Answer to John De Albines, To the reader · Answer

Answer to John De Albines · To the reader · Answer

An anſwere to the preface ſet before Iohn de Albines booke entituled, A notable diſcourſe againſt heretickes. &c.

BEfore I take in hande to ſay any thing to Iohn de Albine, or his booke, I muſt craue of thee (gentle reader) whoſoeuer thou art, theſe two things, that thou wouldeſt firſt giuegive me leaue to anſwere the long, tedious, and bragging preface, prefixed before his booke by the publiſher thereof, and that then alſo thou thy ſelfe, wouldeſt vouchſafe before thou goeſt any further, either to the conſidering what Albine hath obiected, or I anſwered, to take the paines to reade ouer this my anſwere to the ſaide preface. And though it ſeeme vntounto thee of an extraordinary length, & ſo ſomewhat diſcourages thee, yet the length of his conſidered likewiſe, I pray thee beare with me, and vouchſafe the reading of it thorow, before thou proceedeſt any further. His preface thou ſeeſt is long, but indeede ſo vaine and friuolous it is, that though it ſeemeth the authour thereof was ſome bolde and impudent Ieſuite, or fugitiue of our owne country, yet ſuch care he had of his credit, that for feare of loſſe thereof, he hath not thought good to put his name vntounto it. The vanity and weakeneſſe thereof, may euen ſufficiently appeare by thoſe marginall notes, that I hauehave affixed vntounto it, ſo that if I troubled thee with no further anſwere vntounto it, I hope it neither could nor ſhould much moue thee, or any other to thinke any thing the better of their Church and religion, then thou didſt before: yet becauſe, neither he, nor any of his faction, for want of a further particular aunſwere vntounto it, ſhall take occaſion to perſuade thē ſelues, or other, that there is further weight and matter in it then indeede there is, I will vouchſafe ſome more paines about it. Firſt therefore this I would hauehave thee (Chriſtian Reader) for the cōmendation of the authors great skill to obſerue, that almoſt al of it, is ſpent in prouing thoſe things which are needles, becauſe, we teach, graunt, & defende thē to be trueths, as fully and more fully then he or any of his ſide. For proofe whereof, cōſider, that whereas the whole preface, conſiſts in the copie and edition that I had of his in print to aunſwere, of twenty two leaues, hee ſpendes the firſt eight pages in prouing that Kinges, Princes, and rulers both ciuill and eccleſiaſticall, muſt carefullie adminiſter iuſtice according to their callings, and ſo bee as good ſhepherdes to them, of whome they hauehave charge, which who doubteth of, or who euer denyed amongſt vsus? yea we teaching as we do, that Emperours, Kings, and Queenes, in their kingdomes, are carefully to looke to the keeping of both tables amongſt their people, and that they are next vnderunder God the ſupreme gouernours of their people, aſwel in cauſes eccleſiaſtical, in commaunding for the good of the church and religion of Chriſt, as in cauſes ciuill, in commaunding for the common weale and the good eſtate thereof, and they denying ciuil Magiſtrates any ſuch authority in cauſes of the church, doe not we far more fully then they teach them, how and when they may be as good ſhepheards to their people? Then by occaſion of this former needleſſe diſcourſe, hauing alleadged that Iohn 10. to proue that a good ſhepheard giueth his life for his ſheepe, and that Chriſt is that good ſheepheard that knowes his ſheepe, and is knowen of them, marke how in as many mo pages he inferreth, that it is neceſſary that the ſheepe know their ſhepheard, that they heare his voice, and geue no eare to the voice of a ſtranger, and laſtly, that they follow and obey their ſhepheard: which are things alſo (truly taught and vnderſtoode) which we moſt gladly teach & embrace, and for lacke of which properties of Chriſtes ſheepe wee conſtantly hold & aduouch that the Romiſh flocke theſe manie yeares, hath rather beene a flocke of goates, then of Chriſtes true ſheepe. For if they knowe, as they ſhould, that the name of the ſheepheard Chriſt were the only name whereby commeth ſaluation Act. 4. and that in him all things are prepared already. Math. 22. they would not ſet vp to themſelues ſo many names of perſons and thinges beſides him, nor hold that ſo many thinges beſides thoſe that are already prepared in him, are left to thēſelues and others to that ende to prepare, as they doe. And if they did ſo heare his voice, and refuſe to heare the voice of ſtrangers (as Chriſtes ſheepe ought) there neither would nor could be, ſo many ſtrange doctrines, yea contrary doctrines to the voice of Chriſt ſet downe in the Canonical ſcriptures, receaued & maintained amongſt them, as ear I hauehave done with Albine I ſhall ſhew there are. Likewiſe ſuch followers & obeiers of the voice of Chriſt are they, & hauehave they beene for theſe 4. or 500. yeares ſpeaking vntounto them in his word writtē, by the mouth of his true church & aūcient ſound paſtours thereof, as that none euer, in a number of moſt weighty and materiall matters, more directly contraried his voice then they. Whither I hauehave iuſt ground and proofe for my thus ſaying, I referre thee to that which I hauehave written in confutation of Albines diſcourſe, cap. 4.17.29. & 36. And yet ſuch is the folly of this nameles preface wryter, that hauing thus noted theſe, to be the properties of Chriſts true ſheepe, as though by and by without any further proofe at all, it ought of neceſsity to bee granted, that he and his ſide had all theſe properties, and that we of our ſide had neuer a one of them all, but were notoriouſly branded with the contrary markes, he triumpheth and inſulteth ouer vsus, ſpending all the reſt of his preface in railing vponupon vsus, and in perſwading his reader to forſake vsus, and to ioyne with him & his. So that all the reſt of his preface is builded, vppon a moſt ſhamefull and impudent begging of all theſe points; that they know Chriſt aright, heare his voice & no other, obey him and follow him moſt orderly: and alſo of theſe (that his begging of that former may ſeeme the more reaſonable) that their doctrine is ſound, hauing countenāce of al auncient & holy fathers, of the cōſent of al Chriſtiā Regions, & preſcription of time, that their prelates are al prelates lawfully called, hauing right ſucceſsion, & eueryevery thing that they ſhould hauehave, to credit them withal, & therefore that they are ſuch, as Chriſt hath commaunded, to to be obeyed as himſelfe, and laſtly, that their church is the holie Catholike church, the obedient ſpouſe of Chriſt, and mother of all the faithfull, and that therefore it is damnation to depart frō her, or to refuſe to obey any of her lawes and ordinances, & that with vsus, all things are quite contrary. All theſe things his reader muſt graunt him & ſuppoſe to be true, for he hath nothing at all to proue any one of theſe, beſides ſwelling words of vanity, and lofty arrogant bragging that theſe things are ſo. And therefore al theſe things, being the things in queſtion betwixt vsus, and ſuch, as we all, moſt conſtantly and iuſtly hauehave alwaies denied, (as our writings of theſe points heretofore, & now this anſwere of mine in ſundry places thereof, make manifeſt to any indifferēt reader) thereupon it muſt needes follow, that whatſoeuer he hath alleadged, either out of ſcripture or doctor to perſwade his reader to obey their church, their prelates, their ordinances & traditions, is ſhamefully abuſed. For compare the times when, & the perſons whereof thoſe things were written, their doctrine and doings with theſe, and you ſhall finde, (witnes the ſcriptures thēſelues and all ſound antiquity) as much differēce betwixt their church prelates, doctrine and ordinances, and them of whom thoſe places are to be truely vnderſtoode, as there is betwixt light and darkeneſſe, the pure Church of Chriſt, and the impure Synagogue of Antichriſt. And alſo, all his exhortation vponupon theſe grounds, to ioine with them, and all his bitter inuectiues againſt vsus, for refuſing ſo to doe, is as a building in the aire without all foundation. And therefore is thus eaſilye pulde downe, and laide vnderfoote, as a thing more meete to bee trampled vponupon, as a thing of nothing, then by any to bee at all regarded. And yet as foule a fault as this is in him, it is common to him with all wryters of his ſide, and moſt notoriouſly with this Iohn de Albine, before whoſe booke, hee hath ſet this his preface. It may bee, ſeeing his author, whom hee ment to publiſh, and of whom he had ſuch an opinion, that hee accounted him a notable diſcourſer againſt hereſies, to hauehave ſuch a grace and dexterity, in ſtuffing out his booke almoſt with nothing elſe, but with this beggerly begging the maine queſtions alwaies, that he thought his preface ſhould not be ſuteable, and fit to be ſet before ſuch a learned diſcourſe, vnleſſe it were garniſhed & bewtified with the ſame popiſh grace. And if this were his reaſon (then which I am ſure hee hath no better) hee is to bee borne withall, for what reaſon is there to the contrary, but that according to the rules of decency, the preface and the booke whereunto it is a preface ſhall be conformable one to the other.

