanded that the slanderers of them should be sore punished.  
And moreover he caused divers fair churches to be builded in many places, without any Images, pictures, or portraitures, greatly allowing the doctrine of the Christians, for that it forbiddeth the painting and portraying of God, the worshipping of Images, or the having of them in their churches.  
Likewise justine the Philosopher wrote in his time two Apologies that are come to light, in defence of the Christians against the false accusations of the heathen: whereof he dedicateth the one to the Senate of Rome, & the other to the Emperor Antonine the godly: who being moved thereat, made a general law, whereby he restrained the heathen from their false blaming of the Christians, for the earthquakes and other public calamities, willing them to impute them to their own sins, for he said that the Christians worshipped the great God more devoutly, than the heathen themselves worshipped the multitude of their Gods.  
And he prohibited all men, aswell Magistrates as private persons, to persecute the Christians any more, or to slander them with accusations or false crimes: commanding them to observe the foresaid proclamation of his father and Predecessor the Emperor Adrian, in all points.  
Also Melito the Bishop of Sardis, wrote an Apology in defence of the Christians against the Heathen, which he dedicated to the Emperor Mark Antony the Philosopher, who was moved thereby to favour the Christians, and to 'cause the persecutions to cease, which had been made in the Provinces of the Empire without his knowledge and commandment, by the Governors and other Magistrates which abused the mildness and clemency of their Prince, as a number do in these days. Yea and this good Emperor finding by experience, that the Christians were the good and well-beloved servants of the true God, (for he won a great battle against the Marcomannes and Quades, by the only prayers of a Legion of Christian Soldiers that were in his army) not only forbade the persecuting of the Christians by open Proclamation, but also gave leave to become Christians to as many as would: willing and commanding that all such as accused any man alonely in respect of Christian Religion, should be grievously punished as cozeners and slanderers, and that no Christian should be compelled to change his Religion.  
Many others besides these (as Tertulian and Appollinaris) have pleaded and maintained the same cause, by setting forth Apologies, which have greatly availed, yea even with the Heathen Emperors of their times: who (to say the truth) as heathenish as they were, have treden out the way to the Princes of our days, which bear the titles of Christians and Catholics, to show them what uprightness and modesty they aught to use in the case of Religion.  
Forasmuch therefore, as our reformed religion is blamed and outrageously defaced nowadays, by such as neither do nor will understand it: I, after the example of so many good persons, have set my hand to the pen, to show by this short defence, that the same is not only grounded upon God's pure word, and consequently agreeing with the Christian Religion of the primative Church, but also that it is warranted by the very Canons of the Popes themselves, and of the Church of Rome, And I am sure that your majesty (being naturally inclined to the peace of France) will not only take more pleasure to hear the sound of these Canons, than the sound of those which have so often times terribly thundered, to the destruction of this desolate kingdom of France, but also be moved to maintain the same Religion constantly more and more, and to be a mean to the French king our sovereign Lord, for the relief and quietness of such as profess the same. For if the heathen Emperors (whom I have named afore) have vouchsafed to relieve and favour the Christians in their times, without having any further knowledge of the Christian Religion, than that it contained not any thing contrary to the Civil Laws: how much more aught we to hope for the like at the hands of our most Christian king, by your intercession, specially seeing that our Religion (thanks be to God) containeth not any doctrine which may not well beseem good Christians, and which tendeth not to the advancing of kings, and of their estates, as his majesty may easily discern, if it may please him to hear our reasons, or but only to look upon this little Apology.  
And surely Sir, we assure ourselves that you will always continued to be a mean to his Majesty every day better than other, for the maintenance and quietness of us and our Religion, because you were brought up in it in your young time, and have made a good profession of it. Besides this, the famous examples of your noble ancestors which have been ever renowned for their godliness, do direct you to the following of their footsteps. For the Histories do avow unto us, that your Ancestors of the renowned house of Bourbon, (for I will not speak of those of late time, whose remembrance being yet fresh in men's minds, and will continued honourable for ever among them that come after us) have always been had in honour for their great zeal towards the Christian Religion, and for their fervent love to the maintenance of the crown of France, & of the quietness of their country, which are two principal points wherein godliness shineth forth.  
For first of all, the great and dangerous voyages which your Ancestors have made with men of war into the East countries, and into Africa, against the Turks & Sarasyns, for the great desire they had to advance the Christian Religion, (as the two voyages of king Lewis the saint: The two voyages of Lewes Duke of Bourbon: and the voyages of many other princes of their race) do yield sufficient record of their Religious and godly disposition. And although that in those days (by reason of the great ignorance of languages, and of good learning, and consequently of the pure doctrine) Religion was not so well understood, nor so purely taught as it is nowadays through the grace of god: yet it is not to be doubted but that if they had had a purer and clearer understanding thereof, they would have been so much the more earnest and zealous in it.  
And as touching love and dutifulness towards their country (which is the second point wherein godliness consisteth) your said ancestors have given so good trial thereof, by their continual employing of themselves valiantly in the defence and enlarging of the Crown of France, aswell against foreign enemies, as against the disturbers of the public peace, that the house of Burbone hath always justly had this honourable report, to have been always a flourishing branch of the blood Royal, and a sure pillar of the liberty and safety of the Realm: As for example, jaques of Bourbon Earl of March, and Constable of France, gave good proof of his love towards the welfare of his country, and towards the Crown of France, in hazarding himself in many battles against the English men, than almost invincible enemies of this Realm, specially at the battle of Poitiers in the time of king john, and also in doing his endeavour with great good will to conclude the peace at Britain, and to drive the Companions and Outlaws out of France, which took their pleasure in spoiling the country, and in maintaining of trouble in the Realm.  
Also Lewis of Bourbon the first Earl of Vandome, (for that Earldom fell unto him by his mother) made war against the Englishmen in the time of king Charles the sixth, not only in France, but also even in England, and he was a courteous Prince, and very profitable to his Country, aswell in matters of war as of peace.  
His son (named Lewis also) being then Lord great master of France, was in many battles, where he fought valiantly, specially at the battle of Agincourt, notwithstanding that he was taken prisoner by the Englishmen, with many other great Princes and Lords of France. Likewise he was one of those that took most pains to make the peace at Arras, in the time of king Charles the seventh, for the suppressing of the Civil wars, which had endured so long time, well near to the utter destruction of the Realm.  
john of Bourbon Earl of Vandome and son of the said Lewis, was also a virtuous Prince, and a valiant warrior, and adventured himself in many a battle, specially at the siege of Fronsack in the Marches of Burdeloys, where he was made knight for his valiant deserts: and he was one of the Princes which took part with Lewis the Dolphin, and with the Dukes of Bourbon and Alaunson, in setting themselves against the wicked and tyrannical dealings of certain timeservers and flatterers of king Charles the seventh, Frances of Bourbon his son, a good and stout prince went in the voyage to Naples with king Charles the eighth, and behaved himself nobly in matters both of peace and war, to the honour and profit of the Crown of France, and of his whole country. But I should not soon make an end, if I minded to reckon up all the excellent princes of your majesties most renowned house of Bourbon: and much les should I do it if I meant to take upon me to rehearse their heroical deeds and virtues, which would require many great volumes. But I think it enough for me to have named some few of them, that might serve for examples to princes and to all other men, to speed themselves valiantly in the defence and maintenance of the peace of their country. Which examples will (in my opinion) be the better liked of your majesty, because they come not only of your own house, (which hath always been most fruitful in noble and virtuous princes:) but also of the Linial descent of your progenitors. For the late king of Nauare your father, was the son of Charles of Bourbon the first duke of Vandome: who was son of the foresaid France's Earl of Vandome: who was son to the forenamed john, who was son to the foresaid Lewis Lord great master of France: who was the son of the other Lewis, the first Earl of Vandome: who was the son of john Earl of March: who was the son of jaques Earl of March and constable of France: who was the son of Lewis first duke of Bourbon surnamed the great duke: who was the son of Robert of France Earl of Cleremount and Beawuoysin: who was the Son of good king Lewis the saint.  
And so your Majesty is the eleventh in order, descending in the right line from S. Lewis your great Ancestor, whose virtues I hope that God will make to grow more and more in your Royal person, making you to be a follower of his steps in that he was a good defender of the Christian Religion, a lover of upright justice, a native example of good manners, a severe correcter of partial & corrupt judges, an untreatable punisher of blasphemers, Atheists, and usurers, and a zealous furtherer of all good reformation.  
But now to come back again to my matter: I hope that such of the Roman Religion as shall read this my writing, shall have no cause to find fault with me, or to say that I deal to roughly with them. For having once simply and without any bitterness, set down my reason upon every point, and having alleged the very text of the holy Scripture to confirm our doctrine, and to disprove theirs: I give them yet this advantage further, that I come into the lists against them with their own weapons, which they take to be most for their own defence, and most hurtful to us, that is to wit, the Canons, made or authorized by the very Popes themselves. Wherein I think I have done so much by the grace of God, that either they must condemn the Pope and his Canons, or else confess that our Religion is void of all error.  
True it is that many learned men of our time, have sufficiently already set forth the pureness of our Religion by the holy Scripture, yea and that much better than I could skill to do: Insomuch that in that respect, many may think that I do but make repetitions. Howbeit forasmuch as I have taken in hand (as you would say) to level or bend the Canons in defence of ourselves, against such persons as beat us with them, and unduly do attribute as much or more authority to them, than to the holy Scripture itself: I have considered that it were no reason for me to commit the same fault, which they do. And therefore my intent is, to allege the very text of the scripture upon every point, for the true and sure grounding of our doctrine, and not to bestow the Canons otherwise, than in beating down the contrary doctrine.  
I know well that the time is now so miserable and sorrowful in France, that most men take all good things in ill part, and that even those which best know the way how to heal our sores, are so ill minded, that they will not use it. And (in good hour be it spoken) we may well say as Livy said speaking of the time of the Civil wars in Rome, 
Tit. liu. lib. 1. in praefacione.  (which began under Silla and Marius, and continued under Pompey and Cesar, and so held on in quarreling and parttaking still under their successors: (a time in all points like to this sorrowful time of ours) that this Realm of France is brought to so extreme corruption, as it may no longer endure, either her own vices, or the remedy of them.  
And in good sooth, every man may well perceive the vices of dissension, rancour, civil war, and corruption both of manners and doctrine, which are sowed at this day, and already to deep rooted in our French nation. And likewise all men of any understanding, do well see that the very remedy to rid away these mischiefs, were to admit some good reformation, aswell in doctrine as in discipline, and in outward behaviour.  
But France is in the same taking that a poor sick man is, when the extremity of his fit is upon him: who can neither suffer his disease patiently, nor willingly receive the medicine that should do him good. For all of us do well enough perceive our disease, and we know well it is great and dangerous, and we would feign be healed of it, but the most part of us do find that the medicine of reformation is to irksome, wherein surely men do greatly overshoot themselves, for there is not so much pain nor displeasure in leading of a sober & modest life, as there is in leading of a lose life. Besides that, the sober, well stayed, & well reformed life in good manners & doctrine, is accompanied with great quietness of conscience: & (as saith Cicero) doth commonly lead the body to a healthful and honourable old age. But although we had no other cause to desire reformation, than for the ceasing of our untolerable troubles: were not that cause enough, sith it is not to be doubted but that they will never be thoroughly brought a sleep, until the cause of them (that is to wit, the error, corruption, and looseness that is among us) be first quenched and done away, by a sound reformation aswell inwardly as outwardly? For naturally all causes bring forth effects like themselves.  
And again it is certain, that God being righteous, is wont to continued in striking with his revenging rods, upon such as harden themselves in their sins, and stand kicking against the spur. If we considered the monstrous wasting and spoiling of things which Civil wars are wont to breed, (whereof we have seen but too many by experience) the hear of our heads would stand up at it.  
Cornelius Tacitus (rehearsing the mischiefs that befell to the Empire of Rome, by the Civil wars that were in the time of the Emperors Galba, Vitellus, and Otho) saith that in those fiery broils, the goodliest Provinces of the Empire staggered, inclining to a change of state, and to an overthrow of the Monarchical government, wherethrough they had felt so many oppressions, by means of the quarrels and parttakinges of great men, who shot at no other mark, but to destroy one another. Insomuch that in those times, there was every where great murdering of men, burning of towns, defiling of holy things, excessive cruelty, even in the City of Rome itself, deflowering of the noblest Ladies, and banishing of the honestest and honourablest men. The vertuousest folks went soonest to wreck. Notable valiancy, and great riches, dignity and authority, executed, or left unexecuted for fear, were taken for crimes. The servant was wrought either by terror or by treachery, to be against his master, and the bondman was set at liberty against his Lord. Such as had no enemies were overthrown by the subtle packing of their friends. Truth was oppressed, partly through the ignorance of the Governor, partly through the crafty juggling of flatterers, and partly through the spyting of such as held the helm.  
It was not lawful for a man to think what he listed, nor to speak what he knew. The wickedness of the flatterers who had won the ears of the Prince, and the great rewards which they obtained for their flattering, (as Consulships, governments of Provinces, preferments to Priesthods, spoilings of Countries, and excheting of men's goods,) were hated and abhorred alike of all people. The small Countries, which sometimes were entangled in those Civil broils, were full of cruel deeds. The seas were covered with folk that had been banished and driven out of their own houses: the rocks of the sea were pestered about with the carcases of folk murdered: and the good Cities were quite & clean soaked from all their substance.  
These are the fruits in effect, which the great and politic wise man Tacitus affirmeth to come and grow ordinarily of parttaking and Civil discords. Whereof we have felt so good store by the space of seventeen years already, or there abouts, that we aught now long ere this to have desired and sought the remedy that might have cured our so strange misfortunes and barbarous calamities. Yea and even they which are the most sworn enemies of the reformed Religion, aught to become assured by the proof of time past, that for all that ever they can do or devise, they shall never so deface the truth, and virtue, but that they shall stand still spite of all the corruptinges and darkenings of this world, and of the maintainers of them.  
And in very deed, God (who governeth the doings of all men in the world by his providence) hath reserved still in this miserable world, a great number of good and honest men and of such as love virtue. And like as in the foresaid time of the Civil wars among the Romans, Tacitus saith that that age was not so barrayn of honest men, but that it brought forth some good examples: so also may we say that even in this age of ours, how much soever it be infected and corrupted, yet hath God of his gracious goodness reserved many still, which to follow the pure Religion and virtue, have constantly endured poverty, loss of their goods, the cruel murdering of their children, kinsfolk, and friends, banishment out of their Country, absence from their houses, and an infinite number of other adversities and inconveniences. Which thing giveth us assurance that our Lord god will always maintain a certain number of good men here below, which shall embrace virtue by maintaining good laws and discipline, and follow the light of the truth which abideth invincible for ever, and shall scatter the mists and clouds that set themselves against it.  

Esd. 3. cap. 3. 4.  The worthy judgement of that great monarch Darius' king of the Medes and Persians, will never slip out of the remembrance of men. For this king having upon a time made a royal feast to all the Governors, Captains, and other Officers of his Dominion, (which was so great that it extended over a hundredth and seven and twenty Provinces,) was contented to hear a disputation between three young Gentlemen of jury, that were attendant upon his own person. Of whom the one maintained that nothing is stronger than wine, because that commonly it overcometh aswell the great as the small. Another said that nothing was stronger than a king, because that with one only word of his mouth, he can make men to be slain, Cities to be razed, and Fortresses to be beaten down when he listeth. And the third named zorobabel, (a gentleman of the blood royal descended of the line of David) upheld that truth is strongest of all things, because it continueth in force everlastingly, and shall reign for ever and ever.  
Darius' having heard this disputation, and knowing well how it is most certain, that truth is the thing of greatest strength, and of longest continuance in all the world, gave the prize to zorabable as to him that had been of best opinion, and gave him great gifts and privileges, aswell for himself as for all his whole nation, commanding that from thence forth zorobabel should be called the kings cozen. Which judgement of this great king, aught to be well considered of all persons, and specially of kings and Princes, that they may give themselves earnestly to the seeking out of the truth in all things, as well in case of Religion as in Civil and worldly affairs, and esteem it more strong and invincible than any force of man.  
For certainly, there is neither king nor Emperor, fire nor sword, pain nor torments, that ever could quench the truth, or overcome it. But forasmuch as in these days, many men are doubtful in the case of Religion, where they should seek the truth, I will not here forget the rule which the great Emperor of Rome Constantine did set down at the cosicell of Nice in Bithynia, 
Trip. hist. li 2. cap. 5.  for the deciding of the points of doctrine, which were to be handled and treated of there. For having assembled the Council together, to determine upon the doctrine that Arrius had sowed at that time: When he had made the Bishops to take their places every one in his degree, (which were to the number of 318. besides the Elders and Deacons that accompanied them, who were above 500) he sat him down among them in a low chair, and made this Oration to them well beseeming his Majesty and godliness.  
My Lords and fathers (quoth he) forasmuch as God hath vouchsafed to put down the cruel Princes by my hand, and to give peace to the world under my reign, it is meet that you also in this holy assembly, should do your endeavours to set a stable unity and concord in the Church. For it were to evil an example if after the overcoming of our enemies, the public peace should now be disturbed by the controversies and disagreements of the Shepherds of the Church, a thing that would minister occasion and matter to the ungodly to mock our Religion, & to laugh it to scorn. Now then, sith we be to treat here of divine matters, we must take the doctrine of the holy Ghost for our rule, and resort to the books of the Evangelists, Apostles, and Prophets, which teach us what opinion we aught to be of concerning Gods holy law.  
Therefore setting aside all stoutness of contention, let us seek the resolution of our questions in the word that is inspired by God.  
After this short and notable speech made by that great Emperor, the Council was held, and the doctrine of Arrius was thoroughly debated by the only word of God, and in the end justly condemned by those holy Fathers, as utterly contrary to a number of express places of the holy Scriptures, which avow unto us the Godhead and everlastingness of the son of God, which thing Arrius did wickedly deny.  
But I must tell you by the way, that in this speech of Constantine's, we have three duties to mark, which do well beseem a great Prince. The one is to be inclined to public peace and tranquillity, and to procure the maintenance thereof by all lawful means. Another is to love the truth above all things, chief in cases of Religion. And the third is, to seek the same truth in the Scripture inspired by God.  
Now I beseech God of his gracious goodness, to make your majesties virtue & godliness to shine forth daily more and more, in those holy duties, and to 'cause your Royal highness to grow greater and greater in all his heavenly gifts, and in all honour and felicity.  
Dated the 15. day of February, the year of our saviour Christ. 1578.   

The author of this Apology his Song.  

THe Pope of Rome a thousand Canons bends:  
Against the Church which doth God's word embrace  
And stoutly forth his own Decrees he sends,  
The sovereign Lords commandments to deface,  
Or rather quite and clean away to chase.  
Presuming proudly for to bear chief sway:  
In man's salvation every kind of way.   

He thinks, ere long, that noble fort to win,  
And triumphing aforehand, in despite  
Of heavenly truth, he sets him down within  
God's Temple, boasting even in open sight  
Himself as God, and strives with all his might.  
To maintain still his Lordly sovereignty:  
Aswell above as underneath the Sky.   

But thou O Christ, our King omnipotent,  
Reach out thine arm: and with thy skilful hand:  
Lay hold upon the Canons that are bend  
Against thee by the Romish tyrants band.  
And turn them back at him that hath them sent.  
To beat his Rampires and his Bulwarks down:  
In force whereof he wears his triple Crown.   

The time is come to thine immortal praise,  
That this same Kaytiffe being battered sore  
With these same Canons of his own, decays:  
And sinking under truth to rise no more,  
Lies beaten down with shame for evermore.  
From day to day foregoing still his strength:  
Until his State be wanzd away at length.   
FINIS.   

¶ THE AUTHOR TO his Book.  
YOU braying Canon's which so grounded be  
Upon the word of him that reigns on high:  
With thundering noise let fly your bullets free.  
That men may hear them roaring to the sky.  
But as for you ye Canons whom we see  
From mouth of brass to spit out fiery flame  
Of Vulcan's smoky Forge, hold you your peace:  
You bring our Realm to ruin and to shame:  
The others force fond ignorance to cease.  
FINIS.   

AN APOLOGY FOR the Protestants.  
IT is well known that in these days, there are in France two sorts of catholics, which are of the Romish Religion, For there are of them that be tractable, and desirers, and lovers of the peace, and quietness of this Realm, and such as will not condemn the reformed religion, nor those that make profession thereof, without hearing and understanding them, as the others do: but can well find in their hearts, to live in friendship, and fellowship with them, and not trouble them in the exercise of their Religion, but tarry the time until God (through his grace) have enlightened them, and made them to know the errors and abuses which may be in the one & in the other: and make us Frenchmen (which are now a days to wilfully bend) apt, and willing to yield unto reason. And there are other some so wilful, and so far run into hatred, and enmity, against the reformed Religion, and the professors of the same: that they prefer their own unreasonable humours, before the peace, & common quiet of their country. Yea, and even before the preservation of the state of the Prince.  
These be they to whom I speak in my Apology. And also to all that are desirous to know, in what point, and for what cause, the Protestants do stand in controversy for Religion against the Romish Catholics.  

〈◊〉 ●nne 〈◊〉 be co●●●●●ed w●●●●●t bei●●●eard speak.  First, therefore, I desire them all to presuppose, that to judge of a matter before they understand it, and to condemn a man without hearing his answer, is a thing that ill becometh, not only all Christians, but also any other reasonable person. For, by the law of nature (as witnesseth the Civil law) we aught to hear their reasons, and defences, whose cause we have to judge of, & therein to do as we would be done unto, as Nature willeth, and commandeth us. And therefore, these overangry Catholics, which condemn, hate, and persecute, the professors of the reformed religion, without understanding it, or without hearing them, do well bewray thereby, that their pangs and passions are very strange, for that they have such force, as to 'cause them to forget the law of Nature, the knowledge whereof God hath imprinted in the hearts of all men, even from their creation. Truly, it is a lamentable and beastly thing, that a man should so yield himself to the humour of hatred, rancour, envy, desire of revenge, & such like frenzes, as that he should rob himself of his natural wit, and cause himself to forget the right use of reason, 
nun  as you may well see by the doings of those heady persons. I know right well that they have been accustomed to cloak these passions, by saying that the Pope, the Counsel of Trent, and the sorbonists, have long ago, condemned the reformed Religion, as erroneous and heretical, and that therefore, it is to be holden for a resolution, that it is nought, and to be condemned without farther inquiry of the matter, and without any other form or process of Law.  
But hereunto it hath ever been answered, as we do still, that those which have thus condemned our Religion, have always been both judges, and parties. And that the professors of the reformed Religion, have not been heard in their lawful defences: So that those which will needs make a precedent of such condemnations, given against the parties unheard, be suspected and uncompetent judges, and do still fall back again into the former fault of condemning men unheard, (a thing contrary to the law of nature) and show themselves to be partial and fond judges, in that they will needs give sentence of the thing which they understand no more, 
〈…〉  than a blind man can judge of colours, & therefore are worthily noted, in way of scorn by that common proverb.  

Molin. de mon. Fran. art. 154. 155. 156.  That good king of France, Lewes the twelve, surnamed the father of his people, will never be forgotten, who being importunately called upon by the Bishops, and Cardinals of his time, to 'cause a bloody execution to be done upon the people of Cabriers, and Meryndoll, in Province, (who had neither masses, nor Images in their churches: and were as a remnant of the ancient breed of the Albigions, and of the poor men of Lion, which had been all condemned for heretics) did make this worthy, & wise answer. I am a king (quoth he) over my people, to minister justice unto them, which I cannot do, without hearing such as are accused. I will therefore hear them before I condemn them, though they were Turks, or Devils.  
Hereupon it was told the King, that the religion which those of Cabryers, and Meryndol, did profess, had been often, before that time, condemned for heretical, and wicked: specially in the Council of Laterane, Anno. 1179. 
e. sicut e. excomunicamus. Ex. de haeret. Aut. Gazaros. C. de haret.  Under Pope Alexander the third, in the time of king Philip Augustus, and by the Emperor Frederick the second, & Pope Honorius the third, about the year, 1217 and by Pope Gregory the ninth, who entered into the Papacy Anno 1227.  
But, notwithstanding, all these shows, and provocations, this good king would not be led from his determination: Saying, that he would not stretch his conscience so far, as to make a precedent of the judgements, and decrees of those Popes, King, and Emperor, but would hear the answers of the parties accused, before he condemned them.  
And thereupon, he gave audience to the Commissioners of Cabryers, and Meryndol. And when he had heard them, he sent thither Adam Fume his Master of requests, and John Paruyz his Confessor, to inform him of their life, and doctrine. Who made report to his majesty, that it was true, that those of Cabryers, and Meryndol, had neither masses, nor Images in their churches, but that otherwise, they were all well instructed (yea, even the very little ones) in the articles of the faith, and in the commandments of God, and that they utterly abstained from all blasphemous oaths, and whoredom, keeping holy the Sabaoth day, and greatly reverencing the supper of our Lord, baptism, and marriage. Which when the king thus understood, he did not only, not condemn them of heresy (as he was enticed to have done,) but also, quite otherwise, did pronounce with his own voice (and bound it with an oath) that he did believe, that those of Meryndoll, and Cabryers, were better, and more honest people, than himself, or any of his other subjects.  
And what, will you infer, of this? will you say now that this good king was a Protestant, or that he misliked the Romayn Religion? I think there is no man so shameless, that dares say so: For his life, and acts do show, that he was very well minded towards the church of Rome: In maintenance whereof, he held great wars in Italy against the Venetians, and other Princes, that usurped upon the patrimonies of the Church.  
But he was a good king, and did acknowledge, that God had put the Sceptre in his hand, to minister justice to all his people, and not to condemn the accused, without hearing their answer: nor to judge of a matter of importance, by the consciences of others: but meekly to give hearing to all matters brought before him, & not to condemn those things for evil, which may show themselves to be good. I therefore, conclude thus, that those which in these days, do so presumptuously condemn the reformed Religion, without knowing any deserved cause, or without hearing such as profess the same, under colour of the condemnations done already by the Popes, by the council of Trent, and by the sorbonists, do show thereby the great forgetfulness of their duty of judging uprightly: And that they carry to slack a hand on the bridle of their conscience, in suffering it to depend upon the fantastical judgement of others.  
Lactantius Fyrmian, speaking to Constantine the great, (who was the first christian Emperor) did greatly complain, and bewail, that the Pagans and Idolaters of his time, did condemn the Christian Religion, and had it in disdain, without knowing what christian Religion was, and without reading their books to understand it. 
Diu. Inst. lib. 5. cap 1. The pagans condemned the christians without hearing them speak.   
These be the very words of Lactantius. I doubt not (most mighty Emperor Constantine) but that if this my work (whereby I show that the Creator of all things, is the Governor of the whole world) do fall into the hands of these unlearned Religious folk, they (by reason of their great superstition, which maketh them too too impatient) will assault me with injuries, & spitefully fling the book to the ground, before they have read so much as the beginning of it, imagining that they should defile themselves with such a crime, as could never be wiped out again, if they should either read it, or hear it read patiently. Nevertheless, I beseech them in duty of humanity, not to condemn my writings (if it may be) before they do perfectly understand them. For if it be allowed by order of law, that church-robbers, Traitors, and Poisoners, shall speak for themselves, and argue in their own defence, and that it is not lawful to condemn any of them without examination of his cause: It is not against reason, that I should entreat those, into whose hands this book shall happen, to read it, or hear it read throughout, and to defer their judgements, until they have read it to the end.  
But I know well the wilfulness of that kind of people to be such, as I shall not obtain this suit of them. For, they be afraid, lest the force, and strength of the truth should overcome them, and make them yield unto us, and to agreed with us. That is the cause of their roaring, & storming, lest they should hear us, and of their shutting of their eyes lest they should see the light which we bring unto them, wherein they show the little assurance that they have in their own fond reasons. For, they dare neither understand, nor enter into disputation, because they know they shall soon be vanquished. By reason whereof, it cometh to Pass, that through their shunning of all manner of scanning, and sifting of things by disputation,  
They drive discretion quite away,  
And force and fury bear the sway:  As saith Ennius. 
And because they are bent to condemn, and utterly to oppress such as they well know to be innocent: they be unwilling that their innocency should appear: because they deem it a greater iniquity to condemn the innocency that is apparent, them the innocency that cometh not to trial. Or rather, (as I said afore) they are afeard, that they should have no power to condemn us, if they should hear us.  
This was the invective which Lactantius wrote against the heathen in his time, who condemned the Christians without hearing them. Which reason, I will use against the impatient catholics, desiring them, not to show themselves like unto those heathen men, in being so obstinate, as to shut their ears from hearing, and understanding the doctrine which they so condemn, & persecute, without knowing what it containeth. But if those angry Catholics, which oppose themselves as adversaries against our reformed Religion, and so boldly condemn it, would temper their choler, & passions, with such moderation, as to give place to reason, and to set natural discretion in due place and pre-eminence: Truly, I durst make them judges of this cause, and I am well assured that they would judge far otherwise, than they have done hitherto, or do yet.  
And in deed, if the love of truth have any place in their hearts (as I believe it hath) I beseech them, even before God and for the truths sake, to vouchsafe to examine this present defence with settled judgement: and to consider of it without affection. For, I protest unto them, that I will use such modesty in my words, as none shall justly have cause to accuse me of rigour.  
First, therefore, I presuppose, that betwixt the Romish Catholics, and the Protestants, there is disagreement of doctrine in many points, yea, even in the most principal, as I will show hereafter.  
But yet nevertheless both the one and the other do acknowledge generally, the unity of the person of jesus Christ in two natures not confounded: The holy trinity, of the Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost, and the holy Scripture of the old and new Testament, and therefore they both may in this respect, be called Christians howbeit the one more aptly than the other, as shall appear by that which I will say hereafter. Now, that we may the better treat of the points which are in question, and that all men may the more plainly judge thereof, we will distinctly examine the reasons which are to be considered in this discourse, and are commonly alleged on both sides, for the maintaining of the doctrine of either party: and so by comparing the contrary reasons and allegations together, the truth will the more apparently show itself because light is than most apparent and bright, when it is set nigh to his contrary.  

