IT has been very justly remarked, at the commencement of the Life of Bishop Ridley, [* Life of Bp. Ridley, by Glocester Ridley, LL.B., 4to. 1763.] that, "We often grow insensible of our blessings, merely from the long and uninterrupted possession of them. And this insensibility usually makes us careless of preserving them, till we are again taught to judge of their value, by their loss. Something of this kind, it is to be feared, is our case at present with regard to the Reformation; we have possessed that blessing so long, that we have forgotten to enjoy it. Ignorant of the servitude under which our Fathers groaned, we know not how to relish our own deliverance: the deformities of a superstition two hundred years ago are so far out of sight, as to make us less attentive to the beauties of a Reasonable Service. By these means, we not only reap less pleasure than we might, and produce less fruit than we ought; but we grow less apprehensive of the Tyranny that watches to enslave us, and less zealous to maintain that liberty which our ancestors sacrificed their lives to purchase for us." As there are some reasons for believing that these remarks, which were written nearly a century ago, are not altogether inapplicable to the present time; it may not be uninteresting to give some account of one of the men, who by his exertions and his writings, proved himself to be a most decided opponent of the errors of the Church of Rome, and a most earnest and sincere advocate of pure Christianity.

WILLIAM TURNER, was born at Morpeth in Northumberland, and received his education at Pembroke College, Cambridge. [* "A place noted from the very dawn of the Reformation for scripturists and encouragers of Gospel-learning; and famous of old for the flourishing state of letters in it beyond any other society in Cambridge; as appears from the testimony of the Charter of Henry VI, granting lands to this House, which he calls a celebrated and very valuable College, which is, and always has been in a wonderful degree illustrious among all other places of this University. And it had not lost its credit in Ridley's time; for Queen Elizabeth in her visit to Cambridge, paid a particular regard to that Ancient and Religious House. Ridley gives this account of it in his Farewell; "Thou wast ever named since I knew thee, to be studious and well-learned, and a great setter forth of God's true word. So I found thee, and blessed be God! so I left thee indeed. In thy orchard (the walls, butts, and trees, if they could speak, would bear me witness) I learned without book almost all Paul's Epistles, and the Canonical Epistles too, save only the Apocalypse, of which study, although in time, a great part did depart from me, yet the sweet smell thereof, I trust, I shall carry with me into heaven: for the profit thereof I think I have felt in all my life time ever after. And of late (whether they abide there now or no, I cannot tell) there were, who did the like. The Lord grant that this zeal and love toward that part of God's word, which is a key and true commentary to all Holy Scripture, may ever abide in that College, so long as the world shall endure." Ibid. p. 142.]

While he was an undergraduate, he became a disciple of Mr. Latimer (afterwards Bishop of Worcester, and Martyr at Oxford), whose preaching at Cambridge attracted much attention about that time. [* About that time, Mr. Latimer of Christ's College, had acquired great reputation as a preacher of the new doctrines, and a great outcry was raised by his opponents against his discourses. He chiefly dwelt on the corruptions of the Church which were of immoral tendency. He laboured to shew that true religion is seated in the heart, and that in comparison of it, external service is of little value. About Advent, 1529, he preached in the church of St. Edward, and at the Augustine Friars' some sermons in which he drew his metaphors from cards, and which have been called "the card sermons," wherein he exhorted men to set ye God with the inward heart and true affection, and not [iii/iv] with outward ceremonies. Dr. Buckenham, Prior of the Black Friars, undertook the task of opposing his views, and attempted to shew, by drawing his metaphors from dice, the dangerous tendency of Mr. Latimer's opinions. He inveighed especially against the heretical notion of having the Scriptures in English, and laid open the ill effects of such an innovation. "If that heresy," said he, "should prevail, we should soon see an end of every thing useful among us. The ploughman reading in the Gospel, No man that layeth his hand to the plough, and looketh back, is meet for the kingdom of God, might peradventure cease from his plough. The baker likewise, reading that A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump of dough, may perchance leave our bread unleavened, and so our bodies shall be unseasoned. And the simple man likewise, when he readeth, If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee, may make himself blind, and in a few years we should have the nation full of blind beggars." Mr. Latimer was to preach the next Sunday at St. Edward's church, and when Prior Buckenham had entered the church, with his cowl about his shoulders, and taken his seat before the pulpit, Mr. Latimer, with much gravity, exposed the weakness of the Prior's arguments. He then appealed to the people, and descanted upon the low esteem in which their spiritual guides had always held their understandings, and expressed the wish that his honest countrymen might only have the use of the Scriptures till they shewed themselves as absurd interpreters of them as their spiritual guides. He concluded his discourse with some observations on the metaphors used in Scripture. A figurative manner of speech, he said, was common in all languages, and is generally understood. Thus, for instance, said he, when we see a fox painted in a friar's hood, nobody imagines that a fox is meant: but that craft and hypocrisy are described, which are so often found disguised in that garb. Gilpin's Life of Bp. Latimer, in the Lives of the Reformers, pp. 343, &c.]

After his admission to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, he was elected a Fellow of his College, in the year 1531. While still a Bachelor of Arts, he was appointed, in 1532, Junior Treasurer of his College. According to Bale, he was very handsome in person, and both witty and facetious, and withal a sound and elegant scholar. While he was a resident Fellow at Pembroke College, some events took place at Cambridge, which promoted the Reformation. A public disputation was held on the questions:--"Whether the Pope had, granted him by God in the Scriptures, any greater authority or power in this kingdom than any other foreign bishop?" The question was determined in the negative, and this decision was confirmed by the votes of the Senate [* Dr. Lamb's Cambridge Documents.] on May 2, 1534. Henry VIII appointed Cromwell visitor of the University in 1536, and issued certain injunctions to be observed. Among other things, it was ordered, That all Divinity lectures should be upon the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, according to the true sense thereof: and that all students should be permitted to read the Scriptures privately, or to repair to public lectures upon them. Next followed the surrender and dissolution of the monasteries in 1537, and in the following year the Bible in English was ordered by the King to be set up in Churches, and permission was granted for all persons to read the Scriptures. In the midst of these events, Turner obtained the degree of Master of Arts in 1536, and in 1538 was appointed Senior Treasurer of his College. He continued his residence there till the year 1540, and applied himself to the study both of Physic and Theology. According to Baker the Antiquary, he obtained a title for Deacon's Orders from his College, March 20, 1536, but did not receive Priest's Orders till December 21, 1552, at the hands of Bishop Ridley. Bale states that he never submitted to the tonsure.

When he was a [iv/v] young man, so great was his zeal for the truth of the Gospel and for a Reformation, that he travelled through many parts of the nation, and preached the word of God in towns, villages, and cities, for which he was imprisoned and kept in close confinement for a considerable time. He appears to have had the kindly sympathy of his College, in his troubles, as we learn from an entry in the Accounts of Pembroke College for the year 1542, which states, that Dr. Ridley the Master, and the Fellows, sent to Mr. Turner the sum of 22s. 8d., ex dono benevolentiae. This kindly act on their part, most probably was made to relieve his necessities when he was in prison. [* "In Pembroke College I was for many years his companion, and in our theological exercises his opponent. . . . As to his memory and manifold knowledge of arts and languages, though I might myself be an abundant witness (for he first instructed me in a fuller knowledge of the Greek language), yet beyond my testimony almost all Cambridge men, to whom he was well enough known, will and can bear witness to it. How strong he was in confuting or overthrowing any [false] argument, yet without any vain glory or parade of his learning, not only I, but all those who encountered him, plainly felt, unless indeed those whom he deemed more eager for glory than is meet (for such he repressed). In his manners he was most placid and saintly, yet without any hypocrisy or monastic severity; for very often he would exercise himself with me both with the bow and at hand ball.

Of his beneficence towards the poor, if there were no other witness, I desire to bear my public testimony, that before he had arrived at any ecclesiastical dignity, he would take me with him to the nearest hospital, and when I had not wherewithal to give to the poor, he, in addition to what he largely for his means distributed, would often supply me with somewhat to bestow upon them. How much assistance, even when in prison, he sent out of England to us who were exiles in Germany, that most learned man, and, as it were, his fidus Achates, Doctor Edmund Grindall, now bishop of London, can testify, and many others who were relieved by his liberality. Such a kind of man, then, as this was--most learned, most chaste, and in every sense most holy--what fierce, inclement, and cruel persons did England at that time contain; as well sovereigns as bishops; who taking counsel together, conspired his death and gave him up to the torturers to be burned, for no other crime than because against the Roman antichrist he asserted for Christ, as very man, a fixed, and not a shifting seat in heaven; and on earth the supreme government. . . . I greatly regret that the book of that most holy martyr Thorp is not edited in the old English, which was in general use at the time in which he lived. For so great an admirer am I of antiquity, that I could ill bear treasures of such antiquity to perish from among us." Extract from Dr. Turner's letter to Fox, printed in Appendix III. to Bishop Ridley's Works. Edited by H. Christmas, M.A.]

Some time afterwards having obtained his liberty and being banished, or escaping out of prison, he travelled into Italy, and at Ferrara was created Doctor of Medicine, and was in as great esteem there for this faculty, as he afterwards became, when he returned into England. In the latter part of the reign of King Henry VIII., he lived at Cologne and in other parts of Germany, where he published several Treatises.