And yet though this be the very methode and matter (good Reader) of all this his long tedious preface, which I thus brieflie hauehave laide open before thee, the poore ſilly man the authour thereof, ſeemeth to hauehave conceiued ſuch a liking of his owne doings therein, eſpecially towards the latter ende thereof, that gloriouſly and triumphantly hee breaketh out into wonderful complaints, amplifications, and exclamations againſt vsus. Alas poore man that hee was, thought hee to meete with no reader, but that would graunt him all theſe thinges at the firſt asking? Or thought hee that hee had ſo cunningly and artificially knit thoſe things together, that no man could eſpy the childiſh loſenes of them? From his firſt generall farre ſet and yet vnneceſſary diſcourſe of the duety of all officers, hee ſo ſuddenly falleth into the next, of the properties of Chriſtes ſheepe, that it was great maruaile that the man …ooke no great harme by it. But hauing recouered himſelfe … litie, ſpeaking belike before his wittes were well come to him, …ee neuer can hit after of any thing to the purpoſe. For not onelyonly all his matter and woordes, beſides a fewe naked aſſertions of his of the trueth of certaine points of his religion, and falſhoode of ours, skipping in heere and there, …here is nothing, but, the circumſtances of application altered, one of vsus might far more aptly and truely hauehave written againſt them. But as thoſe things ſufficiently conuince the man and his preface of groſſe folly and vanitie, ſo if we conſider, but howe he hath wilfully ſought to abuſe his reader, in cyting the ancient father Irenaeus, and others, to perſuade his reader by his authoritie, to obey their prelates and traditions, we ſhall as plainely finde in the man palpable impiety. For page ſecond, he cyteth his fourth booke and forty three chapter, to proue vntounto vsus nowe, that wee muſt obey their Church, now ſpeaking vntounto vsus by their prelates, becauſe then Irenaeus tolde the heretiques a thouſand and foure hundred yeares agoe and more (whom indeede the paſtours of the Church that then was, continued ſoundly in the purity of the Apoſtolique doctrine) that they were to obey the paſtours of the Church that had ſucceſsion from the Apoſtles. Which any mā may ſee, bindeth not, nor teacheth vsus to do the like to theirs, vnleſſe they could proue theirs to be ſuch, as there Irenaeus ſpeaketh of. Likewiſe whatſoeuer elſe in this preface of his to like purpoſe he hath alleadged out of Irenaeus, Auguſtine, Chryſoſtome, Cypriā, Hierome, or the ſcriptures thēſelues, is abuſed, for that which they ſpake of that pure & true Church of Chriſt, and her faithfull miniſters, that he would drawe his reader to think to be ſpoken, euen of the Church of Rome as it is now, and hath beene of late yeares, and of her prelates, which are in nothing almoſt, like either the Church or miniſters that they ſpeake of. But this is not all his fault in alleadging this teſtimonie of Irenaeus, thus to confounde the prelates and Church with the true paſtours of Chriſt and his pure Church, a thouſande fower hundreth yeares agoe, whereunto theirs are no more like then darkeneſſe is to light, but that alſo wilfully (the eaſilier belike to beguyle the ſimple reader) hee concealeth that, that immemediatly followeth the former words. Which is this: Quiſ…c… oſtendimus cum epiſcopatus ſucceſſione chariſma veritatis certum, ſecū dum placitum patris acceperunt, that is, which (as we hauehave ſhewed) with the ſucceſsion of their Biſhoppricke, according to the will and pleaſure of God, hauehave receaued the certaine gifte of trueth, and ſo hee hauing skipt ouer thoſe wordes, which hee thought, as it ſhould ſeeme, in his conſcience, would and might be denied, not to fit their prelats, he goeth on with that that followed theſe wordes, ſaying, Reliquos vero qui abſiſtunt à principal ſucceſsione, & quocunquè loco colliguntur, ſuſpectos habere tanquam haereticos oportet, which is in Engliſh, but the reſt which goe from the principall ſucceſsion, in what place ſoeuer they be gathered together, wee ought to ſuſpect as heretiques. Wherein euidently it appeareth, he left out the former words (ſtāding in the author in the midſt betwixt the former part of the ſentence, and the latter here alleadged by him) to make the reader beleeue that Irenaeus minde was, to teach men ſimply to obey ſuch prelates, without exception, as hauehave ordinarie, outward, and locall ſucceſsion downe from the Apoſtles, and that that kinde of ſucceſsion in place and office, is the principall ſucceſsion that he ſpeaketh of, which who ſo hath not, ought by and by to bee ſuſpected of hereſy. But indeede take al his words together and marke them, (eſpecially thoſe which craftily he had gelded the ſentence of, in his quoting of them) and it is moſt cleare, that Irenaeus here teacheth obedience onelyonly to ſuch Biſhops, as ſucceede the Apoſtles, in the certaine gift of trueth, that by principall ſucceſsion, he ment nothing elſe but ſucceſſion to the Apoſtles, in that gift of trueth, and that therefore he would hauehave vsus, to ſuſpect all thoſe to be heretiques, that lack ſucceſsion vntounto them in that, howſoeuer and whereſoeuer they ſucceede them elſe. Which is the very cauſe, why according to this rule we think no better of their popiſh biſhops & prieſts, then we do (what ſucceſſiō ſoeuer otherwiſe they bragge of) for that, ſure we are, that long ago they are gone from this principal ſucceſsion in trueth. This he knew eueryevery one would perceiue, if he had faithfully cyted Irenaeus wordes as they lye, and therefore hee thought beſt, to ſhew how he could followe the example of that olde fox Sathan, who for his purpoſe in like māner, mangled the 91. Pſalme, Math. 4. It ſeemeth alſo that theſe words quocun que loco colligūtur; in what place ſoeuer they be gathered together, (though he recite them in latine) he would faine hauehave ſmothered, for trāſlating the reſt he omits theſe, doubtles becauſe without any exceptiō, yea euen of Rome it ſelfe, thereby Irenaeus would teach, that they ought to be ſuſpected to be heretiques, that will not obey thoſe paſtours that ſucceed the Apoſtles in the gift of truth. Which indeede the Biſhops of Rome, hauing had ſo little care to doe this great while, if this rule of Irenaeus may bee followed, they cannot poſsibly eſcape this ſuſpition. The credit therefore of thē waying more with the writer of this preface then his owne, he thought it was better thus to leeſe his owne, by thus ſhamefully abuſing his reader in prouing this teſtimony after the popiſh manner, then once to hazard the credit of his holy fathers the popes, by right, faithfull, and honeſt dealing therewith. Howbeit, this kinde of dealing of his, may giuegive iuſt occaſion to all that are wiſe euer hereafter, to looke better to the fingers of all ſuch fellowes, then vponupon their bare word to truſt them any more in their quoting or citing of the fathers. But leſt we ſhould thinke that this was but a ſlippe of his by chance, & that hee was not his crafteſ-maſter in this kinde of dealing, he hath plaide vsus the very like trick againe with this ſame father pa. 18. & where he alleadgeth the fourth chapter of the ſaid Irenaeus third booke, to iuſtify their traditions not warranted by the written word. For in the beginning of the ſaide chapter not fiue lines before the wordes cited by him, hee ſpeaking of the ſcriptures written by the Apoſtles & Euāgeliſts, he ſaith, that they into that rich treaſury moſt fully hauehave brought all things that belōg to truth, ſo that eueryevery one that will, may frō thence take the drink of life. And that which he ſpeaketh in the words alleaged by him of following of tradition, it is ſpoken only by way of ſuppoſition, to ſhew what courſe had bene beſt for the Church, whē any queſtiō ſhould hauehave ariſen, if they had not left vsus ſcriptures. For his words are theſe: if the Apoſtles had not left vsus ſcriptures, muſt we not hauehave followed the order of tradition, which they gaue to them to whom they committed churches? In which caſe (which is not our caſe nowe, ſeeing they hauehave left vsus ſcripture) we grant we ſhould hauehave beene, in the deciding of all controuerſies that could hauehave ariſen, ouerruled by that which they deliuered by word of mouth to ſuch, and therefore that being the caſe, no better or readier way for the ending of controuerſies, ſhould there hauehave been, then to hauehave recourſe to the moſt ancient Churches wherin they were conuerſant, and ſo by their tradition, to hauehave learned the certainty therein. But thus, by way of ſuppoſition, Irenaeus ſpeaking of their tradition, in the caſe ſuppoſed by him, certaine it is, that by their tradition, he vnderſtādeth that ſoūd form of doctrin, which they deliuered by their preaching, & teaching, which thē would & ſhould hauehave been the ſame (foraſmuch as they ſpoke & wrot by one ſpirit) that now they hauehave left vsus in writing. And therefore euē then the Romiſh Church, ſhould hauehave been as far to ſeeke, as ſhe is now, for hauing any warrant from thence, for thoſe things that ſhe holdeth, either contrary, or beſides the word written. And that by tradition, he meaneth here no other thing, it is euident, for in the firſt chapter of that booke he ſaith plainely: Quod tum praeconiauerunt, poſtea, per Dei voluntatem nobis tradiderunt in ſcripturis, columnam & fundamē tum fidei futurum, that is, that which firſt they preached, after by the will of god, they deliuered vntounto vsus in the ſcriptures, to be the piller and ground of faith. And in the third chapter of that book (hauing before ſpoken of the Apoſtolicke tradition) he after ſheweth what he meant thereby, namely this, that god the maker of heauen and earth &c, as he is deſcribed in the olde teſtament, the Apoſtles hauehave taught to be the father of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, contrary to the phantaſticall franticke dreame of Valentinian, ſo plainely ſhewing, that they that would, euen by the ſcriptures themſelues, might learne what the Apoſtolick traditiō was. Now what is this, for the authoriſhing, the vnwritē traditiōs of the Romiſh church, which are not ōly al beſide the ſcriptures, but whereof the moſt are contrary thereūto? But this, gentle reader, is the right trick of all the crue of theſe Romaniſts, thus by the ambiguity of words out of the fathers, to ſeek to colour their abſurd opinions, & ſo er thou be a ware, to deceaue thee, if thou take not heede. As for example, to perſwade a mā to like of their beggerly vnwritten traditiōs, whatſoeuer any father ſpeaketh of traditiō, though it be neuer ſo plaine in the author himſelfe, that thereby he meaneth nothing leſſe, then ſuch traditions as theirs, yet that muſt be confidently brought in, as fit, & moſt pregnant, for their purpoſe. Likwiſe whatſoeuer any father hath ſaid of any ſacramētall chāge of the outward elements, for that therein their name, vſe, & eſtimation are chāged, though the ſame father in a thouſād other places ſhew, that his iudgemēt is, that there is no change at all there in ſubſtance, yet that muſt be quoted as a flat place for Popiſh trāſubſtantiation. And euen ſo, if they find in a father ſpeaking of the Euchariſt, any mention of a ſacrifice, as though there were no kind of ſacrifice, but that which they dream to bee there, that muſt be vrged as a ſtrong place, to proue their blaſphemous ſacrifice for the quick & the dead. And this iugling with the fathers, and coſening of their poore ſimple readers, vſe they in al their cōtrouerſies. But at this time, thou muſt pardō this preface writer this fault, becauſe herein, he doth but ſtudy to bee like him, before whoſe book he hath ſet this his preface. For chapter the fifth, he himſelfe moſt groſly committeth this ſame fault, in the detection whereof, I hauehave more at large diſcouered this lewde dealing of theirs. In the meane time, let vsus not forget that Irenaeus hath taught vsus, what that church is, who thoſe paſtours be, & what thoſe traditiōs are, that we muſt obey & be ruled by, namely, onelyonly that Church that hath the ſcriptures for the piller & groūd of her faith, lib. 3. cap. 1. thoſe paſtours that ſucceede the Apoſtles in truth of doctrine, li. 4. cap. 43. & thoſe traditiōs which hauehave good warrant from the ſcriptures themſelues, lib. 3. cap. 3. whereof it muſt needes follow, that all the places & reaſons quoted by him, either out of the ſcriptures or fathers, to binde vsus to yeeld obedience to their churches ordinances, their prelates cō mandements, & to the points warranted onelyonly by their traditions, their Church hauing another foundation of her faith then the worde written, namely alwaies their popes will as it hath, & the commādemēts of their prelates, & traditions, being not only beſide, but alſo often moſt groſly contrary to that word of God writtē (as I ſhal ſhew in ſundry places, er I hauehave done with Albine) in Irenaeus iudgemēt, ar but ſo many abuſings and corruptings of their holy & good meanings. And yet thus, hauing to no purpoſe beſtowed a great deale of idle paines, as one that had ſaid inough to proue that the authority of all the learned fathers, the cōmon conſēt of all Chriſtiā regions, & preſcriptiō of time, were al ful & faſt of his ſide, he luſtily braggeth p. 22. that if their be any weight in any, or al theſe together, that his ſide hath the true goſpell, & the true ſence thereof. That their Religion is the very Chriſtian Religion, their order of ceremonies the right order, and that their faſting and praying, is according to the ſcriptures, and that therefore their church is the lawfull and true ſpouſe of Chriſt, from which, who ſo ſeperates himſelfe, is in ſtate of damnation. This thus only ſaid, thereupō by and by, as though there were no remedy, but that we muſt needs grant all this to be true, he taketh occaſion to triumph, and to frame a bitter inuectiue, againſt our Religion and liues: ſo concluding his wordy preface, with an exhortation to his Reader to forſake vsus & our Religiō, & to ioine againe with thē in theirs. All which becauſe it is nothing, but the vaine & malitious wordes of a fooliſh aduerſary, without proofe or ſhadowe of proofe (which therefore I am ſure the wiſe Reader will make no reckoning of,) I might very well let paſſe with this onelyonly anſwere, that whatſoeuer he hath here ſaid braggingly, either in the commendation of his Religion & Church, or to the diſgrace of ours, is vtterly falſe, and that I hauehave plentifully proued it ſo to be, in ſundry places of this my anſwere. Howbeit ſeing this is not only his brag, but the brag alſo a nūber of times, of Iohn de Albine in the booke following, & indeed, is in effect, the only thing, by taking whereof granted, moſt ſubtily they, & all their fellowes, ſeeke to beguile their ſimple readers, it ſhal not be amiſſe, becauſe here firſt we meete with it, leaſt otherwiſe the Reader ſhould be too ready, to ſuffer his hart to be ſoreſtald with this falſe principle, to the preiudice of the truth, ſomewhat to ſay to make both the vanity & falſhood hereof to appeare to eueryevery one. Firſt therefore it is worthy the marking, that the mā, though (as hee plainly ſheweth, hee had here a full purpoſe, at leaſt in wordes, to giuegive as great countenaunce as he could to his cauſe) that yet, he ſeekes to giuegive it credit, but by the teſtimonie of fathers, conſent of Chriſtian regions, and preſcription of time, in the meane time, omitting that which is to be preferd before all theſe, namely the teſtimony of the vndoubted word of God, reuealed & ſet downe in the ſcriptures: wherein he hath dealt but as the nature of his cauſe requires, which hath no countenance from thence, and as the faſhion of other of his companiōs in this caſe is. For hereupō it is, that there is nothing more cōmon in their diſcourſes then to labour by all meanes they can, the diſgrace of the written word of god, and to eſtabliſh the credite of a word vnwritten, which they count to be the traditions or ordinary practiſe of the Church of Rome. To this ende they beſtowe ſo much paines as they doe, at leaſt to make ſhewe of proofe, that the ſcriptures are ſo darke and obſcure, ſo inſufficiēt for the direction of the Church in all matters, and of ſo vveake authority of themſelues without the authority and teſtimonie of the Church to countenance them, that without the foreſaid vnwritten word, no man could either fully or certainly, be ſetled and eſtabliſhed in the truth. So that herein this is their drift, that they indeed being without all ſounde warrant out of the canonicall ſcriptures, for thoſe thinges which wee count erroneous in thē, they yet may make their followers beleeue, that they hauehave as good ground as need be for them, in that they can proue thē, by the tradition of the Church, which they call the word of god vnwritten, and which they hold to be not onelyonly aequal, vntounto the other that is written, but alſo far more full and certaine for the determining the trueth of all controuerſies. And therefore Soto contra Brentium, Caniſius cap. 5. of his Catechiſme, and Lindan lib. 5. cap. 10. of his panoplie are not aſhamed to confeſſe, (reckening almoſt all the pointes in controuerſie betwixt them and vsus) that they hauehave their ground and warrant from tradition, not written in the ſcriptures. And hereupon it is, that there is nothing more common with any of them, then when wee preſſe them, with this, that the opinions for the which we ſtriue with them hauehave no warrāt in the ſcripture, yea that the ſcriptures rightly vnderſtoode are flatte againſt them therein, to flye to tradition, which is the cauſe that this fellowe him ſelfe was ſo buſie before to abuſe Irenaeus, for the countenance of that onelyonly foundation of their Religion. For this cauſe we may & doe ſay of them, & that iuſtly, by their owne confeſſiō, as Tertullian ſaide of the hereticks in his time, they cannot ſtand, if they be driuen once to determine al their controuerſies by the ſcriptures, de Reſurrectione Carnis cap. 3. Now as for vsus (Chriſtian reader) for all this lewde bragge of his, we appeale to theſe ſcriptures of god, and onelyonly wee allowe of them, as of a moſt perfect touchſtone whereby to trye, in all matters of Religion, the pure golde from the counterfait, crauing no further liking nor allowance in any thing, then by them wee are able ſoundly to proue, and confirme that which we ſay and teach. And the ancient holy fathers, and ſo the Chriſtian regions in al ancient preſcription of time, which are the things that he here brags of, as it appeares in all ſound monuments of antiquity, euer ſince theſe ſcriptures were written, for the determining of controuerſies in their times, hauehave alwaies taken this courſe to cōfute & confound all aduerſaries to the truth. As for their owne authority, or the authority of any other before them, no further credit they craue, then as they are foūd to agree with theſe ſcriptures, otherwiſe the more that hauehave couſeted & the lōger they held, the worſe. This I hauehave made manifeſt by plētifull teſtimony of the ancient fathers thēſelues cap. 3.5.23. And therfore whiles he ſends vsus thus to the fathers, Chriſtian regions conſent, & preſcription of time, he ſēds vsus but about the buſh, for when we come to thē, they will ſend vsus backe againe to the ſcriptures. But whiles they take this courſe in ſeeking rather countenance for their cauſe any where elſe, then at, or by the canonicall ſcriptures, in the iuſt iudgement of god, they plainly bewray themſelues to eueryevery ſimple mā, to hauehave but a bad cauſe, that they ſo ſhun the light, and refuſe the moſt certaine, & moſt indifferent triall of it, which queſtionles is by theſe ſcriptures, whoſe neither authority nor indifferecy, without blaſphemy, may once be called in queſtion. Indeed I read, that whē they were preſſed with the authority of theſe ſcriptures, the Marcionites pretēded for the defence of their hereſy, their paraclet or cōforters viſiōs, & inſtructiōs: & that likewiſe the Mōtaniſts did fly to their prophecy: the Valētinians to their dreams of their Aeons: the Manichees to their fundamētal Epiſtle: the Iewes to their Talmud: & the Turks to their Alcaron: & belike leſt theſe ſhould be foūd vnlike theſe their predeceſſors, they will thus fly from the vndoubted authority of god, ſpeaking in the ſcriptures, to the vncertaine and variable authority of man.

Yet if this were true that he ſaith, that they hauehave the auncient holy fathers, the common conſent of all Chriſtian regions, & pre ſcriptiō of time of their ſide, it were ſōewhat, & ſome likelihood it were, that things were with thē, as he ſaith, I muſt needs cōfeſſe, but indeed & truth, they hauehave neither al nor any of theſe, in that ſort to ſpeake for thē, as he would make his Reader beleeue. For firſt, there is plaine contrariety betwixt their doctrine, & the doctrine of the auncient holy fathers, in a number of moſt weighty points, as I hauehave ſhewed at large ca. 17. & 29. likewiſe in that both ther, & alſo c. 39. & 40. in that I ſhew, that they hold many things directly contrary to the ancient generall councels, I plentifully proue, that they are deſtitute, of the commō conſent of Chriſtiā regions. And as for the laſt, though it were grānted thē, that they may truly pretēd long continuāce of time, yet ſeing it is true, that Tertullian de velandis virginibus hath ſaid, Quodcun que aduerſus veritatē ſapit, heraeſis eſt, etiā vetus cōſuetudo: that is, whatſoeuer ſauoreth againſt the truth, is hereſy, though it be an old cuſtome: & ſeing alſo it is certaine, that Cyprian ad Pompeiū ſaith, cuſtome muſt not let truth to preuaile, for cuſtōe without truth, is but oldnes of error, that could do thē litle good, we being alwaies able as webe, to proue by the ſcriptures ſoūdly interpreted, & by al ſoūd antiquity, that they are gone lōg agoe frō the trueth. But in deed though popery be too anciēt, & ſo hath had ſōe cōtinuāce of time, yet it is but a yongling, in reſpect of that which they pretend. And this I hauehave alſo proued cap. 17. & in ſūdry other places of my anſwere following. Yea that more is, & which will goe nearer then I hauehave proued, that indeed we for our Religion & Church, hauehave not only preſcription of ſome longtime, but alſo of all times & ages euē frō the beginning. c. 4.9. & 17. And yet this point of antiquity, & preſcriptiō of time, is a thing that they ſo cōfidētly ſtād vpō, that in the offer annexed to Iohn de Albines book, that proud chalēger offreth to recāt, if we cā ſhew where, & whē, in what yeare of the lord, & vnderunder what Emperor, & by whō, popery cāe in, & by whō of our ſide it was gain ſaid: which though I hauehave, I hope, ſufficiētly ſhewed in the chapters laſt before quoted, yet becauſe the anſwe rīgfully to this point, & the remouig of this obiectiō, wil both blūt the edge of this his brag, & greatly crack the credit of popery, I wil voutſafe ſōewhat more here, to ſet down to the cōfutatiō of it.