¶ Of three Maxims, grounds or rules, whereby a man may judge of the points of religion which are in question. The first Chapter.  
FOrasmuch as the hot Catholics accuse the Religion of the protestants, to be wicked, new, and heretical, and therefore cannot brook the society of such as profess the same: we hope to show them evidently, that it is not so, when we come to the scanning of every point particularly that is in question. And for proof and demonstration of our sayings, we will take for our ground, three Maxims, or general rules, which are very certain and true, whereby every man shall easily be able to judge whether the same religion, is to be reckoned, wicked new, and heretical or no.  
The three Maxims are these, The first is that that doctrine of Religion whereby God is most honoured, is the best. The second is, that that Doctrine which is best builded upon the word of God is the most ancient and true. The third is, that the Romish Catholics cannot well accuse that doctrine, of heresy, which is approved by their own Canon's.  
Which three rules or maxims, be so clear & evident of themselves, that (in mine opinion) the day, or the Sun is not clearer. For, seeing that Religion is no other thing, than the duty which we own unto God. It doth follow, that that doctrine which teacheth us to yield unto him all duty and honour, and to rob him of no part thereof, is a good, and true doctrine, and that there can be no better.  
Likewise it is certain, that the doctrine which is builded upon the only word of God, aught not to be called new, but that we may rather say, that it is as old as the world itself. In so much, that they which do call it new, may not nor cannot so call it, in respect of itself, but only in respect of their own ignorance, for to the ignorant, every thing that they understand not, is new. Neither is it to be doubted, but that it is most true, because that God (who is the author thereof) is the truth itself, and the fountain of light, and wisdom.  
In like manner, I think that all men will easily grant, that even the earnestest Catholics of Rome, can not dispense so much with themselves, as to accuse that Religion of heresy, which is approved by their own Canon's, because the Canon's be authorized by the Popes themselves. For, the decrees of Gracian (from whence I intent to draw the most parts of the Canons which shallbe alleged) were ratified & authorized by Pope 
The decrees of Gratian authorized by the pope  Euginie the third, who commanded that they should be read in the universities, 
Annal. sur l. an. 1168.  and used in judgement as they have been ever since. So that to reject and condemn the Canons, were as much in effect, as to deny the Pope, and all the Roman Religion.  
But full well I know, that hereafter when I shall allege the Canons, those passionate Catholics will rise up, and say that there be other canons contrary to these, and truly I will not deny but that the books of the Canon law, are full of contrarieties. Yet dare I boldly say, and assuredly avow that those Canons which I will allege in this book, are of the best and most ancient of all the Canon law, 
The old canons are better than the new.  & which have proceeded from the best springs & fountains, and from such authors, as were most principal in skill and holiness, as may easily be judged by those that will compare them with their books.  
Having thus set down these three Maxims (the truth whereof is easily to be perceived, by every man of common capacity, (yea even of the grossest sort) I am now to apply them orderly to every particular point. And first of all we will treat of Prayer.   

❧ OF PRAYER. The second Chapter.  
THe doctrine of the professors of the Gospel touching prayer, is very plain. Their opinion is in effect, that we aught to offer our prayers unto God our maker, who is able enough to give us whatsoever we ask, & gracious in harckening gently to our requests: Who also hath manifested his great goodness, in giving his everlasting Son, to the end that by him, our manhood might have access to his Godhead.  
And therefore they say, that in praying to God our creator, we must always use the credit and intercession of his Son our mediator, who may boldly go to the Father because he is God as he is, in the self-same Godhead and being: and disdaineth not also to apply himself to men, and to be an intercessor for them, because he is man as they be.  
Neither is this manner of praying unto God altogether disallowed of the Roman Catholics: but they will needs add thereunto, that we must have also other Mediators and Intercessors to God the Father, and to jesus Christ himself: That is to wit, the hesaints and the shesaintes, which are many in number, & in their times have done many a fair miracle. For (say they) if a man would be a suitor to a king, in any cause, or to his eldest son, he would not at the first dash press to their presence, but go to some of their servants, or Lords of their Court. And so it seemeth a thing very reasonable and meet, that when a man is minded to pray to god for any thing, he go first to some of the Celestial court, to purchase access to god, & to jesus Christ his Son by their means: and that to do otherwise, were a kind of despising of the saints who have the charge from God, to pray continually for the Millitante Church, and every particular person of the same.  
Truly, it is not to be denied, but that these reasons have some colour and show of truth, if we shall judge of God as of man. 
We must not judge of God as of man.  But hereunto the Protestants reply, that we may not judge of God, as of a king, or as of another mortal man, for there is great difference. God is altogether good, and inclined to do good: But men, (be they kings or other) are naturally evil, and disposed to do evil, both against God & their neighbours. God understandeth our Prayers assoon as they be conceived in our hearts, and before our mouths do utter them: But to 'cause a king to understand our suits, we must put them in writing, or tell them by word of mouth: and therefore we have need of Advocates to lay forth our cases, & of Masters of requests to prefer our petitions to the Prince or to his council, and of the favour of great Lords and councillors, to get us audience and dispatch. All which things have no place with God. So that to compare the manner of praying unto God, with the preferring of suits unto Princes, is a token that we slenderly consider the greatness of God. And here we have to note a proper saying of S. Ambrose, 
Amb. in epist. ad Ro. c. 1.  which he uttereth in these express words.  
Those which in steed of resorting unto God, repair unto creatures, are wont to colour their contempt of God, with this miserable excuse. That by the means of those to whom they have recourse they may attain to the presence of God, as men attain to the presence of a king, by means of his officers. But I pray you, is there any man so mad, or so careless of his own life, that he dareth yield the honour to any of the king's servants or officers, which belongeth to the king himself, specially seeing we find that such as dare but speak of the like matters, are by the law, guilty of high treason? No. And yet these that yield to the Creature, the honour that is due to the name of god, & which letting god alone do worship their fellow servants, think not themselves blame worthy at all: as who should say, they could reserve any greater honour unto God.  
Now the reason why men make their suits to Princes, by the mean and favour of Noble men, Captains, and Officers, is, because the king is borne a man, and knoweth not in whom to repose his trust and confidence for the ordering of his public affairs. But as for GOD, from whom nothing is hidden (for he knoweth every man's deserts) unto him we have no need of an Advocate, but of a devout heart. For wheresoever such a heart speaketh unto him, he will answer him.  
By which sayings this good doctor S. Ambrose, by good and apparent reasons confoundeth the doctrine of the Romish Catholics touching the intercession of Saints: So as, to use any other mediator to Godward, than our Lord jesus Christ, is a distrusting of his favour, and of the goodwill he beareth us, as though he were like unto some rough and uncourteous prince, that would take displeasure if a man pressed to his presence, not being presented by some officer of his court. For (say the Protestants) are not we certain and well assured of the clemency & goodness of our Saviour that doth invite us to come directly unto him? Is not he our good Shepherd, our Redeemer, our attonementmaker, our reconciler and our brother? Wherefore hath he taken upon him our flesh? borne our iniquities? fulfilled the law whereby we were condemned? shed his most precious blood? and suffered death and passion upon the cross? Is it not for us that he hath done all these things to purchase our salvation and reconciliation with God his Father? For neither for himself, nor to increase his own glory, needed he to humble and embase himself so much. And therefore it is not to be doubted, but that he doth discharge his office of Mediatorship, much better than all the saints can do: specially, seeing that he is the only means that they be saints, and without him they could not so be.  
Now, as it is not to be doubted, but he hath great good will to do the office of a Mediator for us: so must we believe, that he will not consent that any other should take upon him to do it, but is and will be the only obtayner of our salvation, and of the heavenly blessings which God shall give us.  
These be the reasons which the Protestants do allege for the maintenance of their doctrine touching prayer. Whereby it doth plainly appear, that their doctrine is the best, according to our first maxim, because that the honour which belongeth to jesus Christ our Lord, is thereby better, and more sound and wholly without diminishing rendered unto him, then by the doctrine of the Romish catholics, who would have so great a number of Mediators, as they seem to leave to jesus Christ nothing else but only the name of mediator, & do attribute to the saints, both the name and the effect.  
secondly, this doctrine of the Protestants, is perfectly grounded upon the word of God, as all men may know, by considering as well the precepts, as the examples which are in the bible, concerning prayer. For, first of all, the holy Scripture teacheth us, to put all our trust in the goodness of God, and to pray only unto him, assuring us that he will give care unto our prayers, 
Math. 7.18  saying: If you being evil, can skill to give good things to your children, how much rather will your Father which is in heaven, give good things to those that ask of him? And again, it exhorteth us to use the credit of jesus Christ our Mediator to God the Father, saying: If any man have sinned we have an advocate with God the Father, even jesus Christ the righteous. 
1. john 2.1.  And to the end we should not doubt of the power and good will of our Mediator towards us, it doth assure us of two things: The one, that he sitteth in his Majesty and might on the right hand of the throne of his Father: And the other that he doth pray and make intercession for us. 
Rom. 8.32.  He is saith S. Paul upon the right hand of God, and maketh intercession for us.  
And for that we should not abuse ourselves in seeking many mediators unto god: the holy scripture doth also teach us, that as we have but one God to whom we aught to pray: Not more have we but only one Mediator saying, For there is but one God, and one Mediator betwixt God and man, the man jesus Christ. 
1. Tim. 2.5.   
And because we should not doubt that God is our Father, and that we may use him as a Father: we are taught that those which believe in the Mediator, are made the children of god, by the same faith & belief, saying: to all those that have received him, 
joh. 1.12.  he hath given privilege to become the Children of God, that is to say: To those which believe in his name. So as jesus Christ himself teaching us how we should pray to God, 
Math. 6.9.  hath willed us to call him our Father.  
Moreover, in the Psalms of David, and in the other books of the Bible, there are infinite numbers of examples, which prove that all holy men have always made their prayers unto God, and never unto dead men, nor called upon them to be their means and Intercessors unto God.  
Whereupon it followeth apparently, that the doctrine of the Protestant's touching prayer, is the most ancient and true, according to our second Maxim.  
Finally, the said Romish Catholics aught not to charge the Religion of the Protestants with heresy, by the which they say, there aught to be no praying to the Saints which are out of this world: for there is no man of so simple judgement, but he will confess it to be mere madness, to pray to them which cannot hear him, as questionless those which be dead cannot understand the prayers which we make unto them in this world, 
Saints can not hear the prayers that are made to them.  because (as witnesseth the Canon) they know nothing of the things which are done in this world, except (saith the same Canon) that those which die, do carry them news of the things which they have seen and understood before their death. These are the very words of the Canon. 
c. fatendum 13. 4, 2.  We must needs confess (according to the truth) that those which are dead do know nothing of that which is done here upon earth: but they may well be advertised of them by such as die and go unto them, and yet not of all things, but only of such things as are lawful for those that be hear to bear in memory, and expedient for the others to know.  
Thus by this Canon, it is most evident that we aught not to pray unto Saintes, seeing they be dead and can neither hear nor see nor know any thing that we do here upon earth, but by messengers. And who so should say, that this doctrine is heretical, must say also that the Canon's and Pope's be heretics, which (as I take it) the Romish Catholics will be loath to confess. This Canon is also confirmed by the holy scripture, which beareth witness to us that there is none but god only, that knoweth the secrets of men's hearts, and so consequently that it is he only that can understand our prayers, which come rather from the heart than from the mouth.  
The protestants say furthermore, that there are so great numbers of Saints registered in the Litany, of whose canonizing men do doubt, (for as saith a good ancient Doctor, the bodies of divers are honoured on earth, whose souls are buried in hell) that in reason we aught to refuse the number of intercessors, and content ourselves only with jesus christ, which is the true and pure doctrine that we aught to hold, and the Catholics cannot justly accuse it of heresy, according to our third maxim.  
And hereupon I add this more, that as the protestants do hold opinion that we aught not to attribute the title nor the office of mediator to any other than to jesus christ: no more aught we to do in his other titles and offices, as of his priesthood, his mediatorship, his spiritual reigning, & his chief shepheardship. For these be the titles of honour which belong unto jesus Christ, and are not to be communicated to others, how great or excellent personages so ever they be. And truly herein all the world must needs confess, that the protestants do show themselves to be best Christians, in that they attribute only to our Lord jesus Christ the titles of honour that are his, and will not communicate them to any other creators, what so ever they be, for if they would dispense with their consciences in this behalf, they know right well they might soon be at a point with the romish Catholics, and shun many miseries and persecutions which they now endure. For there wanteth no more, but that they would allow the Saints to be partners of the title of mediator, & the maspriestes to be partners of the title of Sacrificers, the doers of good works of Supererogation to be partners of the title of a propitiator, And the Pope himself, to be partaker of the title of spiritual King and sovereign Sheaheard: And then by and by there would be a peace concluded determined and established, betwixt the protestants and the romish Cacholicks. But the protestants will by no means, nor for any cause, diminish any part of the titles of honour which belong unto the son of God, nor attribute them to any other creatures. Whereby it appeareth evidently, that men do them great wrong, in defaming their doctrine to the King, as though his permitting of them to excercise the same, were a mean to dispossess him of the title of most Christian king.  
For in as much as the name of christian cometh of Christ, out of doubt they be worthiest of that name, which yield Christ his due honour and glory.   

¶ Of faith and good works. The third chapter.  
THe doctrine of the romish Catholics concerning faith and good works, differeth greatly from that of the Protestants. For the Catholics hold opinion, that only faith without good works doth not justify a man: but that it is needful the faith be aided by good works. Contrariwise the Protestants hold, that only faith doth justify a man without good works.  
That is to say, the faith is the only instrument whereby jesus Christ (who is the true and efficient cause of our justification) applieth his righteousness unto us, and maketh us to be accounted just before God his Father, through his own merit, without the help of our good works. Nevertheless they confess that good works are acceptable unto God: but yet they affirm that good works are not of such power, as to justify us before the face of god, or to make us capable, either in part or in all, of everlasting life And they say also that they be not all good works, which the catholics do take for good works.  
For as touching the first point, you must consider that the doctrine of the protestants doth tend, to attribute the honour of our salvation all wholly unto our Lord jesus Christ, as unto him, who is the true and only cause thereof. For although we have need of faith, whereby to receive the benefit of Christ, who imputeth and applieth his own righteousness to all such as believe in him: yet nevertheless, he doth remain the only and altogether true cause of our salvation, forasmuch as it is he himself, which doth also give us faith.  
So as he doth not only give us the drink of immortality, that is to say, his own righteousness which he alloweth us, but also the cup to receive it in: yea, and he giveth us both of them freely and for nothing, but only of his own liberality and grace, with out ask or receiving of us, any recompense for the same.  
And truly if we would go about to recompense so great and excellent a benefit, as is everlasting life, thorough our good works: it were as much as if a man would purchase a great and rich inheritance, with a small sum of base money, such as in reason should rather be cried down, than allowed. For our good works of themselves, be so unpure and unperfect, mingled with hypocrisy and other ill affections, that they are not worthy to be presented before the face of God, who doth not esteem such untoward payments, in recompense of eternal life. Notwithstanding, when they be done through faith, he doth accept them, in favour and for good will to his son our Lord jesus Christ, upon whose only deserts our faith resteth, because in that respect, they proceeded from the good tree, which is jesus Christ, who worketh all our good works in us.  
So as the works of faith be good and acceptable unto god, for that they proceed from Christ, as from the efficient cause which worketh them in us; but they are full of uncleanness, & worthy to be rejected, in respect that they proceed from us, who serve but as instruments (howbeit yet unclean instruments) to do them. And therefore are they always defiled & spotted in some sort: for jesus Christ who worketh them in us, doth make them good and pleasing to God his Father: but yet they do gather somewhat of the filthy and natural infection of us, who are the vessels wherein they be made.  
Nevertheless, God is so good and gracious, that he not only admitteth them as done by jesus Christ his son, but also for his sake, doth wipe away the spots and uncleanness which are in them, and crowneth them with many blessings: as with prosperity of children, temporal welfare, help of friends in adversity, moderation in prosperity, discretion, happy success in affairs, & with many other his benefits, wherein he doth more and more show his great bounty & gracious goodness by heaping upon us his blessings, as it were in recompense of the good works which he himself hath wrought in us, and in making us to reap the fruit of his own labour, and to receive the reward which he himself hath deserved.  
But touching the great and incomprehensible benefit of the gift of eternal life, and of knitting us unto himself in everlasting happiness, he doth not give it us in any other respect, or consideration, than only for the love of his well-beloved son jesus Christ. That was the cause why he would have him to come down into this base world, and to take our nature upon him, and to fulfil the law for us, and to bear our iniquities and griefs, and (at a word) to be our Mediator, our redeemer, our high priest, our Shepherd, and our spiritual king.  
All which titles he hath taken upon him, to save us and to be the only cause of our everlasting felicity, and to knit and incorporate us unto himself, and to make us partners for ever of his heavenly glory.  
Yet may we not hereupon conclude, that we should not do good works, as though they stood us in no stead to salvation: for they be fruits of faith: and whosoever hath the true faith, doth incontinently show it by the good fruits and effects which it bringeth forth in him.  
And he that doth no good works, cannot say that he hath true faith. Besides that, we also are sufficiently led to do good works, by the great number of other benefits and blessings wherewith God crowneth than, as we have said before. This is the sum of the doctrine which the Protestants do hold concerning faith and good works.  
Whereby they yield wholly unto God, and to our Saviour jesus Christ, the honour which belongeth to him, as to the true & only cause of our salvation, & of all the good things which we have and receive, aswell Spiritual as Temporal whatsoever they be.  

We are saved only by God without any help of ourselves.  It followeth then according to our first Maxim, that this doctrine is better than the doctrine of the Romish catholics, who affirm that by their good works, they deserve Paradise, & all the other good things which God giveth them: & that these good works do partly proceed of themselves, and of their own free will, and partly of God's grace: as if God alone could not save them, if they helped not the matter by their own good works, which they hold to be part of the cause of their salvation: which doctrine all men may easily perceive to be repugnant to the nature of God. For seeing that he is altogether and perfectly merciful: it must needs follow, that those that be saved, be saved wholly (and not in part) by his only mercy: which should not be perfect, if the effect thereof were not perfect and entire. Notwithstanding, the Catholics hold opinion still, that their good works are part of the cause of their salvation, and that they be not saved by the only mercy of God.  
Yea there are monks which take themselves to have such abundance of good works in store, that they not only have enough wherewith to merit their own salvation, but also a great mass of overplus (which they call works of supererogation 
Works superabundant or of supererogation. ) to purchase the salvation of other men, but chief of such as do them good, and give them liberally of their temporal goods: which doctrine (in very truth) all such as love the name of God aught to reject. For it is an utter defacing of the benefit of our lord jesus Christ, & an attributing of the honour of our salvation, to the unclean works of sinners, whereas in deed, we aught to attribute the same to the death and passion of the son of god who is without sin.  
Also it is to be discerned by God's word, which of the two doctrines is the truest and most ancient. For the Scripture doth plainly teach us, that we be justified by faith, without the works of the law, & so consequently by faith only, when it saith, 
Ro 3.20.23.  Wherefore no flesh shall be justified before him by the works of the law. And it sayeth in an other place, for you are saved by grace through faith, and not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not for works, 
Eph. 1.8.9.  least any man should boast of himself. And in an other place it is said: 
Tit. 3.4.5.  He hath saved us, not by the works of righteousness which we ourselves have done, but of his own mercy. And Saint Paul sayeth in an other place: I esteem all things as dung, so I may gain Christ, 
Phil. 3.8.9  and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but the righteousness which cometh by belief in Christ.  
Now, as there is no comparison betwixt the deserts of jesus Christ our saviour, and the desert of men's good works, no more than is betwixt the brightness of the Sun, & a little spark of fire: so must we needs confess, that our consciences do find without all comparison, far greater and excellenter quietness in the righteousness of faith, than in the righteousness of good works. And in that respect doth SAINT, Paul say: 
Ro. 5.1.2.  Being then justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord jesus Christ, By whom we have also access through faith, to this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice under the hope of the glory of God.  
But yet this faith which doth justify us, may not be voided of good works, for than it were like the faith of devils: who believe that God hath commanded the contents of the ten commandments, but do quite contrary. For such a faith will not justify us as S. james 
jam. 1.12.  doth teach us. And whereas the Catholics hold opinion, that we are justified by the grace of Christ and our good works both together: 
Rom. 11.6.  S. Paul doth answer them thus: If it be of grace, then is it no more of works, for then grace were no more grace. And if it be of works: It is no more of grace, for than were works no more works.  
And whereas the Monks bear men in hand, that by their good works of Supererogation, they deserve Paradise for themselves and for their benefactors: jesus Christ doth answer them himself, and utterly cast down their pride and overweening, in that he saith, 
Luk. 17.10. Psalm. 143  when you have done all the things that are commanded you, say unto yourselves, we are unprofitable servants, we have done no more than we aught to do. Neither may we say, that jesus Christ doth command us to say so, to make show of humility: for he who is the truth itself, doth not command us to lie for any intent, good or evil. And therefore it followeth, that seeing he commandeth us to say, that though we have done all the commandments (which never any man did but only jesus Christ:) yet were we but unprofitable servants and god were nothing in our debt for it, because we have done nothing but that whereunto our duty bindeth us: I say it followeth that the same is certain and true.  
David also doth witness that no man living can be justified before God. And therefore it may be rightly said to these jolly doers of works of supererogation, as Christ said to the pharisees.  
It is you that justify yourselves before men, 
Luk. 16.15.  but God knoweth your hearts. For that which is highly esteemed among men, is abominable before God.  
I know right well, there are many texts in the holy Scripture to prove, that who so will enter into everlasting life, must keep the commandments of god, and that those which have kept the commandments, shall possess the kingdom of heaven: and that those which have not kept them shall go into everlasting damnation. But it is not to be inferred upon these texts, that a man may be justified by his good works, for no man at any time doth perform God's commandments to the full: But even the best of all do break them every day many times. For what man is so arrogant as to challenge to himself such sincerity of life, that he loveth, and hath always loved God with all his heart: and his neighbour as himself, or hath not wished somewhat that was an other man's?  
To be short, there needeth no great disputation upon this point: for our conscience doth here accuse us, and of itself condemn us.  
Now then, if no man can fulfil the commandments, It followeth that no man can have everlasting life by his own works, but must seek some other justification than by works, if he will be justified before the face of God. And in seeking an other justification, he cometh to the righteousness of faith, which is by imputation, through the free bestowed benefit of Christ. For, like as if a poor debtor that were unable to pay, were kept in prison for a debt of ten thousand crowns, and his creditor should tell him, that if he paid the debt, he would set him at liberty, or else he should rot in prison: he had no readier remedy, than to get such a surety, as would be so favourable and friendly to him, as to pay the debt for him, without trusting to his own substance, which is utterly unable to discharge such a debt. In like sort, man, knowing on the one side, that without performing the Law throughout, he is in danger of damnation: and on the other side, that he is not able to perform it, hath no other shift, but to repair to jesus Christ, to take hold of his righteousness by faith, to the end that the same may be imputed unto him, and that by this means, his sins may be wiped out, and himself made capable of eternal life.  
And as it may truly be said, that that debtor hath well paid his debt, when his surety hath paid it for him: even so may a Christian say, that he hath kept and fulfilled the commandments of God, when he doth assure himself through faith, that Christ hath fulfilled them for him. Thus should be understood those texts of Scripture, which enjoin us to observe the commandments, to have thereby everlasting life. And after that sort we should make them to agreed with the texts before alleged, which say that we cannot be justified but by faith only. By which saying, every man of sound judgement may easily know, that the doctrine of the Protestants is builded upon the pure word of God: and consequently, that (according to our second Maxim) it is the most true and ancient, and not to be called new, but of such as do not understand it. Neither may the Catholics call this doctrine heretical, according to our third Maxim, because it is ratified, even by their own Canons. 
c. Aduocaevit etc. ubi sava. 24. q. 1.  For thus saith one of the Canons. Cyprian did call unto him the bishop Satyrus, and did think that there was not any true grace, saving that which cometh by faith. etc.  
And an other Canon saith thus: Look where is no faith, there can be no righteousness, for the righteous liveth by faith. etc.  
There is another taken out of S. Augustine, which speaketh yet more plainly, saying thus: 
c. ut evidenter. 1. q. c.  The Lord purposing to declare plainly, that men's sins are forgiven by the holy Spirit, which he hath given to the faithful, and not by their own merits, saith thus in a certain place: Receive the holy Ghost. And immediately he addeth, whose sins ye remit, their sins shall be forgiven. As if he should say it is the holy Ghost that forgiveth sin, and not you,  
Which Canon doth show plainly, that the merits of good works, do no whit justify us: and so consequently, that it is faith only without works which is that instrumental cause of our justification, & the very efficient cause thereof is jesus Christ, working by the holy ghost. And if the Romish catholics themselves did well understand what they meant when they say & confess that they be saved by the grace of our redeemer: they would never depend any more upon their good works & merits. 
c. Gratia. 1. q. 1.  For, (as saith an other Cannon) Grace is not grace, if it be not freely given and received.  

Basil. lib. 1, de humilitate.  And hereunto accordeth the saying of Saint Basile: A man (saith he) doth then glory wholly and throughly in God, when he doth not vaunt of his own righteousness, but acknowledgeth himself destitute of the true righteousness, and that he is justified through his only faith in Christ. After the same manner speaketh Saint Ambrose, 
Ambrose. in Psal. 32. & add Ro. c. 3.14.  saying: David calleth them right happy, whom God hath determined to justify by faith only, without any pains taking, or without their keeping of the law.  
And in an other place, in expounding these words of the Apostle, freely justified by his grace, he saith thus: They be justified freely, because that having not done any thing, nor requited like for like, they be justified by faith only, which is the gift of God.  
I could to this purpose allege many other canons & ancient doctors, but these may suffice. For my purpose is not to build the doctrine of our reformed Religion, neither upon Doctors, nor upon Canons: but only to rehearse and allege some of them, to show unto the Romish catholics, that in condemning the same so boldly of heresy, by the same means they unadvisedly condemn their own canons and doctors. And because they do so greatly brag, that they hold the faith of the Romish Church: I mean to prove that they do not so, 
The ancient church taught no other doctrine than that of the Apostles. c. Rogamus. 24. q. 1.  even by their own Canons. hearken now, what a Canon saith, in an Epistle written by Pope Marcell to the bishop of Antioch. We beseech you dear beloved brethren (saith he) that you neither teach nor allow any other doctrine, than that which you have received of S. Peter, and of the other Apostles and Fathers. For he is the head of the whole Church, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter, and upon this stone will I build my church, the seat whereof was first established in your Country, and afterward removed to Rome by the commandment of the Lord. etc.  
Hereby it appeareth, that the faith of the Romish Church aught to be grounded upon the pure and only doctrine of the Apostles our true Fathers: And that as many as intent to follow that faith, must neither teach nor believe any other doctrine. The Catholics then of these days, which still embrace so many doctrines invented by the Popes of our times, and by other superstitious men long time after the Apostles and after Pope Marcell, (as Purgatory, & the mass, & an infinite number of other traditions) do no whit follow the faith of the Romish thurch: which thing is most certain and true if ye have an eye to the church of Rome that was in old time. For as for the church which is now a days, wherein the Popes have patched up so many decretals and canons, and brought in such an infinite number of new doctrines, not only differing, but quite contrary to the word of God: I will not deny, but that the Romish Catholics of these days, do follow the faith of that Church.   

¶ Of the things which the Romish Catholics do reckon and esteem to be good works and are not. The fourth chapter.  
I Have could you here before, that the romish Catholics and the Protestants, do disagree about the defining of good works. For the protestants accounted those only to be good works, which concern the obeying of God's commandments. But the Catholics do not only reckon those to be good works, which concern the obeying of the commandments of God, but also those that concern the obeying of the traditions & commandments of men. Of which traditions (say they,) some have been instituted by jesus Christ and his Apostles.  
And because there is no mention made of them in the holy scriptures, they have recourse to a distinction invented by the Sophisters, saying that there are two sorts of the word of God, the one written, and the other unwritten. 
The sophisters make a double word of God, the one written and the other not written.   
And under this kind of the unwritten word of god, they would comprehend the most part of their traditions. But this distinction is very easily answered: Namely, that those traditions which they call the unwritten word of God, (as holy water, Lent, the worshipping of the cross, the hallowing of altars, and such other like) be repugnant to the written word of God: And that if there be any unwritten word of God, the same cannot be repugnant to that which is written, as these traditions be.  
Also, it is to be found by the writings of Historiographers and other Authors, who they were that first did set forth such traditions: and therefore they are not to be fathered upon the unwritten word of God.  
Thirdly, it is not to be denied, but that the written word of God is perfect, and sufficient to salvation: And therefore that no article of faith aught to be fathered upon the unwritten word, but only (at the most) some such points as concern the order and government of the Church. But yet under pretence of the same distinction, the Papists think that to say and hear Mas, to sing and say Suffrages for the dead, to give legacies and Offerings unto Priests, to go on Pilgrimage to Saints, to offer Candles unto them, and to fall flat before the Images of them, to abstain at certain times in the year from eating of flesh, to live solitarily within a Cloister, and to wear their Garments after some strange fashion, and other such like things, be good works, and meritorious to gain Paradise. And the reason why they do reckon all these things to be good works: is partly because they do pretend that god hath commanded them by his unwritten word, (as before is said:) And partly, for that (say they) it is a work of perfection, when one doth not only all that which God commandeth, but also more than he doth command. For, by this means they do so abound in good works that many of them do more than are needful to salvation, & may therefore spare some part of them to other good Christians, which do to few, in recompense of their temporal goods which they receive of them. But hereunto the protestants do answer, that it is sufficient for a man to do the commandments of God without charging himself farther, sith there yet was never man, that could perform them thoroughly, much less do more. Notwithstanding, the Protestants grant it to be true, that commonly men do more than they are commanded: but their so doing is but sin, and in the mean while they leave the commandments of God undone. And therefore, this doing of more than God commands, is not so great a virtue, as the Roman Catholics esteem it to be.  
For, seeing it is not to be denied, but that the commandments of God are perfect, as the Author of them is perfect: so it must needs follow, that they comprehend all good works, and so consequently that all such works, as are repugnant to the word of god and his commandments, are not good.  
Again, it is good reason, that we should esteem all things to be good, which God commandeth, and accounted those things for ill, which he forbiddeth, without going any farther. For it is he that hath set the difference betwixt good and ill, and betwixt vice and virtue, and which hath imprinted the knowledge thereof in man's understanding, even from his creation. By reason whereof, whereas we deem it good, to honour one God, to love our neighbour, & not to do otherwise then we would be done unto: these & such like do proceed & depend upon the ordinances of God, 
The distinction of good works dependeth upon God's ordinance.  which hath set that order, and distinction in the things of the world.  
So as by consequent, virtue is good, and vice is ill, because that God hath so ordained, & established that order in the nature of men. And therefore we cannot call those good works which appear not to be good works by his word and ordinance: neither may man's judgement so much presume of itself, as to term that a good thing, which he is not sure to be so, by the ordinance of God. For, to be desirous that God should allow those things for good, which our fancy dreameth to be good, without having any warrant thereof by the ordinance of God: were an embasing of the Creator beneath the Creature.  