On the accession of King Edward VI., in 1547, he returned to England, and in 1548 was appointed domestic physician to Edward, Duke of Somerset, the Lord Protector. The Archbishop of York gave him the Prebend of Botevant in that city, and the king honoured him by appointing him one of the Canons of Windsor. So great was the esteem of his merit, and the regard paid to him on account of his former sufferings. In 1550 the king also preferred him to the Deanery of Wells, about which time he was incorporated M.D. at Oxford.

After Queen Mary came to the crown, in 1553, he was deprived of his preferments and forced to flee into Germany. He travelled to Rome and at last settled at Basle. The people of that city were especially very kind and courteous unto such English as took shelter there from persecution.

When Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne, in 1558, he returned to England, and was restored to his preferments. He was in high esteem for his great abilities in both faculties, and the benefit he did thereby, [v/vi] especially by his writings to the Church and Commonwealth, as will appear from the titles of the books of which he was the author.

[* A Translation into English of the Work of Urbanus Regius, entitled, "The Old Learning and the New compared together, whereby it may easily be knowen which of them is better and more agreying with the everlasting Word of God." 8vo. Southwark, 1537: 1538: 1548.

The Huntyng and Finding out of the Romish Fox, &c. 8vo. Basyl, 1543. [Published in the name of William Wraughton; a translation perhaps of William Turner.]

Historia de Naturis Herbarum Scholiis et notis vallata, 8vo. Colon. 1544.

Avium Pracipuarum, quarum apud Plinium et Aristotelem mentio est, Brevis et Succincta Historia. 12mo. Colon, 1543.

The Names of Herbes in Greke, Latin, Englishe, Duche, and Frenche, with the common names that Herbaries and Apotecaries use. 12mo. London, 1548.

The Second Course of the Hunter at the Romish Fox and hys advocate and sworn patron Steven Gardiner, Doctor, and defender of the Pope's Canon Law and hys ungodly ceremonies. 8vo. Winchester, 1545. A reply to The Rescuing of the Romish Fox, otherwise called, the Examination of the Hunter, devised by Steven Gardiner.

A Preservative, or Triacle against the poyson of Pelagius, &c. 12mo. Lond. 1551.

A New Herball, wherin are conteyned the names of Herbes in Greke, Latin, Englysh, Duch, Frenche, and in the Potecaries and Herbaries Latin, with the properties, degrees, and natural places, of the same, gathered and made by Wylliam Turner, Phisicion unto the Duke of Somersettes Grace. The First Part. fol. London, 1551.

The Huntyng of the Romyshe Wolfe. 8vo. no place, 1554 (?).

A New Dialogue wherein is conteyned the Examinacion of the Messe, and of that kynde of the priesthode which is ordayned to say Messe, and to offre up for remyssion of synne, the body and bloude of Christe agayne. 8vo. no date nor place.

The Huntyng of the Fox and Wolfe because they did make havock of the sheep of Jesus Christ. 8vo.

A New Booke of Spirituall Physik for dyverse diseases of the Nobility and Gentlemen of England. 8vo. Rome, 1555.

An Account of Fishes in the British seas, (in a letter to Gesner) printed in Vol. II. of his Historia Animalium. 1557.

The Seconde Parte of William Turner's Herball, Fol. Collen. [Cologne] 1562.

A Boke of the natures and properties, as well of the bathes in England as of other bathes in Germany and Italy. Fol. Collen. 1562. The dedication bears date of 15 Feb. 1560, at London.

The third part of William Turner's Herball, wherein are contayned the herbes, rootes, fruytes, whereof is no mention made of Dioscorides, Galene, Plinye, and other old authors. Fol. Collen. 1566. It is dedicated to the Company of Surgeons from Wells, June 24, 1564.

A New Boke of the nature and properties of all Wines that are commonly used here in England, &c. Whereunto is annexed the boke of the nature and vertues of Triacles. 8vo. London, 1568.

The First and Seconde Partes of the Herball of William Turner, lately oversene, corrected, and enlarged, with the thirde Parte lately gathered and now set oute, &c. Hereunto is joyned also, A Boke of the Bath of Baeth in England, and of the vertues of the same, with diverse other bathes &c. Fol. Collen. 1568.

In addition to these, there are several other pieces of Dr Turner's mentioned by Bale and Tanner.]

He was once a member of the House of Commons, as appears from the following passage in his Spirituall Physik, fol. 44. "But ye that are right shapen gentlemen, and not vain braggers of nobility, I trust will follow the right and true Christian gentlemen, whereof Luke maketh mention in the xvii. Acts, in these words: Hi erant summo genere nati inter eos qui erant Thessaloniae,, qui receperunt [vi/vii] sermovem, cum omni animi promptitudine, quotidie scrutantes scripturas an haec ita se haberent. These were of a noble birth, or of the chiefest of the nobility, amongst them that were in Thessalonica, who cheerfully, or with all readiness of mind, received the word, and searched daily the Scripture, whether these things were so or no; that is, whether Paul's doctrine and sayings were agreeing with the Scripture or no. Now as many as will be indeed, what they are called, that is, right noblemen and gentlemen, let them follow these right Christian gentlemen, and take them for a pattern to follow, and then shall they be able to give right judgment in matters of religion that are at this time in controversy. But if they will not follow these gentlemen, but will be wilfully blind, and suffer themselves to be led, whithersoever it shall please their blind guides to lead them, they may as well tarry at home, as come to the Parliament House, to sit there, except they will either sleep, or else tell the clock, whilst learned men dispute the matters that are in contention, as I have seen some gentlemen of the first head do, when I was a burgess of late, of the lower House."

Dr. Turner married Jane, the daughter of George Auder, an alderman of Cambridge. They had several children, one of them, Peter, became a distinguished physician. On the 7th July, 1568, after a life of no ordinary labours, trials and sufferings, Dr. William Turner departed this life in peace, and was buried in the Chancel of St Olave's Church, Hart Street, London. Against the south-east wall is a mural monument [* At present more than one-half of the inscription is still covered by a part of the supports of one of the galleries built by Dr. Dodd a former rector.] erected to his memory, with this inscription :

Clarissimo, Doctissimo, Sanctissimoque viro,
Gulielmo Turnero, Medico, et Theologo peritissi-
mo, Decano Wellensi, qui, per annos triginta in utraque
scientia exercitatissimus, Ecclesiae et Reipublicae
profuit, et contra utriusque perniciosissimos hos-
tes, maxime vero Romanum Antichristum fortissimus
Jesu Christi miles acerrime dimicavit, ac tandem cor-
pus senio, ac laboribus confectum in spem beatissimae
Resurrectionis hic deposuit Jana Turnera conjugi
Charissimo ejusque sanctissimae memoriae posuit. Devictis,
Christi virtute, Mundi, Carnisque omnibus copiis, triumphat in aeternum.

Magnus Apollinei quondam Turnerus in Arte,
Magnus et in vera Relligione fuit.
Mors tamen obrepens majorem reddidit illum,
Civis enim coeli regna supema tenet.

Obiit VII. die Julii An. Dni. MDLXVIII.

His widow was afterwards married to Dr. Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely, who had a considerable share in framing the Book of Common Prayer. After she became a widow the second time, on the death of Bishop Cox in 1572, she assigned to the Master and Fellows of Pembroke College, from her lands at Knapwell in Boxworth, an annual [vii/viii] payment of L3. 6s. 8d.; for the maintenance of a scholar there, in perpetual remembrance of William Turner, her former husband.

In speaking of Dr. Turner's scientific character, regard must be had to the state of science in England at the time he lived. He observes in the prologue of his complete work on Herbs: "I am able to prove by good witnesses that I have, above 30 years ago, written an herbal in Latin, wherein were contained the Greek, Latin, and English names of so many herbs and trees as I could get any knowledge of, even being yet fellow of Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, where as I could learn never one Greek* neither Latin nor English name, even amongst the physicians, of any herb or tree: such was the ignorance in simples at that time; and as yet there was no English Herbal but one [The Grete Herball, 1526] all full of unlearned cacographies and false naming of herbs."

[* John Cheke, M.A., of St John's College, was appointed by the Founder, King Henry VIII., in 1540, the first King's Professor of Greek at Cambridge. The lectures of the new Professor were successful in promoting both the study and a more correct mode of reading that language, which had hitherto been little known or understood in England. But there was a party in the University, who disliking any thing that was new, and dreading alterations, and blindly admitting every thing that was old, would by no means allow of this pronunciation, but opposed it with all their might, by disputing against it, and at last, by complaining to Dr Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, the Chancellor of the University, against Cheke and his adherents, for this great misdemeanour. Who being of the same mind with the complainants, and fearing innovations more than was need, made a solemn decree, dated the Calends of June, 1542, confirming the old corrupt sounding of Greek, and enforcing the Scholars to make no variation, and that upon these pains, viz. If he were a Regent, to be expelled out of the Senate; if he stood for a degree, not to be admitted to it; if a Scholar, to lose his Scholarship; and the younger sort to be chastised. And, in short, the decree ran, "That none should philosophize at all in sounds, but all use the present. And that if any thing were to be corrected in them, let it all be left to authority." Strype's Life of Sir Johan Cheke, p. 15.]