Hereunto therefore, whereas the foreſaid offerer, and others of that ſide, ſo ſtand vponupon the antiquity of their Church and Religion, that they would ſeeme we muſt needes grant, that they are even as auncient, as they pretend, vnles we can ſhew when, where, & by whō, a ſodaine change frō our Religiō to theirs was made, & that ſome of our ſide thē preſētly eſpied it, & withſtood it, vnreaſonable it is that they demaunde. For popery being not one, or two particular hereſies, nor ſuch a maſſe or heape of hereſies, whoſe property is to burſt in all at once of the ſodaine, ſhewing it ſelfe with open and bare face at the firſt, but as it is tearmed, 2. Theſſ. 2. a miſtery of iniquity, and therefore a falſe Religiō, creeping in cūningly by litle & litle, as it were, by ſtealing ſteps, & that hiddē aſmuch as might bee, vnderunder the ſhew & colour of holines through hypocriſy 1. Tim. 4. & Reu. 13. v. 11. no maruaile though it were not only verie hard, but euen impoſsible, in eueryevery reſpect to ſatisfie this demaunde. And yet for al this, were popery neuer a whit the more to be liked. For as we ſee by experience, that oſtentimes there is far more daunger in thoſe diſeaſes, that ſteale vppon a man by little and little, and therefore are not reſiſted at the firſt, then in thoſe that are apparant and violent when they begin, and therefore then are they more carefully withſtoode and looked vntounto: euen ſo oftentimes alſo it falles out in errours and hereſies, that they of al other in the end proue the moſt dangerous, whoſe beginnings hauehave beene moſt cloſe and ſecret, and whoſe growing to their perfection hath not been of the ſodaine, but in long tract of time. Indeede thoſe diſeaſes that come vponupon the ſodaine and are violent, & in their fulnes at the firſt, men at the firſt may eſpy and complaine of, but ſo it is not, not cannot be alwaies in the other. We ſee alſo, that though it be an eaſy matter to name the father of a lawfully begotten childe, yet no man commonly can tell who is the father of the baſe ſonne of a common woman. But to make it yet more cleare, that popery may be naught (as it is) & yet this his demaunde be vnreaſonable, we are to cal to mind, that Chriſt our ſauiour, who knew beſt how ſuch moſt dangerous cankers and diſeaſes, would grow and come vp in his church, hath taught vsus Matth. 13. that it will not alwaies be knowen & eſpied, no not of his owne houſholde ſeruants, when and by whom firſt the tares are ſowen in his field, where he had before onelyonly ſowed good ſeede. And there he ſhowes vsus, that notwithſtanding, that it ſhall be ſufficient to proue them tares, in that afterwards whē they are come vp, they differ as they doe from the good ſeed. Though therefore it were ſo, that we could not tel when, & by whō, popery was firſt ſowē in Gods field, yet in that now it being growen vp therein, as it is, it being compared with gods good ſeede taken out of the garner or barne of his holy written word, it differeth from it as it doth, that ought to be ſufficient proofe vntounto vsus, that it is but tares, & of the deuils ſowing by his deuiliſh ſeedſimē, whenſoeuer they did it. Doubtles the creeping of it in, not all at once, but by little and litle, & that with ſuch ſoft & ſly paces, the ſhew of holines & deuotion that it hath ſtolen in vnderunder, the trouble that the holy ancient fathers had in their times otherwiſe, in confuting groſſe hereſies that ſhewed themſelues ſuch at the firſt, and the ſmall ſuſpition (if they had marked the beginnings hereof, that were in their times) that they could hauehave had, that euer they would hauehave …rowen to this that they are now, hauehave beene ſo many great and …peciall cauſes, why the firſt beginnings thereof hauehave beene no more noted & reſiſted then they hauehave beene. Againe this I muſt …eeds further ſay, that it may yet very wel be, that the beginning & proceeding alſo thereof, hauehave beene both better obſerued & withſtood by the anciēt fathers in the primatiue church, thē appeareth now vntounto vsus in their bookes & monuments: for in theſe parts of the world in theſe laſt 4 or 500 yeares they ſo raigning & …yrānizing as they did, they hauing their books in their keeping, …heir care and diligence being as it was, by al meanes posſible to maintaine their own credit, very likely is it, that as they met with any thing to that end, they hauehave foūd the means to ſuppreſſe & …aſe it out of their writings. Infinite proofes and examples there …e (they know wel inough) to enduce any mā to think, that louelove of their owne cauſe, & hatred of the truth, would eaſily prouoke them in this caſe to be thus bold with their labours. For in all ſtories ſince their kingdome grew to the ful, not onelyonly from time to …ime, it is noted, that if God raiſed vp any (as he did alwaies ſome …s I hauehave ſhewed cap. 4.) to ſpeake & write againſt their corruptions, they tooke ſtraight ſuch order, that if not both the men and their bookes, yet at leaſt their bookes ſhould be burned and conſumed. And they that hauehave had, when the times were far better, three popes one after an other, ſo bolde & impudent thorowe an ambitious deſire then of primacy, to forge a falſe & counterfaite canon of the councel of Nice, and to vrge it in the opē face of an other great & famous councell of Carthage, when notori…ouſly their forgery was eſpied, & therefore they plainly tolde of it by epiſtles writtē vntounto thē by that councel of purpoſe, no marvel, though when they had attained their ful deſire of an vniuerſal ſupremacy, they durſt do and did whatſoeuer they thought good, to let as few monuments of antiquity remaine any way to their diſcredit, as might be. Hēce I am fully perſuaded that in great part it cōmeth that we finde ſo litle as we do, to bewray their beginning & proceeding, and the withſtanding thereof in the writings of anciēt fathers & Croniclers. And yet though we foūd in thē far leſſe then we do, I ſay againe, that thence ariſeth no reaſon to iuſtifie the popiſh church or religion: for is there any reaſon that a ſhip that is drowned by leaking, a mā that is dead by a conſumptiō, & a cōmō weale that is growen frō a moderate and wel ordered gouernment, to an abſolute tyranny, ſhould be ſaid to be ſafe, in health, aliue, & in good ſtate, becauſe we cannot tell whē, & where, the ſhip began firſt to leake, the mā began firſt to fall into his conſumption, and when the common weale began firſt to grow out of order? Likely enough alſo is it, that the great credit that the ancient biſhops of Rome were in, for their piety and godlineſſe, and the lofty eſtate of their ſucceſſours afterwarde, ſo dazeled on the one ſide, the eyes of the godly in ancient time, that they were not curious, in reſiſting the doings of their ſucceſſours: and ſo bridled on the other ſide, the tongues of the worldly minded of theſe latter dayes, that they durſt not write that which they ſaw: all which reaſons layd together make it euident, that it ought to be no wonder, nor yet any argument, any whit at all to credit popery, though this offerers demaunde could not be ſatisfied. Howbeit, this onelyonly I hauehave written, to ſhew the vnreaſonableneſſe of this demaunde, for indeede, Gods name be prayſed for it, hovv vnreaſonable ſoeuer it be otherwyſe, vvee are able ſufficiently to aunſwere it. For Paul hath tolde vsus, that this myſtery of iniquity was vvorking in his dayes 2. Theſ. 2. verſ. 7. And ſo indeed it vvas, in that euen then, firſt their were falſe Apoſtles, that laboured to corrupt the article of free and full ſaluation, through the onelyonly meanes and merytes of Chriſt Ieſus, teaching that it vvas neceſſary to ſaluation, for them that beleeued in Chriſt alſo to bee circumcyſed, as it appeares, Actes 15. and Gal. 5. and after that there vvere ſuch, as hereupon grew a ſtep further, namely, to vrge the neceſſity of the obſeruing of humane traditions, as, Touch not, taſt not, handle not, ſo making a ſhew of humbleneſſe of minde, in worſhipping of Angels, and of voluntary religion, in not ſparing their bodies, in obſeruing hereof: againſt all vvhichwhich, Saint Paul ſtandes foorth in the places before quoted, & alſo in the ſecond of the Colosſians. This damnable errour alſo vvas conſidered of, and confuted in that famous Apoſtolike councell, Actes. 15. And amongſt others, Saint Iohn alſo ſharpely rebuketh and condemneth the teachers, of this Antichriſtian doctrine, calling them very Antichriſts, and ſuch as vvere gone out from them, that ſo it might appeare, that they were neuer of them, Epiſt. 1. Cap. 2. …erſ. 18.19. And therefore as I ſhew Cap. 17. the church of Chriſt and the teachers therein vniuerſally, for ſix hūdred years after Chriſt and more, taught directly againſt ioining any perſon or thing vvith Chriſt in the office of iuſtifying and ſa…ing: though now there is nothing more vſuall in the Ro…iſh church that nowe is, then to teach other merites and …atisfactions in theſe reſpects to be truſted vntounto beſides Chriſts. The next Capitall poynt of Antichriſtianity is the nowe chal…enged ſupremacy of the Romane prelate, and as for that, we can …hew, both the beginning and proceeding thereof from time to …ime, and who alwaies ſet themſelues againſt it. The firſt …mbitious clyming that way, we may note in the mother of Ze…edeus children, and her two ſonnes, who comming vntounto Chriſt, …equire this of him, that the one may ſit at his right hād, & the o…her at his left in his kingdome, and that vvas ſpyed to bee a …owle fault in them by Chriſt, and therefore by him they are …hecked and vvithſtood Matth. 20. After we read of one Diotrephes, that ſo loued the preheminēce that he would not receiue Iohn, and ſuch as hee was, but in his third epiſtle verſ. 9. he ſhewes he ſpied him, and that he did vtterly diſlike that ar…ogant & ambitious humor of his, yet by theſe warnings your biſhops of Rome, would not take heede, but for al this, would take to much vponupon them ouer their brethren, but when either they, or others hauehave done ſo, it appeares in ancient Cronicles, and in the writings of the ancient fathers, that they had alwayes ſome that did ſpie it, and ſet themſelues againſt it. For when Victor biſhop of Rome, about the yeare of Chriſt, two hunderd, ſomewhat popelike, ſo farre exceeded his bounds, that he tooke vponupon him to excommunicate the biſhops of the Eaſt, for that they would not conforme themſelues to the faſhion of the church of Rome, in the keeping of Eaſter, not onelyonly Polycrates, and ſundry other biſhops there vvithſtoode him therein, out here in the weſt, Irenaeus biſhop then of Lions (though he were of Ʋictors minde for the obſeruing of Eaſter) yet in his ovvne name, and in the name of his brethren, wrote to Ʋictor, & in that his letter rebukes him, for his ſo far proceeding, as you may reade in Euſeb. lib. 5. cap. 22. and 23. And after this in Cyprians time about the yeare 255. when Cornelius Biſhop of Rome vnaduiſedly, & cōtrary to the good policy of the church, and after him Stephanus, tooke vponupon them ſo to admitte of fugitiues out of Africke at Rome, that not only they receaued them into their communion, but tooke vponupon them to labour their reſtitution, they being before for their iuſt demerits excommunicated, and depoſed in Africke: Cyprian wrote vntounto them both to Cornelius in his firſt booke of Epiſtles, Epiſtle 3. and to Stephanus in his ſecond booke, and firſt Epiſtle, wherein earneſtly he reproueth them for ſo intermedling in his iuriſdiction, & the iuriſdictiō of other his collegues in Africke, ſhewing thē that they ought not ſo to do, for they in Africk had as ful Piſhoply autority as they at Rome, and therefore were both able and the fitteſt, to heare and determine ſuch caſes as fell out amongſt themſelues. But ſeeing for all this the Biſhops of Rome ſtill were too buſy, in meddling further then they ſhould, after this in the counſell of Nice cannon 6. their authority and the Patriarches of Alexandria are made equall about the yeare 320. And yet the better to ſtay and keepe the Biſhops of Rome within their due limits after this, in moſt counſels for 300. yeares after ſomething ſtill was done to bridle them. For certaine it is that as it appeares diſt. 99. the thirde counſell of Carthage helde about the yeare 435. cap. 26. forbad the ambitious and proud tytles of Prince, of Prieſts, High-prieſts & ſuch like, euen to the Biſhops of the firſt ſee. And Concilio Mileuitano, about the yeare 420. & in another of Africke held betwixt theſe two, as ſome write, about the yeare 428. cap. 92. appeales vntounto them frō the Biſhops & counſels of Africke were forbidden. And the great generall councell of Calcedon held about the yeare 453. when the Biſhop of Romes legates had done what they could to the contrary Act. 15.16. & canon 28. gaue the Patriarch of Cōſtantinople equal priuiledges with the Biſhop of Rome. And long after this, the firſt generall coū ſell, being the third (as it is noted in the ſecond tome of the coū celles) held at Conſtantinople in the time of Pope Agatho, about the yeare of the Lord 681. renuing a decree before there cōſented vntounto, in a councell conſiſting of 150. Biſhops cap. 5. and remembring likewiſe the foreſaide 28. cannon of the councell of Calcedon, whereas ſome write there were 630. Biſhops, cap. 36. ratifieth and enacteth the ſame. And if we go no further then to the former fiue general councels, we ſhall finde them all to hauehave had a care by their decrees, to keepe the biſhops of Rome within their due boūds of their owne patriarchall ſee. For proofe whereof, let any mā but read the ſixt canon of the Nicene, the ſecond & third of the firſt of Conſtantinople, the eight of the Epheſme, remembring withal the twenty eight of the Calcedon, twiſe now immediatly before mentioned, & vnderſtand that the fift general councell ſolemnely confirmed thoſe fowre former, and their canons & decrees, and he cannot chooſe but ſee this to be moſt manifeſt. But amongſt all the reſt, notable is that that appeares to this end in that great ſolemne Africane councel, where Zozimus, Boniface, & Celeſtine, three popes on a rew, by their Legates vnderunder one of their hands alleadging a falſe canon of the councel of Nice, all that was determined in former councels to the contrary notwithſtāding, ſhewed themſelues intolerably ambitious of ſupremacy, thereby moſt egerly claiming ſuch a preheminēce to be giuen to their ſee, that if any biſhop or miniſter, were depoſed in any other prouince, or Patriarchal ſee, that vpō his appeale to Rome, the Biſhop of Rome might accept thereof, & therevpō either write his letters to the next prouince to determine the matter, or elſe to ſende his Legate from his ſide to repreſent his own perſon, to ſit in iudgement with the biſhops there to determine the matter. For there, as it appeares, in the 101 102 103 & 105 chap. of that councell, in the firſt tome of the councels, this their allegation was not onelyonly examined, by all the copies of the Nicene councell that they had there, but alſo by ancient copies thereof, which they ſent for thither of purpoſe to Alexandria, Antioch, & Conſtantinople, & thereby in the open face of that councell, where 217 Biſhops were aſſembled, their forgery was eſpied, & therefore that allegation notwithſtanding, the biſhop of Romes dealing concerning Apiarius (who then gaue the occaſion of that ſtur) was there openly diſliked & condemned, & therefore to preuent the like thereafter, they in their 92 chapter there determine, that whoſoeuer ſhould ſo appeale any more frō the biſhops, & coūcels of Africke beyond the ſeas, ſhould thēceforth neuer after of any in Africke be receaued into communiō. Beſides, as it appears there in the 105. cap. by the common conſent of that councell, a letter was framed and ſent to Celeſtine, about the latter end therof (as it ſhould ſeeme by the ſtories about the yeare foure hundred and thirty) wherein firſt they admoniſh him to admit no more ſuch appeales, or fugitiues, but to ſend them backe againe alwaies to their owne prouinces and Metropolitans, and the rather, ſay they, becauſe ſuch order was taken by the Nicene councell. And after therein they pleade the equity of that ordinance, becauſe the holy ghoſt is aſwell in one prouince, as in an other, and there the cauſe is alwayes like beſt to bee handled, where it doeth ariſe, becauſe of the neighneſſe of the vvitneſſes. Wherefore hauing tolde him, that they finde no ſuch thing in the truer copies of the Nicene councell, as Fauſtinus ſent by him alleadged, they flatly forbid him the ſending of his agents or legates any more, vponupon any ſuch occaſion amongſt them. It ſhoulde ſeeme for all this, that ſo incident to that ſee, vvas this ambitious humor, that in pope Symachus time, about the yeare fiue hundred, many biſhops euen in theſe parts, did accuſe him to Theodoricus, king of the Gothes, becauſe hee tooke vponupon him to bee foreign, that is, one vvho vvoulde hauehave his vvill to be a law, which is now profeſſed, to bee the popes prerogatiue and not to bee controled. Diſt. 40. Si papa. In Gregorie his time, in the raigne of Mauritius the Emperour, the biſhop of Conſtantinople luſtely chalenged the title of vniuerſall biſhop, but then Pelagius biſhop of Rome in the yeare fiue hundred eighty three (as it appears in the ninty nine deſtinction of your law in Gratian) and Gregory alſo his ſucceſſor condemned that, for an vnlawfull and Antichriſtian name in him, or in any other biſhop, the biſhops of Rome themſelues not excepted, lib. 4. epiſt. 32.38.39. And vvhereas (this notwithſtanding) Boniface the next but one to Gregory (though with ſomewhat a doe) obtained of that murderer and traitor Phocas, (who hauing cruelly ſlaine Mauritius, ſucceded him in the Empire) this Antichriſtian title, firſt to be called vniuerſal biſhop, or head of the church, witneſſe Sabellicus, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, and others, yet as Platina witneſſeth in vita Dom, the church of Rauēna in Italy complained thereof, and vntill pope Donus time (which vvas ſeuenty yeares after) it coulde not bee brought to tolerate and like of it. Otho Friſingenſis lib. 6. Cap. 35. an ancient hiſtoriographer, ſpeaking of Gregory the ſeuenth commonly called Hildebrand, and his proceedings againſt the Emperour Henry, not only to excommunicate him, but alſo to depoſe him, …ith, Lego & relego Romanorum regum & Imperatorum geſta &c. …read and read againe the acts of the Romane kings and Emperours, and yet before this, I finde none of them of the Romane …ishop excommunicated, or depriued of his kingdome. But … we read Sigebert, Abbas Ʋrſpergenſis, H. Mutius, and others, vve ſhall finde, that the ſame Biſhop, for this his Antichriſti…n pride, and other faultes that hee had, vvas not onelyonly wonderfully vvithſtoode and oppugned by that Emperour, but …y councels alſo then held at Brixia, Mentz, and Wormes, …harpely rebuked, condemned, and deſpoſed. And though hee hauing thus begunne to encroch vponupon the Emperour, many of his ſucceſſours follovved him in his very ſteps, yet we read alſo in Cronicles that Henrie the fifte, Fredericke the firſt, and Fredericke the ſecond Emperours, Philip the faire, and Carolus Caluus of Fraunce, Henry the firſt and ſecond, Richard the ſecond, and king Iohn of England, with ſundry other Emperours and kings, did notably and openly reſiſt them therein, and that they had alvvaies many learned fathers and Bishops to take their partes. But to leaue this matter, and to go on to others: becauſe the author of this preface, and brag that I novv am in aunſwering, in his brag maketh ſpeciall mention, as you hauehave heard of their order of ceremonies, and manner of praying, and faſting, boſting that for theſe, they hauehave the holy fathers, the conſent of all chriſtian nations, and preſcription of long continuance, yea for the tvvo laſt the very ſcriptures: let vsus firſt ſee if wee can finde out the originall, and vvithall the iuſt reproofe and condemnation of theſe. Firſt for their ceremonies, none that hath but redde Platina, or any other ſtory of the liues of their popes, but he hath red when, how, and by whom they were deuiſed, for there is few of them, for many hundred yeares together, that thought, as it ſhould ſeeme by the vvriters of their liues, that they had worthily ſate in that place, vnles they had deuiſed ſome newe rite and ceremony more then was before. But if one goe no further then to Polidor de inventoribus rerum, there ſhall hee finde when, and by whom they had their originall, whereby alſo it ſhal appeare, that for many of thē they are of ſo late deviſing, they cannot pretend either the teſtimony of ancient fathers, or preſcriptiō of any long time, & for very few of them, whatſoeuer he bragges, can they truly alleadge conſent of all Chriſtian regions, for as they hauehave moſt of them beene deuiſed here in theſe parts of the worlde by biſhops of Rome, ſo few of them in compariſon hauehave beene, … yet be receaued in the other parts of Chriſtianity, that were vnderunder the other Patriarches of Conſtātinople, Alexandria, & Antioch: yea euen here in theſe parts, all their rites & ceremonies were neuer yet vniuerſally receaued of eueryevery cuntry alike, no nor yet of eueryevery part of any one cuntry. But they being in number ſo many, in nature a number of them ſo childiſh and fooliſh, & yet hauing beene vrged as they hauehave, to be vſed with ſuch opinion and holines, S. Pauls reprehenſion of thoſe that were in his time ſo buſy with the Coloſsians, in vrging thē to keepe their ordinances, the keeping whereof lay in, touch not, taſt not, handle not, Coloſſ. 2. is both a bewraying, when ſuch like ceremonies as theſe that he brags of firſt began, and alſo a iuſt and a full condemnation of them. Read alſo S. Auguſtines 119 epiſtle ad Ianuarium, and you ſhall finde there, how earneſtly he hath enueied againſt the multiplying, and bringing in, & ſo vrging of ſuch vnneceſſary rites and ceremonies: ſhewing how few the ſimplicity of the goſpel is contented withal. And yet as it is wel known, he liued 1000 years ago, and that ſince his time there are 1000. newrites & ceremonies deuiſed in the Romiſh church, that he neuer had heard of, & yet thē he complained that there were ſo many, and they ſo ſeruilely were vrged, that the Iewes ſtate was in that reſpect far more tolerable, what would he hauehave ſaid then, if he had liued in theſe daies, and had ſeene the curious, infinite, and fooliſh rites and ceremonies, but of one popiſh prieſt formally doing his maſſe?