By the doctrine of the Pope, the richmen may better gain Paradise then the poor sort.  Moreover the protestants do say, that if a man might win heaven by these pretended good works (as the Romish Catholics hold opinion:) it would then be much more easy for the rich men to attain to it, than for for the poor. For the rich have better wherewith to 'cause Masses to be said, and to be liberal in giving to priests, and to maintain long journeys on pilgrimage, and to buy good fish that they may the better forbear flesh in the lent time, and to do such other like works.  
So as by this reckoning the gates of heaven should be open to the rich, and shut against the poor: by reason whereof, the wealth men should be happy both in this world and in the world to come: and on the contrary part, the poor should be unhappy, but that were against reason. For clean contrariwise, it is certain that heaven is open rather to the poor than to the rich, and that it is a hard thing for a rich man to enter into heaven.  
And therefore the invention of these pretended good works (whereof do follow so many & great absurdities) is in no wise to be allowed: But we must hold ourselves to the only ordinance of God, to whom we aught to yield such honour, as to believe that only those be good works, which he alloweth for good by his commandments, and that those are not good works, which he alloweth not. For in so doing we shall follow the best doctrine, which yieldeth God his honour due unto him.  
As concerning the other sort, It is easy to be proved by one only argument which cannot be gainsaid, that those works which are not agreeable to the commandments of god, and to his word, are sin: & then much less are they good works. For all works that are done without faith are sin, saith saint Paul because it is impossible to please God without faith. 
Rom. 14.15 Hebru 1●. 6 Rom. 10.17.  Now it is certain that faith must be grounded upon the word of God. Whereupon it followeth plainly that those works which have not their foundation in the word of God, are sin, and so by consequence are nothing worth.  
And therefore it standeth the Roman Catholics in hand, to show that their pretended good works are allowed by the word of God, if they intent to prove them to be good works in deed: Which thing they cannot do. Nay rather clean contrariwise, a man may well prove that the scripture condemneth them As touching the mass, purgatory, and praying for the dead, we will speak of them else where, and show that the doctrine of the Romish Catholics in those points, is contrary to the word of God.  
As for pilgrimages, seeing the end of them is to pray unto Saints, it followeth that they also are condemned by the word of God, which teacheth us to call only upon God, by the means of Christ our Mediator, as we have showed before. Likewise, to kneel down before Images of saints, and to make offerings unto them, is condemned by the second commandment, which forbiddeth all kind of Images, or to do unto them any kind of honour or service.  
As touching monastical vows, 
Vows of poverty.  which consist in pureness, chastity, and obedience. It is also very easy to be proved, that they be such works as are disallowed by the word of God, at the lest, in such sort as the cloisterers do use them. For, as for poverty the most part of them have but the visor thereof: for every body knoweth, that the fairest, and richest possessions belong unto their Monasteries. And the proverb which saith, (he is as fat as a Monk,) doth well show, that poverty hath no harbour among them. But admit that some of them (as the begging friars, called also Limiters) make profession of wilful poverty in good earnest, and that they live altogether by begging, yet is not that vow of theirs allowed of God For, first of all, 
Deut. 15.4.  God forbiddeth men to beg, and therefore in begging, they break his commandment. I know they will hereunto reply, that they be forced to make necessity a virtue to live by, because that otherwise, they should starve for hunger, and so be murderers of themselves, wherein they should break the commandment of God, which forbiddeth to murder.  
But the answer hereunto is, that their vow of poverty hath brought them to both those two extremities, that is, either to beg, or to suffer themselves to die for hunger. And because in both these cases, there is a working against the commandment of God, it followeth, that that vow is nothing worth, forasmuch as it leadeth them to the offending of God.  
And, to speak of their vow of chastity, 
The vow of chastity.  which consisteth in not being married: the same is also repugnant to the word of God. For, God hath delivered us this general rule, from the creation of the world, that it is not good for a man to be alone. 
Gen. 2.18. Mat. 19.11.  I will make him a help fellow to be with him, (saith God.) And jesus Christ his son hath taught us, that few folk can live unmarried, because all men have not the gift of chastity, but only those to whom it is given of God.  
And therefore saint Paul commandeth all those which have not the special gift of this chastity, 
1. Cor. 7.  to take wives. The Monks then, and all the Romayn clergy (of whom, amongst a thousand, there is not one that hath this gift of chastity) do openly transgress God's commandment, through this vow of chastity, whereby they have infected the whole world with all manner of whoredom, and villainy. But hereof we will speak more hereafter, in entreating of Marriage.  
And touching the vow of obedience 
The vow of obedience.  it were very good, if they ment it of obedience to the commandments of God. But they do not so understand it, (for to observe that vow, the needed not to separate themselves from other Christians, nor to shut up themselves in Cloystars.) But they refer this vow of obedience, to they precepts contained in their own orders. The most part of which precepts, consist in these points following. That is to say, In wearing of strange fashioned Garments, much differing from the common sort: In abstaining from certain kinds of meats: In occupying themselves in contemplations: And in chanting of mattinnes, and evensong. All which things have no foundation in the word of God.  
For, as touching the monkish weed, we find not, that jesus Christ or his Apostles, were apparrayled after any other fashion, than other men. It is therefore plain, that the diversity of the fashions of Monks garments was the device and invention of those who were the first founders of their orders, and therefore is not allowed of God. 
Math. 15.9.  For, jesus Christ doth teach us, that it is a vain serving of God, by observing the commandments of men.  

Coloss. 2.20.  S. Paul also, doth openly condemn all those traditions, which be of man's own growing, and namely, those that concern abstinence from certain meats, notwithstanding that they have some outward show of wisdom, devotion, humility, and straightness of life: For thus he saith, If then you be dead with Christ, as in respect of the trainments of this world, why do they burden you with such observations as though you lived to the world, saying unto you: Eat not, taste not, nor touch not All which things being ordained by the commandments and doctrine of men do go away with the use of them, notwithstanding that they have a kind of outward pretence of wisdom and of willing devotion, and a certain humility of mind for that they punish the body, & have no regard to the cockering thereof.  
As concerning the contemplations of the religious sort: they are condemned by the fourth of the ten commandements, which enjoineth every man to labour and to get his living with the sweat of his brows. And if the Monks reply, that by their contemplative life, 
monkish contemplation.  they gain the knowledge of holy scripture: S. Paul answereth them, 
1. Cor. 13.2.  that it is to no purpose, to have the understanding of all secrets and all knowledge, unless it be matched with charity.  
And as for charity they can have no piece thereof by doing nothing else but study, without making their neighbours partakers of the gifts that god hath bestowed upon them. And if they reply yet again and say, that there are many monks which give themselves to preaching and teaching of the people: I answer thereunto, first that not one among a hundred of them doth so: and secondly that such of them as preach, do against the profession of monks: 
Monks are forbidden to preach.  for by the Canons, a moonk aught to be always shut up in his cloister, and not in any wise meddle with preaching or teaching. These are the very words of the Canon. 
C. Monachus. C. juxta. 16. q. 1.  The office of a Monk is to weep and not to teach: for he aught to look for the coming of the Lord with fear, mourning for himself and for all the world. And in an other place it is said thus: According to the tenor of the good counsel of Chalcedon, we give commandment as well to the monks of S. Benet's order, as to other religious persons, to keep themselves within their cloisters, that they stray not abroad in Cities, Castles, and Towns: and we charge them to forbear preaching to the people in any wise, saving only to such as are willing to take their habit upon them for the remedying of their soul's health.  
Seeing then that it is against the profession of monks to preach, it followeth, that they cannot justify their contemplations to be good, under pretence that some of them do deal with preaching, for as much as in so doing, they do against their general profession. And, as for their watchings, Matins, Evensong, and such other Services, whereto they bind themselves by their vow of obeoience: we will speak of them hereafter. It is enough for me at this present, to have showed in few words, that the works whereunto the Monks do bind themselves, as well by their vow of obedience, as by their other vows, cannot be called good works, because they be to far of from the word of God.  
It is also to be proved by the Canons, that these pretended good works, be neither good, nor meritorious. And first, as touching their garments, the Canons do curse and ban all such as repoze any holiness in them. 
The habit of monks hath no holiness in it.  So that by the sayings of those Canons, we aught to abhor all kind of monks: For all of them account themselves to deserve somewhat at God's hands, by their wearing of that kind of apparel, and of those shirts of hear next their skin: and that they should do ill, if they should wear such garments as other men do. These words here following be the very words of the Canon, which is a chapter of the counsel Grangrene. If any man think himself to be the better furthered to chastity, by his wearing of the monks cowl, or take himself to be the more righteous for it, and there upon hold scorn of such as modestly wear hoods and other attires after the common fashion, Cursed be they.  
And touching their vow of abstinence from meats, the ancient Canons speak thereof in such sort, as generally they allow of sobriety, without prescribing of any abstinence, more from flesh then from fish, These be the express words of the Cannon.  
For there is nothing so delectable, as meats well dressed and digested, Nor any thing better for our health, or for the sharpening of our wits, or for the preserving of our bodies from sickness, than sober and moderate feeding: for as suffizance nourisheth us, so doth it also maintain us, in good plight and pleasures:  
By this Canon it appeareth, that moderate diet is so commended, as that we must have a regard to our health, and not appair it either by to much pining of ourselves, or the eating of meats that are contrary to our health. And in good sooth, the same Canons do likewise witness with us that, to abstain from iniquity, is the true manner of keeping and observing the Lent, and that therein consisteth the perfection of fasting. These be the very words of the Canon.  
It is a great and general fast to abstain from iniquity and unlawful pleasures of the world, 
C. jeiunium de Consec. dist. 5.  and that is the most perfect kind of fasting in this world. For we observe the Lenton fast, when we live honestly, keeping ourselves from iniquity and unlawful delights. And truly (as saith an other Canon) men's prayers and fastings are nothing worth, 
C. nihil prodest de panit, dist. 3.  if the ill life be not amended.  
Upon this point of abstinence from meats this history which Eusebius reciteth is worthy to be noted. In the time of the Emperor Mark Antonius, there was a great persecution of the Christians in Vienna nigh unto Lions. Among others two noble personages named Alcibiades and Attalus were put in prison. Alcibiades did punish himself greatly in prison through his to great abstinence, eating nothing but bread and salt, and drinking nothing but water, forbearing to eat either flesh, or any kind of meat. Where upon it was revealed unto Attalus that Alcibiades did evil in forbearing to use the creatures of God, and ministered occasion of offence to the other christians. Which thing when Attalus, had told to Alcibiades, Alcibiades began to eat of all kinds of meats without any kind of scrupulosity, & gave thanks to God, being persuaded so to do (saith Eusebius) by the same spirit which had revealed it unto Attalus. It is also a very notable thing, which we read in the history Tripartite, 
Lib. 9 cap. 38. The diversity that was in old time, in the length of Lent & in the keeping thereof.  concerning the great diversity which was used in old time, in abstaining from meats, and in keeping of lent.  
For in ancient time, the Roman Church did make their lent of three weeks and no more. And all Greece Slavonia, and Alexandria made it of six weeks. And neither the one nor the other did make their lent of forty days, as it aught to have been in following the signifacation of the word. Moreover some of them did abstain from all things that had life: Other some did eat only fish: And some others (which were not of the grossest diet) did feed only on flying souls and fish, and did eat neither beef, Mutton, nor other such gros flesh.  
There were some other so scrupulous, as they would eat neither eggs nor whitemeate. And others, which were not scrupulous at all, did eat of all kinds of meats, saving that upon the fasting days, they would not eat till late towards night. All which diversities (saith the history) were in those days practised in sundry churches, without finding any fault, or challenging one an other for so doing. Whereby it appeareth, that the christians which lived in those days, were of much greater modesty, than those which have lived in our days, in whom we have seen all kind of cruelty, in burning and persecuting of such as have not followed the traditions and superstitions that are observed in the Romish Church.  
As touching Pilgrimages, 
Pilgrimages  They also are reproved in their Canon law. For every body knoweth, that amongst the Roman Catholics, the pilgrimage to jerusalem to visit the holy Sepulchre, is highly esteemed, as most holy, devout, painful, and meritorious, And yet for all this, a certain Canon saith, 
C. Gloria. 12. q. 2.  It is nothing worth to have been at jerusalem, but to have lived well there. These be the very words of the Canon taken out of S. jerom. It is not a thing worthy praise (saith he) to have been at jerusalem, but to have lived well at jerusalem.  
And as touching contemplation (whereby the monks would colour and maintain their idle life, 
The monks of old time did labour for their living. C. Nunquam de consec. dist. 5. ) their own Canons do openly condemn them, saying, that monks aught to exercise themselves in tilling the land, in dressing of gardens, in graffing of fruit trees, in making of nets to catch fish, in copying of books, and finally in following the example of the Bee, which never ceaseth to be doing of somewhat.  
And the same Canons do also witness, that in the monasteries of Egypt they never received any Moonk, but upon condition that he should labour: Not so much for his own necessity, that he might have whereof to live, as to keep their minds from wandering about evil Imaginations. In so much that we read that in old time, there was in Egypte a good Abbot named Serapion, 
Hist. trip. lib. 8. cap. 1.  which had under his charge ten thousand monks, (which is so little allowed and liked of poverty, as that they be very full of husbandly ordinances, for the well governing of the goods and riches belonging to the Monasteries: Insomuch that there is a Canon, which condemneth a certain kind of people for heretics, which termed themselves Apostolical, (as followers of the examples of the Apostles) in making profession to have nothing private of their own. And therefore, by this Canon, a man might say that all beggars are heretics.  
And who doth not see the infinite number of abuses, which are crept into the order of Monks in protes of time, against the ordinances of the Canon's. For, 
C. Si cupit. & C. Placuit. 16. q. 1.  (saith the Canon) if thou desire to be a Monk, that is to say a solitary person, as thou dost name thyself: What dost thou in the City, which is no place for solitary people, but for such as should haunt company?  
And another Canon following, saith thus: Let the Monk be contented with his Cloister. For like as a fish doth die as soon as he is out of the water, even so doth a Monk when he is out of his Cloister. Therefore, let him be solitary, and hold his peace, for he is dead to the world but alive unto God.  
But yet for all this, do we not see how the Monks are planted in the best, and greatest Cities, and in the fairest places of them, and in exceeding Princely and stately houses, whereas in ancient time, they were contented to devil in wild fields, and Forests, and in little cabinets, builded in the corner of some Rock? Shall not a man meet them now, at all hours, in every street, in markets, and pleading places, in Inns, in fields, in towns, and in Castles, in stead of being within their Cloisters?  
Furthermore, the Monks in old time, of what sort so ever they were, did eat no flesh 
No Monk aught to eat flesh.  at all, but followed the ordinance of the Canon, which saith thus: It is not lawful for any Monks, either to eat, or to taste of flesh: Not for that we esteem the creature of God to be ill, 
C. Carnem de consecra. dist. 5.  but for that we judge it meet and necessary, that Monks, should abstain from flesh, excepting only those which be sick. Now then, if it happen that any Monks breaking the ordinance of this ancient rule and custom, dare presume to eat flesh, let him be shut up and kept as a close prisoner, by the space of six months to do his penance.  
See now, how the Monks were bridled by their own Canons, but the most part of them have since that time, broken their bits. For, now there are none, but the Monks of the charterhouse, the Celestines, and these new come Capusmes, and Smoke Monks, which will observe that canon: and yet their observing of it, is (for the most part,) but in outward show, and hypocrisy.  
Truly, if there were no more but this to be found fault with, in the order of monkery, the matter were not great. For, christian liberty giveth every man leave, to use all kind of meats, which God hath created for man's use, so that he take it moderately, with thanks giving. But the cause, that led me to speak of this point among the rest, is to show, that the Monks of these days, do not observe their ancient Canons.  
And by the Canons also, 
C. Sanctim. 20. q. 1 Of Nuns.  in ancient time, it was unlawful for any Nun to take the vail, and to profess herself a Nun, unless she were above forty years of age. But in these days, they be forced to take it upon them, being but thirteen, or fourteen years old, whereof, the world seeth what good housewifery ensueth. And as touching the polling of their heads when they 'cause them to take the black veil: it is not so small a fault, as many esteem it to be. For, by the word of God, 
1. Cor. 11.6  women are commanded to preserve their heir in token of subjection. And according hereunto, it is forbidden by a Canon taken out of the Council of Gangra, that any woman should paul her head under pretence of Religion. These are the words of the Canon. 
C. Quecunque. dist. 30.  If any woman cause her head to be pouled in respect of Religion, cursed be she as a breaker of the Law of subjection, because long hear is given unto women to cover them withal, and to put them in mind of their subjection.  
And whereas in these days, it is thought so strange a thing amongst the Romish Catholics, that a monk or a Nun should marry, 
That Monks and Nunes may marry.  (because it seemeth that in their so doing, they break the vow of virginity which they have made unto God:) they declare herein, that they have not well read their own Canon's, by the which, such marriages are allowed: Namely, by one Canon taken out of S. Augustine, as a witness of the Council, 
C. Quidem dist. 27.  which saith thus. Some say, that those which marry after the taking of the vow be adulterers. But I say unto you, that those do sin right grievously, which do separate such married folks.  
Yet notwithstanding, we have seen many Laws here in France, which have disannulled the marriages of priests, Monks, and Nuns, and constrained them to return to their Cloisters, a thing quite contrary to this Canon.  
The self same doctor S. Augustine doth also show, 
De doctrina Christiana. lib. 4. Virginity is not to be preferred before honest marriage,  that they have done greatly amiss, which have so highly commended virginity, as to prefer it before marriage, saying that virginity did fill the heavens, and marriage the earth, which was the cause of the sounding of so many Nunneries. For, he excuseth S. Cyprian, and S. Ambr. of their so great praising, and exalting of virginity, saying thus: Whereas Cyprian the martyr hath written of the behaviour which aught to be in virgins, he did it not to entice them to make vows of virginity: but Ambrose the Bishop, (through his great eloquence) sought to inflame their desires thereunto. Truly, both the one, and the other have sore rebuked those women, which go about to grace, or rather to disgrace themselves with painting of their faces: 
The abhominablenes of such as paint their faces.  against which sort, Cyprian (amongst other things) saith thus: If an excellent painter, had well, and lively counterfeited a man's face and body, & afterwards, another unskilful painter would needs take upon him to overpainte the same again, undoubtedly, the former painter should have great cause to find himself grieved, and injuried. And thinkest thou (daughter) to escape the punishment of God, who hath fashioned thee, when thy damnable rashness dareth presume to control Gods painting, by thy painting? For, be it that thou art not unchaste, & whorish to the worldward, yet, notwithstanding, thou through the whorish enticements of thy painting art worse than the very strumpet and adulteres, forasmuch, as thou hast corrupted, and marred God's workmanship in thyself. Whereas thou dost it to beutefie and to trim thyself, it is nothing else, but a corrupting of God's workmanship, and a defacing of the truth.  
hearken here to the voice of the Apostle who warneth thee thus. Purge your old leaven, that you may be made new dough, without leaven: For, Christ our Easter Lamb is offered up for us: Let us therefore make good cheer, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of naughtiness, and malice: But with unleavened bred, that is to say, with the bread of sincerity, and truth. For, what continuance in sincerity and truth is there, when the thing that was pure, is defiled, and when the truth is changed into untruth, by false colour, and painting with slabersauces. Thy Lord doth say unto thee, Thou canst not make one of thy hears, either black or white. And yet thou, to overmaster the word of thy Lord, wilt thou needs seek to climb above him, by thy treacherous contempt, and overbold dealing? Thou paintest thy hear, and by evil handsel of the thing that shall hap unto thee, dost frizel thy head with fire.  
Ambrose also, doth speak thus against these counterfeit paintings: From thence (saith he,) spring enticements to vice, namely, that women do paint their faces with colour made for the nonce: In so much, that by the coloring of their countenances, with the filth of their painting, for fear to displease men, they purchase to themselves the staining of their chastity. What a folly is it to change a natural face, for a painted face? For, in fearing the judgement of their husbands, they loose their own judgement, because that such as will needs change the shape and fashion which God hath given them by creation, do condemn themselves: and in seeking to be well liked of others, do first of all mislike of themselves. What better judge of thy foulness (thou woman) can there be, than thyself, that art so loath to be seen in thy own natural likeness?  
If thou be'st fair, why dost thou hide thyself? If thou be'st foul, why dost thou belly thyself, in desiring to seem fair, and by thine own fault, make thyself worthy of blame, as well in thine own conscience, as in the opinion of others?  
The same Ambrose, speaking of virgins, doth set down unto them, (under example of a perfect virgin) of what behaviour our virgins aught to be, 
What the manners and behaviour of virgins or maidens aught to be.  saying: There was a virgin, which was a virgin not only in body, but also in mind: who by no outward show, did at any time corrupt the sincerity of her affection. She was humble of heart, sober in speech, wise in understanding, of few words, given to reading, not putting her trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the prayers of the poor, earnest in her work, shamefast in her talk, seeking God and not man to be the judge of her heart, not doing wrong to any, wishing well to every body, honouring all her elders, not envying her equals, voided of boasting, following reason, and loving virtue.  
Hath this virgin at any time offended her Parents in word or deed? when hath she been seen to be at any jar with her neighbours? when despised she the poor? when mocked she the lame? or when shrunk she away from the needy? Her only care hath been to haunt the company of such men, as are accompanied with mercy and honest shamefastness. There hath not passed her one suspicious look, nor dallying word, nor any unshamefast gesture. Her pace hath not been uncomely, nor her voice loud, or over shrill. But, to be short, her outward behaviour hath always been the representer and Image of the goodness of her mind: for, a good house aught to be known by his entry, & make show at the first, that there is no darkness in it, but that the Lamp which is within, doth shed forth his light to the outer parts.  
What shall I say of her moderate feeding, and of the great abundance of her dutiful doings? In the one, she passeth Nature, and by the other, she oppresseth it. She letteth no time slip, without doing some good. And her sobriety is such, that she doubleth her fasting days, and when she hath desire to eat, she maketh her meal of the first meat that she meeteth with, which she taketh alonely to keep herself alive, and not to pamper herself for pleasure. By these words the meaning of Ambrose, is not to encourage maidens to vow virginity, but to show of what behaviour they aught to be, which have already vowed it.  
Hitherto I have rehearsed the very words of S. Augustine, who doth allege the forewritten sentences of S. Cyprian, and S. Ambrose to show that they esteem not so much the vow of virginity, as the good behaviour which aught to be in both those, which be vowed, and in the others also. And it is to be noted, that in the saying of S. Ambrose, above written (which speaketh of the manners, duties, and behaviours of the virgins which have vowed virginity) there is no mention made of any of the hypocritical, and superstitious Ceremonies, which in these days, are observed by the Nuns. He describeth them at large, and (as it were by piecemeal,) what they aught to be, & in what sort they aught to busy themselves, and wherein they aught to spend their time: and yet in all this, there is not one word spoken of their Popeholines. But contrariwise, whereas he saith, that the vowed virgins, (which now a days be called professed) aught to be diligent in working, to beware of disagreeing with their friends and Neighbours, not to withdraw themselves from the needy, to frequent only such men as are merciful, and shamefast, and to be of countenance and behaviour sober, and not nice or wanton.  
It appeareth thereby evidently, that in those days, they were not shut up in Monasteries, but kept their vow of virginity, in living in houses of their own, or else with their kinsefolk, exercising themselves in all good works, of godliness and virtue. And now that we have spoken sufficiently of Nuns, let us return again to the Monks.  

A prohibition of the inventing of new orders of Religion.  It is to be noted, that in the year 1273. in the time of Pope Gregory the tenth, there was a Counsel holden at Lion, whereby was confirmed the prohibition made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the third in the year 1215, which forbade the devising of any more new orders of monks, or habits of new religion, (whereof there had sprung up a marvelous sort since that time,) and all new religions which had been invented after the said Council of Laterane, were disannulled and forbidden. What shall we then say of the smokymonkes, the jesuits, and the Capussins', which are grown since that time.  
To conclude, neither the Monks of old time, nor those which have been devised o'late, nor their vows, nor their works, have any ground in the word of God, neither do they behave themselves according to their own Canons.   

❧ Of the commandments of God. The u chapter.  
THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholics and that protestants touching the commandments of god, 
The Pope hath defaced and wiped out the second of the ten commandments.  is not small. For the protestants accuse them (or else the Pope) to have wiped out the second commandment, which forbiddeth Images: and to have cut the last commandment into twain, to make up still the number of ten.  
And truly it is a great treachery, & a presumption utterly intolerable, to have been so bold, as to raze a whole commandment out of the law of the living God. For if ye mark well the commandments which the priests pronounce in the saying of their common Mass: ye shall find that Immediately after the first commandment, (which is, Thou shalt honour but the one God, and love him perfectly) they have put the third commandment, which is, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, and have wiped out, and overskipped the second commandment, which doth forbidden to have Images or to honour them.  
Which thing hath been done of purpose by the Pope and his Adherentes, that they might the more easily fill the temples of the Christians unawares, with Idols and Saints of both kinds, to draw unto themselves offerings and obuensions, and other like things, as may be seen by the sequel thereof. So as in this point, the doctrine of the Romish catholics is contrary to God's word and commandment: for God saith, Thou shalt make to thyself no graven Image, nor the likeness of any thing, neither shalt thou do any honour unto them.  
Contrariwise the Romish catholics uphold, that it is lawful to have Images in Churches, (as they have) and to kneel before them, and to offer up candles and incense to them, and to put of their Caps unto them. Is not this I pray you, a direct encountering of God's ordinance, and a trampling of it under foot, and a robbing of the creator of his due honour, to bestow the same upon stones and stocks? 
A fond distinction between worshipping & serving  For if they say that they worship none but only God, and that the things which they do to the Saints, and to their Images, is but a serving of them, according to their own distinction of worshipping and serving: The answer hereunto is both ready and very easy, namely, 
Venerabiles de consec. dist. 3.  that first their own canons, which allow the honouring and serving of Images, do use the self same term of worshipping, saying that Christians aught to honour and worship Images.  
And as for their distinction of worshipping and serving, it can in no wise serve to excuse them. First because it doth not follow by force of that distinction, that it is lawful for them, under that pretence, to wipe out one of the commandments of God.  
secondly because this distinction of worshipping and serving is fond & foolish, chiefly in the Application, which they make thereof. For they say that they honour God with the honour that belongeth to worshipping, and that they honour the Saints with the honour that belongeth to serving. Now who is so very a fool, that he doth not perceive, how by this means they humble themselves more in their honouring of Saints, than in their honouring of god. For he doth more embase himself which serveth, than he which worshippeth or honoureth. For as we commonly see, great lords can found in their hearts to honour mean personages, to whom notwithstanding they will not vouchsafe to submit themselves to do them any service.  

De civitate Dei. lib. 5. cap. 15. lib. 6. c. 1. lib 7. c. 32. lib. 10. cap. 1. & 4.  But yet moreover, this distinction is false: As S. Augustine proveth, who saith that worshipping is always taken in the Scriptures for service: So as by that reckoning, worshipping and serving are all one thing. And in very deed, both in the Scripture and also in the books of the ancient doctors, those two words are names of one self same thing, and signify both one thing without difference. And as for the honouring of Images, 
Au. de doctr christ. lib. 3 cap. 7.  the same doctor, who never hard of the distinction of worshipping and serving, doth utterly condemn it, saying that those be greater Idolaters which worship the Images that are made by the hands of men, Than those which do worship the Son, the heaven, the sea, and the other creatures which are made by the hand of God.  
Again the Protestants say also, that the Romish Catholics have corrupted the third commandment. 
How the Papists deface the 3. commandment.  For by the same, god doth forbidden men to take his name in vain. But yet doth he not forbid to swear by his name, when the oath is not in vain, (as when a man is brought to affirm a truth before the Magistrate) But doth command that in such case, 
Deut. 6.13.  a man should swear by his name. And truly, when in such an earnest matter men affirm the truth: it is an honouring of God, who is the truth itself, to take him to witness, and it is a dishonouring of God and a despising of him, if they swear by any of the creatures. Yet notwithstanding, the romish Catholics permit men to swear in judgements upon the relics of S. Anthony, and by the heesayntes and sheesayntes and other creatures which thing their own canons do condemn. 
C. considera. c. Tu malum. c. Siquis. 22. q. 1.  Consider (saith a Canon) that our Saviour hath not forbidden us to swear by God, but forbiddeth us to swear by the heavens, by the earth, by jerusalem, or by thy head. another Canon saith thus. Thou dost not amiss in using an oath well: for although, that of itself it be not good to swear: yet nevertheless, it is necessary, when a man is to be persuaded in a truth There is an other canon which punisheth those that rend god in pieces, by their strange oaths (which now a days are but to much used) saying thus: If any man swear, by the hears or by the head of God, or do use any such like blasphemy: If he be of the clergy, let him be deposed: and if he be a lay man, let him be accursed.  
The Protestants say farther that the catholics have so corrupted the fourth commandment, 
The Papists have corrupted the fourth commanodement  as that (by all likelihood) their meaning was to have made it quite away, as they did the second. For God sayeth in his Law, six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do, but the seseventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. etc.  
And the Romish Catholics do contrariwise say, that in some weeks we aught not to labour past three or four days, or five at the most, for the rest (say they) of the six aught to be employed idly, in keeping them holy and feastful to the saints.  
I pray you tell me, is not this a manifest impugning of the sacred & inviolable commandment of God our creator? Is it not a setting of themselves directly against his holy will? I know well it may be said, that in the time of the old law of Moses, they did make more resting days than the seventh, which was called the Sabaoth day: As the feast of the Tabernacles, of Trumpets, of unleavened bread, of Easter, & such others like. But the answer hereunto is, that such feasts were commanded by the express word of God. And be not those feasts which are celebrated in the Romish Church. Otherwise in all the said feasts of the old law, the people did not loiter from their work. yea, and even in the Christian primative Church men might work in tillage upon the Sunday, 
Men may work upon the Sundays  as it appeareth by a law made by the Emperor Constantine, Which saith thus. 
L. Omnes. 3 C. de Ferijs.  Let all judges, Citizens and handicrafts men, forbear their work upon the honourable day of Sunday: But let it be free and lawful for the husbandmen to labour in tilling the Earth, (for often times it happeneth, that on the other days, the weather serveth them not so well to sow their corn and to dress their vines) lest by overhipping so small space of time, they might loose the commodity given them by the heavenly providence. Given the second day of March in the year of the second consulship of Crispe Constantine  
But there is a Canon taken out of S. Gregory, which proceedeth yet further and saith moreover, that those which teach to abstain from work upon the Saturday and Sunday, be teachers of Antichrist. These are the very words of the Canon. 
C. pervenit. de consec. dist. 3.  It is come to my knowledge, that certain people of perverse disposition, have sowed among you some points of doctrine contrary to the holy faith, commanding men to abstain from working upon the Sunday: whom what else may we call than preachers of Antichrist, who at his coming will 'cause men to rest from all labour, both upon the Saturday and Sunday too.  
This Canon doth plainly condemn the doctrine of the Papists, which hold opinion that men aught to do no manner of work upon the Sundays nor on the holidays throughout the whole year. The protestants do, (in deed) confess, that the Sunday aught to be employed rather in the service of God, than in any other kind of travel. And that it is good to observe that order, to the intent that by resting on that day, folk may be the better able to go through with their work upon all the other days of the week: But to bind men's consciences to that order, were no better than to make them jews.  
And although the Romish Catholics find fault with men for labouring upon the Sundays and the other feastedayes: yet do they suffer usurers and merchants to use their traffic, and to make bonds, bargains, contracts, payments, and receipts of money upon their holidays So as it is commonly seen, that the times which are chosen for the making of Obligations and such other bonds and bargains, be the Sundays, and the other feastdaies: And that the times appointed for payments of money, are generally upon the feastdayes.  
And yet if now a days, any poor protestant should labour six days of the week in the fields, or in his shop to obey God and to maintain his poor family: by and by they will cry out that he is an heretic, and worthy to be burnt or banished. And why so? Is it heresy to obey God? Now when when men use such speeches, is it not all one, as if they called virtue, vice: and white, black? Therefore let them hardily know, that their spewing out of such speeches, is against God himself, who will one day well cause them to feel his terrible judgement, and make them know that he is jealous of his honour, and a revenger of the despite done to his commandments. The ninth commandment also is corrupted by the Catholic sophisters, 
The Papists corrupt the ninth commandment  for God doth utterly and simply forbidden to lie: And they are of opinion, that it is lawful to lie for a good intent: And not only to tell a lie by reporting some untruth, but also to break both promise, and oath to: Which is contrary to natural reason whereby the law of all nations hath been brought in, which willeth that both the public and private promise should be religiously observed & kept for the maintenance of humane society.  
And it is also contrary to the word of God, which not only reproveth liing, but also threateneth the liar with damnation, and commandeth us to keep our promise, even though it be to our own disadvantage. Also it is contrary to the canon law, which saith that all kind of lies are sin, and that we aught to keep our oath & promise, 
Promise' & faith aught to be kept inviolable to all men.  even with our enemies against whom we make war. 
C. primum. 22. q. 2. C. Noli. 13. q. 1.  For as the Canon saith expressly: Men aught not to seek peace to the end to make war, but to the end to gain peace. And I would to God that the Romish Catholics had well observed these Canons. For than had not we frenchmen fallen into the calamities, and ruin which we now be fallen into.  
The other commandments likewise, have been greatly corrupted by these Sophisters, 
The seventh Commandment corrupted by the Papists.  which name themselves catholics: As namely the seventh commandment, (which forbiddeth Adultery) hath been corrupted by the goodly counsel of Tollette, and by Isodorus which sayeth thus: A christian may not have two wives, 
C. Christ. dist. 34. c. meretrices. 32. q. 4.  nor more than two: but one only. But if he have not a wife, he may have a Concubine: which doctrine the Pope & his upholders have canonized and confirmed: thereby the better and more easily to maintain their shameful Lechery, notwithstanding that the seventh commandment, and also the ancient Canons prohibit all dwelling or matching together of man and woman, saving only in marriage.  
Wherefore, (for a conclusion upon this point,) it appeareth openly that the Protestants retain God's Commandments in their pureness and soundness, without taking aught from them: whereby it is evident to be seen, that their doctrine is the best, the ancientest, and the farthest from error according to our foresaid maxims   