Dr Turner was one of the earliest Cambridge men who wrote on the Natural Sciences in English. His works exhibit convincing evidence that he was a careful observer and an honest interpreter of the works of nature both in the sciences of Botany and Zoology. His Herbal is his greatest work. It contains an alphabetical arrangement of plants according to their Latin names, and exhibits much laborious research and critical judgment in the knowledge of plants and trees then known, as well as their medical properties, especially such as were unknown to the ancients. In the Prologue to the First Part of his Herbal, after naming some doctors better qualified than himself to set forth a Herbal in English, for the honor of this realm, and apologizing for his undertaking so arduous a task, he remarks: "For whom I have no other excuse; but that some would and durst not; some would and durst, but they had no leisure; some, being wise men, thought it more wisdom to be a judge of all men's writings and labours, than by writing, to come under the judgment and correction of all men: to answer to all whatsoever should be laid unto their charge, namely; when there cometh no profit, but the jeopardy of a man's [viii/ix] estimation, by such writing and setting out herbals, or any other book, be they never so learned or profitable." And again he proceeds: "And so is there no man, that hath been hitherto so good unto his country as to adventure or take the pains to set out any Herbal. I therefore, darker in name, and far under these men in knowledge, for the love that I bear unto my country, and at the commandment of your grace, my lord and master, I have set one part of a great Herbal more boldly than wisely, and with more jeopardy of my name than with profit to my purse, as I know by divers other books which I have set out before this time, both in English and in Latin. I have in this book taught the Latin name, the Greek, the English name, the Duche, and the French name, most commonly of every herb that I write of. I declare also the virtues of every herb, and shew the place where I have seen it, lest I should seem to be one of them that write of things which they never saw." In further description of his course of proceeding, in the Prologue to the complete work he states: "I went into Italy, and into divers parts of Germany, to know and see the herbs myself, and to know by practice, their powers and working, not trusting only to the old herb-wives and apothecaries (as many physicians have done of late years), but in the matter of simples, mine own eyes and knowledge." And again: "Many things that were thought strange both unto English men and Germans, were neither strange nor unknown unto me, because I had learned the same before of my masters in Italy, and namely of Lucas Gynus, the reader of Dioscorides in Bonony." During his residence in Switzerland, he contracted a friendship with Gesner, and afterwards kept up a correspondence with him. Gesner had a high opinion of Dr. Turner, as a physician and a man of general learning, whose equal, he says, he scarcely remembered. Dr. Bulleyn, his contemporary, remarks, that "Dr. Turner's Book on Herbs will always grow green, and never wither, as long as Dioscorides is held in mind by us mortal wights." Dr. Pulteney observes, that "When we regard the time in which Dr Turner lived, and the little assistance he could derive from his contemporaries, he will appear to have exhibited uncommon diligence and great erudition, and fully to deserve the character of an original writer." And Ray, that most highly distinguished naturalist, was so sensible of the worth of Dr. Turner, as to style him, "a man of solid erudition and judgment." [* Historical and Biographical Sketches of the Progress of Botany in England, by R. Pulteney, M.D. F.R.S. 2 Vols. 8vo. 1790.]

The following passage from the dedication of his Book on Baths, shews that Dr. Turner was not ignorant that experiment, and not prescription, forms the only sure basis of all sound conclusions in medical science: "After that I had been in Italy and Germany, and had seen there divers natural baths, and was called by your father's Grace, at that time, the Duke of Somerset, and Protector of his nephew King [ix/x] Edward VI., our most Christian Lord and Governor, into England to his service; after that I had heard tell that there was a natural bath within your father's dukedom: I ceased not until I got license to go to see the same bath; which done, I carried certain diseased persons with me, with whom I tarried as long as I could, and tried, for the shortness of the time (for I had very short time granted me) the nature and working of it. And after being Dean of Wells, which place is not far from Bath, and having liberty to tarry there so long as I list, I tried the same baths a little further, and found it by experience, that they were a very excellent treasure, but unworthily esteemed and judged of all men, and mainly of such as have most plenty of other treasure, but not to be compared with these precious gifts of God." The Book on baths is concluded with a set of general rules for all who drink mineral waters, many of which, Dr. Pulteney says, do him no discredit, when compared with the injunctions of modern physicians.

With regard to Dr Turner's character, Fuller, in his "Worthies of England," writes: "Reader, I conceive him worthy of thy special notice, because he was both a Confessor and Physician; qualifications which meet not every day in the same person." On the other hand, Anthony a Wood, the Oxford Antiquary, [* Athenae Oxoniensis, edited by Bliss. 4to. 1813. Vol. I. p. 361.] describes Dr. Turner as "a noted and forward theologist and physician of his time." "This person," he writes, "who was very conceited of his own worth, hot-headed, a busy-body, and much addicted to the opinions of Luther, would needs in the height of his study of physic, turn theologist, but always refused the usual ceremonies to be observed in order to his being made priest: and whether he had orders conferred upon him according to the Roman Catholic manner, appears not. . . . In Oxon, at the same time and after, following his old trade of preaching without a call, he was imprisoned and kept in close durance for a considerable time." This unfavourable judgment of Dr. Turner's character is somewhat inconsistent with the candour of the venerable antiquary. It may not be uninteresting to attempt to point out some causes which may have exercised an influence in warping his judgment with respect to Dr. Turner. Anthony a Wood, when a youth, was of retired habits, of a gloomy disposition, and much given to melancholy. He was averse to philosophical studies, and became most devoted to the study of antiquities. Such pursuits are calculated rather to cultivate the taste than to invigorate the reason; and however diligent he was in collecting, and recording what he had collected (and in these respects his labours were marvellous), he appears not to have been equally successful in exercising a sound and critical judgment. The possession of large attainments is quite compatible with unsoundness of judgment. There are besides in his writings indications of a feeling of hostility towards the memory of such men as favoured the principles of the Reformation. [x/xi] He lived in times of discord and confusion, when the Monarchy was overturned for more than ten years; and it is not unlikely that those of his friends who assisted him in his work, and who regarded the Reformation as an evil, would charge the troubles of the time on the men who promoted the Reformation. In almost similar terms the Antiquary speaks of Bishop Cox [* We are told, that the King said to Cardan, the learned foreigner that came to wait upon him, "That he had two masters, Diligence and Moderation;" meaning Cheke for the former, and Cox for the latter. Strype's Life of Cheke, p. 149.], one of the Preceptors of Edward VI, describing him as "being notoriously known to be a follower and abettor of the opinions of Luther."

If a man be conceited, or overbearing, it is almost certain to appear in his writings at some unguarded moment. In Dr. Turner's writings we do not find indications of these qualities, but, on the contrary, the expression of a modest opinion of his own labours, such as might be expected from a man who aimed at being useful.

If to be learned in languages and a most indefatigable student of God's word and God's works, and to be earnest and active that his countrymen might reap the benefit of his researches--subject Dr. Turner to the charge of forwardness, he certainly does fall under the charge in that sense of the word. He did not however rashly rush into print as an author, on his admission to the degree of B.A.

With respect to Mr. Turner's preaching, it is difficult at this day to understand why a fellow of a College in deacon's orders, might not preach without censure, in any part of the Kingdom. There is little doubt, that it was not simply the fact of his preaching, so much as his preaching the truth of the Gospel, and exposing the gross corruptions of the Church at that time, which were the grounds of offence to the authorities of the Church, and the crime for which he was condemned to imprisonment. What Paley remarks of the first preachers of Christianity, in reference to heathen men in authority, appears to be generally applicable:--that all teachers of opinions different from such as are established, are generally treated as "busy and troublesome zealots," as agitators, as men who would turn the world upside down. It matters not whether the opinions are true or false, with men whose policy is to maintain things as they are, right or wrong, and to punish directly or indirectly all who may presume to differ from them. For instance, the great moral philosopher of Athens, on account of his teaching, was persecuted and condemned to death as an atheist and a corrupter of youth. And we may add further, that even the Son of God himself, when upon earth, was condemned to death as a blasphemer, by the heads of the Jewish Church, who had become impatient of his pure lessons and pure life. They carried their malicious purpose into effect, by alleging the false charge of treason, and inducing the civil governor, even against his own judgment, to accede to their clamour, and that of the rabble for his crucifixion!

Whether these remarks are appropriate to the point in question or [xi/xii] not, it is clear that contemporaries of Dr. Turner entertained a different estimate of his character. Fox, in his Acts and Monuments, describes Dr. Turner as "a man whose authority is neither to be neglected, nor his credit despised;" and Dr. John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich, in a letter of date Aug. 4, 1568, thus writes "On the 13th July, Dr. William Turner, a good physician, and an excellent man, died at London." [Zurich Letters, p. 206. Edited by Dr. Robinson]