Indeed faſting is a thing, and ſo is prayer, that hath countenance of ſcriptures, fathers, Chriſtian regions, and of all ages and times, but ſo hath not either the popiſh faſting or praying. For their faſting is tyed ſuperſtitiouſly to ſet daies, and alſo lyeth eſpecially in abſtinence from one meat, rather then from an other, their end therein being not onelyonly to chaſtiſe the body, that it may be brought the more readily & feruently to obey the holy direction of the ſpirit, as the word of God teacheth onelyonly it ſhould, but euen thereby to ſatisfie, either for ſome ſin paſt, or to earne or deſerue ſomewhat at the hands of God. Such faſting as this was that of the hypocritical phariſies, wherof Chriſt warm …s diſciples, Mat. 6.16. & the firſt fathers, & teachers hereof, are …hoſe ſpirits of errour, that S. Paul ſpeakes of 1. Tim. 4. and ſo you …ay there ſee both, who firſt in the church of Chriſt, found out & …ractiſed your kind of faſting, & who by & by ſpied it, & condē …ed it for hypocritical, & the doctrine of deuils. But if you would …aue vsus to ſearch further, we tel you, that after Chriſt & his Apo…tles times, Euſebius reports in his 5 booke & 16 chapter out of A…olonius, that Montanus the heretique, preſcribed lawes of faſting, & he is the firſt that we read of, that tyed faſting by law, to pre…cript daies & times, which is there reckoned vp by that Apolonius, …s one of his heretical deuiſes. This Montanus was about they eare of the Lord 145. And it appears in Auguſtines 2. booke & 13. cha. of the manners of the church, & of the Manichees, that it was the faſhiō thē of thoſe heretiques, to thinke vponupon their faſting daies, that they faſted excellētly, though otherwiſe they had neuer ſo dainty…e ſo they abſtained from fleſh & wine, for the which Auguſtine doth deride thē. And cōſequently herein Apolonius & Auguſtine, hauehave ſhewed their diſlike of that popiſh faſting. If yet …t ſhould be replied, as it is, by ſome of their ſide, that their faſting is not altogither like the condemned abſtinence of theſe ancient heretiques, & others, for that they abſtained frō fleſh vponupon an opinion, that fleſh was an impurer creature then fiſh; how will they thē excuſe Durand. li. 6. ca. de ieiunijs, who giueth this as a reaſon of their abſtinence vponupon faſting daies, rather from fleſh, then from fiſh, becauſe al fleſh was accurſed in the daies of Noe & not all fiſh?

Now touching their māner of praying, for al his brag, neither fathers, conſent of all Chriſtian regions, preſcription of any long continuāce of time, nor ſcriptures giuegive it any credit or coūtenāce at al. For firſt, whereas now they pray al in Latine, a toūg not vnderſtood of moſt that heare, & vſe their prayers, it is a kinde of praying flatly condemned, becauſe it is without edification to ſuch, by Chryſoſtome & Ambroſe, vpō the 14. of the firſt to the Corinthians. Auguſtine alſo de Geneſi ad literā, li. 12. Cap. 8. ioines with them herein, aduouching that no mā is edified by hearing that, which he vnderſtands not. And the deſcriptions of al the auncient lyturgies in the Church ſhew, that alwaies they were vſed in ſuch a tongue, as the people vnderſtood aſwell as the miniſter, there is ſuch mentiō of intercourſe of ſpeech one to the other, as any man may ſee, that peruſed the deſcriptions thereof: yea writers, both old & new do plainely teſtify, that the ancient & long cōtinued vſe of the church hath bene, to hauehave her publicke liturgy in the knowen & vulgar tongue of the people. For Origē cōtra Celſū lib. 8. writeth, that the Grecians name God in greeke, & the Romans in the latin tongue, and eueryevery one in their natiue and mother tongue, pray & ſing Pſalmes vntounto God. And Hierom to Euſtochuim deſcribing the ſolemne funeral of Pacta, & elſewhere to Marcella, teſtifieth, that though to Bethleē there was cōcourſe of very many ſeueral nations, yet eueryevery one there praiſed god & praied vntounto him in their owne lāguage. Inſomuch that euē Lyra vpō the 14 of the firſt to the Corinthians cōfeſſes, that in the primitiue church, al was done in the vulgar tongue. And no lōger ago then Innocēt the thirds time, in the Laterā coūcel held in his time 1215. c. 9. order is takē, that where in one cuntrey there be people of diuers lāguages, there the Biſhops ſhould prouide them miniſters, to celebrate thē diuine ſeruice, & to miniſter thē the ſacraments, according to the diuerſities of their rites & lāguages. Yet further that thou maiſt ſee, Chriſtian reader, in this point, that the mā bluſheth at nothing, vnderſtād, that by the cōfesſion of their own frend Eckius in his cōmō places, the South Indiās hauehave their liturgy in their mother tongue: & by the cōfeſſiō of another, one Sigiſmūd writing of the Moſcovites, that they likewiſe hauehave theirs. And Petrus Bellonius, writing of the Armonians, teſtifies the like of thē: yea Aeneas Siluius who after was a Pope, in his hiſtory of the Bohemiās c. 13. plainly ſhewes, that a Pope was admoniſhed by a voice from heauen, to grāt Cyril, that conuerted Ruſſia & Moralia, to ſay diuine ſeruice amōgſt thē in the Shlauon tongue which was their vulgar tongue. How hauehave they thē, as he bragges, theſe things conſidered, either the ancient holy fathers, conſent of al regions, or ſuch preſcription of time, as he pretēds, for this maner of praying of theirs, in a tongue not vnderſtoode of moſt? And who can read the 14 of the firſt to the Corinthians, vnleſſe he bee diſpoſed wilfully to be blinde, but he muſt needes there ſee, that this maner of praying is directly there condemned? Chryſoſtome, Ambroſe, Haymo, Lyra, and ſo expoſitours, both ancient and nevv, take it, howſoeuer our late Rhemiſts, in their notes, would faine vvreſt the place from any ſuch meaning. And in this reſpect, ſuppoſe othervviſe their prayers vvere faultles, who ſeeth not, that they giuegive God occaſion againe to renue his olde complaint Eſay. 29. This people drawe neare vntounto mee with their lippes, but their hart is farre from mee: of moſt people, vvhichwhich through their tyranny onelyonly pray thus. But in this poynt onelyonly there is not vanity and falſhoode in his bragge; for othervviſe if vve conſider vvell their maner of praying, vve ſhall finde both groſſe vntrueth in his ſpeech, and horrible faultes in their prayers. For how can it bee true, that conſent of fathers, and the reſt that he bragges of, doe countenaunce that ſet forme of church-ſeruice, that now they are in poſſeſsion of? ſeing neither the ancient fathers, nor yet one quarter of Chriſtendome, vvas euer acquainted with it? There owne authours, and namely Polydor de inuentoribus rerum lib. 5. cap. 10, doe ſhevv hovv it came in, and vvas deuyſed piece after piece. In the one thouſand tvvo hundred yeares after Chriſt, it vvas not grovven eyther to that full forme or credit that it is at novv. For the forme of maſſe novv vſed, commonly called Saint Gregories maſſe, with much adoe got to be firſt in theſe weſterne partes receiued in Pope Adrians time, 790 yeares after Chriſt, witnes Durand Nauclere, and Iacobus de voragine: and yet euen then, and long after, Millayn continued the vſe of a forme of liturgy receiued from Ambroſe. Benedict the 3, that ſucceeded next Ioan the harlot, about the yeare 857 firſt inuented & brought in the dirge, as moſt authors write, though Gregory the 3 had done ſōwhat about it before. The firſt allowance of the ſequences in the maſſe is attributed to Nicolas the firſt, that ſucceeded this Benedict, In Alexander the 2 time, Alliluiah was firſt ſuſpēded out of the church in …ēt time, which was aboue 1000 yeare after Chriſt. Our ordinary here in England, ſecundum vſum Sarum, began 1076 yeares after Chriſt, and that, as our ſtories ſhew, by occaſion of a bloody quarel betwixt the Abbot of Glaſſenbury & his monkes. The 7 canonical houres came in firſt by Vrban the ſecond, in the yeare one thouſand & ninety. But Gregory the ninth, that monſtrous enemy of Fredericke the ſecond, firſt brought in that blaſphemous canticle Salue regina, one thouſād two hūdred yeare & more after Chriſt. And howſoeuer theſe patches, in the ende grevve in theſe partes to b… ſovved togither, yet the other partes of the vvorld vnderunder the Cyprians time about the yeare 255. when Corneliu. Biſhop of Rome vnaduiſedly, & cōtrary to the good policy of the church, and after him Stephanus, tooke vponupon them ſo to admitte of fugitiues out of Africke at Rome, that not only they receaued them into their communion, but tooke vponupon them to labour their reſtitution, they being before for their iuſt demerits excommunicated, and depoſed in Africke: Cyprian wrote vntounto them both: to Cornelius in his firſt booke of Epiſtles, Epiſtle 3. and to Stephanus in his ſecond booke, and firſt Epiſtle, wherein earneſtly he reproueth them for ſo intermedling in his iuriſdiction, & the iuriſdictiō of other his collegues in Africke, ſhewing thē that they ought not ſo to do, for they in Africk had as ful Biſhoply autority as they at Rome, and therefore were both able and the fitteſt, to heare and determine ſuch caſes as fell out amongſt themſelues. But ſeeing for all this the Biſhops of Rome ſtill were too buſy, in meddling further then they ſhould, after this in the counſell of Nice cannon 6. their authority and the Patriarches of Alexandria are made equall about the yeare 320. And yet the better to ſtay and keepe the Biſhops of Rome within their due limits after this, in moſt counſels for 300. yeares after ſomething ſtill was done to bridle them. For certaine it is that as it appeares diſt. 99. the thirde counſell of Carthage helde about the yeare 435. cap. 26. forbad the ambitious and proud tytles of Prince, of Prieſts, High-prieſts & ſuch like, euen to the Biſhops of the firſt ſee. And Concilio Mileuitano, about the yeare 420. & in another of Africke held betwixt theſe two, as ſome write, about the yeare 428. cap. 92. appeales vntounto them frō the Biſhops & counſels of Africke were forbidden. And the great generall councell of Calcedon held about the yeare 453. when the Biſhop of Romes legates had done what they could to the contrary Act. 15.16. & canon 28. gaue the Patriarch of Cōſtantinople equal priuiledges with the Biſhop of Rome. And long after this, the firſt generall coū ſell, being the third (as it is noted in the ſecond tome of the coū celles) held at Conſtantinople in the time of Pope Agatho, about the yeare of the Lord 681. renuing a decree before there cōſented vntounto, in a councell conſiſting of 150. Biſhops cap. 5. and remembring likewiſe the foreſaide 28. cannon of the councell of Calcedon, whereas ſome write there were 630. Biſhops, cap. 36. ratifieth and enacteth the ſame. And if we go no further then to the former fiue general councels, we ſhall finde them all to hauehave had a care by their decrees, to keepe the biſhops of Rome within their due boūds of their owne patriarchall ſee. For proofe whereof, let any mā but read the ſixt canon of the Nicene, the ſecond & third of the firſt of Conſtantinople, the eight of the Epheſine, remembring withal the twenty eight of the Calcedon, twiſe now immediatly before mentioned, & vnderſtand that the fift general councell ſolemnely confirmed thoſe fowre former, and their canons & decrees, and he cannot chooſe but ſee this to be moſt manifeſt. But amongſt all the reſt, notable is that that appeares to this end in that great ſolemne Africane councel, where Zozimus, Boniface, & Celeſtine, three popes on a rew, by their Legates vnderunder one of their hands alleadging a falſe canon of the councel of Nice, all that was determined in former councels to the contrary notwithſtāding, ſhewed themſelues intolerably ambitious of ſupremacy, thereby moſt egerly claiming ſuch a preheminēce to be giuen to their ſee, that if any biſhop or miniſter, were depoſed in any other prouince, or Patriarchal ſee, that vpō his appeale to Rome, the Biſhop of Rome might accept thereof, & therevpō either write his letters to the next prouince to determine the matter, or elſe to ſende his Legate from his ſide to repreſent his own perſon, to ſit in iudgement with the biſhops there to determine the matter. For there, as it appeares, in the 101 102 103 & 105 chap. of that councell, in the firſt tome of the councels, this their allegation was not onelyonly examined, by all the copies of the Nicene councell that they had there, but alſo by ancient copies thereof, which they ſent for thither of purpoſe to Alexandria, Antioch, & Conſtantinople, & thereby in the open face of that councell, where 217 Biſhops were aſſembled, their forgery was eſpied, & therefore that allegation notwithſtanding, the biſhop of Romes dealing concerning Apiarius (who then gaue the occaſion of that ſtur) was there openly diſliked & condemned, & therefore to preuent the like thereafter, they in their 92 chapter there determine, that whoſoeuer ſhould ſo appeale any more frō the biſhops, & coūcels of Africke beyond the ſeas, ſhould thēceforth neuer after of any in Africke be receaued into communiō. Beſides, as it appears there in the 105. cap. by the common conſent of that councell, a letter was framed and ſent to Celeſtine, about the latter end therof (as it ſhould ſeeme by the ſtories about the yeare foure hundred and thirty) wherein firſt they admoniſh him to admit no more ſuch appeales, or fugitiues, but to ſend them backe againe alwaies to their owne prouinces and Metropolitans, and the rather, ſay they, becauſe ſuch order was taken by the Nicene councell. And after therein they pleade the equity of that ordinance, becauſe the holy ghoſt is aſwell in one prouince, as in an other, and there the cauſe is alwayes like beſt to bee handled, where it doeth ariſe, becauſe of the neighneſſe of the vvitneſſes. Wherefore hauing tolde him, that they finde no ſuch thing in the truer copies of the Nicene councell, as Fauſtinus ſent by him alleadged, they flatly forbid him the ſending of his agents or legates any more, vponupon any ſuch occaſion amongſt them. It ſhoulde ſeeme for all this, that ſo incident to that ſee, vvas this ambitious humor, that in pope Symachus time, about the yeare fiue hundred, many biſhops euen in theſe parts, did accuſe him to Theodoricus, king of the Gothes, becauſe hee tooke vponupon him to bee foreign, that is, one vvho vvoulde hauehave his vvill to be a law, which is now profeſſed, to bee the popes prerogatiue and not to bee controled. Diſt. 40. Si papa. In Gregorie his time, in the raigne of Mauritius the Emperour, the biſhop of Conſtantinople luſtely chalenged the title of vniuerſall biſhop, but then Pelagius biſhop of Rome in the yeare fiue hundred eighty three (as it appears in the ninty nine deſtinction of your law in Gratian) and Gregory alſo his ſucceſſor condemned that, for an vnlawfull and Antichriſtian name in him, or in any other biſhop, the biſhops of Rome themſelues not excepted, lib. 4. epiſt. 32.38.39. And vvhereas (this notwithſtanding) Boniface the next but one to Gregory (though with ſomewhat a doe) obtained of that murderer and traitor Phocas, (who hauing cruelly ſlaine Mauritius, ſucceded him in the Empire) this Antichriſtian title firſt to be called vniuerſal biſhop, or head of the church, witneſſe Sabellicus, Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, and others, yet as Platina witneſſeth in vita Doni, the church of Rauēna in Italy complained thereof, and vntill pope Donus time (which vvas ſeuenty yeares after) it coulde not bee brought to tolerate and like of it. Otho Friſingenſis lib. 6. Cap. 35. an ancient hiſtoriographer, ſpeaking of Gregory the ſeuenth commonly called Hild ebrand, and his proceedings againſt the Emperour Henry, not only to excommunicate him, but alſo to depoſe him, ſaith, Lego & relego Romanorum regum & Imperatorum geſta &c. … read and read againe the acts of the Romane kings and Emperours, and yet before this, I finde none of them of the Romane Biſhop excommunicated, or depriued of his kingdome. But …f we read Sigebert, Abbas Ʋrſpergenſis, H. Mutius, and others, vve ſhall finde, that the ſame Biſhop, for this his Antichriſtian pride, and other faultes that hee had, vvas not onelyonly wonderfully vvithſtoode and oppugned by that Emperour, but by councels alſo then held at Brixia, Mentz, and Wormes, ſharpely rebuked, condemned, and deſpoſed. And though hee hauing thus begunne to encroch vponupon the Emperour, many of his ſucceſſours follovved him in his very ſteps, yet we read alſo in Cronicles that Henrie the fifte, Fredericke the firſt, and Fredericke the ſecond Emperours, Philip the faire, and Carolus Caluus of Fraunce, Henry the firſt and ſecond, Richard the ſecond, and king Iohn of England, with ſundry other Emperours and kings, did notably and openly reſiſt them therein, and that they had alvvaies many learned fathers and Bishops to take their partes. But to leaue this matter, and to go on to others: becauſe the author of this preface, and brag that I novv am in aunſwering, in his brag maketh ſpeciall mention, as you hauehave heard of their order of ceremonies, and manner of praying, and faſting, boſting that for theſe, they hauehave the holy fathers, the conſent of all chriſtian nations, and preſcription of long continuance, yea for the tvvo laſt the very ſcriptures: let vsus firſt ſee if wee can finde out the originall, and vvithall the iuſt reproofe and condemnation of theſe. Firſt for their ceremonies, none that hath but redde Platina, or any other ſtory of the liues of their popes, but he hath red when, how, and by whom they were deuiſed, for there is few of them, for many hundred yeares together, that thought, as it ſhould ſeeme by the vvriters of their liues, that they had worthily ſate in that place, vnles they had deuiſed ſome newe rite and ceremony more then was before. But if one goe no further then to Polidor de inventoribus rerum, there ſhall hee finde when, and by whom they had their originall, whereby alſo it ſhal appeare, that for many of thē they are of ſo late deviſing, they cannot pretend either the teſtimony of ancient fathers, or preſcriptiō of any long time, & for very few of them, whatſoeuer he bragges, can they truly alleadge conſent of all Chriſtian regions, for as they hauehave moſt of them beene deuiſed here in theſe parts of the worlde by biſhops of Rome, ſo few of them in compariſon hauehave beene, or yet be receaued in the other parts of Chriſtianity, that were vnderunder the other Patriarches of Conſtātinople, Alexandria, & Antioch: yea euen here in theſe parts, all their rites & ceremonies were neuer yet vniuerſally receaued of eueryevery cuntry alike, no nor yet of eueryevery part of any one cuntry. But they being in number ſo many, in nature a number of them ſo childiſh and fooliſh, & yet hauing beene vrged as they hauehave, to be vſed with ſuch opinion and holines, S. Pauls reprehenſion of thoſe that were in his time ſo buſy with the Coloſsians, in vrging thē to keepe their ordinances, the keeping whereof lay in, touch not, taſt not, handle not, Coloſſ. 2. is both a bewraying, when ſuch like ceremonies as theſe that he brags of firſt began, and alſo a iuſt and a full condemnation of them. Read alſo S. Auguſtines 119 epiſtle ad Ianuarium, and you ſhall finde there, how earneſtly he hath enueied againſt the multiplying, and bringing in, & ſo vrging of ſuch vnneceſſary rites and ceremonies: ſhewing how few the ſimplicity of the goſpel is contented withal. And yet as it is wel known, he liued 1000 years ago, and that ſince his time there are 1000. new rites & ceremonies deuiſed in the Romiſh church, that he neuer had heard of, & yet thē he complained that there were ſo many, and they ſo ſeruilely were vrged, that the Iewes ſtate was in that reſpect far more tolerable, what would he hauehave ſaid then, if he had liued in theſe daies, and had ſeene the curious, infinite, and fooliſh rites and ceremonies, but of one popiſh prieſt formally doing his maſſe?