❧ Of the Sacrament of Baptism. The vi. chapter.  
ALthough the Romish Catholics hold opinion that there are seven sacraments: yet not withstanding to avoid tediousness, we will speak here but of two: That is to say of baptism, and of the lords Supper.  
As touching Baptism, the Catholics and the Protestants do well agreed in the principal points: which is, that it aught to be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy ghost, with the sign of water.  
But they do differ very much in the other points and ceremonies: for the Catholics believe that if a child die before he be baptized, he cannot be saved: and that in case of necessity, women may baptize. And they would have Baptism ministered with conjured water, such as had been kept all the year in a vessel, (which they call a font) within the Church: affirming that the evil spirits be conjured to go out of the bodies of the little Infants which are baptized: And that they must be held all naked over the font in the time of the christening, and that both salt and spittle should be put into the mouths of the babes: All which things the Protestaunts do utterly disallow because as touching the infants which die unchristened, if they belong to God's election, (which goeth both before their nativity & also before their conception) they be with him and are partakers of his salvation, although they die unbaptised.  
For God's election cannot be disappointed. Besides this it is not their fault if they be not baptized, but the negligence of their Parents, or by chance of sudden death.  
And as concerning women, their sect and nature doth exclude them from public charges, which only belong unto men. And therefore are they altogether unmeet, either to preach in Churches, or to Minister the Sacraments. And touching the children of Infidels, it is not reasonable to receive them into the church to be members of christ, until they acknowledge him to be their head, and make cnofession of their faith, and consequently be of convenient years, because that being borne of unbelieving Parents, they have no warrant or witness, that they belong to the covenant of God. Neither do the protestants allow the forementioned ceremonies: And their reason is, for that they believe that god is the only cause whereof and whereby we receive the benefit of generation, and the remission of original sin in baptism, without the aid of hallowed water, or of any of the other Ceremonies. Nay, which more is, they take it to be a defiling of the holy baptism, to add thereunto any other ceremonies than the institution of God, & that it aught to be ministered purely and simply, according to his ordinance. For we aught to do this honour unto God, namely to believe that whatsoever he hath ordained is perfect, and that thereto there aught nothing to be added, nor aught taken away. And therefore it doth appear, that in this point of Baptism, the Doctrine of the protestants doth much better yield God his due honour than doth the doctrine of the Catholics.  
For the Protestants mind not to restrain the election of God to those only which are baptized, but do extend it to the children of the faithful, forasmuch as it is a thing very reasonable to be believed, that if the fathers and mothers be of the household of God, their children are so likewise. But the Romish Catholics do hold on the contrary, that the children which die before they be baptized, be not of the household of God, although their Fathers and mothers were.  
Again, whereas the Catholics enable women to baptize (which they call christening 
Women aught not to baptize children. ) in doing whereof they commit unto them one of the chief charges in gods house, to wit, the ministering of the sacrament whereby we be graffed into the body of Christ's church, and made the members of his body and meinie of his household:) The Protestants will not grant to admit women into any of the public charges in God's household, specially seeing that even by the civil laws, (which in that point agreed with the law of nature) women be disabled to take upon them the executing of any public office, even in the houses or dominions of earthly princes. Moreover whereas the catholics, (as much as in them lieth) not only receive such into the church by baptism, as are faithless and have no knowledge of Christ, neither they nor their Parents, but also bestow baptism upon bells after such a manner as they themselves have invented for it: The Protestants cannot find in their hearts to defile God's house so much, as to receive infidels into it, or to avow those to be the members of Christ, who have no faith in them, neither themselves, nor their Parents, for as much as it were to unseemly a thing to avow such a one for a member of a body, as acknowledgeth not the head there of.  
Finally, the Protestants yield this honour unto holy Baptism instituted by God, that they will in no wise add any thing to it besides gods ordinance, nor defile it with spittle, oil, salt, conjured water, and such other Ceremonies, As the romish Catholics do. Besides this, the word of God doth teach us, 
Math. 19.23. & Exo. 20.6. & 1 Cor. 7.14.  that Christ received little Children which were not baptized, and that he pronounced of them, that the kingdom of heaven doth belong unto them, and that God doth promise' his blessings unto all the faithful, and to their children, yea even unto the thousandth generation. So as those infants shall nevertheless be saved (though they die unchristened) seeing they be comprised in the covenant of God.  

Math. 18.9. Hebru. 9.4.  The same word doth also teach us, that Christ gave commission of baptizing and preaching, not to the holy virgin his mother, nor to any other of the women that resorted to his Sermons: but to his Disciples, and Apostles. And therefore women aught not to take upon them to baptize, seeing that (as saith the Apostle) None aught to usurp any charge or degree of honour, 
Act. 8.37.48.50. Gal. 3.27.  without lawful calling thereunto. And the same word doth declare further unto us, that those, which do not believe in Christ, nor come of believing parents, aught not to receive Baptism, forasmuch, as baptism is no other thing, but the zeal of faith.  
And lastly, the same word of God doth teach us, that in the time of the Apostles, 
The manner of baptizing in the time of the Apostles.  Baptism was always ministered with common water, That is to say, without any charm or particular blessing. 
Mat. 3.6 & john. 3.22  For the Apostles and disciples of Christ, did baptize men on the banks of Rivers, or in the first water that they found fit for the purpose. Also it doth teach us, that God is the God of the faithful and of their Children: 
Gen. 17.7 Deut. 5.10  So as little Infants begotten and brought forth of believing or faithful Parents, do belong to God & to his covenant, even from their mother's womb: And so by consequence, their bodies, (as is aforesaid) cannot be possessed with ill spirits. And therefore it is needles to drive them out by conjurations, as the priests of the Catholics do. Likewise the Protestants say also, that to hold the tender babes all naked over the font, (specially in winter) is often time a cause of their death, and that those which do practise that Ceremony, be often guilty of murder, which is forbidden by the commandments of God. Likewise they disallow the salt the oil, the spittle, and the other ceremonies, aswell for that they cannot but be hurtful to the little children, as also because they be filthy and fond ceremonis, and have no ground in the word of God. 
Salvation dependeth not upon baptism.  Also it appeareth by the canons, that the salvation of men doth doth not depend wholly upon Baptism, but principally upon faith. These be the very words of the Canon.  

C. Baptism etc. cathecum. de consec. dist. 4.  S. Cyprian, (to prove that the torment of death may stand in stead of Baptism,) hath grounded his argument upon these words of Christ spoken to the unbaptised thief, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. In the examining whereof more narrowly, I find that not only the suffering of death for the name of Christ, but also the hearty believing in him, and the confessing of him, may supply the want of baptism when the party is so distressed by some extremity of time, as he cannot have the sacrament of batisme ministered unto him. And there followeth an other Canon, which saith that if a learner of the Catechism, (that is to say) such a one as is but newly entered into the doctrine of the faith, and is not yet baptized) do suffer martyrdom for the name of Christ, he faileth not to be saved, although he want Baptism.  
And the reason hereof (as saith the same canons) is, because that in this case, such as have not received the sacrament of Baptism, have not wanted it through pride or disdain, but through enforcement of necessity.  
In likewise it is forbidden by the Canons, that women, 
C. Mulier de cons. dist. 4.  (how wise so ever they be,) shall either preach or baptize. It is true, that hereunto they do join this one exception, (which is) if it be not in case of necessity. But if it be granted, (according to the truth) that the Infants which die unbaptised, be not therefore excluded from salvation: It followeth well, that no necessity can be great enough, to dispense with women for intermeddling themselves with the administration of the Sacraments.  
And truly in old time, 
C. duo tempora. de consec. dist. 4.  (as the canons do witness) Baptism was not ministered ordinarily, but only at two times in the year, namely at Easter, and at Whittesontyde: which well bewrayeth that they used no such haste, as that women should be fain to meddle with the matter. 
C. Baptizados. de consec. dist. 4.  Likewise it doth also appear by the Canons, that Baptism was not ministered to the infidels, but only to such as had faith, and did make confession thereof when they were of age to do it. And as touching the forementioned Ceremonies in deed there are some Canons, (how be it of the worst stamp) which do allow them. But the best and most ancient canons, do utterly dissallow them For by the ancient Canons, men are permitted to baptize in Rivers, in the Sea, in fountains, and in every other place commodious for that purpose.  

C. celebritatem de conse. dist. 3  These be the words of a Canon taken out of the decrees of Pope Victor: Let the Gentiles that are come to the faith, be baptized in all seasons and all places fit for them, be it in River, sea, or Spring, as being made clean by confession of the Christian faith.  
And by an other Canon it is well showed, that we aught rather to rest upon the Baptism of the covenant of faith, than upon the Baptism of water. 
C. verus etc. Non dubito de consecra. dist. 4.  For it saith thus: The true baptism doth not consist so much in the washing of the body, as in the belief of the heart, as the apostolic doctrine doth teach us, saying: They make clean their hearts through faith. And in an other Canon going before, it is said that a catholic not baptized, 
A man may be a catholic when he is unbaptized.  (for it presupposeth that one may be a catholic without being baptized) which hath an ardent zeal of divine charity, is to be preferred before a wicked man that is baptized. As for example, (saith the Canon) Cornelius the Centener who was filled with the holy ghost before he was baptized, is to be preferred before Simon Magus, who was possessed with an unclean Spirit after he had been baptized.  
But if Cornelius having received the holy ghost, had not been willing to be baptized, he had been grievously guilty of the despising of so excellent a sacrament.  
By which canon it is easy to judge that we aught altogether to depend upon that which the sacrament doth signify unto us, and upon the graces which god doth thereby give unto us and not to set our minds upon a sort of superstitious and vain ceremonies as the Romish catholics do in these days. For they may easily perceive by the things aforesaid, that the doctrine of the reformed religion touching the sacrament of baptism, is better, more ancient, & further from heresy, than theirs is, according to our three maxims here before set down to prove the points which are in question. Let us now speak of the supper of the Lord   

❧ Of the Sacrament of the holy supper. The seven. chapter.  
THe difference betwixt the Romish Catholics and the Protestants concerning the Supper of the Lord, doth consist in three points. The one, in the naming thereof: for, the Catholics call that the keeping of Easter, which the Protestants do name the Supper of the Lord. But this diversity of speaking importeth not much, for both of them are still a celebrating of the mystery of our redemption. True it is, that the Catholics use the manner of speaking of the old Testament: according to the phrase whereof, the feast of Easter (that is to say the passover) was celebrated by the eating of a Lamb, which did represent Christ, in remembrance of the deliverance of the people of Israel, whom God had brought out of the thraldom of Egypt. But the Protestants use the manner of speaking of the new Testament, whereby the holy institution which our Lord jesus Christ ordained to celebrated the remembrance of his death and passion, and to make us partakers of his body and blood, is called the supper of the Lord. But we must not strive about words, so it be known that to keep the Easter, and to celebrated the Lords Supper, are at this day one self same thing.  
The second difference (which is much greater) consisteth in the substance of the Sacrament. For, the Catholics (at leastwise the schoolmen) uphold, that assoon as the priest hath spoken the words of consecration over one host, or over many, they change their nature presently, and are transubstantiated into the very body and blood of jesus Christ, in the self-same greatness & bigness that it was upon the cross: so as the bread of the host is then no longer bread, although the colour, and the taste of bread remain still therein. Their proof of this doctrine is, that when our Lord jesus Christ did institute his supper, as he gave the bread to his disciples, he said unto them: This is my body. And in giving them the cup, he said unto them: This is my blood. They prove it also by a Canon, 
C. Ego. de const. Pisa. 2  which beginneth thus. I Beringarius, etc. which Canon saith in express words, that after the consecration, the bread and wine become not only sacraments, but also the very body, and the very blo ud of Christ. And that the priest doth sensibly handle the same very body, and break it. And that the faithful in eating the Sacrament with their mouths, do crash, and crush between their teeth, the very natural body of our Saviour.  
And upon this doctrine they conclude, that we aught to worship the bread of the supper, which they term the holy host. Because (say they) it is the very body of our Lord jesus Christ. But the Protestants allow not this Transubstantiation of the bread into flesh, nor of the wine into blood, nor consequently, the worshipping of them, as though jesus Christ were personally enclosed within the compass of the boast. For they say, that every Sacrament is called a Sacrament, because it is a sign of a holy thing. In so much that the outward sign is to be conceived by the eye: and the thing signified (which is inward and spiritual) is to be conceived by the mind: And that therefore in the holy supper, the bread and the wine are the signs which we see with our eyes & receive with our mouths, but the body and the blood of our Lord jesus Christ be the things signified, the which we comprehend and receive by the mind, as true spiritual food ordained to feed the soul and not the body.  
Now, to receive and eat this spiritual meat, and to 'cause it so to digest in our souls, which are spirits, as it may give them such nourishment as may make them live everlastingly like as the food itself and our souls that receive it are spiritual things: so must the eating thereof be spiritual also. And to make this spiritual eating to become effectual: we must not imagine that our souls are removed from hence, and conveyed up to heaven, nor that God leaveth his place in heaven, to come down to us hear below: for the mind of man doth well execute his works, though the thing that it worketh upon, be far distant from it. As for example: we see how it doth truly and effectually understand the things that are far from it by distance of place, by means of the ability or power of reasoning, which serveth it as an Instrument to join it to the thing that it worketh upon, how far of so ever it be by distance of place. And even as reason serveth the mind as an Instrument to couple it to the thing that it aimeth at in understanding: even so likewise doth faith serve the mind for an Instrument to receive and take hold of the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, in the spiritual meat & drink: notwithstanding that he be in heaven, on the right hand of his father, from whence he will not come until the last day.  
This manner of eating then, which is done spiritually by the means of faith, is no less real, than if it were done carnally by the mouth of the fleshly body, because the spiritual actions of the mind be no less real and true, than the corporal and fleshly actions of the body, which are perceived by the eyes.  
The third difference touching the supper, doth consist in the manner of receiving it. For the catholics (I always mean the scholedevines) do hold opinion, that the lay people (that is to say those which are no priests) aught not to communicate, but only with the sacrament of bread, And that the priests (as being more worthy) aught to communicate both with bread and wine. And yet lest the lay people should be difcontented with this partage, they say that the body of Christ is not without blood, but that the blood doth always accompany the body, and that so by consoquence, the lay people in receiving the sacrament of the body, receive also the sacrament of the blood. They hold opinion also, that the priest aught to receive this holy sacrament every day: And that it is sufficient for the lay people to receive it once a year, and that it is not sufferable that they should touch the sacrament with their bore hands. But the Protestants do in no wise allow such parting of it, nor yet their fond shift of consequency, but hold opinion that the holy sacrament (as well of the blood as of the body of Christ) aught to be distributed unto all the faithful, without any distinction of lay people or priests, because that otherwise the supper of the Lord should not be celebrated whole, but by halfedeales: And therefore that it is good and necessary to receive it as often as they may, that men may be the oftener put in mind of the excellent mystery of our redemption, and be made partakers of the heavenly food which giveth everlasting life to our souls. Likewise they say that in as much as Christ said, Take ye (which is referred to the hand) and Eat ye (which is referred to the mouth): the faithful aught to receive the Sacrament into their own hands, and the custom of the Primitive Church was to receive the sacrament with their own hands, 
Eccle. hist. lib. 6. cap. 33  as witnesseth Eusebius.  
Thus you see in effect what the doctrine, aswell of the protestants as of the catholics is, concerning these three points of the supper of our Lord, which are in controversy amongst them. 
Absurdities that follow Transubstatiation.  And now may a man easily judge by comparing the one doctrine with the other, which of them doth best yield god his due honour. For if the bread were changed or transubstantiated (as the Catholics term it) into the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ: it should follow by their doctrine, that he should come every day down from heaven, to be handled and eaten of a Million of Priests, and to be bruised and crushed betwixt their teeth: yea, and that he might also be eaten of mice, and gnawn with worms, which are things to much against reason, and too too intolerable to be heard. For it were a thing very unbeseeming the majesty of the son of God, to be so commonly conveyed through the hands, Mouths, and Bellies of so many Priests, full often foul and filthy both in body and soul: And that his precious body should be subject to be eaten of mice, and gnawn with worms. And therefore the Protestants do best yield Christ his due honour, for that they uphold that his body is gone up into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his father, and that from thence he neither doth nor will remove, until the last day when he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. And therefore that our worshipping of him must be in heaven, and we must lift up our hearts on high, and not worship him in the priests hands or in the pix. Likewise, they much more honour the supper of the Lord, than do the Catholics, because they do so often celebrated the same, & that not by half deals, but wholly, utterly abhorring the bruising and crushing of the flesh and bones of our Saviour betwixt their teeth, as a doctrine more meet for the barbarous people of America and the Cannibals, than for Christians. Neither will they (say they,) believe the contrary of that which natural sense doth teach us, that is to say, that the things which we see with our eyes, and taste with our mouths to be bread and wine, should be flesh and blood. Not nor that neither which is contrary to the order of Nature, namely, that accidents should have an abiding without a substance fit and convenient for them to be in: or that a natural body of a man, may be enclosed in so small room as the bigness or roundness of an host, for these things are contrary to nature. And if the Catholics reply that God is almighty, and able to do these things: the Protestants do answer, that doubtless he is of power to do whatsoever he listeth, In so much that because God will neither sin nor lie: we say he can neither lie nor sin. But our Lord meant so little that his body after his glorification should receive unnatural qualities: that clean contrariwise he would have his Apostles to judge by the sense of their sight and feeling, that his body was a true and perfect natural body, and not an imagined body. And although the effects of the Sacrament be things divine, and supernatural: yet are they not contrary to nature, as those are which depend upon the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Neither can it be proved by the word of God, that the Sacraments or any other of the ordinances of God, contain any thing contrary to nature.  
This doctrine of the Protestants touching this Sacrament, is also evidently grounded upon the word of God. For first of all, we do say and believe according to the articles of our faith, that jesus Christ is ascended into heaven, from whence he shall come, not ten thousand times a dry, but only once at the last day, when he shall come to judge both the quick and the dead. Which thing S. Peter declareth very openly, when (in speaking of the last coming of our Lord) he saith thus: 
Act. 3.21  Whom the heavens shall contain until the full setting of all things in perfect state, which God hath foretold by the mouths of all his holy Prophets, that have been since the beginning of the world.  
And jesus Christ himself also did well give us to understand, that we should not believe that his body after his ascension should every day return hither on the earth, nor remain shut up in boxes, when he said to his disciples, which found themselves grieved at the shedding of a little ointment upon his body: 
Mat. 26.11  You shall not have me always with you. And yet notwithstanding we must believe, that by the efficacy of his grace, he will always be with us, as he declared to his Apostles, in sending them throughout the world to preach the doctrine of his grace, saying unto them: Behold, I am always with you, 
Mat. 28  even unto the end of the world. And we must furthermore consider that the body of Christ was made in all points like unto the bodies of other men (except sin) as the scriptures do witness: 
Hebr. 4.17.  In so much that it hath ever had, and still hath at this present, a certain measure of greatness and thickness, as the bodies of other men have. Whereupon it followeth of consequence, that his body neither is, nor ever hath been, in any more places than one at one time.  
And therefore when he celebrated his holy supper with his Disciples, the day before he suffered his death & passion, his body which sat at the table, was not in the bread which he gave them: for the nature of a true body doth not permit it to be in any more places than one at one time. And if they reply that a glorified body may be in many places at one instant: the answer thereunto is, that the body of Christ was not then glorified but mortal, at the time when he celebrated his holy supper, & was put to death the day after, 
Math. 17.2.  and that the words of the holy supper cannot as now be true in any other sort, than they were when he spoke them and instituted the Sacrament. And therefore this replication is impertinent, and besides that it is untrue: 
Luk. 24.39  for the body of Christ, hath not through his glorification, lost the qualities of a perfect body, which is to be felt, to have flesh and bones, and to be contained within the compass of certain bounds. And therefore when he celebrated the holy supper, his body was not in the bread which he gave to his Disciples, and much less was the bread transubstantiated into his body. Whereof it followeth, that these words of jesus Christ, This is my body, This is my blood, aught to be understood sacramentally, as if he had said, This is the sacrament of my body & of my blood: because that (as is aforesaid) the nature of a very true body in deed, permitteth us not to understand, that every morsel of the bread which he gave to his disciples was his own natural body. Also the words which S. Luke and S. Paul use in speaking of the Sacrament of his blood, 
Luk. 22.20 1. Cor. 11.25.  do well declare that it is so to be understood.  
For they say not that Christ said This is my blood: but rather this cup is the new covenant in my blood. Nevertheless we must think it all one with the other speech, where it is said this is my blood, or else should S. Luke and S. Paul be contrary to S. Matthew and S. Mark, which were ungodly to believe So that if it be granted (as truth is) that to say this is my blood, is as much as to say this cup is the covenant in my blood: It followeth plainly that this manner of speaking, aught to be understood of the sacrament of his blood, or of the sacrament of the new covenant of his blood, which is all one, and cometh all to one sense.  
For the bread and the wine of the supper, are the sacraments of the body and blood of our Saviour jesus Christ, and of the new covenant which he maketh with us: because that in receiving this sacrament with our mouths, our souls do also participate and receive spiritually and really, the thing signified, which is the body and blood of Christ, in which participation consisteth the covenant which he maketh with us.  
And in very deed, 
Io. 6.51.53  jesus Christ himself in speaking to his disciples of the eating of his flesh and of the drinking of his blood: (yea and of the supper itself as the Catholics expound it,) perceiving them to be offended thereat, told them that it aught to be understood of a spiritual feeding, and not of a crushing of his flesh and his bones betwixt their teeth, nor of a camniballike kind of drinking of man's blood, as the catholic schoolmen of these days do understand it. Neither aught it to seem a more strange interpretation of these words this is my body, to say, this is the sacrament of my body, than to make the same interpretation of a great sort of other figurative speeches contained in the scripture.  
As for example, where Christ saith I am the vine, 
john. 15.1. john. 10.9. 1. Cor. 10.4 Exo. 12.43. Gen. 17. 13. 1. Cor. 12.12 Ephe. 1.23.  and my Father is the husbandman, I am the gate. And again it is said the rock was Christ, The Lamb is the passover, The circumcision is the covenant, The sacrifice is the cleansing of the law: and Christ is the church. For out of question, all these texts are to be interpreted figuratively. Thus may you see that the doctrine of the Protestants touching the holy sacrament of the supper, is grounded upon the pure word of God.  
But now as touching the canons. The Catholics think, they make altogether for them, and for the upholding & maintaining of their transubstantiation, as in deed there be of them which do, and chief the canon before alleged, which is an abjuration that pope Nicolas caused to be made at Rome, by one Beringarius 
c. Ego Beringarius de consec. dist. 2.  a deacon of the church of S. Mawrice of Angiers: by which abjuration they enforced this poor man of Angiers to say and protest, that he renounced the doctrine that he had holden aforetime whereby he had maintained that the bread and wine of the sacrament remained bread and wine still after the consecration, & that the body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ could not be handled with the hands of men nor, eaten with their teeth: Declaring that contrariwise, he there allowed the doctrine of the Romish church and of pope Nicholas, that is to wit, that after the consecration, the bread and the wine do change and transubstantiate themselves into the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, and that the priest in putting the sacrament into the mouths of the faithful, doth sensibly handle Christ's very body itself, and that the faithful do crowze and crash it betwixt their teeth. But against this goodly abjuration racked by pope Nicholas and a hundred and fourteen bishops out of this poor Deacon whom they held amongst them in their claws, there are many other canons to be opposed, which are of a better stamp. Thus saith one of them which is taken out of S. Augustine, where he interpreteth these words of the Lord, 
c. Prima quidem de consec. dist. J.  The words which I have spoken unto you are spirit & life: meaning of the eating of his flesh and of his blood. These words (saith he) are spirit and life to those that understand them spiritually: But to those that understand them carnally, they are neither spirit nor life. You shall not eat this body that you see, neither shall you drink the blood which they shall shed that shall crucify me: the thing that I commend unto you, is a sacrament: If you understand it spiritually, it will quicken you the fleshly understanding thereof availeth nothing at all. Afterwards he concludeth thus: The Lord shall be still above until the end of the world, but yet in the mean while his truth shall remain here amongst us. For it must needs be that the body wherein he is risen again, is in a place certain, but his truth is spread every where throughout the world. And to show that the flesh of our lord is not crushed so betwixt the teeth as Beringarius saith in his abjuration: here is an other canon taken also out of S. Augustine, which sayeth thus. 
c. ut quid paras deuten. de consec. dist. 2.  To what purpose dost thou prepare thy teeth and thy belly? believe and thou hast eaten: for to believe in the Lord, is to eat the bread, and to drink the wine, who so believeth in him, eateth him. And an other Canon following saith thus. That which is seen and perceived with the eyes, is the bread and the cup: 
c. Qui man ducant. de consec. dist. 2.  but as in respect of saith (which seeketh to be taught) the bread is Christ's body and the cup is his blood. And because the receiving of the sacrament is spiritual: It followeth, that at that supper the wicked receive but the signs only, & not the things signified, which are the spiritual meat of Christ's body and blood.  
And the same is avowed by an other Canon which saith: 
c. Qui discordat. ibidem.  He that agreeth not with Christ, eateth not his flesh, nor drinketh his blood, though he receive the sacrament to his utter undoing and damnation. By these Canons it appeareth plainly that transubstantiation is reproved and condemned, and so by cosequence the local worshipping of the body of christ in the sacrament of the bread and wine. But before I pass out of this matter. I will allege one text of S. Augustine's, 
Au. de doctr Christ. lib. 2 cap. 10.16.  which is so clear and fit to confute this transubstantiation, as is possible. For first of all, (that men may learn to know what manner of speeches in the scriptures are to be taken figuratively and what are to be taken according to the letter) he setteth down this rule which is a very notable one. If there be any thing (saith he) so spoken in God's word as that it can not properly agreed with the comeliness of good manners, 
A rule whereby to know figurative speeches from plain speeches.  nor with the truth of faith: you must take the same to be figuratively spoken. Afterwards to make this rule plain by examples, he saith these very words. If then the manner of speaking be a precept, so as it forbiddeth any crime and misbehaviour, or commandeth the thing that is good, and behove full: such manner of speaking is not figurative. But if it seem to command an evil fact, or to forbid the thing that is good and behoveful: then is it spoken figuratively. Unless you eat the flesh of the son of man (saith our Lord) and drink his blood, you shall have no life in you. By this manner of speaking he seemeth to command a cruelty and an evil fact, in eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood, therefore it is a figure whereby we be commanded to become partakers of the passion of our Lord, and to imprint gently and profitably in our memories, that his flesh was mangled and crucified for us. The Scripture sayeth likewise. If thine enemy hunger feed him, if he be a thirst give him drink, no doubt but in this case he commandeth a good deed. But whereas it followeth, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head: forasmuch as thou mayest think that he commandeth a malicious deed: doubt not but that this manner of speech is figurative, and that those words may be taken two manner of ways, the one to do hurt, the other to do good. Thou oughtest therefore rather to construe them according to charity than otherwise: and by those burning coals, to understand the burning sighs of repentance, whereby the pride of the party is healed, in that he repenteth himself to have been an enemy to such a one as relieveth his misery and necessity. Also it is written, who so loveth his soul shall loose it. Now, It is not to be thought that he forbiddeth so requisite a thing as the saving of a man's own soul, but that this speech aught to be taken figuratively. He shall loose his soul, that is to say, he must suppress and forsake the froward & untoward dealing, whereunto his mind is now given: by means whereof he is so greatly wedded to these temporal things, that he hath no regard of the everlasting things. Again it is also written, Show mercy and receive not the sinner. The latter part of this sentence seemeth to forbid a good deed, for it saith, receive not the sinner. Understand therefore that this is spoken by a figure, taking the sinner for the sin, to the end that thou admit not any sin.  
Thus have you heard the very words of S. Augustine, which do very well declare unto us (as well by the rule as by the first example which he setteth down) that the eating of the flesh and blood of christ in his supper, aught to be understood spiritually & sacramentally, and not after the manner of the cannibals (which is utterly void of all humanity and good manners) as those transubstantiatiers would make us believe.  
And whereas the catholics uphold, 
The supper aught to be received in both the kinds.  that this sacrament aught not to be distributed unto the lay people but by halves (which they do term under one kind) the same is expressly condemned by their own canons, as high treason towards God. For you shall here what a canon saith, which is taken out of the decrees of Pope Gelasius.  
It is done us to understand, 
c. Comperimus. ibidem  that some having received the holy sacrament of the body, do abstain from the cup of the holy blood, which thing they aught not to do: for in as much as it is evident, that in so doing they entangle themselves (in I wots not what a kind of superstition) they aught to receive the sacrament whole together, or else to abstain from it altogether. For the dividing a sunder of one self same mystery, can not be done without great treachery. And furthermore where as the most part of the lay catholics, do content themselves with the receiving of the sacrament only once a year, (which is at Easter) they are condemned by the canons, which declare that those are not to be taken for catholics, which receive not three times in a year. These be the very words of a cannon taken out of the council of Agatha. 
c. Seculares ibidem.  The lay people which receive not the lords supper, at Christmas, at Easter, and at whitsuntide, let them not be taken ne reputed for Catholics. Thus may all men perceive & judge, with what manner of passion these catholics are carried away, which do so boldly condemn the Protestants as heretics for their doctrine concerning this point of the supper of the Lord, and so do spitefully name them Sacramentaries, as though they denied this sacrament. For in so doing, they do also unawares condemn their own camnons, which otherwise they esteem so greatly, that many of them do attribute more authority unto those Cannons, than to the holy scripture: saying that they be the determinations of the holy mother church, whereunto they aught to stick because the scripture is to obscure, and may be taken both ways. But indeed it is nothing so: for the scripture hath but one sense, which is easy to be found out of a man that is willing to learn by conferring one text with another. But the cannons are in many cases quite contrary one to another. I know full well that too shifted off these contrarieties, the school men say that we must always hold us to those that were last made. But I answer them that that is as much to say, as we must always hold us to the worst. For every man of sound judgement may always easily perceive, that the ancient cannons are better than those of latter tyme.  
And further, to abate the authority of their canons by their canons themselves I say, that the cannons do will us to search the understanding of the obscure texts of the scripture, in the scripture itself, And those which seek it elsewhere, are the very schoolmasters of error. These are the very words of a cannon. What is more ungodly, 
c. Quid autem. 24. q. 3  than to hold an ungodly doctrine, and not to believe those that are most wise and learned? But all such do fall into this kind of ignorance, as make not their recourse to the words of the Prophets, to the writing of the Apostles, and to the authority of the Evangelists, to learn the knowledge of the truth in any obscure point, but will needs trust to their own wit And therefore they become schoolmasters of error, because they list not to be disciples of the truth.  
Which cannon in very deed, doth deeply in few words condemn the scholedevines that make more account of the authority of the Cannons and doctors of the church, than of the very text of the scripture, which they account to be to obscure. And true it is, that some texts of the scripture, are in some places very dark: howbeit there is no text so obscure, but it may be made plain by other texts of the same scripture, Specially if they resort (not to the cannons and decretals, but) to the Hebrew text for the the old testament, 
Aug de doc. Christ. c. 11.  and to the Greek text for the new testament, as S. Augustine doth teach us, who saith in this wise. 
C. ut veterum dist. 9  Such as understand the latin tongue, must for the better understanding of the whole Scriptures, have the knowledge of two other languages more: that is to wit, of the Hebrew, and of the Greek, to the end they may have recourse to the very fountain of the original copies, when the diversity of the Latin rranslations doth breed any doubt. And hereto accordeth a Canon which saith thus: Like as the truth of the things that are contained in the old Testament, aught to be examined by the Hebrew books: Even so the truth which is written in the new Testament, aught to be made plain and clear by the Greek books.  
I beseech you what can be brayed again this Canon, by the whole herd of these Asses, which are so bold as to say, that the Hebrew and Greek tongues be the Languages of Heretics, and therefore do utterly reject and condemn them. Do they not by the same means, condemn the canons and ancient doctors? And if they condemn them: Are they to be holden for good Catholics?  
Well: let us come now to speak of the Mass.   