But let Dr Turner speak for himself. He thus opens the preface to his New Dialogue on the Mass: [* The names of the speakers in this dialogue are, mistress Missa, master Knowledge, master Fremouth, master Justice of the peace, Peter Preco the cryer, Palaemon the judge, Dr. Porphyry, Sir Philip Philargyry. Of which two last, the former represents a doctor of the Canon Law, and the latter a doctor of Divinity and priest, Missa's great friends and patrons. Mr. Knowledge describes her abuses; Fremouth accuses her. Mr. Justice of the peace is hasty to execute the law upon Fremouth, for speaking against her. Afterwards, all apply to Palaemon a wise judge for his decision. And he having at good length fully heard all parties, in the end finds mistress Missa guilty, and pronounceth his judgment against her in these words: "These men, thy accusers have brought forth sufficient evidence and witness, that thou art not of GOD, that thou art contrary and an enemy unto the Holy Scriptures, and an idolatress, making a god of consecrated bread and wine, and that to the great injury of Christ's passion, thou offerest up Christ again, and as much as lieth in thee, killest him a thousand times in one year. Wherefore thou hast deserved death, and art worthy to be burned. But lest thy father's generation, the papists, should say, that we are as desirous of blood-shedding, as they were, when they bare the swing, I command thee on the pain of burning to pack thee out of this realm with all thy bag and baggage within these eight days, and go to thy father the Pope with all the speed that thou canst, and say, that there is in England no more place for him, neither for any of his generation." Strype's Eccles. Mem. p. 138.] "Although it be not belonging unto my profession to dispute of matters of Divinity who am a Physician: yet extreme necessity requiring, I am compelled to do in this kind of war, as cobblers, shoemakers, masons, carpenters, and all other men of handy occupations, are compelled to do, when their city is besieged, to take weapons in their hands and become warriors, who have had little or no experience of war before. Now if that (when a city is besieged) every man that is a faithful citizen ought to do the best that he can to defend his city, and to overcome the enemies of the same: who will blame me, which am no professor of Divinity, when as the city of God, whereof I am a sworn citizen, is besieged with so great hosts of Popish warriors, if I play in this time of need, the divine warrior, to defend the foresaid city, and endeavour myself to overcome the enemies of the same. The enemies of our city are they who take away by violence the godly and necessary ordinances of our city, and would by force thrust into our city, laws of their own making, contrary unto the laws of our lawmaker, which builded our city and died for the liberty of the same. Such enemies are the bishop of Rome, and all popish prelates and priests who mangle and minish, yea, rob and many ways deface the most comfortable common seal of our salvation and redemption--the Holy Sacrament of Christ's body and blood: and in the stead of the same, set in a mere man's invention, a certain popish play, which they call the meritorious mass, bearing us in hand, that they can do with it as much as our Redeemer Christ could do with his most blessed passion, [xii/xiii] which thing I judge to be greatly to the dishonour of Christ, that is, that our most comfortable common seal of our liberty and. redemption, should be mangled and robbed, and for the most part of the whole year, taken from us, and that the work of a man should be made equal with the work of our Lord and Lawmaker, which is both God and man: I could do no less therefore but write this book to defend the blessed ordinance of our Lord and Redeemer, and wrestle a little with the wicked man's ordinances, to help to drive them out of the Church, our city, and to restore the ordinance of our Saviour into the Church again. I know that many will be offended, and take it very grievously that I should write of this matter, and I look for none other, but some shall call me knave and heretic for my labour taken in this matter. Some will there be also of Satan's side which never can be satiate with blood, which will desire to have my blood, as divers in England, at this day yet living, have done: God forgive them. And the same, if that their cruelties were not repressed and holden down with the higher powers, which are maintainers of all truth and honesty, would not leave alive in this realm, one of my judgment, that use either to write or to preach against such men's inventions, as at this time I do write against: but I care not for these horseleaches, trusting that he that hath so often delivered me from the hands of mine enemies, will either save me from them at this time also, or else, if it be his pleasure, that I shall lose my life for his name's sake, I shall be sure to find it again."

And again, in the dedication of his work against the errors of Pelagius to Bp. Latimer, he thus addresses him:--"First in Cambridge about twenty years ago, ye took great pains to put men from their will works, as pilgrimage and setting up of candles; and with great labour ye brought many from them unto the works that God commanded in his Holy Scripture: and to the reading and study of God's word; all dreams and unprofitable glosses of men set aside and utterly despised. Then this foundation of God's word once laid, we that were your disciples, had much to do in Cambridge, after your departing from us, with them that defended praying unto saints, justification of works, holy water, living of parsons from their benefices, provision for purgatory, the single living of ministers, and the superstitious choice of meats, and many such other doctrines contrary unto the Scripture. . . . But after I was eased from all these monsters, by the help principally of Almighty God, and by the aid of the King and his council, I thought to have been at good rest and quietness from contentious strivings, wherewith I had been much troubled in times past, and had fully purposed to have set all my ordinance against gross vices and naughty living of the people in this realm." And further on, he proceeds, alluding to his former sufferings and imprisonment for preaching the word of God: "Some men, peradventure, will say, that if I would, I might have avoided all these perils; if I would have meddled with my physic only, and not have cumbered myself with matters of divinity, and that I am therefore well worthy of this trouble. To whom I answer, that if I [xiii/xiv] had had such a conscience, as too many now-a-days have, to take the dignities, rewards, and livings of Christ's Church, and to do nothing for them, and if that I had not thought it better, that one man should run into jeopardy than that many thousands should have been poisoned with the poison of Pelagius, I might easily have avoided this perilous labour. But after that my lord Archbishop of York had once given me a prebend; I could not be quiet, until that I had license to read or preach. Which obtained, I began to read, and so to discharge my conscience."

He did not sacrifice his more solemn duties to his favourite pursuits, as appears from what he states in the dedication of the third part of his Herbal, which is dated from Wells, June 24, 1564. "Being so much vexed with sickness, and occupied with preaching, and the study of Divinity, and exercise of discipline, I have had but small leisure to write herbals." With all his preferments he appears not to have amassed riches. He was neither parsimonious nor avaricious. At his deanery at Wells he had a botanical garden, of which frequent mention is made in his Herbal, and another at Kew. He spared neither his labour nor, his purse in attempting to dispel the ignorance of his fellow countrymen both with respect to divine and human knowledge.

It also appears that Dr. Turner did not hold himself so highly exalted as to despise those beneath him in rank. He felt it no derogation from his dignity as Dean of Wells and Canon of Windsor, to recognise humble merit. For he wrote an address to the Christian reader, in commendation of a work translated from the Latin, by Robert Hutten, his scholar sometime, and servant, entitled The Summe of Divinitie. It was printed in 1567.

The indications of a grateful heart not unmindful of past kindness appear in his Books. In the dedication of Part II. of his Herbal to Sir Thomas Wentworth, he asks:--"And who hath deserved better to have my book of Herbs to be given to him, than he, whose father with his yearly exhibition did help me, being student in Cambridge, of physic and philosophy, whereby with some further help and study, I am come to this poor knowledge of Herbs and other simples that I now have? Wherefore I dedicate unto you this my little book." He dedicated the First Part of the Herbal, to the Duke of Somerset, "Because," he says, "your grace hath always borne so great favour and good will unto me, before I was called to your grace's service." And after the fall of the Duke, he dedicated the Second Part to his son. In a like strain he acknowledges his gratitude in the dedication of the whole work, to Queen Elizabeth:--"As touching the benefits I have received of your Majesty, I must confess that for the obtaining of certain sureties and defending of myself against them that troubled me unjustly, ye have at the least, four times holpen me with your letters patent, sealed with the great seal of England, and also restored me unto the Deanery of Wells, both by the deprivation of the usurper of it that held me out, and admitting of me as the only lawful Dean of Wells by your appointed commissioners and judges delegate again. Wherefore [xiv/xv] your Majesty hath largely deserved to have a great deal worthier gift for the greatness and manifoldness of the benefits that ye have bestowed upon me your poor subject."

Dr. Gilbert Berkeley the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and Dr. Turner the Dean, did not hold the same views respecting the use of vestments. The language of the Dean on this subject, as well as his preaching, seem to have been displeasing to the bishop, who wrote a letter of complaint [* Phelps's Hist. of Somersetshire. 4to. Vol. II. pp. 124, 125. Strype's Memorial of Abp. Parker, p.151.] to Sir William Cecil, the secretary of Queen Elizabeth at that time, and requested his interference. Whether Cecil wrote to the Dean does not appear: it is however scarcely probable, if Dr. Turner's offences had been serious, that Queen Elizabeth would have interfered at four different times to relieve him from the annoyance of his adversaries, who were envious of his good fame and jealous of his influence. It is a fact,--that within two months after the date of the bishop's letter to Cecil, the Queen by her letters patent, dated May 8, 1563, granted to William Turner, then Dean of Wells, the Rectory of Wedmore.

Dr. Turner was strongly averse to the use of the square cap, tippet and surplice; and in fact, to every thing which formed any part of the Romish Ceremonial. He did not perceive that things indifferent, such as vestments, which are not "matters of faith and practice," may be changed and altered at the discretion of those who have the rule of the Church, and that it is the duty of all men, orderly to submit themselves to such regulations as are framed according to the Apostolic injunction:--"Let all things be done decently and in order."

Without defending his conduct in opposing what was allowed and ordered by proper authority, the circumstances of the times ought not to be forgotten. The Council of Trent closed its deliberations in 1563, the abettors of popery about that time were very busy over the whole kingdom,--and an opinion extensively prevailed, that without the use of the vestments in religious services, there could be no holiness in any part of them: it is not therefore surprising to find Dr. Turner opposing such usages, which, as he thought, tended to favour the return of the old superstition. He knew the insidious nature of the evil and the untiring efforts of its promoters, and dreaded even the relics of Romish idolatry. That such was his fear appears from the following extract of his letter to Bullinger, July 23, 1566: [* Zurich Letters. Second Series. p. 124] "Whether you are of opinion that princes or ecclesiastical prelates, whom you call principal ministers, have authority to obtrude upon the pastors of churches, against their will, under pain of deprivation and imprisonment, certain prescribed habits and corresponding ceremonies, whether borrowed from the heathen, or transferred from the Levitical Law, or invented or approved by the Pope, and destined and employed for the furtherance of idolatry, without offence to Christian liberty and manifest injury to the Church."