Indeed faſting is a thing, and ſo is prayer, that hath countenance of ſcriptures, fathers, Chriſtian regions, and of all ages and times, but ſo hath not either the popiſh faſting or praying. For their faſting is tyed ſuperſtitiouſly to ſet daies, and alſo lyeth eſpecially in abſtinence from one meat, rather then from an other, their end therein being not onelyonly to chaſtiſe the body, that it may be brought the more readily & feruently to obey the holy direction of the ſpirit, as the word of God teacheth onelyonly it ſhould, but euen thereby to ſatisfie, either for ſome ſin paſt, or to earne or deſerue ſomewhat at the hands of God. Such faſting as this was that of the hypocritical phariſies, wherof Chriſt warn… his diſciples, Mat. 6.16. & the firſt fathers, & teachers hereof, are thoſe ſpirits of errour, that S. Paul ſpeakes of 1. Tim. 4. and ſo you may there ſee both, who firſt in the church of Chriſt, found out & practiſed your kind of faſting, & who by & by ſpied it, & condē ned it for hypocritical, & the doctrine of deuils. But if you would hauehave vsus to ſearch further, we tel you, that after Chriſt & his Apoſtles times, Euſebius reports in his 5 booke & 16 chapter out of Apolonius, that Montanus the heretique, preſcribed lawes of faſting, & he is the firſt that we read of, that tyed faſting by law, to preſcript daies & times, which is there reckoned vp by that Apolonius, as one of his heretical deuiſes. This Montanus was about the yeare of the Lord 145. And it appears in Auguſtines 2. booke & 13. cha. of the manners of the church, & of the Manichees, that it was the faſhiō thē of thoſe heretiques, to thinke vponupon their faſting daies, that they faſted excellētly, though otherwiſe they had neuer ſo daintyre ſo they abſtained from fleſh & wine, for the which Auguſtine doth deride thē. And cōſequently herein Apolonius & Auguſtine, hauehave ſhewed their diſlike of that popiſh faſting. If yet it ſhould be replied, as it is, by ſome of their ſide, that their faſting is not altogither like the condemned abſtinence of theſe ancient heretiques, & others, for that they abſtained frō fleſh vponupon an opinion, that fleſh was an impurer creature then fiſh; how will they thē excuſe Durand. li. 6. ca. de ieiunijs, who giueth this as a reaſon of their abſtinence vponupon faſting daies, rather from fleſh, then from fiſh, becauſe al fleſh was accurſed in the daies of Noe & not all fiſh?

Now touching their māner of praying, for al his brag, neither fathers, conſent of all Chriſtian regions, preſcription of any long continuāce of time, nor ſcriptures giuegive it any credit or coūtenāce at al. For firſt, whereas now they pray al in Latine, a toūg not vnderſtood of moſt that heare, & vſe their prayers, it is a kinde of praying flatly condemned, becauſe it is without edification to ſuch, by Chryſoſtome & Ambroſe, vpō the 14. of the firſt to the Corinthians. Auguſtine alſo de Geneſi ad literā, li. 12. Cap. 8. ioines with them herein, aduouching that no mā is edified by hearing that, which he vnderſtands not. And the deſcriptions of al the auncient lyturgies in the Church ſhew, that alwaies they were vſed in ſuch a tongue, as the people vnderſtood aſwell as the miniſter, there is ſuch mentiō of intercourſe of ſpeech one to the other, as any man may ſee, that peruſed the deſcriptions thereof: yea writers, both old & new do plainely teſtify, that the ancient & long cōtinued vſe of the church hath bene, to hauehave her publicke liturgy in the knowen & vulgar tongue of the people. For Origē cōtra Celſū lib. 8. writeth, that the Grecians name God in greeke, & the Romans in the latin tongue, and eueryevery one in their natiue and mother tongue, pray & ſing Pſalmes vntounto God. And Hierom to Euſtochium deſcribing the ſolemne funeral of Pacta, & elſewhere to Marcella, teſtifieth, that though to Bethleē there was cōcourſe of very many ſeueral nations, yet eueryevery one there praiſed god & praied vntounto him in their owne lāguage. Inſomuch that euē Lyra vpō the 14 of the firſt to the Corinthians cōfeſſes, that in the primitiue church, al was done in the vulgar tongue. And no lōger ago then Innocēt the thirds time, in the Laterā coūcel held in his time 1215. c. 9. order is takē, that where in one cuntrey there be people of diuers lāguages, there the Biſhops ſhould prouide them miniſters, to celebrate thē diuine ſeruice, & to miniſter thē the ſacraments, according to the diuerſities of their rites & lāguages. Yet further that thou maiſt ſee, Chriſtian reader, in this point, that the mā bluſheth at nothing, vnderſtād, that by the cōfesſion of their own frend Eckius in his cōmō places, the South Indiās hauehave their liturgy in their mother tongue: & by the cōfeſſiō of another, one Sigiſmūd writing of the Moſcovites, that they likewiſe hauehave theirs. And Petrus Bellonius, writing of the Armonians, teſtifies the like of thē: yea Aeneas Siluius who after was a Pope, in his hiſtory of the Bohemiās c. 13. plainly ſhewes, that a Pope was admoniſhed by a voice from heauen, to grāt Cyril, that conuerted Ruſſia & Moralia, to ſay diuine ſeruice amōgſt thē in the Shlauon tongue which was their vulgar tongue. How hauehave they thē, as he bragges, theſe things conſidered, either the ancient holy fathers, conſent of al regions, or ſuch preſcription of time, as he pretēds, for this maner of praying of theirs, in a tongue not vnderſtoode of moſt? And who can read the 14 of the firſt to the Corinthians, vnleſſe he bee diſpoſed wilfully to be blinde, but he muſt needes there ſee, that this maner of praying is directly there condemned? Chryſoſtome, Ambroſe, Haymo, Lyra, and ſo expoſitours, both ancient and nevv, take it, howſoeuer our late Rhemiſts, in their notes, would faine vvreſt the place from any ſuch meaning. And in this reſpect, ſuppoſe othervviſe their prayers vvere faultles, who ſeeth not, that they giuegive God occaſion againe to renue his …olde complaint Eſay. 29. This people drawe neare vntounto mee with their lippes, but their hart is farre from mee: of moſt people, vvhichwhich through their tyranny onelyonly pray thus. But in this poynt onelyonly there is not vanity and falſhoode in his bragge; for othervviſe if vve conſider vvell their maner of praying, vve ſhall finde both groſſe vntrueth in his ſpeech, and horrible faultes in their prayers. For how can it bee true, that conſent of fathers, and the reſt that he bragges of, doe countenaunce that ſet forme of church-ſeruice, that now they are in poſſeſsion of? ſeing neither the ancient fathers, nor yet one quarter of Chriſtendome, vvas euer acquainted with it? There owne authours, and namely Polydor de inuentoribus rerum lib. 5. cap. 10, doe ſhevv hovv it came in, and vvas deuyſed piece after piece. In the one thouſand tvvo hundred yeares after Chriſt, it vvas not grovven eyther to that full forme or credit that it is at novv. For the forme of maſſe novv vſed, commonly called Saint Gregories maſſe, with much adoe got to be firſt in theſe weſterne partes receiued in Pope Adrians time, 790 yeares after Chriſt, witnes Durand Nauclere, and Iacobus de voragine: and yet euen then, and long after, Millayn continued the vſe of a forme of liturgy receiued from Ambroſe. Benedict the 3, that ſucceeded next Ioan the harlot, about the yeare 857 firſt inuented & brought in the dirge, as moſt authors write, though Gregory the 3 had done ſōwhat about it before. The firſt allowance of the ſequences in the maſſe is attributed to Nicolas the firſt, that ſucceeded this Benedict. In Alexander the 2 time, Alliluiah was firſt ſuſpēded out of the church in …ēt time, which was aboue 1000 yeare after Chriſt. Our ordinary here in England, ſecundum vſum Sarum, began 1076 yeares after Chriſt, and that, as our ſtories ſhew, by occaſion of a bloody quarel betwixt the Abbot of Glaſſenbury & his monkes. The 7 canonical houres came in firſt by Vrban the ſecond, in the yeare one thouſand & ninety. But Gregory the ninth, that monſtrous enemy of Fredericke the ſecond, firſt brought in that blaſphemous canticle Salue regina, one thouſād two hūdred yeare & more after Chriſt. And howſoeuer theſe patches, in the ende grevve in theſe partes to bee ſovved togither, yet the other partes of the vvorld vnderunder the other patriarches, were litle or not at all troubled with thē. And howſoeuer he ſhame not to aduouch, that now their manner of praying is according to the ſcriptures, Gregory. l. 7. Epiſt. 63. writes, that, Mos Apoſtolorū fuit, it was the maner of the Apoſtles, to conſecrate onelyonly with the Lords praier, which ſimplicity, who ſo cō pares, with their ſtagelike dealing thereabout now, he can neuer be perſuaded, that two faſhiōs ſo differing, ſhould both hauehave coū tenāce of ſcriptures. But to make it yet more euident, that of al other things he might worſt hauehave made this brag, of their manner of praying, there are two great & notorious faults more therein: their praying for the dead to helpe thē out, or to eaſe thē in the paines of purgatory, & their praying, as they do, to Saintes & Angels. For in theſe two points, they are not onelyonly deſtitute of the teſtimony of the holy aūcient fathers, conſent of al Chriſtian regions, preſcription of ſo long time as he makes ſhew of, and the ſcriptures, but rather al theſe are indeed herein againſt them. For purgatory it ſelfe, & conſequently praiers made to releeue ſoules there, is but a very late deuiſe, & neuer yet receiued of halfe of Chriſtendome. For in William Rufus time, king here of England, there being a councell held at Baron, there the Greek church, in this point plainly diſcented from the Latin, and neuer from that day to this, could be brought herein, to be of their minde, whereby any mā may gather, that it is a point, which the Latine church hath deuiſed, ſince the greek church broke of cōmuniō frō her, & that neuer yet, had either conſent of al chriſtian nations, or ſuch preſcriptiō of time, to coūtenāce it, as he talkes of. And as for the ſcriptures, let thē be peruſed thorow, & there ſhal not be foūd in them that bee of the canon, either example of prayer, or ſacrifice for the dead, yea rather plainely hee ſhal finde them, alwaies vrging the time of this preſent life, to bee the onelyonly time, to doe good in, and to ſeeke the Lorde for our comfort euer after. And as for the other point, concerning their prayers to Saints departed and Angels, it is ſuch a thing, for the vvhichwhich, in all the ſcripture they can finde neyther precept, promiſſe, nor example, to leade them to vſe it, but to teach them to abhor it, there they ſhall, or at leaſt may learne, that inuocation, is a ſpeciall diuine poynt of ſeruice, of ſuch ſpirituall and high nature, as that God challengeth it onelyonly to himſelfe, & that therefore neuer any holy man, mentioned in the ſcriptures durſt euer vſe it to any other. Indeede a man ſhall eaſily finde that ere Epiphanius time, Sathan had taught the heretiques called Caians, to worſhip Angels with inuocation of them, and that likewiſe ere his time in Africke there were, that offred to Mary the virgin, and that in inuocating her, and other ſaints were verie buſy, & pretended great piety & deuotion; but withal he ſhal finde, that he bitterly condemnes al that did ſo for heretiques, vnderunder the name either of Caians, Antidicomarianites, o… Collyridians, Hereſ. 38, 78. &c. & that in as bitter manner as may be, vſing the ſame ſpeeches & reaſons againſt them, that we doe now vſually in theſe daies againſt theſe. Now where, they would ſhift of the abſurdity, & blaſphemy of robbing God, & his ſonne Chriſt, of their due honour herein, in ſaying firſt, that their praying to the ſouls of Saints departed, may aſwel ſtād with their honour, as the requiring of our brethren aliue to pray for vsus, & then in affirming, that they begge nothing at their hands, but ſtil they conclude their praiers vntounto them, with this clauſe, by the merites of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, they cannot ſo eſcape or excuſe themſelues. For neither doe they only deſire the Saints departed, to pray to God for them, as we doe our brethren here whiles they liue, neither do they alwaies remember ſo to conclude their praiers vntounto them. For in their office, which they call the ſeruice of the bleſſed Marie, there bee three prayers made vntounto her, wherein, no leſſe then eternall life is begged directly at her hands, & yet there this clauſe is quite forgottē. The like may be obſerued, in many other praiers of theirs to them, as for example, in their praier to S. Oſmund confeſſor, in one to S. Anne, and in an other to S. Katherin. And if it were ſo, that they ſo ſhut vp al their praiers vntounto them, what were that elſe, then to make Chriſt mediator betwixt vsus & them? For can we in any words, more plainly acknowledge Chriſts effectual mediation betwixt vsus and his father, then by requiring all things that wee begge of his father per dominnm noſtrum Ieſum Chriſtum, by our Lorde Ieſus Chriſt? Then what is this elſe, but for their pleaſures to put him from his old office, of being mediator betwixt God and man, to make him nowe mediatour betwixt men and wemen aliue, and the ſouls of other men & wemen dead? They ſay in their maner of praying, they neuer cauſe the Saints any more to incroch of his office of mediation, then wee doe when wee deſire one another being aliue, to pray to god for vsus, what ſay they then to that prayer of theirs in the name of Thomas Becket: Tu per Thomae ſanguinē, quē pro te effudit, fac nos, Chriſte, ſcandere quò Thomas aſcendit. That is, O thou Chriſt, by the bloode of Thomas, which for thee hee ſhed, make vsus aſcend thither, whither Thomas is gone. They knowe this is, or was, in their portuiſſe. But if this be not plaine inough, both to make it appeare that they pray otherwiſe to the Saints departed, then we doe to thē aliue: & that in their praying to thē, moſt blaſphemouſly contrary to all holy ancient fathers iudgement, conſent of al Chriſtian nations, preſcriptiō of al ages, and the holy ſcriptures themſelues, marke (Chriſtian Reader) theſe further preſidents. In the maſſe of the annuntiation they ſing thus to Mary, Salue virgo virginum, mediatrix hominum, all haile virgin of virgins, the mediatrix of men: and in the maſſe of the conception thus, Tu ſpes certamiſerorum, verè mater orphanorum, tu lenamen oppreſſorum, medicamen infirmorum, omnibus es omnia. That is (ſpeaking to the ſame Mary) Thou art the certaine hope of the miſerable, truely the mother of orphans, the helpe of the oppreſſed, the medicine for the ſicke, to all thou art all things. Infinite ſuch examples there be, whereby it is moſt cleare, that nothing can bee begged of God himſelfe which they beg not of the ſaints, & that no title cā be giuē to god but they hauehave giuē it to one Saint or other. Beſids al this, we muſt cōſider that the children of God being aliue are commanded to pray one for another, & that by ſpeech, letter, or meſſenger, they know how to acquaint one another with their minde: whereas in praying to their ſoules after their death, we hauehave neither commādemēt ſo to doe, neither can we indeede perſuade our ſelues, that whatſoeuer we ſay vntounto thē, they heare and ſee our minds, vnles we thinke now after once they be in heauen, they are inueſted in the very nature of God himſelfe, & ſo are become aſwell as he, ſearchers & ſcers of the harts & raines: which once to imagine becauſe it is extreame blaſphemy, therefore their is infinite difference, euen for theſe reaſons betwixt deſiring a Chriſtian brother aliue to pray for vsus, & the deſiring of his ſoule departed but once to doe ſo much for vsus. Againe if that were but all they doe in praying to the Saints departed, then howſoeuer (becauſe of our frailty that ſticketh by vsus whiles we liue) it were neceſſary one of vsus to require that at the hands of another, that ſo the better vve may performe the duety one to another, yet their is not the like reaſon, why we ſhould ſo cal vponupon them that are departed, though they could heare vsus, for they being where they hauehave laide aſide all frailty and forgetfulneſſe of their dueties: it being ſuppoſed to be their dueties to pray for their brethren & ſiſters in Chriſt aliue, we may be ſure they will do it without our remē bring of them thus. But now no more of theſe two points here, for ca. thirty ſeuen, I hauehave ſpokē againe ſomewhat largely thereof, where I hauehave ſhewed both when and how theſe corruptions came in, and who reſiſted them alſo.