Of the Mass. The viii. Chapter.  
THe difference betwixt the Mass and the Supper of our Lord is great. For, the Catholic schoolmen which understand what the mass is, (for all of them understand it not) do say, that it is a Sacrifice, whereby the Priest offereth up the body and the blood of our Lord jesus Christ unto God, for the soul health, both of the quick and of the dead: Which Sacrifice is accompanied with divers other parcels as accessaries: that is to say, with divers prayers, and divers texts taken out of the gospels and epistles of the new Testament, and with diverse verses taken out of the Psalms of David, and other books of the old Testament, and interlarded throughout with many and divers Ceremonies. And this goodly omnigatherun hath been patched together at many & Sundry times, by divers Popes. And that is the cause why the Catholics do put the mass among the commandments of their holy mother Church. For this commandment, Thou shalt hear mass upon the Sundays, and upon other feastful days enjoined, is the first commandment of the Church of Room. But as for the supper of our Lord, It is no sacrifice, but an holy banquet, which is prepared to put us in mind of thonly and sovereign sacrifice, whereby our Lord jesus Christ himself was once for all sacrificed for our redemption, and to make us partakers of his body and blood, by the spiritual and effectual eating thereof: So that there is no more likeness between the celebrating of the lords supper and the celebrating of the mass, than is betwixt giving & taking, which are things far differing, For, in the supper, the faithful receive the body and blood of Christ: but in the Mass, the Priest giveth, or offereth up Christ wholly unto God the Father, as an host of sacrifice.  
Now it must needs be granted, that in this point of the Mass, the catholics and the Protestants do utterly disagree, And that the same disagreement is the principal cause, why the Catholics do so extremely bate the doctrine of the said Protestants. For they esteem the mass to be one of the principal points of the Christian religion, and therefore think it very strange, that the Protestants should be so bold as to reject it, sith it hath dured so long time, and is composed of so many good things, drawn out of holy Scripture, the which the Protestants seem to reject, in rejecting the texts that are taken out of it.  
In deed these reasons give some likelihood whereby to judge so, without hearing the other party. But if the Catholics will use a little patience, and here the replies of the Protestants: they shall not find them so void of reason as they think. For first they say, that the only sacrifice, whereby Christ himself was sacrificed once for all, is more than sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. Yea & though he had shed but one only drop of his precious blood upon the cross: It had been sufficient to have satisfied the justice of God his father, and to wash away the sins of all men, which should be borne into the world in an hundred thousand years, if the world should last so long, for that inasmuch as he was the son of god, the dignity of his priesthood and the infinite greatness of his Sacrifice, are of sufficiency and worthiness enough and more than enough, to do away the innumerable sins of all men hitherto borne, or hereafter to be borne. And therefore it is great outrage (say the Protestants) to our Saviour, to crucify him new again (as they do in the mass) to obtain remission of sins, and life everlasting, for the quick and the dead for it is all one, as to say, that his only once sacrificing of himself, is not sufficient to take away our sins, and to obtain us life everlasting, because that if they held it for sufficient and perfect, (as in truth it is) it should follow, that it were in vain to do it any more.  
And is it not a great blasphemy, to say that the oblation and sacrifice of the death and passion of our Lord jesus Christ is not sufficient for the salvation of the whole world? Truly it is not to be doubted, for although it be neither available nor appliable to any other, than to such as believe in him: yet notwithstanding his sacrifice is more than sufficient to save all the world. And furthermore whereas the Catholics (at the lest wise the simple common people) imagine that the Protestants in rejecting the mass, do reject the holy Sacrament of the body & blood of our Lord jesus Christ, they deceive themselves greatly: for contrariwise, the Protestants hold the same sacrament in his true perfection, as we have showed in the Chapter going before.  
Neither do they reject the texts that are stuffed into the Mass, and be taken out of the holy Scripture: But they like much better to read & learn them in the bible itself, than in the mass-book. Neither do they reject the good prayers which are mingled in the Mass: but they say it is much better to pray to God with a continual prayer, for Princes & Magistrates, for the Shepherds of the church, for the necessities of all the people, for the remission of sins, for those which are sick and afflicted, for the conservation of the faithful, for the enlightening of the ignorant, and for the advancement of the kingdom of jesus Christ, as they themselves do: than to say an Oremus or particular prayer for every of these things as the Priest doth in his mass, which saith now one Oremus for himself, and by and by another for the Pope, and 〈◊〉 a third for his benefactors, and for those that are departed, and often times for brute beasts, as is done in the Mass of S. Anthony.  
For besides that the most part of the prayers in the mass be not allowable by the word of God: It is certain that men pray more heartily, more advisedly, and with greater zeal when the prayer is continued to the end without interruption, than when it is said by jumps with often interruption.  
Besides this, the people which do hearken to the Priests Oremus, cannot set their minds well upon the prayer which he is saying, because they understand it not, nor often times the Priest himself.  
To be short therefore, by this doctrine of the Protestants, God is better honoured, than by the doctrine of the Catholics. For the Protestants in not admitting any other sacrifice than that which our Lord jesus Christ himself did make of his own body upon the cross, which sacrifice they esteem to be very sufficient and perfect for our salvation, do thereby yield the honour and the effect of our felicity, unto our Lord jesus Christ only: whereas the Catholics do attribute part of his honour to the Priest, and part to the sacrifice of the Mas.  
Likewise the Protestants do much better honour God, in learning the texts of Scripture in the Bible itself, which is the very original Record of his will: than those which will needs learn them in the Massebook, where they be confusedly packed and unaptly applied. 
The only sacrifice of Christ is our salvation.  And now to show that the doctrine of the Protestants (which admit the only Sacrifice of Christ, and reject the Sacrifice of the Mass) is evidently grounded upon the holy Scripture, there needeth no other witness than the Apostle to the hebrews, For, first he doth testify unto us, that there is none other Sacrifice for the remission of men's sins, but jesus Christ only, and that he himself by his own blood, hath obtained for us an everlasting redemption: For thus he saith: Christ being become the high Priest of the good things that are to come, 
Heb. 9.11.12  by a greater and more perfect Tabernacle not made with hands. That is to say, not of this building, nor by the blood of Goats and Calves, but by his own blood, is entered in once into the holy place, and hath found eternal redemption. And to the end we should not think that Christ is no more a Priest, but that although he was once a Priest, yet as now he hath resigned that office unto others: The Apostle testifieth that he is a Priest still, and ever shall be, saying thus of him: 
Heb. 6.4.5.6.  Thou art a high Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedech. And because we should not think that there should be any other priest than he: the Apostle teacheth us that there may be none other, in that he saith that no man may take the honour of high priest unto himself, except he be called of God, as Christ was called to that office by his Father. These be his very words: Not man may take that honour upon him, but he shall enjoy it, which is called of God, as was Aaron. Neither hath Christ presumed of himself to be made high Priest, but he hath bestowed that dignity upon him, which said unto him: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.  
Now as we are taught by this text, that neither there is, nor aught to be any more than one Sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins, that is to wit, jesus Christ, which is and shallbe the high priest for ever: So are we taught also by other texts, that there is but one only Sacrifice once offered for all sins, and to obtain everlasting life, which is, the death and passion of jesus Christ our Saviour. And that we need none other Sacrifice for the remission of our sins but only that. This is the very text of the Apostle, which is so plain and clear as nothing can be more. By the which will we are made holy, 
Hebr. 10.10 14.18.  even by the offering of the body of Christ once for all. For by that one offering hath he made them perfect for ever, which are to be sanctified: & where remission of sins is, there needs no more Sacrifice for sin.  
Which words of the Apostle are a very definitive sentence pronounced against the Mass. For if there be no more offering for sin, what shall become of the mass, seeing it is no other thing in substance (as the very words of the consecration do declare) but a Sacrifice and an offering for the forgiveness of the sins of the quick and the dead? And in very deed the Catholic Schoolmen not being able by any means to rid themselves of these texts which are so plain and clear, do say for their refuge, that the mass is not a very Sacrifice in deed, but a remembrance of the only and true Sacrifice of our Lord jesus Christ.  
But the answer to this shift of descant is very easy. For seeing they do maintain that the very body of Christ is in the mass, and that the bread of the singingcake is changed into his very body, and the wine into his very blood: And that they break his body in pieces, and offer up both the body and the blood in Sacrifice unto God: It followeth of necessity, that their opinion is, that it is a very Sacrifice and not a remembrance only.  
On the other side, the protestants do say that the remembrance of the true Sacrifice of jesus Christ, aught to be done by celebrating his holy supper after the same manner that he hath appointed it. For he hath ordained that his Supper should be celebrated by many at once, because it is a sacramental communion of the body and blood of our Saviour, by the which we are made one body, and as it were one loaf in jesus Christ, & become partakers of one selfsame bread of everlasting life.  
These are the words of S. Paul upon the same matter: 
1. Cor. 10.16.17.  Is not the cup of blessing which we bless, a partaking of the blood of Christ? And is not the bread which we break a partaking of the body of Christ? For we that are many are one loaf and one body, because we be all partakers of one bread. By which text it appeareth evidently that the remembrance of the Sacrifice of our Saviour aught to be used in celebrating the holy Supper by many together, accordingly as when he did institute and celebrated it with his Disciples, they were many together. And so consequently it followeth, that the Mas neither is, nor can be a true remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ, seeing that none taketh part of it but the priest himself. Now let us come to the Canon's.  
The Canons which we have alleged in the former Chapter, when we spoke of the lords Supper, do sufficiently confute this Transubstantiation (which is the very principal part and foundation of the Mass:) And therefore we will speak no more of that point. 
Absurdities rising of Transubstantiation.  But I will speak of certain difficulties, into the which the Transubstantiation hath led the school divines, as it happeneth commonly (according to the saying of the Logicians) that in admitting one absurdity, there follow many more. The school doctors having once granted that the bread and wine in the Mass, are Transubstantiated into the very body and blood of our Lord jesus Christ, are greatly troubled how to resolve divers other questions, 
C. Cum Marthae quesivisti. extr. de celebr. Miss.  which have grown upon the same matter. Pope Innocent the third reciteth one of them, which he saith was greatly debated amongst the said Scholedoctors, (howbeit in such sort, as they knew not how to determine it) That is to wit, whether the water which the priest putteth into the chalice with the wine, be transubstantiated into blood or not, for they imagine, that water must needs be put into the chalice where the wine is, because it is written that out of the side of our Lord jesus Christ, there did issue both blood and water.  
Notwithstanding, their opinion is, that there aught to be more wine than water. 
C. Perniciosus. extr. eo  For Pope Honorius the third, did sharply check a certain Bishop, who in singing mass did put more water in his chalice then wine: whereupon grew a great disputation amongst the Scholedivines, as Pope Innocent, reporteth. For some of them held opinion, that the water was not Transubstantiated into wine, but remained natural water still, because (say they) there was water in the blood which issued out of the side of our Lord jesus Christ, when he was upon the Cross. And therefore, seeing that the wine in the Chalice at the mass time, is Transubstantiated into the very blood: it must needs be, that the water remaineth water still, to the end that there be an answerable resemblance, aswell of the water as of the blood. Others said, that although it were granted that water, must needs remain still in the Chalice with the blood, yet notwithstanding it must always be believed, that the water which the priest putteth into the Chalice, is turned into the self same water which issued out of the side of our Lord jesus Christ. Which opinion seemeth to have most show of wit, and most proportionble resemblance agreeing to the matter, though at the first sight it might seem an absurd thing, to say that water is turned into other water. For look by what reason the wine is transubstantiated into the very blood, by the same reason is the water changed into the water.  
The third opinion is taken out of Galene, and other Physicians, which say that man's body is compounded of four humours. That is, of blood, of phlegm, of melancholy, and of choler: and therefore (say they that are of that opinion) it is very like, that when the Evangelist said, that with the blood there issued water out of the side of jesus Christ, he meant that there issued out phlegm, which is a watery humour: Whereupon they do conclude, that in the Mass water was changed into phlegm. 
C. in quadam extr. de celeb. Miss.  But this opinion was condemned by the said Pope Innocent, in a letter which he sent to the Bishop of Ferrara.  
The fourth opinion is of such as uphold that the water also is changed into blood, as well as the wine. Which opinion the said Pope Innocent granteth to have in it, not most truth, but most likelihood of truth: Because (saith he) water is often times in the Scripture taken for the multitude of the people: so as the union which is made betwixt the water and the wine by the transubstantiating of the same water into wine, doth signify unto us the true knitting together of Christ with his people, by such a bond as cannot be broken. Truly, a reason drawn out of a quintisens' of the subtleties of Scotus, otherwise called Duns. Mark here the goodly questions, or rather the fond and heathenish dotages, wherein the Schoolmen and the Popes have wrapped themselves, by the mean of their Transubstantiation.  
Likewise also they find themselves greatly cumbered in answering these other questions: that is to wit, if a mouse or a rat do happen to eat the Sacrament of the host, whether she eat the very body or the accidents only. Again, whether the Accidents can be without a subject, and whether Accidents can be eaten or no. Also, whether the Accident without the subject may have the taste of the wine, and give nourishment to the body: and such other vain questions, whereof they can give none but very absurd resolutions, because the presupposing of transubstantiation, is nothing but absurdity.  
Besides this the Canons say not that our Lord jesus Christ did ordain the Mas, but they affirm that it was S. james, and S. Basill. 
The invention of the Mass fathered upon S. james, & S. Basill.  for these be the words of the Canon: james the brother of our Lord according to the flesh (who had the first charge of the Church of jerusalem) and Basil the Bishop of Caesarea (whose knowledge in the Scripture hath been renowned throughout the world) have brought unto us the celebrating of the Mass. 
C. jacobus de consec. dist. 1.  But yet neither S. james, nor the other Apostles, nor the Evangelists, have at any time spoken of the mass in their writings: so as there is no likelihood of truth in the report of this Canon, that S. james should be the inventor of the Mass. Neither were it to any great purpose to say that only james of all the other Apostles, was the first founder and setter up thereof. For, had it been a good thing, the rest of the Apostles would have allowed it as well as he: and not being good, he would have allowed it no more than the residue did. Besides this, S. james hath no more spoken of it in his Epistle, than the other Apostles have spoken of it in theirs. Neither is it to be believed that any of them would add aught to the ordinances of Christ their Master.  

C●nocte. de Cons. dist. 1  And as for S. Basill, the Canon hath unfitly joined him with S. james, to have helped him to make the mas. For he was 350. years after S. james. Moreover, there are other Canon's, which do father the inventing of every part of the Mass upon other founders. 
C. Ecclesi. dist. 2 C. Sacra. de cons. dist. 2 C. vasa. eo. dist. 1. C. Apost. eo C. Pacem igitur eo. dist. 2. Io. Stella venetus de vitis Pontific.  As for example, the using of unleavened bread, and the putting of water into the Chalice with the wine, they father upon pope Alexander the first. The Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, and the invention of the Corporace, they attribute to pope Sixtus the first. The invention of Gloria in excelsis, to pope Telesphorus the first. The invention to use chalices of gold and silver (which were wont to be of wood and glass,) To pope Urban the first. The singing of the great Creed at the Sundays mass, to Pope Mark. The saying of Confiteor in the beginning of the Mass, To Pope Damasus the first. The standing up of the people when the priest singeth or saith the Gospel, To Pope Anastasius the first. The kissing of the pax, to Pope Innocent the first The invention of anthems. taken out of the psalms of David, and the Introites, and Graduels, to Pope Celestine the first. The invention of the nine Kirieleysons, of the Alleluya, and of the offertory, to pope Gregory the first. The Oremus against the Turks Pagans', and Infidels (which in that time did make great wars upon the Christianes') to Pope Calixte the third. The long prayers which are in the secret words of the consecration, to Pope Leo the first, and to divers other Authors. So as SAINT Basill is not found to have done any thing toward the building of the Mass, as may appear by the Historiographers which have written the lives of the Popes, and by the Canon's which speak of their particular inventions.  
Now these Popes that have invented and added every one something to the Mass, were not all at one time. For betwixt the first and the last that are here spoken of, there was more than a thousand years: which showeth plainly enough, that the Mass is but an invention of men, and therefore deserveth not to be of such estimation as the Romish Catholics do reckon it. For it aught to be sufficient for us, to devil upon the holy ordinances and institutions of God, and to let go the inventions of men, seeing that the Scripture forbiddeth either to add or to diminish aught from God's word.  

Inconveniences ensuing to such as hear Mass.  Yea and there are some Canon's that seem to disallow the Mas. For among the rest, there is one which commandeth every man to receive immediately after the consecration: upon pain of excommunication, so as by that Canon it may be said, that all such as be nowadays at Mass, are excommunicated every one, save only the Priest, because none receiveth but he only. These are the express words of the same Canon: 
C. peract. de consec. dist. 2.  After the consecration, let them all communicate, except they will be put out of the church: for the Apostles have so ordained, and the holy Roman Church doth so observe the same.  
There is also another Canon which forbiddeth upon the same pain of excommunication, that any man should hear the Mass of any Priest which keepeth a Concubine or any other woman. These are the words of the Canon. We do command moreover that no man do hear the Mass of any Priest, 
C. Praebet. dist. 32.  whom he knoweth assuredly to keep a Concubine, or any other woman in his house: for so hath the holy Synod ordained upon pain of excommunication.  
By which Canon it appeareth, that a man shall in these days hardly hear a Mass, without putting himself in danger of excommunication, by reason of the notorious whoredom and bawdry which is amongst the most part of Priests. And moreover, the Canons denounce those persons to be Idolaters, which hear the Mass of any Priest or Deacon that is a Fornicator. 
C Simo qui s●● dist. 81.  For thus saith a Canon taken out of S. Gregory. If any Priest, Deacon, or Subdeacon, be stained with the sin of fornication: we in the name of the father almighty, & by the authority of S. Peter, do utterly forbidden him to come into the Church, until he have done penance, and made amends. And if they continued in their sin, let no man presume to hear their divine service: for their blessings shall be turned into cursings, & their prayer into sin. And this doth the Lord himself witness, where he saith by his Prophet, I will curse your blessings. And as many as disobey this wholesome commandment, shall fall into the sin of Idolatry.  
Were this Canon well understood of the infinite number of poor ignorant souls that hold of the Romish Religion, and do ordinarily hear the Masses and other Church services of lecherous priests: I believe, they would rather forbear it utterly, than defile themselves so wretchedly with Idolatry. And (as saith this Canon) receive the curse of God in receiving the blessing of such a priest. But ignorance accompanied with error, which hath been long bred and rooted in the Roman Church, do cause the poor people to be content to hear the masses of these Fornicators. But if a married Priest should sing them a mass, they would stone him to death, and not allow his mass to be good.  
Behold what power long forgrown error hath over poor ignorant people, and how strangely the tyranny thereof causeth their wretched consciences to go astray. For by the ancient Canons it is a cursed thing to shun the offering of a married priest. or to believe that the same is to be despised because he is married.  
These be the very words of a Canon taken out of the council of Gangra. 
C. Si quis. dist. 28.  If any man make difference of a married Priest, in forbearing to come to his offering, as though he might not do it because he is married: Cursed be he.  
And there is yet another Canon which saith that no Priest hath power to consecrated singingcakes, except he be a man of good life. Which thing should make the Romish Catholics to think that they put themselves in great danger of Idolatry, when they worship the singing cake, although it were admitted that their doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, which thing the Protestants do still deny. For questionless, by this Canon all be Idolaters which worship the singing bread that is consecrated by priests of evil life, as the most part of them be. These be the very words of the Canon: 
C. Sacerdotes. 1. q. 1  The priests which minister the body and blood of the Lord unto the people, do wickedly, in believing that by the law of Christ, it is the words which the priest speaketh, and not his good life which make the consecration of the Sacrament: And that to do the same, there needeth but only the solemn pronouncing of the prayer, without any merit of the priest: for it is written, that the Priest which hath any blemish in him, may not approach to the Lord to offer any Sacrifice unto him.  
So then by this Canon it may be well said, that in these days there are very few Priests which have power to consecrated.  
Moreover, in these days they observe no part of the Ceremonies appointed by the Canons, in the saying of their Mass. For they aught to sing the Mass in single linen cloth, and not in silks of colours. These are the express words of the Canon. By the opinion of us all, 
C. Consulto de consecra. dist. 1.  we ordain that no man presume to celebrated the Sacrifice of the Altar in cloth of silk, nor in any other cloth of colour, but in linen cloth only, consecrated by the Bishop, That is to say, made and woven of flax which groweth upon the earth, Even in such like sort, as the body of our Lord jesus Christ was buried and wrapped in a simple white sheet made of flax.  

There must be two at the lest to help a priest to say Mass  Neither aught they to sing or say Mass without two assistants, lest they should offend in the congruity of Grammar in having but one, when they said Dominus vobiscum, and Orate pro me fratres, speaking in the plural number. But yet this notwithstanding, the most part of Masses are said nowadays but with one Clerk to accompany the priest, yea and often times the Priest is constrained to answer himself, as it is said by a common proverb of a priest named Martin. These be the very words of the Canon: 
C. Hoc. quoque. de consec. dist. 1.  It is also ordained that no priest shall presume to say mass, except he have two assistants, so as he himself may be the third. For when he saith in the plural number, the Lord be with you, & these words of the Memento, Brethrens pray for me, it is very convenient that other folks should answer of themselves to his salutation. So as if all these Canons be well considered, every man may well perceive, that the Romish Catholics have no great reason to make so great account of their mass, or to think the Protestants to be in error, in that they will neither come at it nor allow of it.   

Of Marriage. The ix. Chapter.  
AS concerning marriage, the doctrine of the Protestants differeth not much from the doctrine of the romish catholics. In deed the Catholics do term it a sacrament, and the protestants say it is a holy institution of God, but not a sacrament: because that in every sacrament, there must be an outward sign to be discerned with the eye, and an inward thing signified, which is invisible, as I have said of Baptism heretofore, showing that in that sacrament, the water is the outward sign, and the washing of the soul is the inward & invisible thing signified: And in the supper of our lord, the bread and the wine are the outward signs, and the body and the blood of our Lord jesus Christ be the things signified, which our souls do receive inwardly and spiritually.  
But it cannot be said, that in marriage there is an outward visible sign and an inward & invisible thing signified: And therefore it is not a Sacrament. Again the Protestants affirm that marriage is honourable amongst all sorts of people, be they lay men or men of the church, noble or unnoble, rich or poor, because God hath instituted it. and hath permitted the use thereof to all persons of what quality soever they be, and to celebrated the same at all seasons: And that to make gloss and limitations or restrayntes of the which God hath set at liberty, is to go about to be wiser than God, which in deed is stark foolishness, beastly presumption, and heady traitorous. 
The Papists make fornication lawful, and marriage unlawful.  Contrariwise the romish Catholics hold opinion, that it is not lawful for men of the church to be married at all, nor to celebrated any marriage in Lent, in Aduent, and in the four ember weeks. And the reason whereupon they have founded this doctrine, is that they have imagined it to be a staining and defiling of the Churchmen, (which do handle sacred things) to be married: In so much as there hath been some of them, which have termed second marriages by the name of honest fornication. 
C. Hac ratione. 11. q. 3 C. Non oportet. & seq. 33. q. 4  And yet for all their forbidding of Priests to be married, they have allowed them to keep concubines, as we have said before, in the fourth chap. By means whereof they have given them leave to transgress God's commandment which saith, thou shalt not commit adultery, by taking from them the liberty of Marriage, which god doth allow to all persons. But if it should be asked them, wherefore priests (whom they esteem holy and sacred persons) should not use marriage, which they call a sacrament: what would they answer? For sacraments are meetest things for sacred persons. And if marriage be a sacrament, (as they hold opinion it is:) can it defile those which participate the same? Truly it is as absurd a thing to say that a Sacrament can defile, as to say that whiteness can make black. Thus doth it follow that God is better honoured, and his ordinances are more sincerely observed by the doctrine of the Protestant's, than by the doctrine of the catholics. The doctrine of the Protestants is clearly founded upon the holy scripture, whereby Marriage is commanded to all such as have not the gift of staidness, as before is said in the fourth chapter. For when God ordained marriage first of all at the creation of world, he gave this general rule: It is not good for man to be alone. 
Gen. 2.18. 1. Cor. 7.2.  Also S. Paul giving an other general rule thereof, saith thus: For the avoiding of whoredom, let every man have his wife, and every woman her husband. And in an other place he saith, that to forbid marriage is a devilish doctrine. 
1. Tim. 4.3.  And how then can the followers thereof a vow, that their doings in that behalf are acceptable unto God? Therefore it is easy to judge, whether of the parties are best grounded upon the word of God, namely whether it be the Protestants, (who hold opinion that the celebration of Marriage is lawful to all people, and at all seasons:) or the Romish Catholics, which maintain that it is not lawful for Priests, Monks, and Nuns: nor aught to be celebrated in the lent, advent, or the four ember weeks.  
There be Canons also, 
That the Marriage of Priests is lawful.  which do flatly condemn the doctrine of the romish Catholics in this point, and which affirm that marriage aught not to be forbidden to men of the church, which thing was also maintained by a good bishop named Paphnutius, (although himself was never married) in the first general counsel held at Nice in the country of Bithynia, In the reign of the Emperor Constantine the great: which opinion of his was followed by consent of all the counsel. These are the words of the Canon: 
C. Nicena. dist. 31.  The counsel of Nice intending to correct the lives of the Ecclesiastical persons, made certain laws called Canons: in consulting whereupon, it seemed to incline to the bringing in of a law, to forbidden Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons' to lie with their wives which they had taken in marriage before their entering into holy orders. Then Paphnutius standing up, spoke against it, saying that marriage is an honourable thing, and that it is chastity for a man to use the company of his own wife. And so he persuaded the Counsel, not to make any such law: alleging this reason both right grave and of great importance, namely that it might be an occasion of fornication to the ecclesiastical persons themselves, or to their wives. Such matter did Paphnutius allege, notwithstanding that he himself was never married: and his advice was allowed by all the counsel, in so much that there was no law made then concerning that article, but the matter was left at liberty for every man to do as he listed. Lo here a very notable and ancient canon, which hath eversince been observed and kept in the eastern churches, which would never suffer themselves to be bound to the vow of single life. And if the western church of Rome had done the like: Priests had never filled the world with so much whoredom and wickedness as they have done. And unto this Canon of the counsel of Nice, is agreeable the fifth chap. of the Apostolic canons, (which are allowed, for good & Catholic in the Decrees of Grecian) where it is said thus: If any Bishop, priest, 
C. Quoniam dist. 31. C. Placuit. dist. 26.  deacon or Subdeacon, or any other man of the order of Priesthood, do abstain from marriage, or from eating flesh, or from drinking of wine, not to make his mind more apt to the exercises of godliness, but as in way of misliking them, forgetting that God hath made both male and female, and that all his creatures be good things, and so thereby blaming and slandering that, which god hath created, let him be corrected, or deposed and put out of the Church.  
By which Canon is condemned not only the prohibition of marriage unto priests, but also the forbidding of men to eat flesh upon certain days, whereunto doth well accord, that which S. Athanasius did writ to one Dracontius a monk, who refused to be a bishop, because he imagined that the Monks life had more holiness in it, by reason that the monks did observe more scrupulously the prohibition of marriage, and the eating of certain meats. 
Athanasius in his epistle to Dracontius.  Well then (saith he) let not such things be alleged to thee by such as counsel thee to shun the charge of a Bishop. For I have known Bishops which have been great fasters, And Monks which have been great eaters! And Bishops which have drunk no wine, & Monks great drinkers of wine: Bishops which have been workers of miracles, & Monks which have wrought none. Again diverse Bishops have abstained from marriage, and many monks have been married and had children: And contrariwise, there have been many Bishops married and been fathers of children: and many Monks unmarried. And there have been clergy men that have eaten and drunk, and monks which have fasted: For both of them be lawful, and none of them both is forbidden, but every man may lawfully choose which he listeth.  
Whereby this good doctor doth plainly declare, that in his time marriage was not forbidden to men of the clergy, nor to any monks. And in like manner the ancient Canons accurse all those, which in exalting virginity do condemn marriage. These be the words of the Canon: 
C. quicumque dist. 31.  Whosoever keepeth virginity or single life, as in derogation of marriage, cursed be he, because his following of virginity, is not for that it is good and holy. And in very deed, the true virginity is that which consisteth in the mind rather than in the body, as witnesseth an other Canon, saying: It is much better to have the soul a virgin, than the flesh: 
C. 2.32. q. 5  yet were it good to have them both so, if it may be. But if we cannot be chaste to the worldward, let us yet at the jest be chaste towards God. For a true virgin may well be misused, but she cannot be made a whore, because the godly virgin is the church of God, and her chastity cannot be defiled by the brothelhouse. For the chastity of the mind abolisheth the infamy of the place.  
For the understanding of the which Canon, we must have an eye to the time of the primitive Church, when divers among the heathen men did put their bondslaves (whether they were wives or maidens) into brothel houses and common stews, to raise gain of the shameful abuse of their bodies. And it fell out oftentimes that their poor slaves were Christians, and yet full ill against their wills, they were feign to suffer that shameful abuse in their bodies, and to become as it were open brothels and harlots, to make gain to their Masters. whereof they are excused by this Canon, as having only their bodies abused by a forcible constraint, and not their minds by consent of their wills. Now therefore it may well be discerned by these Canon's, whether this doctrine of the Protestants concerning marriage, aught to be reputed erroneous or not, and whether it be not more agreeable to God's word, and the ancient Cannons, than the doctrine of the Romish Catholics. And now let us proceed on.   