Moreover, the severe irony employed by Dr. Turner in exposing idolatry and corruptions of holy things, may perchance subject him to the [xv/xvi] charge of "a want of reverence." He however had learned from the prophet of old "who was very jealous for the Lord God of Hosts," that God visits idolatry as a national sin. It doubtless appeared to Dr. Turner, justifiable, to employ irony to convince men of the peril of idolatry, when they would not be convinced by God's law, as the same prophet had employed more than 2400 years before, when the people of Israel and their rulers had become worshippers of Baal.

These remarks perhaps may seem sufficient to afford some grounds for the opinion that the Oxford Antiquary did not understand the character of Dr. Turner, nor his motives of action. He seems to have drawn his opinion from the letter of Bishop Berkeley to Cecil. Whatever the Dean's faults may have been, none of his enemies has breathed the slightest whisper against the purity and consistency of his life. His life was one continuous act of self-sacrifice. He felt no apprehensions that another's distinction would lessen his own importance. He was a man of decision of character, and a firm and uncompromising advocate of truth. He wrote and spoke in strong language--not too strong, however, for reproving the vices of the age or exposing the corruptions of the Church at that time. He firmly maintained the supremacy of the Sovereign and the liberty of the subject against Popish invasion. He did not cultivate that plausible dissimulation which men, dexterous in mere carnal policy, can so easily assume. He had nothing of that neutral coolness in his nature which could allow shams to pass for realities either in science or religion. He was of too clear a head, and of too honest a heart to be content with less than the same truthfulness and consistency which he found in the word and works of God. The same earnest, truth-seeking, truth-loving spirit which directed his enquiries in the works of nature, directed also his labours in searching out and making known the meaning of God's Revelation. He well knew that Revelation to be a remedial scheme for the restoration of the moral and spiritual nature of man: and it may be remarked, that all his writings on theological subjects are directed to expose the devices of men, who would render that remedy ineffectual, by the substitution of human traditions.

The love of truth, pure, simple and profound,
Dwells in the truly great of every age;
A love, by no mean, selfish interests bound,
But deeper found when persecutions rage:
A guiding star, in error's darkest night,
Though clouds of prejudice obscure its light.
Look on the past,--those champions firm and bold,
Despised, contemned, the bigot's ceaseless scorn;
They sought for truth, as misers seek for gold,
They hailed it as night-watchers greet the morn:
A lamp on every grave let memory keep,
They sowed the blessed seeds whose fruits we reap*.
[* Sketches of Character, &c., by A. H. Potts. p. 138.]

** The thanks of the Editor are especially due to the courtesy of Dr. Ainslie, the Master of Pembroke College, for his permission to use the MSS. preserved in the Master's Lodge: and to Professor Stokes, for kindly furnishing the Extracts from those MSS. which have formed the basis of the preceding Memoir of Dr Turner.

ALTHOUGH, since the time that I was a child, I have been more brought up in learning than in hunting, and have, therefore, no great skill or experience in hunting: yet the love that I bear unto my natural country compelleth me at this time, Most Excellent and Victorious Prince, to be a hunter; to hunt and find out a certain cruel beast, which both hath done, and doth yet still, much harm in your realm, and killeth both young and old--all that he can come by. This beast hath lost his name in England, but never a deal of his cruel conditions. This same beast have ye earnestly gone about, in word, writing and working, as much as one man is able to do, to drive out of your realm: but the hounds that ye set to do this deed, were and are, of the same kind and lineage that the wild beast is of: therefore they bark at him for a face, but they bite not. They make a pretence as if they would worry him, and yet, when he is in jeopardy of being taken, they help to cover him with the skins of tame beasts, that the proverb may have place, "One dog will not eat of another dog's flesh: neither will one wolf eat of another." These hounds love this beast so well, that if they can catch any other hound pursuing him which is of another kind, than they be off, that is, to wit, if he have not a pair of prick ears standing up, one before, and another behind; they will never rest till they see the heart's blood of the other hound. They tender this beast so entirely, and would so fain have him unknown, for fear that your Highness should kill him if he were known, that they bear all men in hand that there is no such beast in all your realm, and punish them with many kinds of death that dare say that there is any such beast in England. But if ye will, of your own kingly liberality, grant me licence to call all that the Pope hath made, ordained, and decreed, the Pope's traditions, ordinances, and decrees, I shall so hunt out this beast, and discover him, that all your whole realm may spy him, and see him, and know him, what he is, what is his name, and where he lurketh. This once brought to pass, it shall be more easy for your Highness to accomplish, and bring to pass, your godly purpose, which is, and ever hath been, since ye knew his conditions, to drive this beast out of all places of your dominion. I desire also your kingly Highness, that ye will not suffer this my doing to be condemned of the bishops, till your own learned discretion has [5/6] tried it, and examined it with the Word of God, and with the light of your reason and learning: and then, if my hunting be found contrary to the Word of God, so soon as ye find it so, let my hunting be forbidden, and not before, I beseech you, for the love of the King of Heaven, which save and keep you from all your enemies, both bodily and ghostly. Amen.

From Basyl, the first day of May. Anno Domini, 1543.

THE common sort of foxes, knowing that they cannot choose but be pursued for their murder that they daily do, and intend to commit, have holes, either in the ground, or in great rocks, where, as they think, they may be in safeguard, and whereto they may flee for succour, when they that have the harm done unto them and theirs, do pursue after them. But this, for that I follow after and hunt at this time, as he is of another kind of foxes than the common sort be, that is, to wit, a Romish fox and a mankiller, for fear that he should be digged out of the ground, if he hid himself in the common fox-holes. Now when certain scholars of Cambridge and of Oxford, even straightway after that he had killed certain of their fellows, followed him to have catched him, and he ran, with all the speed that he might, into the church; and, when the scholars would have followed him into the church, the bishops and priests beat them out again, and so came the scholars back again with bloody pates, and durst no more seek the fox in the church; for the bishops and the clergy set up straightway on the church door, a letter wherein it was contained, that, from thenceforth, no man should seek the fox any more there, and that no man should call that Romish fox, a fox, but the King's beast. And yet the bishops had the advantage of the beast, as a certain scholar had of a fox in Cambridge. The scholar had a tame fox in his chamber, where, as he made him a hole behind a hollow bench, the fox went out in the night, and brought to the scholar's chamber, hens, ducks and capons, wherewith he and his fellows made ofttimes good cheer.

And so do the bishops and priests make merry with what this fox bringeth in to the Church. But inasmuch as the King is above all the bishops, and I have asked him leave to hunt the fox wheresoever I think that I can find him; I will with the King's leave, hunt this fox in the Church: for I gather by certain conjectures that he is there. For as it is a good conjecture, if a man be in a wood and see a great hole in the ground, to think that there haunteth or hath haunted a fox. And if there be by this hole many pieces of lambs' skins, many lambs' bones, and wings of geese, and chickens' feathers; that at that present time there is a fox haunting that hole. So I think that if I conjecture that there is a Romish Fox in the Church, I shall not conjecture amiss. [6/7] For I saw when I was in England in a certain Church, a great hole in the high altar, which I could not tell for what purpose the gentlemen of the Church have ordained it, except it be to hide their father the fox in, when he is pursued after; and by this hole I saw a great sort of lambs' bones about the altar. I saw certain priests that were almost laden with lambs' skins and with tails and pieces of other beasts' skins also. I saw also much gold and silver about the fox-hole, which thing made me marvel the less when I heard afterward, that the priests so manfully maintained the fox. Therefore I think verily, that the fox is in that hole, and I doubt not but that I shall either find him in the bishops' mitres or else in this hole, or perchance in both. After that I have found out this ravening and mankilling fox, I trust, Most Victorious Prince, that ye will follow King Solomon in punishing him. King Solomon took Joab, a murderer, the Captain of his father's wars, from the altar, and put him to death, and suffered not the sanctuary to save him. So, I trust, that if this fox be found, even on the high altar, under the chalice, inasmuch as he is a murderer, that ye will not suffer him to have any sanctuary or place of refuge and succour there. But now let us begin this aforesaid hunting. Now is not this Fox of Rome, otherwise called Papa, among you? If ye say that there is none such among you, where is the fox, the Pope, which had wont to be among you? Ye cannot deny but that he was once among you; tell me where he is now? If ye say that he was driven out of England, I will not believe you; for I saw blood lately of his shedding in London streets. I saw many pieces of skins about the high altar and in the choir. There daily, both men and women, complaining, that by this beast's means their children and friends are put to death: wherefore I reckon for all your saying, that he is not driven out of the realm, but that ye have deceived the King who commanded you to drive him out of the realm, and that ye have changed and scraped out his name, and so keep him still.

If ye think that this be not true, tell me what was that fox's name in English that ye banished? Was it the Pope? Ye cannot deny but that he, that ye should have banished, was called the Pope. If I find not that same Pope still among you that the King commanded you to banish out of England, I shall give you leave to call me the falsest man that ever spake with tongue.

First. To begin withal, what was the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England? Whether was it the Pope's person, or the Pope's purse, that had wont to receive our money in England, or was it the Pope's doctrine which, besides all other devilish decrees, holdeth the falsely usurped power over all Kings and Kingdoms? If ye say that the Pope which the King commanded you to drive out of England was the Pope's person, his flesh, blood and bones, depositis mitris [with your mitres off] my lords, ye lie! For what needed the [7/8] King to set men to drive that man's person out of his realm that never came into it?