Wherefore to goe on with cōfutation of the obiectiō which I hauehave vndertaken to anſwere, concerning that point, when and by vvhom the Romiſh religion came in, and vvho ſpyed it and confuted it: beſides the pointes already touched, amongſt many other wherein we differ from them, theſe are three principall, for the which I account both them & their religion Antichriſtian, their doctrine of trāſubſtantiation, of images, and vowed ſingle life, and yet in theſe they bragge of fathers, conſent of Chriſtian regions, and preſcription of time, as in the former. To aunſwere therefore both that demaunde concerning theſe pointes, alſo and to ſtrip them withall of that viſard of antiquity and vniuerſallity, that herein along time they hauehave deceiued the ſimple people vvithall, vnderſtande, welbeloued in the Lord vvhoſoeuer thou art, firſt for tranſubſtantiation, the very archpiller of their Synagoge, that if they bee very buſie to ſeeke out who firſt gaue inkling of ſuch a matter, they ſhall finde indeede the originall thereof not to come from Marke the Euangeliſt, or anie of his fellowſhippe, but from one Marke a notable Magitian, and filthie heretique of the broode of Ʋalentinian, that liued, as it ſeemeth by the ſtories, in the raigne of Antoninus Pius, about one hundred and fifteene yeares after Chriſt. For Epiphanius in his thirty foure hereſie noteth, and when hee hath done plentifully confirmeth, it out of the firſt booke of Irenaeus and his ninth chapter againſt the hereſies of Valētiniā & others, that this ſame heretique by his enchātmēt hauīg firſt cauſed a cup of white wine to beare the colour of blood, made his followers beleeue that by his inuocation over it, it was ſo trāſubſtantiated into blood, that ſeing that he had givē thāks ouer it & long praied, it might be thought of them that gratiā quae eſt ſuper vniuerſa, ſanguinem ſuum inſtillâſſe in illud poculum, that is, that grace that is aboue all things, had poured his bloud into that cup, by which meanes, whē he had made them in admiration of him, deſirous to drink thereof, he giues it them with great deuotion & ſolemnity of words, & ſo wonderfully bewitched many. Indeed this fellow may very wel be allowed, for the firſt aūcient foūder of this point of doctrin, for there being not any one point of popery, wherein Antichriſt, hath more manifeſtly ſhewed him ſelfe cōtrary to Chriſt, then in this, as in truth there is not, becauſe for the eſtabliſhing & vſe of this, he is both ſpoiled of the true nature of a mā, & office of the only ſufficiēt prieſt of the new teſtament, to offer himſelfe once for all for the redemption of his church, who can be fitter then this auncient enchaūter Marcus, to be the firſt author and patrone hereof? eſpecially ſeing Irenaeus ſpeaking of him in the eight chapter of the foreſaid booke (as it ſhould ſeeme, ſecretly directed by the ſpirit of propheſy) ſaith, thas he was verè praecurſor Antichriſti, that is, truely Antichriſts fore-runner. Yet how notably ſoeuer this Marcus cauſed many ſimple perſons in his time, to beleeue his tranſubſtātiation of wine, into the bloud of Grace, yet he was ſo baited, detected, & confounded for his lewd and coſening dealing therein, and in other points by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and others, that howſoeuer in the meane time, Antichriſt his ſucceſſour, was buſie vnderunder Leo the 9. in a councell at Vercellis, and after in the councell of Lateran vnderunder Nicholas the 2. about the yeare of the lord 1060. in bringing Berengarius to recantatiō, to reuiue againe this doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, yet as their own friends confeſſe, & namely, Tonſtall in his booke of the ſacrament of Chriſts body and bloud, it could not, nor was not, decreed for a certaine and vniuerſall doctrine, before Innocent the thirds time, in another councell at Lateran, about the yeare of Chriſt 1215. before which coū cel, the Greeke Church had ſeparated themſelues from the Latine, and therefore it being a point of Doctrine, not receaued as Catholike, before that diuiſion, neuer ſince could it be receaued in the Greeke Church for any Catholike truth. How can it then hauehave countenance of all Chriſtian Regions and times? Bertram, Berengarius & the Waldenſes, in ſundry places by writing & ſpeaking, oppoſed themſelues againſt it, as witneſſeth Bertrams book of the ſacramēt, the condemnation of Berengarius opinion about it at Vercellis, and the articles of the Waldenſes. Yea a little before, and in this Pope Innocents time, a certaine people about Iohn de Albines Toloſſa called Albigenſes, and that in great & mighty multitudes (as the French Cronicles ſhew) denied reall preſence of Chriſt vnderunder, or with the outward elements in this ſacrament, in ſomuch, as great warres were raiſed to ſubdue them. But of this matter alſo I hauehave ſpoken ſo much chapter eleuenth & 17. that here I neede thereof ſay no more.

Now touching Images or Idols, and the worſhipping thereof: I muſt needes confeſſe that for their dealing about them, they may very well pretend both antiquity and vniuerſality. For it appeares in all ſtories, and in the ſcriptures themſelues, that that way, not onelyonly all other nations, but alſo euen the people of the Iewes themſelues, hauehave beene alwaies wonderfully giuen to pollute and defile themſelues, but withall it appeares, that god in his word writtē, againſt no abhominatiō hath cried out, either more often, or more vehemently, then againſt this. But amongſt Chriſtians, the firſt that we reade of, that worſhipped the image of Ieſus, or any other, was Marcellina a filthy companion of the phantaſticall heretique Carpocrates, but both in Epiphanius hereſi 27. and in Auguſtine ad Quod vult deum, we finde this, both noted & condemned amongſt other deteſtable errours of the Carpocratians. This Carpocrates liued in the beginning of the empire of Antoninus Pius, Anicet then being Biſhoppe of Rome, about the yeare of the lord 109. And in Origens time who died, as Spanhemenſis ſaith, in the yeare of Chriſt 261. hee in his ſeuenth book to Celſus noteth that then the Chriſtians neither ſuffered images nor pillers to be worſhipped. Likewiſe in Arnobius, aduerſus gentes, who floriſhed about the 300. yeare after Chriſt, it appeares, that the gētils obiected that, as a matter of diſgrace, againſt the Chriſtiās, that they neither had, nor worſhipped any ſuch. But ſo far of was it, that the chriſtiās thē thought it any diſgrace vntounto thē, that Origē in the place before quoted ſaith, that the Iewes & Chriſtiās hearing the law Exo. 20. not only refuſe images of god, chooſing rather to die, then to make or worſhip any ſuch, adding this as a reaſō, that god is inuiſible & without body. And likewiſe Clemens Alexandrinus (who floriſhed 100. yeares before Origen) in his exhortation to the heathen, confeſſes willingly this their obiection to be true, that Chriſtians had no images that might be diſcerned by ſence, but onelyonly by vnderſtanding, becauſe to vſe that deceitfull art, ſaieth he, was forbid thē. Yea and that Chriſtians and their tēples might continue ſtill free frō them in Conſtantines time, in a councel held in Spaine at Eliberis, can 36. it was decreed thus, It hath pleaſed vsus to determine that no pictures ſhould be ſuffered in churches, leaſt that which is worſhipped or adored ſhould be painted in walles. Iſid. tom. 1. cōci. And therfore Epiphaniꝰ 55. yeares after this councell, about the yeare of Chriſt 390. as it appeares in his Epiſtle to Iohn of Ieruſalē, finding in the entrance of the church at Anablatha in that Iohns dioces, the image of a mā pictured on a cloth there hāging, puld it downe & tare it aſūder, & writing to the foreſaid Iohn about it (though as he confeſſed it ſeemed vntounto him that it was made for the picture of Ieſus or ſōe of the Saints) yet he cōdemneth it as contrary both to the ſcriptures and Chriſtian Religion, & therefore perſwades him not to ſuffer any ſuch thing any more, for it became him to baniſh ſuch ſuperſtition which was vnſeemely for the Church of Chriſt. Yea Lactantius lib. 2 cap. 19. of his diuine inſtitutions ſaieth flatly, that their can be no Religion where there is an image, he liued & floriſhed in the yeare 320. And S Auguſtine who liued after al theſe before named, for he died not before the yeare 430. de conſenſu Euangeliſtarum lib. 1. cap 2. writeth that they euen deſerue to erre which ſeeke Chriſt and his Apoſtles, not in bookes, but in painted wals. Yea Gregory the great (as they cal him) Biſhop of Rome (though thē the painting of ſtories for an ornamēt of the church was thought tolerable) yet he, lib. 7. Epiſt. 109. & lib. 9. Epiſt. 9. to Serenus, ſlatly cōdemneth the adoring & worſhipping of images. And whereas by occaſiō of this tolerating of hiſtoricall painting of them, through the ſuperſtition & corruption of mans nature, within ſhort time by litle & litle the worſhipping of thē grew to be too much vſed & liked of many, eſpecially in theſe Weſterne parts & of the Biſhops of Rome thēſelues: by the yeare of Chriſt 700. the Emperour Leo the third in a coūcell held at Conſtantinople conſiſting of 330. Biſhops, there with the conſent of that coūcell decreed, that they ſhould be quite remoued out of churches & burnt, & ſeuerely he puniſhes thoſe which notwithſtanding would perſeuere in the worſhipping of them. And the ſame courſe tooke his ſucceſſour Conſtantine by another great coūcell held their ratifying the former, & two Emperours more ſucceeding him, notwithſtāding al this while the Biſhops of Rome with ſtood thē what they might & decreed as faſt for the retaining & worſhipping of thē as they could, as it appeares in Sigebert, Blōdus & others. Howbeit though alſo in the time of Irene & the nonage of her ſonne Conſtātine in the eaſt, through the ſuggeſtiō of Theraſius Biſhop of Conſtantinople, they got there a councell helde at Nicea conſiſting of three hūdreth & fifty Biſhops, where to currie fauour againe with the Biſhops of Rome (who vpō the former occaſiō, as it appears in Sigebert & others, had bene a ſhrewd traiterous meanes to cauſe theſe weſterne parts to reuolt frō the empire) they decreed according to their humour for the honour of images. Yet Africk & Aſia the greater, could neuer be brought to receiue thoſe canōs there made, yea & that more is, though by that time the Pope had made Charles the great very much beholding to him in being the means to trāſlate the empire of the weſt vntounto him, ſo were thoſe canōs in this point miſliked & cōtradicted here in thes weſtern parts, that a coūcel in his time & by his meās, as the Emperour being called at Francford, whereunto came many Biſhops of Italy, Frāce, Germāy & other cūtries, yet there euē for this point was that coūcel of Nice reiected & cōdēned as a wicked councell, witnes both Regino lib. 2. anno 794. & alſo one Hinckmare not lōg after thoſe times Archbiſhop of Rhemes writing againſt another of his name thē Biſhop of Iandune or Lauedune as ſome cal it, ca. 20. where he for further proofe of this to be true writeth that the Biſhops their aſſembled cauſed a booke of purpoſe to be writen & ſent to Rome, cōteining at large a cōfutatiō of al the reaſons vſed for images at Nicea, which in his yoūg yeares he ſaw, & which the keeper of the Popes library Auguſtine Steuchus cōfeſſes to lie there writē in anciēt caracters de donatione Conſtantini lib. 2. cap. 59. nu. 60. And Roger Houodē (who liued 400. years ago) in his cōtinuatiō of Bedeas ſtory in the year 792. ſhewing how Charles ſēt the canōs of that coūcel of Nice hither, wherin (as he ſaith) it was decreed that images ought to bee adored, which the church of God vtterly deteſteth, reports that one Albirus here wrote an epiſtle againſt that determinatiō, maruelouſly grounded vpō the ſcriptures, which he caried into France (as he ſaith) in the name of our Biſhops, by occaſion whereof, the rather it ſhould ſeeme, ſhortly after Charles thought meete to call the foreſaid coūcell at Francford. All theſe things notwithſtanding, neuer were images, pillers and croſſes more idolatrouſly decreed to be worſhipped their, nor euer were idols more groſly adored of heretiques, or the very pagans and heathen, then they hauehave bene & yet be of ſuperſtitious Papiſts. For they crouch & kneele vntounto them, preſent offerings before them, they run a pilgrimage vntounto them, and teach that they are to be worſhipped with that honour, that is due vntounto them, whoſe images and monuments they be, though in an other manner, not for their owne ſakes, but for theirs whoſe remembrances they be. But indeed if in worſhipping of them, they did not principally reſpect the Images themſelues, why ſhould there not be as great deuotion, as many pilgrimages, & as great offerings, preſented & yeelded to the image of Chriſt, Mary, or of any other: aſwell in one place as in an other? Well, howſoeuer they will do wickedly herein, and when they hauehave done, ſeeke to colour the matter, ſuch in truth all the worlde ſees, herein hath beene their dealing, that Euthymius in his panoply had neuer more cauſe to name the Armenians, foreign, that is, Idolaters to the croſſe, for their groſſe and ſuperſtitious worſhipping of it, then we hauehave generally to count, and call, the Romaniſts flat idolaters for their behauiour towards it, and other images alſo. Thus then hoping by this, that I hauehave ſaid, cōcerning this point, that not onelyonly thou maieſt ſee (goodreader) when, and how, this point of popery firſt came in, but how, and by whom, it hath beene oppugned, but conſequently alſo, that the Romiſh church is herein deſtitute both of ſcripture, fathers, conſent of Chriſtian regions, and al that ſhe bragges of, let vsus ſee if wee can ſhew the like, concerning the other point of forced ſingle life vpō the clergy, which ſhe holds to be ſo neceſſary, and holy an ordinance, as that by no meanes without deadly ſin it may be tranſgreſſed.