¶ Of princess and Magistrates. The x, chapter  
THe Protestants hold opinion that all such as dwell within the lands, Dominions, or Provinces of any Prince, be they natural subjects or free Denizens, aught to yield faithful obedience to him, and also to all Magistrates under him, without any exception of persons, or of their goods. And that they aught to acknowledge and to honour him as God's Lieutenant upon earth, having the sword in his hand, to minister justice to all men, and to be the defender and maintainer of God's commandments, and to 'cause his Subjects to obey them. Also they hold opinion, that all folk aught to pray to God for the preservation and prosperity of the Prince, and of all other Magistrates. And they believe that to disobey the prince, is a disobeying of God who hath set him up. And that men must obey him, not only for fear, but also for the duty of conscience, which doth bind us to obey God, and so consequently the Prince whom God hath commanded us to obey.  

The clergy exempr themselves from the obedience of princes.  But the opinion of the Romish Catholics is, that such as are of the clergy be exempted from this general rule, and that they be not the subjects of temporal Princes, but of the pope: And that so by consequence, the prince neither may, nor aught to levy any tribute, benevolence, loan, or subsidy of the Clergy of his Countries, nor of their goods: 
e. Clericis. de immunit ecclie. in 6.  Accordingly as Pope Boniface the eight in one of his decrees expressly forbiddeth all Kings, Princes, Dukes, Earls, Barons, Potentates, Captains, Officers, Governors of Cities and Castles, and all other persons, of what estate, degree, or condition so ever they be, to do the like upon pain of present interdicting and excommunication, whereof none other but only the Pope himself can give absolution.  
Also they hold opinion, that the Prince (whom they term secular) hath no authority in matters of tenths, nor in matters of Matrimony among the lay people, nor in many other such like things.  
Thirdly, 
The Pope challengeth power to put down Princes.  they hold opinion that the Pope hath power to put down kings and Princes, and to deprive them of their Realms and Principalities, as Pope Gelasius vaunteth himself in an epistle sent to the Emperor Anastasius: wherein he allegeth the example of Pope Zachary, who deposed king Chelderike of France from his kingdom, 
C. alius. 15. q. 6.  not for any wicked doings (saith he) but because he was unfit to be a king. And did set up king Pipin the father of Charlemagne in his place. Also by reason of this great authority, which the Popes took to themselves over kings, they be puffed up with such pride, 
c. Solitae. extra. de Maior. & obed.  that they compare themselves to the Sun, and to Gold, and kings and Emperors to the Moon, and to lead: terming themselves the masters of them, as the same Pope Gelasius did writ to the said Emperor Anastasius. 
c. Duo. c. quis dubit & dist. 96.   
Every man therefore may judge whether doctrine is the better, either that of the romish Catholics, (which doth so limit & cut short the authority of kings and Princes, to augment the greatness of the Popes and Prelates.) Or that of the Protestants, which do not challenge, but disallow such limitations, affirming that the Pope hath no such jurisdiction over the Subjects of kings and Princes. And seeing that Princes be the Lieutenants of God here on earth, holding their Sceptres and Crown of him: Not doubt but the honour which is done to them, is done to God himself. And so consequently, God is better honoured by the doctrine of the Protestants, than by the doctrine of the Romish Catholics.  
The doctrine of the Protestants is grounded evidently upon the word of God, which commandeth all men (without exception of any person) to obey the Prince under whose Dominion they devil, not only for fear of his sword, but also for conscience sake. These be the words of S. Paul, who speaketh generally: 
Rom. 13.1. 5. & Tit. 3.1.  Let every man be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, and the authorities that be, are ordained of God, and therefore we aught not to be subject for fear of displeasure only, but for conscience sake also.  
And hereupon S. Chrysostom saith that this rule is so general, that there is neither Apostle, nor Evangelist, nor Bishop, nor other person, that is exempted from the obedience of the Prince. And likewise S. Peter speaking to all Christians, and to all Gods chosen flock, saith thus: 
1. Pet. 2.15  Submit yourselves to all ordinance of man for the love of God, whether it be to the king as to the chief, or to the governors as to those which be sent and oppointed by the Prince to punish malefactors, and to praise the well doers.  
And the reason why every one aught to yield obedience to the Prince, is, because the charge and estate which Princes take upon them, is of God: For, the Scripture doth call Prince's Gods, because they are the Lieutenants of God. 
Deut. 1.16. Psal 82.1. 1. Pet. 2.17.  And therefore next after God, we aught to fear and honour the Prince, as sayeth S. Peter: Fear God and honour the king.  
And as Solomon doth also teach us, 
Prou. 24.21.  saying: My Son, fear the Lord and the king. And it is to be noted that in these texts, the king is put next after god, as his Lieutenant presenting God himself. And we aught not only to honour and fear the prince: but also to pray to God for him, and for all those which are in authority under him, that their government may be in peace and tranquillity, and that we may live under their obedience in the serving of God with all godliness and goodness. These be the very words of S. Paul: 
1. Tim. 2.1.  I warn you therefore that before all other things, you make intercessions, prayers, supplications, and thanksgiving, for all men, and specially for kings, and for all such as are in authority under them, that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty: For that is acceptable before God our Saviour.  
And it is not for any man, not only to exempt himself from obeying the prince, but also to deny to pay him tribute, 
Math. 17.27. & 22.21.  seeing that our lord jesus Christ did pay it, and hath commanded to pay it. S. Paul doth also witness the same thing, saying that the duty of conscience commandeth us to pay tribute to princes, because they be the ministers of God, and serve thereunto. Therefore give unto every man (saith he) that which is due unto him. 
Rom. 13.5.6.7.  Tribute to whom tribute belongeth, custom to whom custom pertaineth: duty to whom duty belongeth, and honour to whom honour is due. To be short, next after God, we own to the Prince all obedience, honour and fear: neither aught we to think it strange, that God should have the chief pre-eminence, seeing that the prince is but his minister and servant, and that the Lieutenant aught not to go before him which putteth him in office, nor the servant before the master. And that was the cause why Daniel said so boldly unto the king Darius, 
Dan. 6. 2●  that he had made no fault in disobeying his commandment, which he could not have obeyed, without offending both God and his own conscience.  
Also it was for the self-same cause, that the obedience which the people of Israel did yield unto their king jeroboham, (which caused Calves of gold to be made, and commanded the people to honour them) is condemned by the word of God. For in matters of Religion we aught to hold the general rule which S. Peter teacheth, saying: We must rather obey God than man. 
Act. 4 20.  The reason hereof is the same that is alleged by S. Paul: 
1. Cor. 7.23.  namely That we be redeemed or bought with the precious blood of our Lord jesus Christ, which is a thing of so great and excellent price, that we aught not to turn away from the salvation which he hath purchased us, for any thing in all the world.  

The Pope and his clergy aught to be in subjection to Princes.  We have heretofore alleged some of the decretal Epistles of the Pope's Gelasyus, Innocent the third, and Bomface the eight, by that which they have done their endeavour to thrust down emperors, kings, and other Princes far underneath them: but the ancient Canons speak far otherwise, for by them, even the Pope himself (whensoever he committeth any fault) aught to be corrected and punished by the Emperor, as Pope Leo the fourth avoweth and confesseth in his epistle written to the Emperor Lewes, 
c. Nos fi incompetenter ●. q. 7.  which epistle is made canonical. If we have done (saith he) any thing which we aught not, or have not performed the equity of the law towards your subjects, we are ready to amend our fault, by the judgement of yourself, or of your commissioners: for if we which should correct the faults of other men, do worse than they: we be not the children of the truth, but (which thing I speak with great grief) we be masters of error, more than others. Wherefore, we most humbly beseech your majesties clemency, to vouchsafe to sand hither some commissioners of yours, such as fear God, to inform you of our behaviour and to make as diligent inquisition thereof, as if your imperial majesty were here present in proper person: and to search out the truth by piecemeal, not only of the things afore mentioned, but also of all other matters which may have been reported unto you: So as by that means all things may be determined by lawful examinatian of the case, and nothing remain to be discussed and decided hereafter. By which Canon it appeareth plainly, that the Emperor of Rome hath power and authority to inquire of the misbehaviour and misdealings of the pope, and that he may by lawful judgement, condemn and punish him when he doth amiss. We do also read in S. Gregory 
Greg. Epist. lib. 4. epist. 29. lib. 5. epist. 163. lib 6. epist. 194 lib. 7. epist. 114 120. 126. lib 8. epist. 2. lib. 9 epist. 60.  (who is esteemed for one of the best Popes) that in his epistle which he wrote to the kings of france of England, and of the westerngothes, he did always call them his children. But when the wrote to the Emperor which reigned in his time, whose name was Mawrice, he called him his Lord, and spoke very humbly unto him, as unto him that was his sovereign, declaring that he did, and would obey the said Emperors most mild commandments, (for those be his terms that he useth. There are other Canons also, by the which all power of Soveraintye is attributed unto princes, as well over the lay people, as over the clergy, and over the goods both of the one and of the other. These be the very words of the Canon. 
c. Tributum 13. q. 8.  S. Peter in fishing found tribute in the mouth of a fish, because that the church aught to pay tribute of such outward good as are seen to all men. And the case so standeth, that for his tribute he was commanded to pay, not all the whole fish which he had caught in fishing, but only the piece of silver which he had found in the mouth of the fish which he had caught, because the church itself or the pre-eminence of the place, aught not to be given to Emperors, and Kings, nor to be put in subjection to their power. But surely (as I said before) that which was found in the mouth of the fish, is commanded to be given for the tribute of Peter and of the Lord, because we aught to pay tribute unto princes, of the outward goods of the church, according to the ancient custom, to the end they may maintain & defend us in good peace and quietness.  
By which canon it appeareth, that princes may as well raise tribute upon men of the Church, as upon the lay people, although they may not take authority in divine matters, further than to 'cause obedience to be given to the commandments of God, as it is said in an other Cannon in express words. 
c. Imperatores dist. 9 Prince's cannot bind men to laws that are against God's commandments.  When Emperors make wicked laws to maintain falsehood against the truth, it serveth to try the true believers, who are crowned with martyrdom for persevering in the truth. But when they make good laws and edicts to maintain the truth against the falsehood, the persecutors are stricken in fear by it, and such as understand the truth do amend themselves. Whosoever therefore, doth refuse to obey the edicts of the Emperors and princes that maintain the true doctrine, do procure themselves great punishment: but as many as refuse to obey the edicts made against the will of God, win to themselves great reward. Eor ever since the time of the prophets, all kings are blamed, which have not prohibited, and rooted out from amongst God's people, all such things as have been set up against his commandments. And these which have prohibited them and rooted them out, are highly praised above all others. Nabuchodonosor being an Idolater, did make a treacherous proclamation, that all men should worship his Image. But those which refused to obey the ungodly law, dealt faithfully and holily. With this Canon agreeth an other canon taken out of S. Augustine, who in expounding the text of S. Paul, (where it is said) that he which resisteth the Prince resisteth the ordinance of God, 
C. Qui resi●●et. 11. q. 3.  speaketh in these terms. He that resisteth the higher power, doth resist the ordinance of God. Yea, but what if he command unlawful things? truly in that case thou must not obey him. Consider the degrees even of men's laws. If the ordinary judge command a thing, he ought to be obeyed, but not if the governor command the contrary. And in this case thou despisest not the inferior magistrate, but of the two thou choosest rather to obey the superior, where in, the inferior magistrate aught not too found himself grieved, for that his superior is preferred before him. Moreover, If the governor command one thing, and the Prince an other: or rather, if the Prince command one thing, and God command the contrary, what will you say to that? God is the highest power, O my sovereign Lord, I beseech you to pardon me, you may 'cause me to be put in prison, but god hath power to put me in hell fire. In this case thou must arm thyself with the buckler of faith, whereby thou shalt be able to beaten back all the fiery darts of the devil.  
Now then, these Canons maynetaine the doctrine of the Protestants, which affirm that next under God, we aught to yield all obedience to the Prince, yea although he were an Infidel or a Runeagate as julian the Apostata was, of whom the canon speaketh thus: 
C. julianus. 11. q. 3  Albeit that julian the Emperor was an Apostota or backslider: yet had he christian soldiers that served under him, whom whensoever he commanded to march forward in battle for the defence of the common weal, they obeyed him. But when he commanded them to march against the Christians, them they acknowledged the Emperor of heaven.  
And in good sooth, 
The Pope can give again away benefices.  so little is the Pope enabled by the ancient Canons, to bereave kings and princes of their Realms and principalities, that he cannot so much as give away a Bishopric in any Realm, without the consent of the pruste under whose dominion the same is, as it appeareth by an Epistle of Pope Leo the fourth sent to the Emperors, Lotharius and Lewes, by the which he doth entreat them to consent to bestow the Bishopric of Rets upon one named Colon. These be the very words of the Canon. Seeing the church of Rets, 
c. Reatina. etc. Lectis. dist. 65.  hath been so long time without a Shepherd, it is requisite that it should be aided by your majesties authority, and maintained by the power of your government. Wherefore after our most humble salutation unto you, we beseech your clemency to vouchsafe to grant the government of the said church unto Colon your humble deacon, that by your majesties licence, we may (with God's help) consecrated him Bishop of the same. And if it stand not with your liking that he should be Bishop of that church, than we beseech your highness that he may have the Church of Tusculan which is now vacant, so that being by us consecrated Bishop, he may give thanks to almighty God and to your jmperiall majesty.  
And it is not to be doubted, but the both in the time of the same Pope Leo, and before his time also, it was the ordinary custom, not to receive any Bishop, without the consent of the prince, under whose dominion the bishopric was. According whereunto it is said thus in an other canon speaking of the same matter in these terms Forasmuch as we know that the church of God cannot be maintained without shepherds: we beseech your majesty (as we are bound to do) to vouchsafe of your imperial wisdom, (according to the custom in all ancient time observed) to give us licence by your majesties letters patents to provide one, and we will therein obey your will and (by God's help) consecrated him that shall be chosen  
To be short, not only these foresaid canons, but also many others do witness unto us, that nother any bishopric, nor yet the Papacy itself, may be given to any without consent of the Prince: so far off is the Pope from having authority above the Prince. And whosoever will read S. Gregory (especially in the Epistle which he wrote to Mawrice the Emperor) shall find that he doth often times give the Emperor thanks for providing such & such a church of a good and meet shepherd, 
Epist. lib. 4. epist. 29. & lib. 6. epist. 170.  and how he declareth in divers places, that he is and will, be obedient to the laws and commandments of the Emperor, as we have touched here before.   

❧ Of the authority of the Pope and of the succession, and discipline in the order of the clergy. The xi. Chapter.  
THe Romish Catholics hold opinion, that the Pope is the supreme head, chief Shepherd, and universal governor of all the churches of Christendom: as vicar general of our Lord jesus Christ. And this doctrine they build upon a likelihood of great conveniency, that jesus Christ which is in heaven, should have a lieutenant here below upon earth, to pardon the sins of the repentant, & to provide Curates and shepherds for the particular churches when they happen to be vacant, and to make laws and Canons to rule all christendom in matters of religion & ecclesiastical policy. They say also, that this authority over all the churches of the world was given to S. Peter the first pope of Rome, and so consequently to to his successors, for because our Lord jesus Christ said unto him. 
Mat. 16.18  Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall have no power against it: And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whom soever thou bindest upon earth, he shall be bound in heaven, and whomsoever thou losest upon earth shabbe loosed in heaven.  
But contrariwise the Protestants affirm, 
Christ hath no need of any Lieutenant or vicar General on earth.  that jesus Christ alone is the supreme head, chief shepherd, and universal governor of the universal Church which is dispersed throughout the world, and that when he went up into heaven, he did not appoint any vicar or livetennant to keep his place, nother in deed was it needful. For he that is absent himself hath need of a lieutenant: but as for him, he is never absent from his church, but is and always will be with it by his spirit & divine power, unto the end of the world: So as to say that Christ hath need of a livetennaunt upon earth, as though he could not execute his office upon earth for all his being in heaven, is as much as to bereave him of his Godhead, which of it own nature hath no less power and ability on earth and in hell, then in heaven where his manhood is resident. Whereof it ensueth (according to our first maxim) that the doctrine of the Protestants in this point, is better than the doctrine of the Romish Catholic, because the honour that belongeth to jesus Christ, is better yielded unto him by that, then by the other. Likewise the doctrine of the protestants is much better grounded upon the word of God, than the doctrine of the Romish Catholics.  
For S. Paul doth teach us, that Christ is the head of the church, not a head separated or set away from it, but surely knit and joined fast unto it, with all manner of fastenings & knittings that a well united and well compacted body should have. These be his words: 
Ephe. 4.15.  To th'end that by following the truth with charity, we should in all points attain to full growth in him which is our head, that is to say in Christ, unto whom the whole body being thoroughly knitted and fastened together, by all manner of fastenings that may furnish it out, doth take bodily increase of the power that worketh within it, according to the capacity of every member, to the full perfecting up of itself in love. By which words every man may easily judge, that S. Paul meant to portray out unto us the great and singular conjunction of the head, (which is Christ) unto his church, in that he saith, that he is knit, and fastened to the same, by all manner of fastenings requisite to the full furnishing out of a body.  
And in an other place he saith likewise, that Christ is the head of the church, working all things fully in all the members of his body, which is the church. Whereupon it followeth very well, that we aught to have no other head in the church, to execute and perform the office of Christ, forasmuch as the said performance is reserved to Christ himself.  
These be the very words of S. paul: 
Ephe. 1.22.  And he hath put all things under his feet, & set him above all things to be the head of the church, which is his body, and the full furnishing out of him, who furnisheth out all things fully in all men. Also in an other text of S. Paul, it is well declared, that that church needeth not a lieutenant to hold the place of jesus Christ her head.  
For he saith that like as the husband, is the head of his wife: so is Christ also the head of his church. And were it meet that a wife should have another man in her husbands stead? would not men say that the wife which would needs have another man to supply her husband's room, were a whore? yes, and even in like wise the chaste and honest-minded church aught to content herself with her head which is Christ, who is well enough able to govern the same, without a lieutenant, specially seeing it should be but ill governed by such livetennants as the most part of the Popes have been.  

Eph. 5.23.  This is the very text of S. Paul: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church, who is also the preserver of her body. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so likewise let women be subject to their husbands. Moreover when S. Paul maketh reckoning of the divers offices which are in the Church, he saith that for the gathering together and building up of the same, Christ hath ordained Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds, and Teachers: and not that he hath appointed a Pope or an universal Shepherd to have supremacy over the universal Church, which is dispersed throughout all the world. And yet it is very certain that S. Paul would not have forgotten to have spoken of him, yea and to have reckoned him in the first place, if jesus Christ had ordained that there should have been a pope in his church, to have been his lieutenant. These be the very words of S. Paul Therefore he hath appointed some to be Apostles, some to be Prophets, 
Eph. 4.11.  some to be Evangelists, some to be Shepherds, & some to be Teachers, to gather together the Saints through their working in the ministry, and to build up the body of Christ. And so it appeareth by this text, that there needeth no pope for the building up of the church nor for the work of the ministry, but that the offices before named by S. Paul are sufficient for that purpose.  
And as touching the text of Saint Matthew before alleged, whereon the Romish Cotholickes do build their doctrine concerning the Pope, saying that jesus Chryst hath builded his Church upon S. Peter the first Pope, and given him all power over the universal Church. The Protestances answer, that the Petra that is to say the rock which is spoken of there, is the faith whereby S. Peter had most stoutly confessed that jesus was that Christ, the son of the living God. For S. Paul doth teach us, 
Ephe. 2.20.  that jesus Christ is the head corner stone whereon we aught to build. And S. Peter himself doth witness, 
1. pet. 2.5.  that the true believers, (which have their faith builded upon this corner stone christ) are as living stones, conched and cemented together upon it, to finish up the building of the lords church. And as for the authority which jesus Christ gave unto Peter, as it is said in the same text: They said also that he gave the like to all the rest of his Apostles, as S. john witnesseth.  

joh. 20.23.  So as it cannot be inferred upon this text, that S. Peter was ordained to be the only sovereign governor of the Christian Church, any more than the rest of the Apostles. And in an other place S. Paul doth well declare that S. Peter had no more authority than the other Apostles: for he putteth himself in the same degree of apostleship that Peter was. And when he reckoneth up the chiefest Apostles, he reckoneth first S. james, than Saint Peter, and in the third place S. john, wherein he had greatly overshot himself (which cannot be said without blaming the holy ghost) if the saying of the Romish Catholics be true, who affirm that S. Peter was the Prince of the Apostles and had sovereign authority over them, and over the whole universal church. These be the very words of S. Paul: 
Gal. 2.8.9.  For he which hath wrought by peter, in the office of Apostleship among the circumcised, hath like wise wrought by me among the Gentiles, and james, Cephas, and john, who are esteemed to be the pillars, have known the grace which was given me. Neither doth S. Peter in his Epistles, name himself Pope or prince of Apostles, or head of the church, or Christ's vicar, but simply, an Apostle as the others. And when his companions did give him charge to go preach in Samaria, he was so far of from pretending to have any princely authority over them: that he obeyed them without gayneseing, as it is written in the Acts of the Apostles. 
Act. 8.14.  And therefore it appeareth plainly by all these sayings, that the doctrine of the protestants is better grounded upon the word of God, than the doctrine of the Romish Catholics, and consequently that it is the most ancient and true, according to our second Maxim.  
Let us now come to the Canons. Truly when I read these Canons, which I will rehearse hereafter: I marvel that pope Engenie the third (who authorised the decres of Gratian and commanded that they should be openly read in the universities) procured not the utter defacing & dissanulling of all the ancient Canons there gathered together, seeing they be so directly contrary to the doctrine and authority of the pope's. 
The name Pope signified in old time a Father, & now a Prince.  But it was the providence and will of God, that it should so be. Now than you must first of all understand, that the ancient doctors of the church do often use this name of pope, which signifieth, a father, and in ancient time, was indifferently used to all Bishops aswell mean as great. But in the end, the Boshop of Rome appropriated the same to himself alone, and from that time forth, this name of pope hath ever been taken, (as it is still in these days) not for a father but for a supreme head and universal Bishop of all the Christian churches of the world: which title of universal is reproved by all the ancient Canons, & so consequently the estate which the pope of Rome doth take upon him at this present, is condemned: For it is well known that he nameth himself the universal Shepherd or Bishop, and that he challengeth authority over all churches and counsels. Now hearken to the very words of a Canon which putteth him to his neck-verse. Let no Patriarch at any time use the name of universal. 
c. Nullus. c. ecce. dist. 99  For the Patriarch, which nameth himself universal, taketh the name of Patriarch away from all others. But Godforbid that any of the faithful should challenge honour to himself, to the derogation of his brethren, be it never so little. Wherefore we beseech you of your charity, let none of you from henceforth in his letters, give the title of universal, to any man any more lest ye take away the title due unto yourselves by attributing the same unduly unto orhers. The next Canon following doth sing the same song, which aught to be of so much the more force among the Romish Catholics for that it is taken out of an Epistle of S. Gregory sent to the patriarch of Allexandria: Thus therefore doth he say in express words. Behold even in the very preface of your letters which you wrote unto me, you go about to cast the proud name of universal pope upon me, even upon me (I say) who have forbidden other men to use it. Wherefore I beseech your holiness, even of your courtesy, to do so no more, for you take from yourself to give to an other, without cause why. I seek not to advance myself in titles but in manners: neither think I that I aught to purchase honour to myself, with the loss of the honour of my brothers, for my honour is to honour the universal church, and to behave myself uprightly towards my brethren. And I think myself then most honoured, when every of them hath his due honour yielded unto him. But if your holiness name me the universal pope: then in attributing the whole unto me, there is nothing left to others: which God forbidden wherefore let us drive away these terms far from us, which inflame us with vanity, and hurt charity. The reason of these Canons is very evident: namely, for that it is impossible for one man to govern the universal church, and to be Bishop of the whole world, seeing that even they which are best able, do find themselves greatly cumbered in the governing of one only bishopric well. Besides this the title of universal Bishop, is to stately and proud to be matched with the true shepherds of god's church, which aught to walk in humility, void of all pride and ambition. The same thing is verified by a canon in these express words Whosoever desireth supremacy upon earth, shall find confusion in heaven. 
C. Vlt. dist. 40. Supremacy above others is to be eschewed.  And he that speaketh of primacy, shall not be numbered amongst the servants of God. Let every body therefore study, not how he may seem greater than others, but by what means he may most embase himself. For he is not the most righteous, which amongst men is most honoured: but he is most honourable, which is most righteous Hereunto agreeth well the Canon which saith that all churches are equal in authority, and that the church of Rome hath no superiority over other churches, This Canon is taken out of S. jerom, and saith thus. We aught not to think that there is any odds between the church of room & the churches of any other place of the world. 
c. Legimus. dist. 93.  In France, England, Africa, Persia, the East, and the Indies, and all the Barbarous nations do honour Christ, and observe one rule of truth. If regard be to be had of authority: the world is greater than the City of Rome. Wheresoever there is a Bishop, 
All Bishops are of equal authority.  be it at Rome be it at Eugubium, be it at Constantinople, be it at Rhegium be it at Allexandria, be it at Thebes, or be it at Garmace: it is all of one worthiness & of one self-same degree of priesthood. The greatness of Richeses, or the meanness of poverty, setteth not a Bishop in higher or lower degree. To be short, all of them be the successors of the Apostles.  
Now than it appeareth plainly by these Canons, that the pope (who in all his bulls doth name himself the Bishop of Rome) is no greater than another mean Bishop, & that neither he, nor the Church of Rome, can claim to themselves any authority over other Bishops and Churches, otherwise than by tyranny and usurpation.  
And truly, besides the forealleaged Canons taken out of S. Gregory, 
Greg. epist. lib. 4. ep. 76. & 78.  who so will read his epistle, shall found that he utterly detested this title of universal Shepherd or Bishop from his heart, as a wicked title not meet for any but for Antichrist or for his forerunner. In one of his Epistles he complaineth greatly to the Emperor Maurice, that john Bishop of Constantinople did trouble the Church of God, by seeking to usurp the title of universal Bishop. For (to the intent ye may understand the very root and original beginning of this discourse) you must consider that in those days, and long time before, Constantinople was called new Rome, and the other in Italy was called old Rome. And because the Emperor of Rome did most commonly keep his residence at new Rome, and old Rome was at that time greatly vexed with the barbarous Goths, & Lumbards' which warred upon Italy and destroyed it: without doubt the new Rome was then a more flourishing City, and in higher estimation than old Rome, or any other City in all the whole Empire. Whereupon the said Bishop john being of an ambitious disposition, and minding to advance himself by the dignity of the City whereof he was bishop, began to preach and persuade the people and divers of the bishops, that like as the Emperor extended his dominion over all the provinces and countries of the Empire: even so the Bishop of Rome (that is to say of new Rome) which was then in more estimation than old Rome, aught to extend his power and autooritie over all the provinces and countries of Christendom.  
And truly this Bishop john did so much by his continual travel, that he caused himself to be proclaimed universal Bishop in a certain Synod or Counsel, wheragainst S. Gregory (who was then bishop of old Rome) did set himself very manfully. And therefore writing again to the same Emperor Maurice, he saith amongst other things there written, that the name of universal Bishop is a title of pride and pomp, which troubleth the church, the laws, and the synods, and the commandments of Christ: And that S. Peter never was, ne never called himself universal Apostle. And that it was the Emperor's duty, (if he meant that God should long preserve his empire) to cut of that sore and to bridle the disease by his authority, if it could not otherwise be healed. Afterwards he addeth these words worthy to be noted. If any man (saith he) do attribute unto himself the name of universal Bishop in the church, 
S. Gregory whom the Catholics take for an Archpope, condemneth the authority of Popes.  what will all honest men judge of him? For the estate of the universal Church must needs fall (which God forbidden) if he fall which is called the universal Bishop. Therefore let this blasphemous name be banished from the hearts of all Christians, whereby the honour of all Priests is taken away, and wrongfully usurped by one alone.  
And in the Epistle following, S. Gregory maketh his moan to the Empress Constance, that the said Emperor Maurice her husband went about to persuade him to leave of his setting of himself against it, which I cannot do (saith he) for I defend the cause of the Gospel, and the Canons, and the truth of equity and humility. And it is to grievous & intolerable a thing that the said john our fellow brother and bishop, should seek to have the name of bishop to himself alone. But what other thing doth he give us to understand by this his pride, but that the time of Antichrist draweth near? For he followeth the steps of the wicked fiend, who despising the joy which he had in common amongst the legions of other Angels, did seek to set himself in the highest room, to reign as sovereign all alone,  
And in an other Epistle, the same S. Gregory, answering to the which the said Emperor Maurice had written unto him, which was that he aught not to be so precisely wedded to his own will for the term of universal Bishop, for such strife about terms hinder the union and peace of the church: did disprove his reasons with very good grace, 
Ep. lib. 6. ep. 194.  saying thus: But I beseech your majesty of your goodness, to consider that of words fond spoken some do no harm at all, & other some do great harm. As for example, when Antichrist shall come and call himself God, that speech is very fond: nevertheless as it is fond, so is it also very pernicious. If you look no further than to the words, there are but two syllables: but if you way the meaning of the words, it is the full importance of all iniquity. And I dare boldly say unto you, that whosoever calleth himself, or causeth himself to be called the universal priest, the same party through his vaingloryousnes, is the forerunner of Antichrist, because that by his pride, he exalteth himself above all others. I beseech you therefore of your good zeal to Godward, to command that no cause of offence be given by taking up such a fond title. See how S. Gregory declareth and denowceth him to be the forerunner of Antichrist, which doth name himself universal Bishop, forasmuch as he taketh upon him the authority of all other Bishops, as well near all the Popes of Rome have done, which have been since his time. And yet to confirm this his sentence better, I will add the warning which he gave by his letters to the Bishops of Greece, to be well aware that they gave not the title of universal Bishop, to Siriacke Bishop of Constantinople next successor of the said john after his decease: 
Epist. lib. 7. epist. 69.  good brethren (quoth he) ye shall understand, that the late john, (who not long since was prelate,) Passing the bonds of modesty, and of the measure of his calling, did wrongfully in a Synod usurp the proud and pestilent title of ecumenical (that is to say universal) Bishop against God and the Church, and to the despite & derogation of the whole order of priesthood. Whereupon we wrote twice unto him, that he should not omit any thing, which might concern the peace of the Church, exhorting him to leave that proud name, and to submit his heart to the humility, which our Lord and master hath taught us. Whereof forasmuch as he held scorn, we have used the like admonitions unto our brother Siriacke, his successor. But sith we see that Antichrist the enemy of mankind, beginneth to show himself openly by his foreronners in this latter time: and that the priests themselves, (which aught to resist him by their holy & humblelyfe,) be the parties that serve him for his foreronners, by entitling themselves with his proud name of universal: I beseech ye, yea and charge ye, that none of you at any time, receive, admit, writ, allow written, or subscribe unto that title: But that as becometh the servants of the almighty God,) every of you keep himself pure and clear from this venomous infection, without yielding of himself, to the deceitful craftiness of the enemy: for surely that title tendeth to no other end, but to the hurt, and division of the Church, and to the slander of you all, as I have said before: because that if he only (as he imagineth) is the universal Bishop, it followeth that you be no Bishops. There are yet divers other like sayings, in the writings of S. Gregory, which I could here allege, but these which I have here before set down, may suffice (in mine opinion) to declare and show unto the Romish Catholics by the authority of that god doctor (whom they themselves take to have been one of the greatest & worthiest of all the Popes, in respect whereof they have surnamed him the great S. Gregory) that the name and office of the Pope (which is nothing else but an universal and supreme Bishop or shepherd over all other Bishops and Priests,) is condemned as the name and office of Antichrist or of his forerunner, and as a title and estate full of pride, injury, division, and contempt of God's commandments, and of the holy decrees and counsels which have been hold before that tyme.  