If ye say that the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England was the Pope's purse alone. I think that ye have so banished the Pope as certain under-sheriffs and bailiffs take thieves and cast them into prison: who, if they catch a silly, poor thief that hath but stolen an old nag not worth nineteen pence, cast him into prison, and load him with irons, and make him be hanged. But if they take a lusty thief, and likely to bring them more prey with a budget or two, and with a good purse; they take his purse away from him and his budgets, and send him forth to steal again, and do him no more harm, but that they take his purse from him. And if any man say to them, where is the tall fellow that ye took yesterday? They answer, we took him but of suspicion; he is such a lord's servant, and therefore we durst hold him no longer. Have ye not after this manner driven away the Pope? Tell me, I pray you. If ye say that the Pope's purse was the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England, or his name alone, ye slander the King, and make him be evil spoken of in all other realms. And if ye say these words, "the Pope that the King commanded us to preach against, and to drive out of England, is nothing else but his name alone, and his bottomless begging-bags:" all they that have read the King's Acts, will say that ye be false, liars. Then the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England, was not the Pope's person, which never came into England, neither his name alone, neither his purse alone,--and the King commanded the Pope to be driven out of England!

Whether was it, the Pope's doctrine and learning or no, that the King commanded you to drive out of England? If it be not his learning, what other thing can it be? If ye say that it was not the Pope's learning and ordinances, ye run in danger of treason: for in saying so, ye say that the King would not have the Pope's falsely usurped power banished out of the realm, which among all other devilish doctrine and ordinances of the Pope, is one pestilent, Popish ordinance. Ye be verily loth to grant that the Pope's doctrines and traditions, was the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England. Howbeit ye must either grant that, or else say, that the King commanded not at all the Pope to be driven out of England. For what other thing is there left to be the Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of England, saving his doctrine? Seeing it was not his person, neither his name alone, neither his purse alone. Then must needs the Pope, that the King commanded you to drive out of England, be the Pope's doctrine and traditions. Ye need not to be ashamed to call the Pope's doctrine the Pope. For it is a received manner of speaking in these days among scholars, and hath been received of long time both of heathen and holy writers, to call a man's doctrine or book [8/9] by the name of him that made it. If ye ask a scholar of Cambridge, what is read in the philosophy schools; he will answer, Aristotle. If ye ask what is read in the humanity schools; he will answer and say, Terence: meaning by Aristotle and Terence, the doctrine and books which Aristotle and Terence made. The profane writers have a proverb, He hath not torn Aesop: whereby they mean, not Aesop's body but his doctrine and his fables which he made. Abraham, in the 16th of Luke, saith unto the rich glutton, concerning his brethren, they have Moses and the prophets: and in the 9th of the Acts, Luke saith, that the eunuch read Esaias the prophet. In which places Moses and the Prophets signify the doctrine that Moses and the Prophets taught. So then as Terence's book is lawfully called Terence, as Aristotle's doctrine is called Aristotle, and Moses' doctrine is called Moses, and the Prophets' doctrine is lawfully called the Prophets: so are the Pope's traditions and doctrine lawfully called the Pope, even that Pope that the King commanded you to drive out of his realm. Then have we gotten of you at length, that the Pope which the King commanded you to drive out of his realm, is the Pope's traditions and doctrine. This once granted, I reason thus: whosoever holdeth still, and maintaineth the Pope's doctrine and traditions, holdeth still and maintaineth the Pope. But ye bishops hold still and maintain the Pope's traditions and doctrine; therefore ye hold still and maintain the Pope. If ye deny that ye hold still the Pope's doctrine and traditions, I will prove it after this manner hereafter following:--

1. Ye hold still the creeping [hoisting up] of the cross, the worshipping of the image of Christ, called the crucifix. And the worshipping of images is Pope Gregory's doctrine, as Fasciculus Temporum saith in these words:--"Concilium generale fit in urbe anno primo Gregorii tertii contra haereticos, in quo imaginum sanctorum veneratio approbatur et contradictores excommunicantur." There was a council in Rome the first year of Gregory the third, wherein the worshipping of saints' images was allowed, and the gainsayers were excommunicated and cast out of the Church.

2. Ye hold still the conjuring of water and salt to drive devils away, to heal all sicknesses, and to be healed of both body and soul to all them that receive them. And this ordained Alexander, the first of that name.

3. Ye hold still the hallowing of churches and of vestments; and that a priest may not say mass but in a hallowed place without a super-altare. And this ordained Felix, the fourth Pope of that name.

4. Ye hold still that a priest may receive the sacrament of Christ's body and blood for a layman, and that the layman's sins may be taken away by the priest's receiving for him, and that the priest's receiving may help the souls departed, and purchase for them forgiveness also of sins. And that ordained Pelagius.

[10] 5. Ye hold still the receiving of the sacrament for kine that have the longsoght, for horses that have the farcy, for sick calves, for scabbed sheep, for measled swine, and for mad dogs: for ye hold it in your Missal unput out and unpreached against: "Missam pro mortalitate animalium." A mass for death of beasts and cattle. Then if the mass be the receiving of Christ's body and blood, then for dogs that are sick, for sick calves, and rotten sheep, ye hold still the receiving of Christ's body and blood, that these beasts should not die. If to receive the sacrament in the remembrance of scabbed sheep or measled swine, that Christ ordained to be received in remembrance of his holy passion, be not Antichrist's doctrine, and therefore the Pope's; say ye whose doctrine it is, and who put it into your Missal, and why have ye not scraped that out as well as the Pope's name?

6. Ye hold still that the mass, or the receiving of the sacrament, is profitable for certain diseases, as the gout in the toe. For it is still in the missal unput out and unpreached against. "Missa Raphaelis Archangeli pro omnibus infirmitatibus." A mass of Raphael the archangel for all diseases and sicknesses. Then seeing that this is not put out of your books, ye hold it still for the diseases above rehearsed. If this be not a misusing of the sacrament, and the doctrine of the Pope; say ye whose doctrine is this? For it is none of Christ's, neither his apostles'.

7. Ye hold still that by the mass, or receiving of the sacrament, that ye can deliver damned souls out of hell, and raise men from death to life. If ye think that I lie, read what is written in Gregory's Trentale in your mass book, which ye say is better correct and hath fewer faults than the Bible, in these words: "Libera animam famuli tui de manibus daemonum:" Deliver thy servant's soul from the hands of the devils. "Justorum animae in manu Dei sunt:" The souls of righteous men are in the hands of God. And so ye go about to sing out of the devil's hands, damned souls; for none after this life are in the devil's hands but damned souls. It is also written in your dirge mass, that ye maintain so earnestly with fire and faggot, and it is sung in every dirge mass after the gospel: "Domine Jesu Christe, &c.; Fac eas Domine transire de morte ad vitam:" Lord Jesu Christ, make the souls to pass over from death to life. These are the words of the mass. Now must life and death betoken either salvation and damnation, or else death must signify the temporal death of the body; and life, the life of the body. If that death and life be taken as they stand, without a figure, then ye mean that ye can raise men from death to life, O cunning conjurers! If ye understand the words figuratively, then ye mean that by the mass ye can deliver souls from their death, which is damnation, to life, that is, to their salvation. This sing ye in every dirge mass, and either ye believe this that ye sing or ye believe it not. If ye believe it not, ye do evil to make men to be slain for speaking against what ye believe not yourselves. If ye believe it, when ye make me an answer; tell me whether is it, the [10/11] death of the body or of the soul that ye desire God to deliver the souls from, and how many souls have ye delivered from the hands of the devil, and how many have ye raised from death to life? If this doctrine be not Gregory the Pope's doctrine, say ye whose is it?

8. Ye hold still, that the mixture and mingling together of both the parts of the Sacrament may deserve forgiveness of sins and purchase health of body and soul. For ye say in your mass daily, these words: "Haec Sacrosancta commixtio corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri, Jesu Christi, mihi omnibusque sumentibus sit salus mentis et corporis ad promerendam vitam aeternam;" that is to say, This holy mingling together of the body and blood of our Lord Jesu Christ, be unto me and to all them that receive it, health of body and soul to deserve everlasting life. If this were not impossible, then needed no priest nor bishop to go to the devil, though they were never so great murderers and adulterers. For anon after that they had done the mischief, they might straightway mix together both the parts of the Sacrament, and deserve thereby forgiveness of yesternight's adultery and of this day's murder. But for all their mixing and mingling, if they break the commandment of God, they must as well go to the devil as others. For God regardeth not one man more than another, as the Pope doth, who saith, that all men that eat of that aforesaid mixture shall deserve forgiveness of sins, and yet, like a partial fellow, suffereth this mixture, which is of both the kinds of the Sacrament, only to be given unto priests; for he will let laymen have but the one-half of it. He careth, belike, not very much for laymen that will not suffer them to come by this means unto health of body and soul, and to forgiveness of sins.

This is the doctrine of Antichrist, and if the Pope be Antichrist, it is the Pope's doctrine.

9. Ye hold still the collates of the mass which Pope Gelasius made.

10. Ye hold still the matins and hours and evensong of the Virgin Mary, and that the Psalms which were made only in the honor of the Creator, should be sung and said in the honor of a creature, that is, the Virgin Mary; and this ordained Pope Urban the Second.