Euen in this, as in the former, if we ſearch the monumentes of antiquity well, we ſhal finde that they hauehave very auncient heretiques, to be their firſt fathers & leaders. For the Tacianiſts commonly cald Encratites of their abſtinence from mariage, & certaine other thinges, who began about the yeare, one hundred forty two, were great condemners of mariage, as appeares in Aug. ad Quodvult Deum, & in Epiphanius, writing of them, Hereſi. 46. After them ſpronge vp the Manichees, who in like manner were enemies to mariage, but not ſo vniuerſally as the former, for they permitted it to others, and reſtraine onelyonly their clergy from it, whō they calde their elect, as Auguſt: witneſſeth of them Epiſt. 74. but indeed as many as would be perfect, & had in anie great reckoning amongſt them, they were in any caſe to abſtaine from mariage. And as we finde, that theſe and other heretiques, were the fore-runners of the Papiſts in this point, ſo we finde that Auguſtine, Epiphanius, and others, that wrote againſt them, condemned this for a doctrine of deuils in them. But I know they will reply, that herein we do them wrong in that we reſemble them to theſe, for theſe, they ſay, made this the reaſon and groūd of their doing, that they held mariage it ſelfe, to be an vncleane and filthy eſtate of life, and therefore not fit for them, that would ſerue the Lord, to liue in. Which, they ſay, they doe not hold. Indeed, thus it is their faſhion, when for any of their abſurd errours, they are preſſed with our obiections againſt them, then ſomewhat to avoide the extremity of the foile, to ſet a farre better ſtate of the queſtiō, then otherwiſe, either their commō practiſe or doctrine will beare: but when they finde the chaſe ended, and themſelues by ſuch ſhifting in ſome ſort, as they think, to hauehave eſcaped, then hauing recouered their breath againe, they fall to their olde flat groſnes in the point in their life and teaching. And euen ſo deale they in this. For their whole and generall practiſe, makes it moſt euident, in that they rather tolerate their Prieſts to hauehave concubines, to run to the ſtues, yea and to commit Sodomitry, then to mary, that indeed they think mariage is more vncleane, and defiles their Prieſthoode more then all theſe. And Diſt. 82. Gratian cites a ſaying of Pope Siritius, wherein, in plainer termes he aduouches them that holdes, that miniſters of the Goſpell may mary, and beget children as the Prieſts of the olde teſtament did, to be followers of luſts, and therein teachers of vice. Frō which profoūd diuinity it came, that the ſame Siritius would perſuade, that therefore the miniſters of the Goſpell might not mary, becauſe Saint Paul ſaid, they that liue in the fleſh cannot pleaſe god, as though to liue in the fleſhe with Paul, and to liue in the ſtate of mariage were all one: which if it had beene ſo, what meant S. Paul to teach 1. Cor. 7. that he that beſtowed his daughter in mariage did well, that mariage is honourable Heb. 13. and that they that deny in hypocriſy, the lawfulnes thereof, are ſuch, as hauehave therein giuen eare vntounto doctrines of deuils, and thereby ſhewe, that their conſciences are burnt, as it were, with an hote iron, and that they are departed from the faith 1. Tim. 4. But they will ſay perhaps, they are now aſhamed of this olde Siritius, & of his doctrine in this point. Doubtles if they be not, there is iuſt cauſe why they ſhould, but I hauehave two reaſons why I thinke they are not: firſt, becauſe he was Pope of Rome they know; then, becauſe even of late one Gregory Martin, a great learned man (as they account him) writing againſt our Engliſh tranſlations Chap. 15. ſect. 2. writeth of this point euen now (as though that Popes ſpirit ſtill directed him) flatly, that by mariage their Prieſthoode is prophaned, and made meere laicall and popular. Wherefore I ſee not, but that they are and may worthily ſtill of vsus herein be ſaied to be, the right ſchollers & ſucceſſours of the former heretiques. Howbeit this I muſt needes further graunt them, that in peruſing the writings of ancient fathers and Cronicles of times, I find euē amongſt them, that otherwiſe yet ſeemed to be Chriſtians and not heretiques, and that of very ancient time, and ſo from time to time, that hauehave beene fauorers and vrgers of ſingle life in miniſters. For I finde by that that Clemens Alexandrinus hath writen of this matter in the 3. & 7. booke. Stromat, who floriſhed within 200. yeares after Chriſt, that thē ſome earneſtly vrged ſingle life, as a life moſt holy & fit for ſuch. And I know that in the councell of Nice, in Conſtantines time, it was attēpted, that there ſhould bee made a canon, to binde miniſters vniuerſally to liue ſingle, without the vſe or company of wiues: & that after that Siritius before ſpoken of, about the yeare 390. after him Gregorie the firſt ann. 600. or thereabout, & after that ſundry other Popes, namely & eſpecially about 1000. years after Chriſt, & after; were marueilous eger and buſy, by their owne authority & decrees of councels ſummoned by their meanes, to eſtabliſh & ratify this point. Whereupon (as in other cuntreies of theſe weſterne parts, to pleaſe them withal) herein England many Biſhops, as namely Lancfranke, Dūſtane & Anſelme, Archbiſhops of Cāterbury, were marueilous forward in their times to further this deuice. By meās whereof, many decrees paſt in ſmodes and councels, and many great things were attēpted & done to this end. But yet then vnderſtand withall (welbeloued) that Clemens in the places before quoted, confuted & withſtoode notably theſe hypocrits, both by exāples & reaſons euē now vſed by vsus againſt theſe their ſucceſſors: that one Paphnutius in the coūcell of Nice though vnmaried himſelfe, did ſo effectually withſtand that attēpt, that it did not there paſſe: that Siritius was by a Biſhop of Terragon confuted & withſtood: & that Gregory the firſt vponupon the finding of 600. childrens heads, after the caſting of certaine great ponds neare vntounto the aboad of many, inforced to that vow of ſingle life, reuoked his determinatiō (as it appeareth in an epiſtle of one Hulricke, Biſhop of Auguſta, to Pope Nicolas) vpō this reaſō, that it was better to let thē marry, thē to giuegive occaſion of ſuch murder. Further in Hildebrands time, who after he was Pope was called Gregory the ſeuēth, though we find that he of al that wēt before him, was herein moſt extreame and went furtheſt, yet notwithſtāding we read in Sigebert, H. Mutiꝰ & others, that he and his decrees in this point were openly & ſtoutly reſiſted, not onelyonly at Conſtāce & Mentz in Germany, but alſo by the Biſhops of France, and other cuntreies both by open preaching & liuing with their wiues, doe what he could, and his ſucceſſors for a great ſpace. Hee was the firſt that bound Biſhops & Archbiſhops vponupon their oath to admit none into the miniſtry, vnleſſe firſt they would vow a ſingle life: & yet after he had done what he could, & Paſcalis that ſucceeded him, & Anſelme alſo their chaplein here, to cauſe that decree to take place: yet, as our Cronicles ſhew, Gerhardus Archbiſhop of Yorke, wrote to that Anſelme, that thoſe that came for orders to him would not vow ſingle life. And howſoeuer they preuailed in other places before, Polidor ſaith, that the reſtraint of their mariages began here firſt to be attēpted ann. 670. hiſt. Ang. l. 6. & de inuētoribꝰ rerū l. 5. & Fabiā p. 293. writeth, that Biſhops & Prieſts liued here 1000 years together with their wiues, no law being to the cōtrary. Yea Auētinus l 5. hiſtoriae Biorū ſaith, ſpeaking of Hildebrāds time which was 40. years at leaſt after this, that Prieſts had wiues & begat childrē as other men. And none of any learning are ignorant, that al theſe ſturs about this matter notwitſtanding, Chriſtiā Biſhops & miniſters in al other quarters of the world, vnderunder the other Patriarches frō the beginning vntounto this day, hauehave bene, are maried & beget childrē alſo, after they are entred into the miniſtry. This alſo is as wel knowen of the learned, that not onelyonly particular learned men, & holy fathers, as I noted before, & others: but alſo ſū dry coūcels, where multitudes of ſuch fathers hauehave met, hauehave writen & decreed to withſtād & contrary the going forward of this Antichriſtiā ordināce. Yea they thēſelues are not ignorāt hereof, as it appears by ſundry things ſet downe both in their text and gloſſe diſt. 81.84. & elſwhere in their Canon law. For in the 28. diſtinctiō, is noted a decree of the councell of Gangra, which was about 300. yeares after Chriſt, whereby he is by the authority of that councell anathematized, that ſhall for his mariage put difference betwixt a maried miniſters miniſtry, and another, and therefore abſtaine from communicating with him, and there alſo is cited a canon fathered of the Apoſtles, whereby he is accurſed, that puts away his wife for Religion ſake. And in the ſixth generall councell held at Conſtantinople, theſe thinges are remembred with other, and therefore there it was decreed, Tom. Conc. 2. cap. 13. that he ſhall be depoſed, that after that, ſhould go about to debar Prieſts, or deacons, either of mariage, or of the vſe of their wiues, yea after ordination: and there alſo, further it was enacted, that if they themſelues being ordred, ſhould vnderunder pretence of piety put away their wiues, that they ſhall therefore be excommunicate, and yet this was 680. yeares after Chriſt. Moreouer Hierom ſpeaking of his time, ſaith, that then, plurum ſacerdotes habebant matrimonia, that is, moſt Prieſtes were maried, aduerſus Iouinianum, libro. 1. Tertullian himſelfe was a maried man, as it appeareth by his writing to his wife. To holde that miniſters may not mary, Ignatius ad Philadelphenſes ſaith, comes of the deuill: And Dionyſius Corinthiacus writing to the Gnoſians perſuades their Biſhop Pinitus, not to impoſe an vnneceſſary, & too heauy a burden of ſingle life, or chaſtity vponupon the brethren, as we reade in Euſeb. lib. 4. cap. 22. Laſtly, S. Bernard (though he liued about the yeare 1120. which was a very corrupt time for this matter,) yet euen he, in his ſixty ſixth ſermon vppon the Canticles, thus far concerning this point hath plainely written. Take from the church honourable matrimonie, & the bed vndefiled, ſaith he, and thou filleſt it with concubine keepers, with inceſtuous perſons, with ſuch as hauehave vncleane iſſues of ſeede flowing from them, with wantons, with Sodomites, and all kind of vncleane perſons. But when the bright euidence of theſe allegations, ſeeme to make them ſomewhat to bold downe their heads, yet I know they hauehave this ſhift for their laſt refuge, that they deny not, but that ſuch as hauehave been maried, or at that preſēt, hauehave wiues, may enter into the miniſtry, but thē they muſt be ſuch, as voluntary will vow, and performe a ſingle life, and ſo thence forth abſtaine: inſomuch that they are ſo in louelove with this ſhift, that they ſay, & write, as is to be ſeen in the Rhemiſh notes vpō the new teſtamēt, that Pauls canons, touching the being of ſuch the husbāds of one wife, are ſo to be vnderſtood, & not ſo, as that thē, or after once he is miniſter, he may continue the office of a husband towardes his wife, and confidently they dare and doe brag, that we neuer read of any other that maried, or got children after they entred once into holy orders. Wherin firſt the practiſe of the Greeke Church, & all other Churches, but theſe in theſe parts of the world, directly croſſes them. Againe let Pauls words in deliuering of his canons cōcerning the qualities that miniſters ought to hauehave, bee well conſidered, and any man ſhall ſee, that it is abſurd ſo to vnderſtād him, that he requires that they ſhould be ſo qualified only de praeterito for the time paſt, & not rather eſpecially for the time preſent and to come. Seeing they are ſo cō fident in this, that none maried euer, or begot children after they were miniſters, let them tell mee of whom Peter had his daughter Petronella, of whō their owne Croniclcs ſpeake ſo much, had he her not of a lawful wife? And if it be true, that we read, that in the perſecutiō vnderunder Domitian, ſhe was of ſuch floriſhing yeares, that then Flaccus, a noble Roman county would hauehave had her to wife, the time betwixt that and Peters entring vponupon his Apoſtleſhip, being at the leaſt, fifty fiue yeares after Chriſt, by all likelihoode ſhee was got after hee was an Apoſtle. And well might it bee, for it being euident, that Chriſt had taught them, that vnleſſe it were for fornication no man ſhould forſake his wife Math. 19. and therefore that Paul hath noted, that the brethren of the Lord and Cephas, did cary vp and downe in the execution of their Apoſtleſhippes their wiues, being alſo conuerted aſwell as themſelues, and therefore ſiſters 1. Cor. 7. taking maintenance for themſelues & then as they went, that ſometime in that perigrinatiō of theirs, in the diſcharge of their office, this Petronella was borne. For it being euidēt by the Goſpell of Math. 8. that Peter had a wife, and by their owne ſtories, that ſhee was a liue a little before his death, & at Rome with him, & that he counted not his Apoſtleſhip fornicatiō, & that neither he would leaue his wiues cōpany & take other women with him, nor that ſhe came to Rome rather in the cōpany of other men, thē of him her owne husband: too too groſſe and abſurd is it with them to thinke, that he & the reſt of the Apoſtles that had wiues, forſooke their wiues quite and went vp and downe rather after the popiſh maner accompanied with other women. Their tranſlating and peruerting the order of Paules words, a woman, a ſiſter, will not defend their interpretation, for he placeth his wordes thus, a ſiſter, a wife, where in the later place it is abſurd, the Greek word being that which ſometime ſtandeth generally for a woman, ſometime for ſuch a woman as is alſo a wife; to take it in the former ſence, for then therein there were a needleſſe tautology, for there is no ſiſter, but ſhee is a woman alſo. But to leaue Peter with his wife and daughter, what can they ſay to Socrates, who in his fift booke and twentieth one Chapter of his ſtory, writeth that omnes praeſbyteri illuſtres, that is, all renouned miniſters in the Eaſt and Biſhops alſo, if they will, no law compelling them, may obſtaine from their wiues, for not a fewe of them, whiles they are Biſhops, beget childrē of their lawfull wiues. Hiſtoriae tripartitae lib. 9. ca. 38. Againe the 10. canon of the Ancyran councell teſtifieth of many authēticall exāples of ſuch as maried after holy orders. Moreouer in the daies of Iulian the apoſtata wee reade, that Baſilius a Prieſt of Ancyra and Euſichius a miniſter at the leaſt of Ceſarea of Cappadocia, which had lately taken to wife a gentlewoman, and was but then as a bridegrome, both ended their liues in martirdome, as writeth Zozomene lib. 5. cap. 10. and Balfamon long after, vponupon the 10. canon of the coūcell of Ancyra, mentioneth a decree of Leo the Emperour, whereby it was lawfull for thē within two yeares after they were ordered to mary. And who can be perſwaded, that we reading of ſo many famous Biſhoppes that were maried, as namely of Demetrianus of Antioch, of Spiridion in the councell of Nice, & of Gregory Nazianzen & others, and of infinite children of theſe Biſhops & of others of the miniſtry, as we doe in all ſtories: that they got none of theſe children after their miniſtry, or that they left their wiues preſently vponupon their entring into their miniſtry, eſpecially ſeeing the ſtories that tels vsus they were maried & names vsus their childrē, mētioneth no ſuch thing? Howſoeuer it were with theſe, it euidētly appeares in his 70. and 127. epiſtles, that there was one Syneſius an excellent learned mā, Biſhop of Ptolemais who was not only a maried mā, and had children, but that he begot children of his lawfull wife, being and continuing ſtill in the execution of his office. And many more ſuch examples might be remembred, but theſe are ſufficient to ſhew the impudency of their confident aſſertiō, that there were neuer anie ſuch: and this which I hauehave faied, I hope, alſo is fully ſufficiēt to ſhew not onelyonly the vanity of his brag that made this preface, that all is well with them and countenanced by fathers, conſent of regions &c. but alſo to anſwere the demuande or obiection which I tooke vponupon mee, vponupon that occaſion, to anſwere in this place, concerning the beginning and proceeding of popery, and how and by whom it was reſiſted. For euen, as I hauehave ſhewed, they lacke all the countinance they brag of, for thoſe particular points that I hauehave here ſpoken of, & hauehave made it plaine, that both their beginning and proceeding hath beene noted and withſtoode: euē ſo is it an eaſy matter to deale with them, in all the reſt of the points wherein they and wee differ, as ere thou haſt redde this my anſwere to Albine thorow, I hope, I ſhall make vntounto thee full demonſtration. Wherefore thou maieſt in the meane time hereby learne, to arme thy ſelfe againſt ſuch proud brags, as notwithſtanding thou haſt hard the authour of this preface make. For I hope euen by this, whatſoeuer he hath ſaied to the contrary, thou moſt plainely ſeeſt, that neither ſcripture, fathers, conſent of regions, nor continuance of time can proue, that they hauehave, as he brags, the true Goſpell, and the true ſence of it, the true Chriſtiā Religiō, & the true Church & ſpouſe of Chriſt, who hauehave in theſe maine & principall points beene controled and condemned, in all theſe as I hauehave ſhewed. Whatſoeuer therefore he infers or buildes vponupon this falſe principle, or whatſoeuer after, vponupon the bare ſuppoſing the ſame to be true, thou ſhalt reade Iohn de Albine railingly in his triumphant & arrogant maner to ſpeake, in diſgrace of vsus, our Church, miniſters or Religion: I hope, I ſay, thou wilt eſteeme of it, as of vaine and fooliſh wordes, of proud and yet malitious aduerſaries. Yet hauing thus anſwered in this ſort his preface, ſomewhat the better to prepare thee to iudge of Iohn de Albine, and my anſwere vntounto him: giuegive mee leaue now to ſay ſomewhat concerning his booke and his maner of dealing therein.