That S. paul and S. Peter were equal in degree.  But now that we have made S. Gregory to fight sufficiently against the pope's that were his successors, let us return to our Canons, to show that S. Peter was never pope, (that is to say prince or sovereign over the Apostles:) I will only allege one Canon, which saith that S. Paul and S. Peter were equal, yea even at the same time that they were both at Rome, and that the one was no way greater than the other: whereof it followeth, that S. Peter was no more pope than was S. Paul. Now S. Paul was never pope, nor ever reputed so to be, by the very maintainers of the popedom themselves. For these be the very words of the Canon, taken out of S. Ambrose. 
c. Beat. 2. q. 7.  S. Peter and S. Paul have pre-eminence above all other Apostles, by special prerogative. But yet is it uncertain whether of them two were preferred before the other. For I think that they were both equal in deserts, & likewise in their deaths and passions: and also that they lived in like devotion of faith and finally, came Both together to the glory of martyrdom.  
And I believe that it happened not with out some cause, that they both suffered martyrdom in one day, in one place, and under one persecuter, for they suffered in one day, that they might go together in company to Christ: and in one place, to the end that Rome should not want either of them both, & under one persecuter, that both of them might be partakers of one cruelty. The day therefore was ordained for their desert, the place for their glory, and the persecuter for their virtue. And they both suffered martyrdom at Rome the sovereign Lady and head of all nations, to the end that where the head of superstition was, there should rest the head of holiness: & where the princes of the Gentiles dwelled, there should remain the Princes of the Church.  
By which Canon it may easily be judged, 
S. Peter was never head of the Church.  that S. Peter was in nothing to be preferred before S. Paul, & that both were equal in all respects, which showeth plainly that S. Peter was never head of the Church, neither in respect of nature, nor in respect of ministration. For if he had been, them should as much have been said of S. Paul, according to the Canon. And so by consequence, we should say that the Church had then two heads like a monster, a thing that were to absurd & strange. I know well that such as imagine the government of the Church to be like the government of a kingdom, 
The Lordly government of the church disproved by the ancient Canons.  do think it meet that there should be one supreme head and governor, and that the same should have Cardinals as great Princes of his court, & Archbishops somewhat in lower degree than the Cardinals, and Bishops as inferiors to the Archbishops, and so consequently Abbots, Priors, cannons, and Curates, each in degree under other. And in good sooth, this order of holy government hath a fair outward show, but there is one thing that marreth all, which is, that it hath no foundation in the word of God, which doth not teach that there is any inequality amongst the Shepherds, but that they aught to govern their Churches with one common consent by God's word, making assemblies or meetings, (which are commonly called Synods or Counsels) for the same purpose, if need require. And moreover that they aught to submit themselves to the Civil Magistrate. And the very Canons themselves do agreed herewith, (specially one Canon which is taken out of S. Iherom,) seeing, that in the time of the primitive Church there was no difference betwixt a priest or an elder, and a bishop: and that the Church was then governed by the common council of the elders.  
Let us hear the very words of the Canon. 
c. Olim. dist. 95.  In old time an Elder and a Bishop were all one thing, till schisms and parttaking crept into Religion by the devils inspiration, and that folk began to say, I hold of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas. Until this time the Churches were governed by common advice of the Elders. But after that every man began to brag of his own disciples whom he had baptized, and not of Christ, than it was ordained that in every Church one of the Elders should have authority over the rest, to take away the seed of scizme. Wherefore like as the Priests know that by the custom of the Church, they be put in subjection to the party that is set in authority over them: So let the bishops know also that whereas they themselves are of more authority than the Priest, it is not by the ordinance of God, but by custom, and that they aught to govern the Church by common advise.  
Which Canon in very truth is very notable, specially for that it doth evidently show, that all the degrees and dignities (which are infinite at this day in the Church of Rome) are not grounded upon the express ordinance of God, but only upon the positive law of custom, for look what the Canon speaketh of Bishops, is much more by all reason to be spoken of Cardinals, patriarchs, Archbishops and other dignities, seeing that the office of a Bishop (whereof the holy Scripture maketh mention) was instituted long time before the dignities of the Cardinals and the others. And hereupon it followeth, that men should not make so great reckoning of any of these great and pompous dignities, which are founded but only upon custom, which aught not to be of any (or at lest wise of very little) authority in the Church of God, as shallbe declared more at large in the last chapter of this book.  

The Pope had no prerogative above the general counsels in old tyme.  As touching the residue, if it be alleged that the Bishop of Rome had in old time, and still aught to have chief authority and pre-eminence, at the lest wise in the assemblies of counsels and Synods: the answer is, that he hath nothing to do with the matter: for the Ecclesiastical histories and the acts of the ancient counsels, 
Hist. trip. lib. 2. cap. 1.  (as that of Nice, holden in the time of Constantine the Emperor) do witness unto us, that the Bishop of Rome was so far of from overruling the counsels, that he took his place in sitting but as fourth in degree, (which is a good way off from the first and chief place) as he did at the general council of Nice.  
But forasmuch as in this point of the Pope's Supremacy, 
The forged donation fathered up on Constantine.  the Romish Catholics (& chief the Canonists) do maintain the authority of the Pope, by means of a donation and of certain prerogatives which they affirm to have been granted unto the Pope by the Emperor Constantine the great. I will here a little examine the truth of the matter. I say therefore that this donation and grant of prerogatives, 
c. Constantius. dist. 96  enregistered by Gratian in his decrees, is a thing invented of pleasure and altogether false, and that it neither is like nor possible, that the Emperor Constantine did at any time make such a pretended gift or grant of prerogatives, as may easily be perceived by the histories of his time.  
And for proof of this matter, ye must first understand, that in their said surmised donation, they make the Emperor Constantine to say within four days after he was baptized, that he would have all the Bishops and Priests of the Romayn Empire, to acknowledge and hold the Bishop of Rome for their head, in like sort as the judges of a Realm do hold their king: and that he should have greater authority than the Emperor himself: giving unto Silvester the universal Pope and to his successors, his Imperial Palace of Lateran which is at Rome, and the City of Rome itself, with all the Provinces, Places, and Cities of Italy, and all the west part of the Empire, together with the Imperial Crown of pure gold, enriched with precious stones, his Sceptre, his mantel of Purple, and his other Imperial Robes, and the Imperial dignity of commanding the men of war, with all other things concerning the glory & majesty of the Empire. giving also to others of the Roman Clergy, the dignity, pre-eminence and authority of Senators, Lords of the Empire, and Consuls: willing them to ride on horseback with white footeclothes, apparrayled like Senators, to the end that the Clergy should be furnished with the like titles of honour in all points, as the Lords and men of war of the Imperial Court were.  
Also they make the same Emperor to acknowledge himself to be Pope Siluestars Footman or Lackay in holding his stirrup and his bridle when he mounted on horseback. And moreover to declare that he would remove his Imperial seat to the City of Bizance, which he was then purposed to build and to name it after his own name (that is to say) Constantinople, to give place to the Pope, because it was unmeet that where the seat of the Priestly kingdom, and of the supreme head of christian Religion was set by the Emperor of heaven: there also should be set the seat of the Emperor of the earth. And therefore that he willed and commanded that the same donation should stand in force, and be inviolably observed until the end of the world, beseeching and adjuring all the Emperors, Lords of estate, Princes, Senators, and People that should come after him, even before the dreadful judgement seat of God, never to break the same upon pain of everlasting damnation. And to have both S. Peter and S. Paul their enemies, both in this world and in the world to come, and to be burned and consumed in the deep pit of hell, amongst the devils and the ungodly folk. And the date of this pretenced donation is this. Given at Rome, the third of the Kalends of April, in the year of the fourth Consulship of Constantine Augustus. And also in the fourth Consulship ot Gallicanus.  
This in few words is the whole sum of the pretended donation made by the Emperor to the Pope and to the Clergy of Rome. Whereupon the doctors of the Civil Law take marvelous pains in discussing whether it be available or not, and whether Constantine might so greatly diminish the Empire, seeing that (say they) the title of Augustus is given unto him, to the intent he should increase, and not diminish the Empire: And whether he could give greater authority to the Pope, than he himself had, seeing that by the rules of the law, no man can grant to another more right than he hath in himself: And whether he could force or constrain his successors to observe this donation, considering that by the Civil Law, like against like hath no power.  
These doctors (say I) have taken great pains to resolve this question and divers such like upon that matter: but all in vain, 
The disproof of the donation by the very donation itself.  for it aught first to be proved that there was such a gift made, before they disputed whether it be lawful and available or not. But we may easily gather by the histories, that it is but a surmised and a forged grant, and that there was never any such: But the holy order of the Clergy hath always taken it to be a holy kind of fraud, to enter upon the goods of the lay people by such means.  
Therefore to resolve the said doubt by the history, you must understand, that this donation is reported to have been granted in the time of Constantine's fourth Consulship after his baptism, 
Pomponius laetus. in Constantine & Licinius. Euseb. lib. 9 cap. vlt. trip hist. lib. 1. cap. 8. 9 Orosius. lib. 7 cap. 28.  as if they had been both at one time, when as those times were far asunder. For his fourth Consulship was in the year of our Lord three hundred and eighteen, and his baptism was more than twenty years after: and therefore the diversity of the times doth discover the falseness of the donation.  
Besides this, it could not be done in any of both those times, for afore the time of his baptism Pope Silvester was already dead, as the histories do well prove, which do witness, that for the great desire which Constantine had to be baptized in the River of Jordaine, in jury, he deferred his Christening (by reason of the great affairs wherewith he was continually kept occupied) until the latter end of his life, at which time perceiving himself to be very ill at ease & out of all hope of being able to travail into jury to be baptized in the River of Jordaine, he caused himself to be christened in Nicomedia.  
And therefore this pretended grant, could not be made by constantine after his Baptism (as the donation itself doth bear men in hand) to pope Silvester who was dead before that time. Neither could it be done in the time of constantines fourth consulship: For at that time (and more than ten years after) he had a fellow in the Empire named Licinius who held the East part of the Empire, and Constantine himself held the west parts, according to the custom of the Roman Empire then received, which was to have two Emperors at once (as were Dioclesian and Maximian, and also Galerius Maximinus, and Constantius Chorus) the one commanding in the East parts, and the other in the West. 
Euseb. lib. eccl. hist. 8. cap. 16. & Pom. lpaetus in vitis horum Imperatorum.  And thereof (as some think) did grow the custom of painting the Imperial Eagle with two heads. Now then in as much as Licinius remaining at that time in the East countries as in his own part of government, was a Heathen man and a deadly enemy to Constantine who was a Christian: It followeth in reason, that if Constantine should have given up the Empire of the West to the Pope, he could not have made his account to have removed his Imperial seat by and by into the East, (for he had reckoned without his host) but it would have behoved him first to have put down Licinius, ere he could assure himself of the Empire of the East, as in deed he did afterward by force of arms: But that was more than ten years after his fourth consulship. But who would think Constantine to have been such a fool, as to spoil himself of the West Empire to give it to the Pope, and to content himself with the East Empire, which he had not, nor could assure himself to have, considering how uncertain the issue of waar is.  
Moreover about the same time of Constantine's fourth Consulship, there was Civil wars in Rome betwixt Constantine himself and Maxentius, who had set up himself as an usurper in the City of Rome, through the aid of the Praetorian Soldiers. By reason whereof, considering that Maxentius was a great enemy to the Christians, and had on his side an infinite number of the greatest men within the City: It doth well appear that that time was utterly unmeet for Constantine to advance Pope Silvester and the Roman Clergy so greatly as this pretended donation would make us believe.  
And truly in the very same years of this fourth Consulship, the Senate of Rome did canonize and inrowle among the number of the Gods, the Emperor Dioclesian who died at that time and had resigned up the Empire, about a ten years before.  
Now then seeing that the Senate was at that time in so great authority as to canonize Dioclesian (the greatest enemy and persecuter of the Christians that ever was) in despite of Constantine being then Emperor. Consul, and a Christian? I leave it to your discretions, to consider how they would have suffered the thing which this pretended donation speaketh of, namely, that Silvester should have been set up as sovereign Lord over the Senators themselves, and over all the West Empire: and that the rest of the Clergy should have been made fellow like and equal with the Senators, Consuls, & States of the Empire. Surely they would no more have suffered it, than the Precedents and Councellars of our Parliament would nowadays abide to have a minister of the Gospel set over them to control them. Or the overseear of a Consistory to be made fellow with them.  
And yet furthermore the history doth witness unto us that this Constantine the great, did leave unto his son Constantine for his part the realms such ordinances do burden men's consciences, and they that obey them, do seem rather to play the jews, than to use the liberty of Christians. These be the very words of a Canon taken out of S. Augustine: 
c. Olim. dist 12.  Undoubtedly I am of opinion that the traditions of the Church aught to be cut of, as soon as opportunity may fitly serve thereunto. For although it appear not that they are contrary to the faith: yet notwithstanding the slavish burden of them doth oppress Religion, which God of his mercy hath appointed to be free with the celebration of few Sacraments, and those very clear: In so much that the state of the jews is more tolerable than the observation of so many traditions. For though they know not the time of their liberty, yet do they not submit themselves to any Sacraments at the presumptuous and fantastical appointment of man.  
Which Cnnon doth well declare how much they be wedded to their own affection, which in these days do kindle coals in all places, and condemn all those of heresy, which do leave the traditions of men, to betake themselves to the word of God. For with what countenance dare they call it heresy, not to believe in the inventions of Popes, seeing that even their own Canons do will us to forsake the traditions of men? If this be heresy then aught they to burn their Canon Law.  
Moreover, it is very easy to be proved by their own Canons, that all the decrees and ordinances of the Popes, are either superfluous or wicked. For if they agreed & accord with that word of god, they are superfluous, because it aught to suffice us to observe the ordinances of god, which have no need to be ratified and authorized new again by men. And if they be contrary or repugnant to the ordinances of God, then aught they to be rejected as wicked, as the ancient Canon's themselves do witness. These be the very words of an ancient Canon attributed to Pope Urban: 
c. Sunt quidam.  You must understand that the Pope of Rome may well make new ordinances in such things as the Evangelists and Prophets have not spoken of, 
c. contra. 25. q. 1.  But in the matters that are openly resolved by the Lord himself, or by his Apostles, or by the ancient Fathers that followed next unto them, the Pope of Rome cannot make any law at all, but aught rather to maintain that which is already ordained, yea even with spending of his blood and his life. For, if he should take upon him (which God forbidden) to destroy that which the Apostles and Prophets have taught, in so doing he should show himself to do amiss, & not to give sound judgement.  
Upon this Cannon it is worthy to be noted, that the Pope's authority extendeth not so far, as to deal with any thing which the Doctors, & ancient fathers of the Church have taught, as it is farther avouched and proved by the Cannon following, attributed to Pope Zosimus which saith thus: As touching the statutes of the fathers, the authority of the Seat may neither ordain any thing contrary to them, nor change any thing in them: for antiquity aught to be inviolably rooted among us, as being honourable by the decrees of the fathers, By which Cannons of Pope Vrban and Pope Zosimus, it doth plainly appear, that the ancient Cannons, (such as those be which we have alleged in this book to confute the errors of the Romish church) aught to be of greater authority, than the decrees, and ordinances of the latter Popes of our days, & of their counsels, which have no power to disannul or alter any thing in the statutes, and doctrine of the ancient fathers. And as touching the authority, which the Pope attributeth unto himself, 
The Pope's auchority in damning of men's souls c. Simo papa. dist. 4 0.  concerning power to damn souls, and to sand them into hell by great troops, without being lawful for any man to say unto him, why dost thou so: and to excommunicate, outlaw, and accurse whom he listeth: a man may beaten down all these horns of his with this unanswerable argument taken out of his own Canons, that such as are true members of Christ and of his Church, cannot be condemned nor put out of the Church by any kind of excommunication, interdicting or accursing, & that if any faithful Christian happen to be wrongfully excommunicated or accursed by the Pope, or by any other priest: yet notwithstanding he is never the more out of the Church, but remaineth always a member of the same.  
These be the very words of a canon touching that point: 
c. Cum aliquis. 2. 4. q. 4  When any man departeth from the truth, from the fear of God, from the faith, and from Charity, truly, truly then goeth he out of the compass of the Church. But contrariwise, if any man be excommunicated and thrust out of the Church, by unjust judgement, it is certain that if he were not gone out afore, (that is to say, if he have not done any thing that deserved it) he is not hurt by such excommunication, for often times he which is driven out remaineth still within, & he that seemeth to be within, is nevertheless without.  
This Cannon teacheth us a very good, and holy doctrine: which is to hold and retain the pure doctrine of the truth, the fear of God, faith & charity, & then not to fear the excommunications or thunderbolts of the Popes, or Bishops (the which in these days they do rather use against such as will not allow their errors, than against wicked livers and such as give occasion of offence) because no man is able to put us out of God's Church, if we cast not out ourselves through our vices. Now, if vices and errors be the things which drive a man out of the Church of God, are there in these days any people in the whole world which are more out of the Church than those which think to drive out others?  
There remain yet two points to treat of, touching this matter, 
A personal succession in the order of clergy.  namely, the personal succession amongst those of the Roman Clergy, (whereof they do so greatly brag themselves against the Protestants) and their discipline. As touching the first point, they say they have (as it were) a lineal succession from age to age, of Bishops and Shepherds from the Primitive Church, and therefore that they be the true Shepherds: & that by the contrary reason, the Ministers of the gospel which have had no such succession, be false Shepherds. But this matter of succession is very easy to be answered. For if you look well into the histories of the Popes, and confer them with the canons both of late years and of old time, you shall find that the most part of the Popes and Bishops came in at the window, and not at the door. And that they have been intruders and usurpers, & not lawful successors.  
And to begin at the beginning, the canons do teach us (as truth is) that Bishoprics and Ecclesiastical offices aught to be bestowed by lawful election, and that it is not lawful for Bishops and Shepherds to appoint in their latter days who shall succeed them, but only to give their opinion to their Churches, concerning such as they deem in their consciences to be most meet to succeed them. Thus saith a Canon taken out of the Counsel of Antioch. 
e. Episcopo. c. unde. 8. q. 1.  It is not lawful for a Bishop to choose or appoint who shall be his Successor, though he be near his death: and whatsoever he doth in that case, is nothing, nor nothing worth.  

That the Popes are intruders of the Papacy.  By which Canon it followeth, that Pope Clement (whom they vouch to be the Successor of S. Peter) was no lawful Pope. For there is another Canon which saith (if it be worthy to be believed) that S. Peter drawing nigh the end of his life, took S. Clement by the hand, and betook unto him the Church of Rome, choosing him to be his successor. Also Pope Damasus (who was about the year of our Lord 371. in the time of the Emperor Valentinian) was made Bishop or Pope of Rome by great hurly-burlies, wherein there were a hundred and seven and thirty men slain in the streets as Marcillinus doth witness. 
Am. Marcellus. lib. 27. Io. stella venetus. & Platina in vitis Pontificum.   
Pope john the eighth being a woman (and therefore not capable of the Popedom) was borne in England, & held the Papacy about two years and a half. Pope Silvester the second was a great Negromanser, and came to be Pope by the help of the devil, to whom he gave both body and soul (as it is written in his history) and he reigned four years and certain Months. Pope Silvester the third was made Pope by tumults and factions: For in those days (as sayeth the history) the popedom was grown to such a state, that it was given to him that would give most for it, or which made most friends and favour. Pope Boniface the eighth was made Pope by faction and bribery, having first by subtle practices gotten the resignation of his predecessor Pope Celestine a man of a simple Wit, whom he caused to be straightly shut up in prison, where he died for grief of mind when he saw himself so deceived and il handled. Whereupon it was said by this Boniface, (a good witness of his calling) that he entered into the Popedom like a fox, reigned like a Lion, and died like a dog: for he died mad. Pope john the four and twentieth usurped the Papacy by force and violence, and maintained himself in it by the same means, and was found to err in the Christian faith in more than in forty Articles: so holy was his holiness.  
To be short, the histories of the pope's are full of the wicked dealings and practices which the Popes did use to attain to that degree. Now therefore I ask you whether these aught to be called lawful successors of S. Peter, and whether those Bishops which were consecrated by them, were lawfully called or not, or aught to be reputed the lawful successors of the primitive church, & whether the Curates and other Priests that were promoted to holy order and to benefices by such Bishops, may be reckoned as lawful successors of the Shepherds and Elders of the Primitive Church. It is very ceataine that they were not: 
c. Cum. in cunctis. c. Bona c. Quisquis Extr. de Electione.  For than were the Canons untrue, which say that in all provisions for persons meet for Benefices, there aught to be a lawful election, wherein consideration is to be had of the fitness of the party's age which is to be chosen, and of the gravity of his manners, and of his learning: and that as many as have voices in the election, should be heard, upon pain of making the election of no force, and that the party be denounced as unworthy and unmeet to have a benefice, which is furthered or preferred thereunto by the favour or power of the world. Neither are such devilish servings, inforcementes, subtleties, and favours to be called lawful vocations: but intrusions, invations, usurpations, and wicked and damnable practices. 
c. Eaquae. 1. q. 3. Ci. c. cum essent extr. de Simon etc. cum detestabile Extra.  The Canons also do confirm it to be Simony, to give money or aught else to be promoted to Orders, or to be provided of a Benefice or to obtain a benefice in recompense of any temporal service.  
And that all advowsions and presentations made by Popes or Bishops in way of Simonye, be nought and of no valour or authority. Now I leave it to all people of any discretion, to conclude how the Bishops & the priests of these days, may be called the lawful successors of those of the primative Church. For shall a man found any which giveth no money for his orders or for the bulls of his benefice? Are not the bishoprics, Abbeys, priories, and other Benefices given away now adays and of long time ago, in recompense of temporal service, yea and sometime for such unworthy & vile services as deserve rather punishment than recompense? And seeing that the Popes and Bishops themselves climb up into their high degrees by Symonye, must it not needs be, that the collations which they make in bestowing the benefices of the patronages upon other inferior priests, are simonical, and so consequently void according to the foresaid Canons?  
If the Romish Catholics deny this, they must also disavow their own Canons, and deny the son to have light. And therefore the Romish Clergy are far from the lawful and continual succession of the Shepherds and Priests of the primative Church, wherein they imagine themselves to to remain. For sure, Brybery, Simony, and such other like practices, are not the door whereby they aught to enter into the succession of the ancient shepherds and Elders, as they do. But they aught to enter by lawful election made by calling upon the name of God, after due examination of the party that is to be promotid, & that he be found meet for that charge: who being so chosen, must thenceforth have the tokens of the ancient shepherds, which are, to preach God's word purely, to minister the Sacraments, to maintain good discipline, and to visit and comfort the sick, as the shepherds of the Protestants do.  
Affor the discipline of the Bishops and the rest of the Romish Clergy, 
The discipline & manners of the Clergy.  It is so corrupted & marred, that their life, doings, and behaviour, are directly contrary to the ancient Cannons. For first, neither the Bishoprics nor any other benefices aught in any wise to be given to such as sue and make means for them, but rather to such as shun the having of them. These are the very words of a Cannon taken out of S. Gregory.  
In your writings you say you have greatly sought quietness: 
c. In scriptures. 8. q. 1.  But yet by the same you declare, that you are come lawfully to the office of a shepherd: for like as that office aught to be denied to such as do greedily seek it, so aught it to be given to such as do shun it. And (as it is written) let no man usurp authority, but tarry the Lords calling, as Aaron did.  
But who is he that seeth not that benefices are at this day given to such as hunt for them, and to such as run best: so as it is said in common proverbs, 
What manner of persons aught to have benefices.  that horses run for benefices, and Asses catch them. Let us now see what kind of folk they be, to whom (by the ancient Cannons) bishoprics and other benefices aught to be given. These be the words of a Cannon taken out of S. Iherom. Albeit then that the Lord had given his commandment and election for the setting up of a Prince: 
c. Licet ergo 8. q. 1.  yet nevertheless the congregation is called together about it. The presence of the people therefore is requisite at the choosing of a priest that every body may know and be assured that such a one is chosen to the degree of priesthood, as is most excellent amongst the people, best learned, most holy, and most notable in all virtue: that when the people have yielded him this record, there may remain no scruple or occasion to revoke the election.  
And another Canon sayeth thus: 
c. Si Episcopus. dist. 23.  He whom men would make a Bishop, ought first to be examined, whether he be of nature, wise and discreet, mild of behaviour, chaste of conversation, sober, vigilant, of good foresight in his own affairs, lowly, gentle to speak unto, merciful, learned, well instructed in the law of the Lord, sharpwitted, and of good understanding in the sense of the Scriptures, exercised in the doctrine of the Church. And (above all things,) such a one as holdeth simply the Articles and grounds of the faith.  
And in another Canon are well described at large, that behaviours whereunto the Priests framed themselves in ancient time, according to the rule of the ancient Fathers. 
c. His igitur dist. 23.  Now then (saith the Canon) such as are separated from the common conversation of the world, are commanded by the laws of the Fathers of old time, to abstain from pleasures of the world, to absent themselves from common plays & gamings, and from the pomp of common feasts and banquets to be sober and shamefast in their private behaviour, to give themselves from usury and unhonest gain, to seek to deceive no man, to shun the love of money as the root of all vices, to eschew worldly businesses and offices, to accept no degree of honour through ambition, to receive no gifts or presents for the bestowing of God's benefits, to flee from all false practices and conspiracies, to shun hatred, envy and backbiting, to keep their eyes from wandering, their tongues from walking, their gesture from looseness and wantonness, to yield proof of modesty and shamefastness by the plainness of their gesture and apparraile, to abhor all villainous words and works, utterly to refrain the company of widows and maidens, to admit no women to devil with them, except they be very near of kin to them, to endeavour to maintain the chastity of their bodies, or else to bind themselves in marriage, (howbeit but only once) to obey their Elders, to forbear to vaunt themselves with bragging and boasting, and finally to apply themselves continually to the reading of the Christian doctrine, and to the exercise of Psalms, Hymns, and songs, for such aught they to be which intent to give themselves to the serving of God: that by their labouring to get knowledge to themselves, they may minister the doctrine of grace to the people.  
Truly here be many good conditions and virtues. And if the priests of these days, which are so greatly in love with the tenths of worldly goods, had but a tenth part of these virtues, the world should not be so corrupted as it is. But every body seeth, that now a days men of quite contrary conditions are advanced to the Benefices & Offices of the Church. For a father that hath many children, doth not seek to prefer that son of his into the ministry which is most gentle and virtuous, but him which is most untoward and unfit. And thereof grow the extreme abuses, corruptions, and ignorance that is among the Clergy.  
And as in old time the teachers, 
priests aught to be Preachers.  and shepherds were learned men: so did they employ themselves to teach others, and they that did not so, were reputed not only unworthy of their charged and vocation, but also worthy to be abhorred of every man. Thus speaketh a Canon thereof.  

c. Vlt. dist. 43.  The sowing abroad of the heavenly seed is commanded us: Cursed be we if we hold our peace. Which thing, seeing that the vessel of election doth fear and cry out at: how much more aught we little ones to be afeard? Wherefore, as it is a great fault in the Shepherds, to conceal the truth which they aught to publish abroad: so is it no small danger (God shield it) to such as despise their doctrine which they aught to obey.  
And an other Cannon taken out of the counsel of Tollero, doth show that the whole duty of Priests consisteth in studing the Scriptures, & in preaching them to the people. 
c. Ignorantia. dist. 38.  Ignorannce the mother of all errors (saith the Canon) is to be eschewed in any wise by priests, whose duty it is, to preach the word of God unto the people. The priests are admonished by Paul the Apostle writing unto Timothy, to read the holy Scriptures. Be diligent (saith he) in reading, in exhorting, and in teaching: and continued always in the same. Let Priests be cunning in the holy Scriptures and Cannons, and let all then labour be in preaching and teaching; and let them edify all men, as well by knowledge of faith, as by redress of manners.  
But where be now these shepherds, which give themselves to preaching, shall you find one such amongst twenty of your Priests? There are none that meddle with preaching, save a few monks, and their so doing is contrary to the profession of monkery: For by the Canons (as we have showed before) it is not lawful for monks to preach. And as for redress of manners, and examples of good works: where is it to be found? Not amongst the Curates and Priests of this time, who (for the most part) are full of ignorance, which being (as the Canon saith) the mother of all errors, hath laid her belly among them, and (by their means,) hath brought forth all the abuses, errors, and corruptions that be in the world, so as men cannot abide any reformation or amendment.  
Furthermore in old time, bishops and other Ecclesiastical persons, 
What the talk and communication of Clegimen aught to be.  had none other ordinary talk and communication, (no not even at their feasts and banquets) but of points of the Scripture, according to a Canon made in the third Council of Tolleto, which saith thus: Because that most commonly there is nothing but telling of idle tales at the table: 
c. Pro reverentia. dist. 44.  therefore (for the reverence of God and Priests) the holy and universal council decreeth that Priests shall use to read some part of the holy Scriptures at their meals. For by that means the soul may well be edified, and unprofitable fables laid aside.  
I do ask now, shall ye find this Canon well practised and observed in these days? Not: but ye shall found the clean contrary, as every man doth see and know.  