11. Ye hold still, that from Septuagesima to Easter, that a man may not praise God in Hebrew, but in Latin in the Church. For ye forbid that Hallelujah should be sung that time, but Laus tibi Domine; and this ordered Pope Alexander the Second.

12. Ye hold still the secrets of the mass, which are open treason against God; and this ordained Pope Gregory.

13. Ye hold still the canon of the mass; which ordained Pope Gregory.

14. Ye mix water and wine together still; and that ordained Pope Alexander.

15. Ye hold still this custom in St Paul's, that laymen may not [11/12] come into the choir at mass-time, for fear, belike, that when the priests say, "accipite et comedite," take ye and eat ye; they should take that which is offered them; and this ordained Pope Leo the fourth of that name. Now seeing that there are so many ordinances and traditions of the Pope in the mass, I report me unto you that be indifferent men, whether I have just occasion to seek the fox in the altar or no.

16. Ye hold still, the mass in Latin, and sing all the service, and christen and assoyle [absolve] in the old Pope's mother-tongue; and that ordained Joannes Portuensis.

17. Ye take the one-half of the Sacrament from all them that are no priests; and that ordained the Pope and his guard at Constance.

18. Ye hold still the hallowing of the font, which is all full of abominable blasphemies, contrary to the Word of God; and that ordained Antichrist.

19. . . . [transcribers note: this number was listed but had no entry]

20. Ye hold still the embering days which Urbanus made, as some writers hold, and others write that it was Pope Callixtus.

21. Ye hold still Lent; and that made Telesphorus, and Montanus the heretic, who first taught that marriage should be undone.

22. Ye hold still the fasting of the Saturday; and that made Innocentius the first Pope of that name.

23. Ye hold still that a priest cannot make an unlawful vow, and that no other man can make an unadvised vow after twenty-one years of age; and that no vow made after twenty-one may be broken, save the vow of obedience and of wilful poverty; this made ye, and ye and the Pope are all one.

24. Ye hold still certain places that the devil may be worshipped therein, and condemn marriage of priests with death; this also is the Pope's work.

25. Ye forbid still all laymen to marry the whole half of the whole year, save two weeks, and hold all the ministers of the Church from marriage all their lifetime. For ye will suffer no man to be a sub-deacon or a deacon, or a priest, except he forswear marriage first; and so ye compel all men to be votaries, inasmuch as there must needs be ministers, and ye receive none except ye make them forswear marriage. This was ordained by Gregory the Seventh, and by the council holden at Mentz in Germany.

26. Ye hold still that it is a great offence for a priest or a votary to marry, than if he should be guilty of incontinence . . . .

For that offence which ye think the greater, ye punish with a greater punishment. To make the matter more clear, I will put you an example. There is in Southfolk a gentleman that hath two warrens, one of conies, and another of hares; and it is made felony as well to steal hares as conies. There is a young man which cometh unto the owner of both the warrens, and saith unto him: I know that it is felony to steal a cony in [12/13] the night; I pray you, that if I be taken in stealing of a cony, that ye will not take me as a felon, but be content with the third part of all my goods for the harm that I have done. The second time that I am taken, let another part of my goods satisfy for the fault. If I be the third time taken, take all the rest of my goods for amends, and put me in perpetual prison. This young man knoweth that if he be taken in stealing a hare in the night out of this gentleman's warren, that he shall be hanged; and yet he desireth no forgiveness if he be taken in stealing a hare. Now let indifferent men judge whether this man intendeth more, to steal hares or conies. It is very likely that he intendeth to steal conies and not hares. For if he had as much intended to steal hares as conies, he would as well have asked a release for the punishment due for stealing hares as he asked a relief for the punishment of stealing conies . . . . To be short, ye have brought the matter so to pass, that it is death at the first, for a man to say, that a priest may marry, and no death for a priest to be incontinent. If this be not the Pope's doctrine, say ye whose it is. I know that it is none of Christ's, neither his Apostles'. [* Several passages have been left out of this Article.]

27. Ye hold still, that there are more saviours and bringers to heaven than Christ alone. For beside our own works ye say, that the merits of the Virgin Mary and of Saint Petronilla, and of all saints, may save us and bring us to heaven. On Saint Mary's day, ye sing, "Sanctae Mariae merita perducant nos ad regna coelestia:" The merits of Saint Mary bring us to the everlasting kingdom. And on Saint Petronilla's day, ye say in your mass, "Per merita beatae Petronillae, praesentis vitae subsidium et futurae felicitatem concede:" Grant us by the merits or deservings of Saint Petronilla, the help of this present life, and the felicity or happiness of the life for to come. Ye sing on Allhallows day, "Sanctorum meritis mereamur gaudia lucis:" We pray God that we may win or deserve the joys of light by the deserving of all saints. This doctrine is of Antichrist's making, for it is contrary to the doctrine of Christ, which saith, "I am the door," and, "No man cometh unto the Father but by me." Then if it be true that the Pope is Antichrist, this is the Pope's doctrine.

28. Ye hold still masses in the remembrance of saints; and that made Gregory and Felix.

Ye hold still vestments and copes, incense and altars, organs and descant in the Church, which Pope Stephen, Pope Leo, and Pope Vitellianus made.

Ye hold infinite other ordinances more, of the Pope's making, which it were long here to rehearse. But if ye say that the Popes have not made these ceremonies and constitutions, I will prove you liars by the authority of all these writers whose names follow hereafter. Albertus [13/14] Magnus, Blondus, Beda, Baptista Platina, Marcus Antonius Sabellicus, Raphael Volateranus, and Polydorus Virgilius. All these say, that Popes have ordained these ordinances and ceremonies. Now I think ye cannot deny but that ye hold ordinances, constitutions and ceremonies, which the Pope hath taught and made.

29. Ye hold still the CANON LAW, which is called in Latin, "Jus Pontificium," that is to say, the Pope's Law. Ye hold still the Clementines, the Pope's decrees, and his Decretal Epistles; and by this CANON LAW, by these Popish Decretals and Decrees, all matters, even unto this hour, are determined and judged in your spiritual courts.

By these laws men are judged to be heretics and votaries, which are none by the word of God. That these decrees and laws are of the Pope's making, let the most unshamefaced of you deny it if ye dare, and let the best learned of you prove the contrary if he can. Then will I go forward with my argument. They that hold still the Pope's doctrine, hold still the Pope. Ye hold still the Pope's doctrine, whilst ye hold still his ordinances and his law. Therefore ye hold still the Pope, even that Pope that the King commanded you to preach against, and to drive out of England. Now I REPORT ME UNTO YOU THAT ARE LORDS OF THE TEMPORALTY, AND TO YOU BURGESSES OF THE PARLIAMENT, WHETHER I HAVE FOUND OUT THE FOX IN THE CHURCH OR NO. If he be found out, it is your duty, and all their duties that love God and the King, to follow after him, to catch him, and to drive him out of this Realm. But lest ye should go by him, and know him not from a tame beast, he is covered with these two tame beasts' skins, sometimes with the law of the Church, and other whiles with the King's ceremonies: for so are called the Pope's CANON LAW and the ceremonies which the Pope hath made. I beseech you, noblemen, that have been brought up in hunting, and are now of the fox's favourers, help at this time to catch this fox, and I shall once let you have a sight of him, and shall let you see how that they that wear the same mark in their crowns that he weareth, do defend him and hold him still in the Church.

What say ye, gentlemen of the clergy, to this aforesaid argument? Whosoever holdeth still the Pope's doctrine, holdeth still the Pope. But ye hold still the Pope's doctrine, whilst ye hold still the Pope's CANON LAW, the Pope's decretals and decrees, and the ordinances above rehearsed, that the Pope made. Therefore ye hold still the Pope.

What answer ye to this:-Whosoever holdeth still the Pope's doctrine, holdeth still the Pope? If ye grant this, what say ye to this? But ye hold still the Pope's doctrine whilst ye hold still his CANON LAW, and his ordinances. If ye answer and say, we hold not still the Pope's CANON LAW: for we say that the law that ye call the Pope's Canon Law, is the Law of the Church, and so we take it and use it. [14/15] If ye say then that the CANON LAW is the Law of the Church, (so did Doctor Glin call it in Cambridge) every man may well see how that ye cover the fox with a tame beast's skin. Then, when ye say that the CANON LAW is the Law of the Church, answer, of what Church is the CANON LAW the law of? Is it the Law of the Church of England? If ye say that it is the Law of the Church of England, then this followeth of your saying. The Pope's Church of Rome is governed with the ordinances above rehearsed, and the CANON LAW is the Law of the Pope's Church, even at this hour; then if the CANON LAW be the Law of the Church of England, the Pope's Church and the English Church are all one concerning their ceremonies and law. And then in what thing do they differ? Then if the Church of Rome be a Popish Church, because it is ruled by the Pope's CANON LAW and by his ordinances; then must the Church of England also be a popish Church, when as it is governed by the selfsame law and ordinances which make the Church of Rome a Popish Church. But the Pope is the head of every Popish Church, and by your saying, the Church of England is a Popish Church; therefore the Pope, by your saying, is the Head of the Church of England.