Wherefore to proceede, hauing peruſed and as throughly, as I could, conſidered of it (gentle Reader) I proteſt vntounto thee vponupon what occaſion ſoeuer it hath got ſuch credit amongſt men of his owne conſort, that it hath not onelyonly of them beene thought worthy to be publiſhed in Engliſh, but alſo to be intituled, A notable diſcourſe againſt hereſies, I hauehave found it, and ſo ſhall any indifferent Reader of this my anſwere vntounto it, not able at all to doe either good or harme, but onelyonly to ſuch as are verie ſimple, vnlearned and ſilly ignorant creatures. For the principall queſtions in hand, either alwaies he takes for graunted, and ſo neuer goes about to proue them: or ſubtlely & ſuddainly (ſeeming to hauehave vndertaken the proofe of them) hee ſlippeth into another matter, and therewith goeth on luſtely, as though he were buſy about the point in controuerſy, when as indeede he hath left that quite, and choſen to himſelfe ſome other matter more eaſie for him to deale in, either not at all in controuerſy, or howſoeuer, to ſmall purpoſe for the proofe of the thing intended. And yet thus hee ſeemeth vntounto himſelfe, and vntounto his vnskilfull Reader, to hauehave wonne the cauſe and to carrie all before him, when indeede hee hath ſaied quite nothing to the purpoſe, and hath buſied himſelfe onelyonly about that which was needeleſſe: which to the ende that thou maieſt the better obſerue thy ſelfe in the reſt of his booke, I will giuegive thee a taſt of, in the beginning thereof. Vnderſtand therefore, that whereas his generall and principall ſcope is, in his whole diſcourſe, to diſgrace our miniſtry, and the whole matter thereof, our Religion: that ſo hauing once perſwaded his Reader, that we hauehave neither lawfull miniſters, nor ſound Religion, hee might conſequently boldely pronounce vsus to bee heretiques, and our whole Church ſchiſmaticall & hereticall. To effect this his purpoſe, becauſe hee ſoreſawe, that firſt it were neceſſarie that he ſhould iuſtify their owne miniſtry and Religion, before hee ſhould ſo call ours into queſtion: firſt hee laboureth about that in the firſt eight Chapters, & then ſtriueth about the other in the reſt. But marke now, I beſeech thee, how he makes his entry into this ſo weighty and neceſſary a point. Whereas indeede out of the fift to the Hebrewes wee obiect (as hee confeſſeth) that their calling to their Prieſthoode & Prelacies cannot be of God, becauſe their very offices themſelues were neuer of Gods owne ordinance, but onelie of mans owne deuiſing: though to anſwere this obiection, eueryevery man might ſee, and he himſelfe ſaw (as it appeares by his owne words ca. 1.) that it was moſt neceſſary for him firſt to hauehave proued, that their offices were of Gods inſtitution, and not of mans inuention onelyonly, like a cunning Sophiſter, hee ſlippes from that, promiſing after in ſome other place to proue it, which yet though it ſtoode him in this his diſcourſe neuer ſo much vponupon, he neuer ſo much as once remembreth or mentioneth againe. And therefore thus onelyonly ſuppoſing and taking this for graūted, that their Prieſthoode and Prelacies are of God (which he knowes we will neuer graunt them) hee takes vponupon him to proue onelyonly their comming thereunto to bee lawfull, which he proues as ſlenderly alſo. For to proue it, hee onelyonly ſaieth, that they come to them by the ordinary way, by right ſucceſſion of Biſhops and paſtours, continuing in one Catholicke faith, downe from Chriſt to this preſent time: thus childiſhly begging in one piece of one ſhort ſentence theſe foure great points (all which in this caſe are betwixt vsus and them in queſtion) namely, that their officers all of them, come to their roomes by the ordinary way, that they hauehave right ſucceſsion, right Biſhops and paſtours, and ſounde and Apoſtolicke doctrine. And yet though he knew well enough, that wee conſtantly deny all theſe, yet to proue that they come lawfully to their offices, hee onelyonly nakedly and barely affirmeth them, as though he preſumed, that he was and ſhould be ſuch a Pythagoras, in the conceit of all his Readers, that for him once to ſay it, were enough and enough againe. For by and by after that thus he had onelyonly ſaied, hauing vſed neither proofe nor colour of proofe to backe his ſaying, hee ſlippeth into another matter, not yet called in queſtion: Whither a viſible, knowen, and alwaies a demonſtrable, perſonall, and locall ſucceſsion of Biſhops & paſtours, be neceſſary for the perpetuall continuāce of the Church, and preſeruatiō of the trueth therin? And thus hee windeth frō matter to matter, leauing alwaies that vnproued, which hee had moſt neede to hauehave proued, labouring & ſweating continually about the proofe of that, which though it were graūted him, yet he might wel enough looſe his cauſe. As for example, hauing entred into the foreſaid matter in maner before ſaied, in 3. or 4. whole Chapters following, he ſhewes how the trueth is continued in the Church by ſucceſſion of paſtours, how profitable their miniſtry is, to bring men to, & to ſettle them in the truth, that the anciēt trodē way by Chriſts ſheepe, downe from Chriſt to this day, that the ancient Catholicke faith, that the faith which in Irenaeus and Auguſtines time was helde and taught at Rome, & had vntounto their times beene continued from Chriſt by ſucceſsion of Biſhoppes and paſtours, is the waie and faith that a Catholicke man muſt liue and die in, whoſoeuer ſaieth to the contrary. In which propoſitions, no maruaile though he goe on roundly, for he hath winde and weather with him, & none of vsus gaineſaies him; yea theſe things being rightly vnderſtoode, wee conſtantly affirme and teach the ſame But theſe things being all graunted him, what is hee nearer his cauſe, ſeeing as yet all the ſort of them neuer could, nor ſhall bee able to proue, that their paſtours ſucceed Chriſt, his Apoſtles, or the ancient holy Biſhops & paſtours, that were before Irenaeus & Avguſtines time, in teaching the ſame doctrine that they taught? But herein is his popiſh ſubtlely, that ſtanding thus vpō theſe points, he would hauehave his Reader graūt him all theſe: that their ſucceſsiō of Prieſts & Biſhops is that ſucceſsiō of paſtours, ſo profitable for the continuāce of the trueth and Church: that their Romiſh Religion that now is, is that ancient way that Chriſts ſheepe hauehave alwaies trod, & ſo the ancient Catholicke Religiō which in Irenaeus & Auguſtines time, they & the holy paſtours & Biſhops at Rome and elſe where had, ſoundly ſucceeding one another from the Apoſtles, continued in vntounto that time; which are things whereof not one, the Pope and all his confederates ſhall euer be able indeede to proue: and therefore it ſeemeth Iohn de Albine thought it good policy, ſeeing theſe thinges could be got no otherwiſe, to trie whether he could get them thus by flatte begging of them. And it ſeemeth alſo, that hee preſumed, that hee ſhould come onelyonly to ſuch liberall mens dores, that all theſe ſhould be graū ted and giuen him, euen at the very firſt asking: for alwaies after he behaues himſelfe in ſuch ſort, as that without all peraduenture he had them all graunted him. OnelyOnly a little in his thirty ſeuēth Chapter, belike ſomewhat growing aſhamed of his ſhameleſſe begging al the while before, he begins to make ſhew, that if men ſhould be ſo hard harted, as to deny him, that their paſtours, doctrine and Church are ſound & Catholicke, that he is able to proue them ſo to bee, whither ſuch will or no. And yet euen there, when all comes to all (though indeede hee bragge, that he could and would, but for being too tedious to his Reader, iuſtify the reſt of their doctrine, by the teſtimony of a number of doctours, holy confeſſours and martyrs) he onelyonly by muſtering of a ſort of dumbe doctours vponupon the ſtage, makes his poore Reader beleeue, that in the places quoted by him, they ſpeake directly to iuſtify their ceremonies, their Auricular Confeſsion, praier for the dead and to the dead, as though theſe were the principall matters in controuerſy betwixt them and vsus. But doubtles hee knew well enough, that no one of his Readers amongſt an hundred, would and could turne the places, and ſo try whither the men he name, make there ſo for him or no. For otherwiſe, for ſhame he would not hauehave quoted them ſo negligently, falſely and corruptly, as when I come to that place, I ſhall ſhew thee hee hath. Theſe thinges conſidered (Chriſtian Reader) thou muſt bee very ſimple and hauehave before hand thy minde wholy foreſtalled with his falſe principles, or elſe hee ſhall winne with thee little credit to his cauſe, or diſgrace to ours. Howbeit, ſeeing both his whole drift, and his publiſhers in his preface, was (as it euidently thereby appeares) vnderunder the odious names of heretiques and ſchiſmatiques, to diſgrace vsus and the trueth that wee profeſſe (as though it were not once to be called in queſtiō, whither they and their crue, were the onelyonly ſound Catholickes and Chriſtians in the world) before I let thee proceede, & come to the view of his declamation made to that ende, and of my anſwere thereunto: this vponupon good and moſt cleare ground I proteſt vntounto thee and aſſure thee, what brags ſoeuer he, or any other of his fellows make, of their popiſh and Romiſh Religion, that now is proſeſſed amongſt them: beſides all other things that can or may be ſaied againſt it, it is ſuch a Religion, and their Church the vpholder thereof ſuch a dame, as is the very nurſe and baude of monſtrous impietie, as is intolerably iniurious to the right of the good eſtates of all Chriſtian Princes and their people; and as laſtly (howſoeuer it may ſeeme to carry a ſhew of holineſſe) it is not ſo, but indeede cunningly vnderunder the colour thereof, aymeth at no marke more, then to aduaunce the pride, pompe, and gaine of her louers. The firſt is euident, in that their doctrine of their Popes ſupermacy is ſuch, as that for money hee may pardon any ſinne (as their practiſe teacheth) either committed, or to be committed: yea their verie Hedge-prieſtes by the authority of the power of abſolution giuen vntounto them, vponupon penaunce done, how light ſoeuer, if it ſo ſeeme good vntounto them, hauehave and doe take vponupon them marueilouſly, that way to breede immunity and impunity, by their abſoluing whom & for what they liſt. Their doctrine alſo of ſatisfaction for ſinne, in that they allow ſprinkling of holy water, going on pilgrimage, doing of this outwarde trifling thing, or that, which eaſily may be done of any carnal man, to be good ſatisfactory meane… to anſwere God withal for their ſinnes: how can it be otherwiſe but the people meaſuring and iudging of ſinne according therevnto, muſt needs thinke ſinne, that can be ſatisfied for ſo eaſily and lightly, to be but a ſleight matter. Their doctrine alſo of eare ſhriſt, is likewiſe a meanes to acquaint their ſingle prieſtes, with all the lewd huſwiues in their pariſhees, and ſo an acquainting of them, with the trickes & waies how, and the parties with whom, they may commit filthineſſe. Yea their forced ſingle life (as experience notoriouſly hath taught) hath infected earth and aire, with monſtrous vncleanneſſe of the fleſh, both inward and outward, naturall & vnnaturall, & with infinite murders of poore infantes, the better ſtill to hide their iniquity. And while they teach that ſimple fornication is not ſo ill in their clergy, as to vſe a lawfull wife, that the firſt inwarde motions to ſinne or concupiſcence not conſented vntounto, be no ſinnes, that manie ſinnes euen for their owne littlenes are veniall, & not worthy of damnation: they make men ſecure for theſe, and ſo the fitter & bolder to go on in the reſt. Their doctrine and practiſe of diſpē ſations, and pardons for money, for clergy and people almoſt for any thing, is, and muſt needs be, the roote and fountaine of wonderful many abhominations. Their doctrine of ſanctuaries, priuiledges, exemptiōs, and immunities of their clergy & others, are very great occaſions of ſinne and impiety. Laſtly, the ambition, pride, tyranny, pompe, gluttony, wantonnes and inſatiable couetouſnes of their Popes, Cardinals and Prelats, makes al, whom they bewich with their religion, to thinke, that they are not to be blamed, if in theſe things they imitate then their holy fathers: & marueilouſly are they incouraged to continue and ſpend their daies in theſe, & in al other ſinnes, when as by their doctrine they are put in hope, if they die (beleeuing blindly as the church beleeues, providing of their goods, which they muſt needs leaue behind them, ſomwhat liberally, that maſſes, dirges & trentals may be ſaied and ſong for them, and that ſuch other things done as thē their ghoſtly father ſhal appoint them) that in the end they ſhall doe well enough, how looſely and lewdly ſoeuer otherwiſe they liued before.

The ſecond point alſo, is many waies cleare and apparent. For firſt by their doctrine of their Popes ſupremacy, where it is in the full force, Emperours, Kings & Queenes, are thereby made and marde at their pleaſure: they muſt not thinke ſcorne of moſt baſe ſeruice and ſubiection to them, their ſubiectes ſhall be bound to pay them tribute no longer, or to yeelde them any maner of other duety, further then they liſt: yea it ſhall be lawfull for them, to conſpire againſt their naturall Princes, & by any meanes they can, to deuiſe to depriue thē both of their liues and kingdome, if ſo the Pope cōmaund them. Nay not onelyonly vponupon the Popes cō mandement and pardon, ſhall this of them bee counted lawfull and meritorious: but if any of his ovvne motion vndertake ſuch a thing, of a deuout minde to his holmes and religion, the incouragement and abſolution of eueryevery Maſſe-prieſt ſhall be ſufficient, to iuſtifie the action, and to cauſe the party, that hath done it, to be canonized a Saint for his labour. Further for the eſtabliſhing of this archpiller of popery, their Popes ſupremacy, Princes are depriued of the election of their Prelates, and they are by oath ſo obliged to the Pope, and ſo freed from the iuriſdiction of their lawfull Prince, that they may and dare beard their Princes: and howſoeuer they wil take liberty to enioy great promotions vnderunder them, yet in effect they are no ſubiectes vntounto them, but rather altogither ſtand at the deuotion of this forraine Potentate. Secondly, by the pretended right of this their ſupremacy, for the better maintenaunce of the ſwelling pompe thereof, to the great weakning of Chriſtian ſtates, they hauehave taken vponupon thē, and yet doe, when they may be ſuffred, by their annates, Peeter-pence, Paul-fees, firſt-fruits, tenths, lones, oppreſsions, taxations, impoſitions, and infinite ſuch other deuiſes, ſauoring of nothing elſe, but of inſatiable couetouſnes, to cō uey away the treaſure, riches, and wealth of eueryevery cuntrey, from out of it to Rome. And by this their ſupremacy, they hauehave firſt weakned, after rent in two, & laſtly brought in effect to nothing, the glorious Roman Empire, that ſo the better they might hauehave roome to grow vp in, and that for their ſins in the iuſtice of God, Chriſtendome might the more eaſily become a pray to the Turke. Thirdly, by the deuiſe of their Auricular Cōfeſsion they hauehave, and may hauehave, moſt perfect intelligence of the ſecretes of all ſtates where they hauehave to doe, then which can any thing in theſe outward things bee more dangerous, to the ſafe and good eſtate of Princes? Fourthly, by the force of ſingle life, they hauehave cauſed priuies, and ponds, & ſuch other by corners to ſwallowe vp and deſtroy, in eueryevery Chriſtian kingdome where they ruled, as many infants, as might, being growen to be men, hauehave beene able, in the fielde, to defend there Prince and cuntrey againſt all the enemies thereof: vvhichwhich vvhat a vveakning to Chriſtian Princes and their kingdomes it hath beene, vvho ſeeth not? Theſe thinges therefore conſidered, it is to bee marueiled, that any Chriſtian ſtate, can or will tolerate, either them, or their religion in it.

And as for the laſt point, that ſo their religion might fit the title appointed it by the Spirit of God, that is, that indeede it might proue it ſelfe to be,2. Theſſ. 2.2 Thess 2 a very miſtery of iniquity, euen throughout vnderunder the ſhevv of holineſſe and deuotion, they alvvaies hauehave hid, nouriſhed, and maintained groſſe iniquity, and hauehave aymed at nothing more, then at their owne pompe and aduantage. For their doctrines of free-vvill, of mans ableneſſe to keepe and ouer keepe the law of God, of merits & ſatisfaction for our ſelues or others aliue or dead, of the mediation of Saints or Angels: and their doctrines, that the Pope cannot erre, that he hath ſuch ſupremacy as they giuegive him, and that the ſcriptures hauehave their ſence and authority from his allowance thereof, howſoeuer they paint theſe things with the goodly ſhewes of care to prouoke and incourage men to good works, and with deuotion to Saint Peter & the mother church: yet who is ſo ſimple or weake ſighted, but that through theſe colours, hee may and doth diſcerne God & his ſonne Chriſt blaſphemouſly robbed of that which is their right, man to be occaſioned to ſwell with a conceyt of his owne ability: and that the final marke, that all this tēds vntounto, is, by the ſelling of other folkes ouerplus merits and ſatisfactions vnderunder, and in the names of pardons, to enrich the Pope and his Prieſts, and by the reſt to ſet vp themſelues in the very ſeat of Antichriſt? They pretend the glory of Chriſt, and of Peter, and Paul, in the doctrine of the ſupremacy: but it is the feeding of their owne pompous & tyrānous ambition, that in trueth they ſeeke in it. In their ſwarmes of Monkeries & Frieries they pretend wilfull pouerty, and an vtter forſaking of the world, and yet all the world ſeeth, that to maintaine themſelues therein in idlenes, belly-cheare, and al kinde of worldly and carnal pleaſure, they had houſes like Princes, and reuēnues & maintenaunces, like great Lordes of the worlde. They hauehave pretended, that they vvould hauehave Emperours and Kinges in no caſe to giuegive Biſhoprickes and benefices, to preuent Simony: whereas their practiſe hath made it cleare, that their Popes hauehave taken that into their owne hands, but to make the clergy more to ſtand at their deuotion, and leſſe at their Princes, and that they & theirs might vſe that occupation and trade of Simony, as moſt proper vntounto themſelues. They pretende charity and compaſsion in their pardons and indulgences, deuotion and care to relieue ſoules by their maſſes, dirges, and trentals, and an intent to fray mē frō ſinne by their doctrine of Purgatory: but eueryevery mā ſeeth, that it is onelyonly money, or money worth, that hereby they fiſh for. The vnity of the church is pretended, when they ſeeke to eſtabliſh moſt their owne tyrāny: the honour and glory of the church (they ſay) they ſeeke, when it is moſt plaine, that it is onelyonly their ovvne glory and honour they care for. In the maintenaunce of their doctrine of tranſubſtantiation, they vvould ſeeme marueilous deuout and religious in vrging of the letter, and in captiuing their ovvne ſences and reaſon thereunto, whereas indeede that courſe they take, that ſo their Prieſtes may grovve to honour and vvealth, vvhiles thereby the people are made beleeue, that they can make and offer their redeemer, for the ſaluation of quicke and deade. Deuotion to the Saints they pretend in teaching, that they are to bee prayed vntounto and vvorſhipped, but therein their deuotion is like vntounto Demetrius his for Diana of Epheſus: for if it were not for the gaynes they get by offerings vntounto their ſhrynes, they vvould not bee ſo hoate therein. Their doctrine of penaunce caries a ſhevv of mortification, but it is but thereby to triumph ouer the people at their pleaſures, and in the ende to make a gaine by changing their penaunce, or by making them to beleeue, that they vvill relieue them by their prayers, pardons, and maſſes. To conclude, I dare bee bolde to ſay, that there is neuer a proper point of popery, but the practiſe and profeſsion of it would quickly grow very cold, if that the maintenance thereof made not, either directly to aduaunce their wordly credit with their followers, or their lucre and commodity. And therefore thou maieſt ſee euen by this (whatſoeuer they bragge of their Church and Religion) that euen for theſe three reaſons, they, both of eueryevery wiſe ſtate, & conſequently alſo of thy ſelfe (Chriſtian Reader) ought to be ſhunned and auoided. Theſe things then, that I hauehave ſaied, well conſidered and remembred, I will now no longer detaine thee from taking a view of that, which (this notwithſtanding) Albine hath writē, either in the defence of this his Religion, or to the diſgrace of ours: requeſting onelyonly this at thy hands, that as thou goeſt, thou wouldeſt take the paines without partiality, to reade and confer that, which I hauehave writen to anſwere him withall, Chapter by Chapter with his booke. And thus hoping that thou wilt doe, I commend thee and thy ſtudy therein, to the direction and good protection of God, & my ſelfe vntounto thy harty praiers vntounto him, in my behalfe.

Thine in the Lord, THOMAS SPARKE.

p. 1A Notable diſcourſe, plainely and truely diſcuſsing, who be the right miniſters of the Catholique Church: writen againſt Caluin and his diſciples, by one Maſter Iohn de Albine, called de Seres, Archdeacon of Toloſſa in France. Duaci. per Iohannem Bellerum. 1575.