What Bishops aught to be.  The Bishops and Pastors of old time, took not the state of a Bishop to be a degree of honour and dignity, but a charged of great weight & painfulness: but they esteemed it to be an honourable thing in a Pastor, to be learned & of good knowledge. hearken what the canons do speak thereof. 
c. Qui episcopatum. 8. q. 1.  He that desirerh a Bishopric, desireth a good work. By these words the Apostle meant to teach us what a Bishopric is: namely, that it is a title of work and not of worship. For it is a greek word, which signifieth that he to whom the charge of a Bishopric is committed, is as an overseer of all such as are committed to his charged, and that he aught to have a care of them.  
And another Canon saith thus: 
c. Vilissimus 1. q. 1.  That man is to be counted most vile, which is in highest degree of honour, if he do not also excel all others in knowledge and holiness.  
Nay contrariwise in these days every man seeth that to be a Bishop, 
A description of a Popish praelats priesthood.  is a title of honour and dignity, void of all other charged than to make good cheer, and to keep a Bishoply table, causing a kind of service to be said in the Church by some chaplain of his for fashion sake. But to be a man of knowledge, of good life, and of plain meaning, is a vile and a disdainful thing. The Bishops themselves laugh such people to scorn, and cannot abide to have them about them.  
Touching ecclesiastical goods (for the which our Clergy men contend in these days with tooth and nail) let us see a little how the men of old time did use them, 
The use of church goods.  and how they aught to be used by the ancient Canons. First of all according to these Canons, they aught not to possess any lands, nor any other temporal goods, but only the tithes and offerings. These are the very words of a Canon taken out of S. Iherome: 
c. Clericus. 12. q. 1.  The Churchman aught to show himself to be such a one as possesseth the Lord, and is possessed of the Lord. He that possesseth the Lord and sayeth with the Prophet, the Lord is my portion, can possess nothing but the Lord. And if he possess any other thing, the Lord will not be his portion. As for example, if he possess silver, gold, lands, or movables, the Lord disdaineth to be his portion amongst these things. Also if I be the portion of the Lord, and the meeteline of his heritage, I have no part with the other tribes, but (as a Levite & Priest) I live of the tenths and serving at the altar: I am found by the offerings of the altar: having my food and clothing, I content me therewith, and naked I follow the naked cross.  
Now I do ask of you how well this Canon is performed in these days? Have not the clergy men all the best & goodliest possessions, rents, and revenues that are to be found, over and beside their tithes & offerings? If the case concern the demanding of tithes, they can skill to say that they belong to them, as to those that hold the place of the Levites, to whom (by the old law of Moses) the tenths aught to belong. But if it be put to them that they aught not to possess any lands or temporal inheritance, as indeed the Levites did not, because it was forbidden them by the law: They will not then be Levites any longer, nor say that they represented them. It is not amiss to construe it to most advantage, that they may be gathering on all hands thereby. As touching tithes and offerings, 
How the goods of the Church aught to be used.  let us now see how the bishops and priests did use the tenths in old times, and how they aught to use them now, according to the canons. That is, that they ought to divide the revenue of the tenths and offerings, into four parts: Whereof one fourth part was to be given to the Bishop, to maintain him & his family, that he might keep hospitality for strangers: an other fourth part was to go to the priests and clergy of his Church: an other fourth part was to be bestowed upon the poor: and the last fourth part was to be employed in the repairing of his churches. hearken to the express words of a canon taken out of S. Gelasius, which saith thus. 
c. Quatuor, etc. Mos. est. 12. q. 2.  All the revenues and offerings of the Church, aught to be divided into four parts, if the value thereof will bear it, (as is found to have been decreed long ago,) Whereof one part belongeth to the Bishop, an other to the Clerks, the third to the poor, and the fourth is to be employed in building. And an other Canon speaketh thus. It is the custom of the Apostolic Seat, to command the new made bishops to divide all the revenues of his Bishopric into four parts: the one part for himself and his family, and to the keeping of hospitality, an other for the clergy, the third part for the poor, and the fourth for the repairing of Churches.  
Thus you see how the tenths and offer were bestowed in old time. But in these days the distribution & employment of them is far otherwise, for the Priests use the partition of the Lion, taking all to themselves, and leaving no part to the poor. And yet have we seen even in our time, that these ancient Canons have been set in force again by the statutes of Orleans, in the reign of the late king Charles the ninth, in the year 1561. for there is a branch of that statute, which saith that the fourth part of the tenths shall be distributed to the poor of every Country where they are levied. But the clergymen have so well handled the matter by setting themselves against it, & by their appeals that the said branch could never yet be put in execution, nor attain any effect at all, so charitable are they towards the poor. And yet by the ancient Canons the tenths are named the tributes of the poor. 
Tithes are the tribute of the poor.  And therefore those which do not pay their tithes well, be counted guilty of the death of the poor, which die for want and necessity. How much more guilty than are they which can so well exact the tenths, & keep all to themselves, and give nought to the poor? Let us hearken (I pray you) how the canons do thunder against such kind of people as do withhold the goods of the needy. 
c. Decema. 16. q. 1.  The tenths (saith the Canon) are the tributes of needy souls, so that if thou payest well thy tithes thou shalt not only receive abundance of fruits, but also health of body and soul. He that payeth them not, is an usurper of other men's goods. And look how many poor folk do die for want of sustenance in the place where he dwelleth, of so many murders shall he be guilty before the seat of the eternal judge, for converting of the things to his own use, which are appointed for the poor.  
And surely the Church of old time could so ill away with such an abuse in the Clergy, as is the withholding of the goods of the poor, that it would never have suffered it. But contrariwise (by the ancient Canons) the Bishops and the rest of the Clergy, should have been constrained to succour the poor and needy with the gold and silver of the Church, and to employ it rather in this work of charity, than in making of fair buildings and in repairing of Churches. These are the words of a Canon taken out of S. Ambrose: 
c. Aurum. 12 q. 2.  The Church hath gold, not to hoard it up, but to distribute it to the needy. To what end should a man keep that, which serveth him to no purpose. Do we not know what a great quantity of gold and silver the Assiriens took out of the temple of the Lord? were it not much better that the priests should bestow it to the relief of the poor and needy, than that the wicked enemy should spoil it and carry it away? will not the Lord say unto you, wherefore have ye suffered so many needy folk to die for hunger? For thou hadst gold wherewith thou mightest have bought them meat: wherefore hast thou suffered so many Captives to be led into bondage, and to be killed by the enemy for lack of being redeemed? It had been much better for thee to have saved the vessels of life, than the vessels of metal. Thou shalt not know what to answer unto this, for what wilt thou say? That thou wast afraid lest the Temple of God should not have been well garnished? I say unto thee, that the Sacraments have no need of gold. The things which are not to be bought for gold, are never the more acceptable for the golds sake. The redemption of Captives is the ornament of holy things. And truly these are the precious vessels, which do save men's souls from death.  
That is the true treasure of the Lord, which covereth that which his blood hath covered. And the next Canon following taken out of S. Iherom, 
c. Gloria. 12. q. 2.  saith thus. The glory and reputation of a Bishop, is to pinch himself to enrich the poor, and it is a shame for a Priest to seek riches to himself. Many build up the walls, and in the mean while do pull down the pillars of the Church. The marble glistereth, the Lamp shineth, and the altar is garnished with precious stones, but of all this while, there is no account made of the servants of god. To receive the goods which aught to be distributed to the poor, and to be desirous to keep them unspent, is a point of to great forecast, or else of to great fearfulness, but to convert any part of it to a man's own use, is a fault which passeth the cruelty of the greatest thieves of the world.  
Mark this definitive sentence, which this good doctor S. jerom hath pronounced against such as withhold the goods of the poor, and bestow them to their own use O good lord, how full of such thieves is this world at this day, which are condemned by this sentence of S jerom. At leastwise the most part of my masters of the Clergy, can not wash their hands of this crime of detaining and usurping the goods of the poor, except they will deny the Canons heretofore alleged, which are grounded upon all reason and equity, and have been holily observed in the primative church. I doubt not but that many of the clergy will think this little discourse of time which I have made touching their discipline, 
They that conceal the truth maintain error.  very hard and grievous. But I beseech them to suffer their affections to give place to the truth. Their own Canons shall serve me for a lawful defence and excuse in this case. For by them we be taught, never to conceal the truth, but boldly to speak it upon pain to be accounted oppressors of the same, and allowers of error. These are the words of a canon of Pope Innocentes. The error which men do not resist, 
c. Error. dist 83.  seemeth to be allowed. And the truth which is not defended, is oppressed. If a man neglect to resist the unruly, it is as good as a maintaining & bolstering of them: neither can the party be excused of suspicion of secret society, which neglecteth to withstand the crime that is manifest.  
There is also another canon which saith thus: 
c. Facientie dist. 83.  That party is guilty of the fact, which is careless to correct the thing that he may amend. For it is written, that not only those are partakers of the misdeed which commit it, but also they that consent thereunto. And he that condemneth such as go astray, showeth himself to hate their misdoings: and he leaveth no gap for himself to leap out at, which challengeth those that start out of the way.  
By which canon we aught all of us to learn, not to wink at vices and misdealings. And therefore my masters of the clergy, may (if it please them) make themselves a wholesome medicine of the things which I have spoken heretofore concerning their manners and discipline. And like as they spare not to exclaim against the Protestants (howbeit wrongfully) that they are the cause of the civil troubles in France, and so consequently of the corruptions and disorders that are bred of them: So set them bethink themselves a little of their own doings, and they shall find by the Canons which I have alleged heretofore, that in their own orders there are as many abuses and corruptions as possibly can be. But now that I have spoken sufficiently of the Pope, and of the Romish Clergy, let us now enter into their Purgatory.   

❧ Of purgatory. The xii. chapter.  
THe Roman Catholics do hold opinion, that there is a certain place within the earth which is not altogether so low as hell, whether the souls of the good Christians which are dead, do go to purge them of their sins by torments of fire and other rigorous pains: and that every deadly sin should, by desert, have seven years of purgation, if the term of years were not shortened by masses, suffrages, and pardons. And for this cause they do hold opinion, that it is needful to 'cause a great number of masses and suffrages to be said for them that be dead, and to the same end to give legacies and foundations of Obites to mass-priests and chauntrypriests, and to make good provision of pardons, specially in the time of the great jubilees and Croysseys, which they cell very good cheap.  
And in very truth this doctrine of Purgatory hath exceedingly enriched the Clergy, 
Purgatory the inricher of the clergy.  yea more than any other thing. For there died not so poor a wretch which gave not some legacy to the priest, (yea often times even the best thing they had) to have them sing masses for the case of their souls, and to shorten the time of their abode in purgatory. And hereunto were all sick folk persuaded by their Confessors, which would make great difficulty & niceness to give them absolution, except they would promise' to give one thing or other to the church.  
And the better to draw them hereunto, they made them believe that for every mortal sin, their souls should remain (as is said) seven years in the pains of purgatory, which would be an infinite time, if it were not shortened by masses. For, say they, although that God do in this world, pardon the sins of all such as confess them to the priest and make satisfaction, yet doth he remit but the sin only, and not the pain, so as we must needs go to purgacory to suffer pains for all the sins which we have committed in all our life time: Which pains are so great, as greater are not possible. For (say they) there is as great difference betwixt the fire of purgatory and the fire of this world, as is betwixt a burning coal & the breath of a man's mouth. By reason whereof the poor world had so great fear and conceit of this hot fire of purgatory, and of the infinite time which they should be fain to remain there, accounting seven years for every mortal sin which was committed in a man's life time, that every man gave unto the Priests, as much as they would crave, to the end that their time in purgatory might be shortened. But contrary to this doctrine, the Protestants do hold opinion that we have no other purgatory than the blood of our Lord jesus Ghrist, which washeth away and cleanseth all men's sins which believe in him. And they say that his precious blood is more than sufficient to wipe out all our sins, without having need to be purged by any fire. And that our saviour doth not cleanse us by halves, but thoroughly altogether, and we should do him wrong and injury, to believe that we have need of any other kind of cleansing, than of that which he himself maketh, in justifying us by bearing our iniquities, and by wiping away our sins and blemishes: And that it is a mockery to say that God doth pardon our sins, and not the pain due for sin: as if you would say, he forgiveth us the debts that we do own him, but not the payment of the debts: for he will have that still.  
And now (to say the truth) all men may easily judge that this doctrine is better than the doctrine of the Romish Catholics, according to our first rule, because that by the same, Christ our Redeemer is most honoured, forasmuch as he is acknowledged to be the only and whole purger of our iniquities, and our true and only Attonementmaker and justifier.  
And as for the holy scripture, that doth teach us that the faithful and chosen of God do die unto the Lord and that those which die unto the Lord are very happy, & do go into the place of rest. These are the express words of S. john. Happy are they which from this time forth do die to the Lord: 
Apoc. 14.13.  for they do rest from their labours. And for those which die not to the Lord, forasmuch as they be none of his, nor members of the body of the true church whereof christ is the head: it is certain that there is no salvation for them. And therefore it is in vain to imagine a purgatory, either for the one, or for the other. For as many as die to the lord, go presently to rest & not into purgatory. And those which do not die to the Lord, do go into everlasting pain (not into purgatory) and there is no salvation for them. And as for the text taken out of the book of the Maccabees, which alloweth prayer for the dead, 
2. Machab. 12.43. & 15.39.  and so by consequence purgatory also: The Protestants say that it aught to be holden for a certain and undoubted rule, that we aught not to build any article or faith upon the books called apocrypha, of which number this book of the Machabyes is one: insomuch as the Author thereof that wrote it, confesseth that he may perchance have overshot himself, and that he hath written in simple style, and that he was not of skill to writ any better: which is an unmeet kind of speech for the holy Ghost, who can not err nor hath any need to be excused for speaking in a base style: for when he listeth he speaketh in a higher style than the excellentest Orators that over were in the world.  
And as touching the text where it is says: that the sin against the holy Ghost is not pardoned, neither in this world, 
Mat. 12.32  nor in the would to come. (Whereupon the Romish Catholics do infer, following the interpretation of S. Gregory) that then the other sins are forgiven in the other world, and so by consequence, that there must needs be a purgatory: the protestants affirm that to be an ill conclusion. For in so saying our Lord jesus Christ ment nothing else, but that the sin against the holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. S. Oregory himself (as we will declare hereafter) doth not say that all other sins saving the sin against the holy Ghost, shall be pardoned in the world to come: but only that the smallest sort of sins which are called venial sins, shallbe then forgiven. Let us now come to the Canons.  

Prayer for the dead is disproved.  There are two pieces of Canons in the decrees of Grecian, which may easily quench and confounded purgatory. For by the one it is said that in this world one of us may well be helped by the prayers of another: But when we departed from hence to appear before the seat of Christ, every man must bear his own burden, and then the prayers of Saints which are in paradise will nothing avail us, and much less will the prayers of men of this world stand us in any stead. These are the words of the Canon. 
c. Inpraesenti. 13. q. 2.  In this present world we know we may help one another with our prayers and good advice: but when we come before the judgement seat of Christ, than neither job. nor Daniel, nor No, can pray for any, but every man shall then bear his own burden.  
The other Canon saith that neither the bishops nor the Apostles can assoil the dead of their sins: Whereupon it followeth that men have bought the Pope's pardons in vain, for the redeeming of those which are said to have been in Purgatory. These are the very words of the said Canon taken out of the decrees of Pope Gelasius: 
c. 2. 24, q. 2.  We read that Christ hath raised the dead to life: But we read not that ever he released any of those which were dead in sin. And he who only had the power to do it, hath given this principal commandment to S. Peter, saying: That which thou unbindest upon earth, shall be unbound in heaven, and that which thou bindest upon earth shall be bound in heaven. He saith upon earth, but he never said that he which is departed bound by sin, shallbe released.  
Which Canon doth well show, that the power to unbind doth not stretch so far as to hell, nor so far as to the pretended Purgatory, but only to the earth: and that the Popes of late years have gone about to extend the bounds of their territories to far, in commanding the angels (as they do by their bulls of pardons) to go fetch the souls of such out of purgatory, as the Popes themselves listed to name, for they have no commandment that reacheth either higher or lower than the earth.  

Whence prayer for the dead cometh.  It is true that for ground of this doctrine of Purgatory, they allege that the custom of praying for the dead hath been allowed and received now of long time, even from the time of the primitive Church. But it doth not thereby follow, but that an error is an error, although it be never so old. 
c. Cum Marthae. vlt. ext de celebr. missa.  Moreover (as Pope Innocent the third doth witness) many of the ancient Fathers have believed, that the glory of those which are in Paradise, might still grow greater until the day of judgement, and so by consequence they did imagine that it was lawful to pray to god for the increase of their glorifying.  

De Civit. Dei. lib. 2. c. 24.  S. Augustine also writeth (how be it that he alloweth not the opinion) that some ancient Fathers have imagined, that to pray for the damned sort, might do them good, not to exempt them from eternal pain, but to moderate their torments. And therefore although that this kind of praying for the dead were sufferable, (as in deed it is not) seeing it hath no foundation in the word of God, yet cannot Purgatory be grounded thereupon, forasmuch as the praying of the Fathers of old time, was either for those which were happy in Paradise, for that their glory and blessedness might increase, or for those which were damned, that their pain might be diminished, and not for any which they believed to have been lodged in Purgatory. For in those days they knew not yet what was meant by Purgatory, nor where Purgatory stood. For it is but a late invention of the new descriptions of hell.  
The famosest doctor that ever spoke of Purgatory, is S. Gregory: 
Dialog. 4. c. 39  who notwithstanding, speaketh after such a fashion, that he seemeth to make no great reckoning of the matter, For he sayeth that none but venial sins may be purged by the fire of Purgatory, the deadly sins cannot: 
The small power of Purgatory in cleansing men's sins  So that by this reckoning the pains & torments of this pretended Purgatory, have no more power to purge, than hath the simple holy water: whereunto they do likewise attribute the virtue of cleansing, and of washing away of men's venial sins. These are the very words of S. Gregory.  
Such as a man departeth hence, such is he presented in the day of judgement. But yet we must believe that before the judgement, there is a fire of purgation for certain degrees of sins, because the truth saith, that if any man have blasphemed the holy Ghost, his sins shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come. By which words it is given us to understand, that there are some sins which may be pardoned in this world, and some in the world to come. For that which is denied in one sin, is granted in an other by consequent interpretation. But yet (as I have said) you must understand this to be spoken of the least sins, as the speaking many idle words, to much laughter, to great carefulness for a man's own family (which is a sin that can hardly be shunned even of such as know best how to keep themselves from sinning) or to err in points which are of no great importance, or to be ignorant of them. All which sins make a man's burden the heavier even after death, if they be not pardoned in his life tyme.  
Upon this text and upon the interpretation which S. Gregory hath made of it, (howbeit amiss, as I have said before in the text of the holy scripture which saith that the sin against the holy Ghost is not pardoned in this world nor in the world to come) the Romish Catholics, or rather the Schoolmen and sophisters have altogether builded and founded their purgatory. And they are not contented that only venial sins should there be purged, (as S. Gregory would:) but they will needs have it to serve for the doing away of deadly sins also, either by remaining there the full time of seven years for every deadly sin, or else by redeeming or shortening that long season, by the celebrating and founding of Masses and other suffrages. Which addition of the Sophisters hath marvelously enriched the kitchens of the clergy & monks, and brought great abundance of water to their mills, which had never happened to them, if purgatory had served but only to purge venial sins, according to the aforesaid opinion of S. Gregory. for the good people of christendom had rather to have purged themselves from those sins with holy water (which did no harm to those that sprinkled themselves therewith) then by the fire of purgatory which is affirmed to be extremely burning and scalding hot, or by the founding of masses and Obits, which were far dearer than was the holy water. So as purgatory had been brought to nothing, as a waist and barren soil, if men had held themselves to the only sayings of S. Gregory. Thus may you see how the poor world hath been abused, by the inventors and practisors of such holy deceits.   

¶ Of the exception of prescription. The xiii. chapter.  
Hitherto I think I have made it to appear plainly enough, that the Romish Catholics are not so well grounds as they imagine, in the points of religion which they would maintain against the protestants, Now therefore let them blame the reformed religion as much as them listeth and report it to be new, full of errors and heresies, and contrary to the word of God: and finally let them deface it as much as shall please them. For when it cometh to the upshot, their hasty headiness and their wilful fordeeming through the corruptness of their affections, shall never bring to pass, but that truth shall always be truth, and darkness be darkness. Do what they can to the uttermost, yet will the truth continued always to strong for them, in the judgement of the wisest sort. I know well that those which think themselves to have the best brains, and to be of greatest insight in all matters, are the persons that utter their opinions so boldly in this controversy of Religion, saying that the reformed Religion (which they term new) is a savage Religion, fond and full of follies and errors: and they will needs be believed in the matter upon their bore word, without proving any part of that which they speak.  
But as those kind of people are commonly ignorant and malicious, and moreover possessed with ambition and beastliness: so doth it appear that their mouths are ever still open, even when their overarrogant ignorance is beaten down by good reasons and allegations. And when they have done all that they can, for their last refuge they are fain to run to the exception of prescription, saying, that the Romish Religion hath been received and observed in France ever since the first setting up of the kingdom, even since the great king Clowis, who was the first Christian king, and that it is not like that God would leave the world so long time (which is more than a thousand years) in error and ignorance. 
Prescription can bear no sway in matters concerning God & Religion.   
But what if it be denied that their Religion (such as it is this present) was observed in the time of Clowis, or of charlemain, or of many other kings of France which have been since that time? How would they prove that which they have said? And if the contrary be proved to them by writings of ancient Bishops and Doctors of France, by the which it doth appear that in this Realm in old time they did hold the same Religion, or very near the same, which the Protestants do in these days, what will they answer then? And were it not also very easy to prove by the Historiographers which have written the lives of the Popes, and also by the decrees of the Popes themselves, that the most part of their ceremonies and traditions (whereof at this day they make more account than of God's word) have been invented and brought into the Church by the Popes of later times, long since charlemain? And therefore they which said that the Romish Religion (such as it is at this present) hath been observed in France ever since the beginning of the kingdom there, do greatly mistake their marks, and cannot verify their saying, but the contrary is easy to be proved.  
But let us put the case (how be it without granting it) that the thing which they say is true, and that this Romish Religion is of the uttermost antiquity that can be. Must the truth of God therefore forego his right, by the exception of prescription? No truly. For if by the Civil law there be no prrscription against a king, how much less then, may it be against the king of kings? And put the case again (without granting it) that prescription aught to take place against God: yet were it not reason (think you) to reckon the lapse of time according to Gods measuring thereof? Now it is certain, that with God, a thousand, yea and twelve hundred thousand years, are no more than an hour, or a quarter of an hour, and therefore by the lapse of so little space of time, prescription can take no advantage. But all men of sound judgement will always grant that as time doth not change the truth into untruth, nor untruth into truth: So also of consequence we must not admit a Religion for true and good, under colour that it hath endured long time, seeing that the exception of prescription is not to be admitted in such caces.  
For else if the Romish Catholics will needs stick to the judgement of prescription for the allowance of a Religion: then must they make good the religion of Mahomet, which hath already lasted above a thousand years, which thing I am sure that none of them will do, how passionate soever they be otherwise. And if it be demanded wherefore god hath so long time suffered the error of Mahomet amongst the Turks, Persians, Arrabians, Syrians, & the other Eastern and Southern people of Asia and Africa, among whom the Apostles and disciples of jesus Christ preached the Gospel and planted so many fair Churches: there is no other answer to be made unto it. but that god hath done it by his secret judgement, whereof we are ignorant. Full well we know that he hath done it for good and a just cause, & to good purpose, because he doth nothing but that which is good and just. But it doth not become us to search any deeper for the particular causes which have moved him so to do, neither aught we to be inquisitive of his privities and secret di●g●mentes. The same also is to be answered, to such as say that it is not likely that God would suffer the people of Christendom to err, so long as since the mass hath had his full scope. For (to be short) seeing that God is the truth itself and that his word is true: it is much better to yield God his due honour by sticking only to his word, then to refort to custom and prescription of time, to authorize the traditions of men. 
Math. 5.21.  jesus Christ himself doth teach us plainly enough, that we aught to reject the traditions of men, although they be never so ancient, and grounded upon prescription of time out of mind, and that we aught always to have recourse back to the pure word of God, which shall last for ever, notwithstanding all customs & prescriptions which are against it. For in reproving the traditions of the pharisees which had then been received & allowed of long time, he exhorteth his disciples to cast them of, and to return back again to the pure word of God, and to the natural meaning thereof saying: you have heard how it was said to the men of old time etc.  
As for the ancient Canons, they are so clear and express in this case, as is possible & therefore it shall suffice me to translate them here simply. These be the very words of the Canon. 
c. Mala. c si consuetudinem. c. Frustra. c. Consuetudo. c. si solus. dist. 8. The perilous effects of evil custom.  An ill custom is no less to be rejected & shunned, than a pestilent infection, because that if it be not the sooner plucked up the wicked do serve their turn with it as it were by right of privilege: insomuch that the sundry disorders and divers usurpations which are not repressed out of hand begin anon after to be received for laws, and are always observed as privileges.  
By which Canon we may well note the pernicious effects of ill customs, which cause us to receive vice in stead of virtue, and evil in stead of good: whereof our miserable world hath to many examples, as well in causes of Religion as in matters of policy and law. For in these days men defend nothing more earnestly, than the abuses and errors which are in all estates, under pretence that they have taken root by long custom and continuance of time, which have suffered them to pass in force of laws and Privileges.  
Another Canon taken out of saint Gregory saith thus: 
All custom must give place to truth.  If a man happen to object custom against us, we must consider what the Lord saith: I am the way (saith he) the truth and the life. He doth not say I am custom. And truly (as sayeth S. Cyprian) all custom although it be never so ancient, add received, aught to be set aside in respect of the truth, & all custom which is contrary to the truth aught to be abolished.  
There is yet another Canon which singeth thus: In vain do they allege custom, which are overcome by reason as though custom were of greater force than the truth. Or as though in spiritual things we should not follow that which hath been revealed by the holy Ghost. Certainly it is a true thing, that reason and truth are to be preferred before custom. But if custom be confirmed by the truth, it aught to be constantly kept and retained.  
There is yet another Canon which speaketh fitly of this matter, taken out of S. Cyprian, saying thus: The custom that is crept into any place, aught to be no impediment but that the truth should be preferred and get the upper hand: for custom without truth is nothing else but a giving of continuance unto error. Wherefore let us leave the error, & follow the truth: knowing that in Esdras, truth getteth the upper hand, according as it is written, Truth prevaileth and getteth the mastery, and liveth for ever, and shall endure world without end.  
To come to an end, I will add this one Canon & no more: For I should not have done very soon, if I would rehearse all the Canon's that are to purpose touching this matter. And thus saith this Canon: If only Christ aught to be heard, then must we not depend upon the things which other men that have been before our time, have thought meet to be done, but rather upon that which Christ hath done, who is before all. For we aught not to follow the custom of men, but the truth of God, specially seeing that he saith by the mouth of Esay the Prophet, In vain do they honour me, by teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.  
And in very deed this Cannon should make the whole rabble of the canonists, Decretistes Sarbonists, Sophistes, and others which handle the books of the Romish divinity, to blush for shame, that they should strain themselves to uphold the doctrines which have been apparently invented by men. For this one Cannon doth arraign them and condemn them, all in few words.  
Now to come to an end of this treatise, 
An exhortation unto peace.  I pray the Romish Catholics to vouchsafe, to look advisedly into the poynes heretofore by me discussed: and to examine and ponder them thoroughly and without passion, if it be possible. For in so doing I am sure, that as many as have any natural discretion in them, shall found that the Religion of the Protestants, is a far other thing than they have hitherto taken it to be, or than it hath been borne them in hand to be. And when they shall perceive that the said Religion (at the lest) is neither wicked, nor heretical, nor new (as even the most simple may easily discern by the points before treated of) it may be a just occasion for them (if they be not strangely bereft of their right wits) to incline to live henceforth in peace and concord, with the professors of the said Religion.  
And herewithal I beseech them to have earnest consideration of two things. The one is, that without a good peace and concord betwixt the Catholics and the Protestants, the state of the Realm of France will not only run wholly to ruin, but also come to utter undoing and destruction. And he that seeth not this, is very gross & ignorant. For Civil wars (when they continue) do never bring forth other effects, than the changes and destructions of common weals, unless some good and virtuous men that are lovers of the common weal, do fortune to prevent such unhappy and evil destinies, by procuring some good and reasonable pacification, as the histories do yield us infinite examples thereof.  
The other thing to be considered of is this. That every particular person aught to bethink himself that he hath a soul to save, and that he aught to seek the way of his salvation. For to what purpose serveth it to have gotten honour, glory, riches, and other contentments of the world, to him that followeth the way of damnation to his own wretched soul? Now he that is determined to seek the salvation of his soul, will he say that he is contented to believe as his Curate doth believe? Such resolution were to foolish and beastly. Or will it suffice him to say that he will live as his Predecessors have done, and follow custom? That were also a wrong way; and is already condemned by the Canon's heretofore alleged. Then aught we to determine with ourselves to follow the truth, and to embrace the true doctrine of Christ jesus but lord & Saviour, or else we shall never attain to salvation. And when we be thus resolved, we must take heed that our passions do not blind the eyes of our understanding, & 'cause us to take black for white. For if we say still, we have been led and brought up in this Religion, my father & grand fathers? (which were good men) have died in the same, I have borne Arms and ventured my life to maintain it, it were not now for my honour to follow the Religion against which I have fought, I am of the opinion that there is no ill in the religion that I hold, I am now to old to learn any other, and such other trifling excuses: we do greatly deceive ourselves, for they are nothing available before god, with whom we may not dally in this sort. For such shifts of descant serve to no other and, but to trifle our minds, and to lull them a sleep in ignorance and darkness, that they may have no skill of their salvation when they departed this world. What is then to be done that we may come into the path of salvation? we must seek the truth. And where shall we found it? even there whether Christ did sand us when he said search the Scriptures.  
The father of all mercy, who hath created and made us for of his own glory and honour sake, give us all such grace, that being enlightened by his holy spirit, we may be well edified in the pure doctrine of jesus Christ his son our Saviour, to the end that being true Christians in name and effect, we may live in good unity peace, brotherly and christianly love together in his holy service.  
Amen.   
Τελοσ.