Now seeing that these inconveniencies follow of saying that the CANON LAW is the law of the Church of England; say no more, that the CANON LAW is the law of the Church of England, but of the Church of Rome. For the law of Christ's Church, of which England is one part, is the New Testament and the Old, that is, to wit, the doctrine that the Prophets, the Apostles, and Christ taught, and not the CANON LAW with the decrees and decretals and the ordinances which Popes of Rome have made. But if Doctor Glin, Commissary of Cambridge, with his other Canonistical Canaanites, will, for all the inconveniencies above rehearsed, hold still stiffly, that the CANON LAW, with the decrees and decretals, are the Law of the Church of England, let them answer to a question or two that I will propound:--Whether was the Church before the Law of the Church, or the Law of the Church before the Church? If ye say that the Church was before the Law of the Church was; then was there a time when the Church was lawless. But that is an inconvenience, therefore ye cannot say so; ye must therefore so say that either the Law of the Church was made before the Church, or at the first time that the Church was. It followeth, then, that when and wheresoever the most perfect Church was, that there was the most perfect Law of the Church. But in Christ's time, and in the Apostles' time, and in the times of the holy martyrs, was the most perfect Church. Therefore then was the most perfect Law of the Church. Then the Law of Christ's Church was, in the Apostles' time, all ready made, and so perfect that no man could make anything more perfect. But the CANON LAW was not yet made in the Apostles' time; therefore the CANON LAW was not the Law of Christ's Church in the time of the [15/16] Apostles. The Word of God, which is the Law of the Church, lasteth for ever, and is not changed, so that the Church of Christ at all times hath no other law but Christ's Word. Ye say that the CANON LAW is the Law of the Church of England; therefore ye say that the Church of England is none of Christ's Church, inasmuch as ye say that the Law of the Church of England is another Law than was the Law of the Church of Christ in the Apostles' time, which was the true Christian Church. But if ye master commissaries will needs call still the CANON LAW the Law of the Church; what mean ye by the Church? Whether mean ye the congregation of all them that are chosen to be saved, or not? If ye mean so, ye lie; for many that are in heaven never knew the CANON LAW. If ye mean by the Church, the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Evangelists, ye lie; for the CANON LAW was never of their making. If ye mean by the Church, the Pope, and them that are sworn unto him; it is true that the CANON LAW is the law of the Church. Will ye now, commissaries, that the law of the Church, that is, of the Pope and his shavelings, shall be holden still in England? If ye will so, then I need to reason no more to prove that ye hold still the Pope in England. If the Church signify another sort of men than I have made mention of; tell me in your answer to these my questions, and tell me who made the CANON LAW, if the Popes of Rome have not made it. Then this solution will not serve, that the CANON LAW is the law of the Church, seeing that it cannot be the law of any Church, but of a Popish Church; for it is of the Pope's making. But if it were granted that the CANON LAW were the Law of the Church; yet ye cannot deny that the traditions, ordinances, and ceremonies before rehearsed, are of the Pope's making. Then this argument standeth unsolved;--Whosoever holdeth still the Pope's doctrine, holdeth still the Pope. If ye answer, we take them not as the Pope's ceremonies and ordinances, although we know that the Pope hath taught them and made them, but as the King's ceremonies and ordinances. For the King commanded in a certain Proclamation, that no man should, from the time of that Proclamation, be so hardy as to call the ceremonies and ordinances that were in the Church of England at that time, the Pope's ordinances and ceremonies, but the King's ceremonies and ordinances, although it were out of all doubt that the Pope had made them and taught them. But now, ye gentlemen of the clergy, what was the cause of this Proclamation? Answer me, if it please you, to a question or two.

If Francis, the King of France, should make a Proclamation that all the noble acts and deeds of King Alexander the conqueror, and all the acts of Sardanapalus should be no more called and taken for Alexander's and Sardanapalus's acts and deeds, but for his deeds; should all the acts and deeds of Alexander and Sardanapalus be therefore the King of France's deeds and acts? I think no. For if by Proclamation, men [16/17] might make other men's deeds and acts their own acts; then might Sardanapalus have robbed Alexander of his noble acts and made them his, and so a very coward might have as many noble acts as the best warrior in all the world. If the King of Portugal should command, in a Proclamation, that Aristotle's and Plato's works should no more be called Aristotle's works and Plato's, but his works; should Aristotle's and Plato's works by these means become his works? I think nay. For if the King of Portugal might take Aristotle's works from Aristotle, then might Maevius become Maro, and the most unlearned man in a country might have as noble works as the best learned man in the world. If the King of Denmark should set out a Proclamation, that all the ceremonies of Moses' law, as offering up calves and frankincense, should no more be called and taken for Moses' ceremonies, but for his; should not Moses' ceremonies continue Moses' ceremonies still for all the Proclamation? I think so. Then is there no Proclamation that can dispossess the Pope of his ceremonies and constitutions; but the ceremonies and ordinances which were his twelve years ago, shall be his ceremonies and ordinances still, though a thousand Proclamations should command the contrary. Ye must find out another hole to hide your father the fox in, for here he can lurk no longer.

Nevertheless, like faithful, foxy children, ye have done the best that lay in you to cover him. For about seven years ago, when men preached earnestly against the Pope, and he with all his ordinances was like to be driven out of England; a certain man to set him forward, gathered together out of Platina and such other writers, what Popes had made all the ceremonies that are now in the Church, and to every ceremony he assigned one Pope or other, which thing made the ceremonies begin to be less regarded than they were before. Then ye, fearing that they should be driven out of the realm with their father, if they were taken for the Pope's ordinances: by your friends ye procured and brought to pass, that the ceremonies which the Pope made should no more be called the Pope's ceremonies, but the King's ceremonies. And this was set up and proclaimed in every market-town. In doing of which thing, as much as lay in you, ye made the King, Pope. For if the Pope's acts and the King's be all one, then is the King, the Pope; or else partner with the Pope. Whether, say ye, maketh the name of the Pope, the Pope, or the Pope's acts and deeds? If ye say that the name of the Pope maketh a Pope, then have ye many Popes in England. For there are many that are called Popes in England which, nevertheless, hate the Pope more than ye do. The name of the Pope maketh not then the Pope, but the acts and deeds of the Pope. As not every man that is accused of theft and called a thief, is a thief; but he alone is a thief that doth the acts and deeds of a thief: so it is not the name of the Pope that maketh the Pope, but the Pope's acts and deeds. Then it followeth well, likewise, as he that layeth and assigneth to a [17/18] true man, the deeds and acts of a thief, maketh a true man as much as lieth in him, a thief. So ye, giving and laying to the King the acts and deeds of the Pope as much as lay in you, made the King, the Pope. Call ye therefore no more the Pope's CANON LAW, the law of the Church of England. Call no more from henceforward the Pope's ordinances, the King's ordinances, for fear of what followeth. It is plain then that ye hold still the Pope's CANON LAW, and, though ye have banished his name for a face, that ye hold still his books and his ceremonies. Then answer me to a question:--Are there not many things in John Frith's books that are both good and godly and agreeing with the Word of God? And then tell me, why ye have condemned all his books for heresy, and the readers of them, and havers of them, for heretics, for not more than two or three heresies, even after your judgment, seeing there are so many other godly things that are no heresy. If ye say, though there be many good things in his books, what need Christian men to seek good things out of a heretic's book, seeing there are books enow beside; and therefore we burn the heretics' books with the heretics, lest the heresy that the heretics taught, should spread by the means of the books. For as the voice of a heretic heard, maketh heretics, so the books of a heretic read, maketh heretics, and therefore we burn the one with the other. Answer me to this:--The Pope is both a heretic and a traitor as there is no one of you all that will deny: then how happeneth it that when ye banished this heretic, that ye burn not his books as well as other heretics' books? I know no other cause, but that ye favoured them for your father's sake. Well then, as the books of a Zuinglian heretic had and read, make a Zuinglian heretic, so the books of a Popish heretic had and read, make a Popish heretic. But all ye bishops of England that are Canonists, and all ye bishops' commissaries have and read the books of a Popish heretic, that is, to wit, THE CANON LAW that the heretic Pope made; therefore, my Lords, ye and your commissaries are all heretics. As ye judge other men, so shall ye be judged. Moreover, as heretics' books are the seed that heretics come of; so Popish books are the seed that Papists come of. Then he that will not burn heretics' books, but will maintain them, wills that there shall be many heretics; even so they that will not burn the Pope's books, but will maintain them, wills that there shall be many Papists. Ye do so, therefore ye would that there should be many Papists; as it is the most proper and peculiar work of a perfect beast to engender another like in kind unto himself.

What do ye, gentlemen of the clergy, ye have not yet solved this argument. Ye hold still the Pope's doctrine: therefore ye hold still the Pope, even him that the King would have driven out of England. If ye answer. The Pope's doctrine that is contrary to the word of God, is the Pope that the King would have driven out of England, but the ordinances above rehearsed, are not contrary to the word of God: [18/19] therefore we hold not still the Pope that the King would have driven out of England. To this answer, I say, that the King's Highness going about to deliver his subjects from the bondage of the Pope, and intending to drive out of his Realm, abbots, priors, nuns, monks and friars, who occupied the most part of his Realm, and proposed to set right Christian men in their places, as poor men's sons, to be afterward preachers of the Word of God, blind, lame, and other poor Christian folk; intended such a thing as Almighty God did when he delivered the children of Israel from the bondage of Pharaoh, and drove the Canaanites out of their land, that the true Israelites might have that land and succeed them.

But Almighty God gave this commandment unto Moses, the guide and deliverer of the Israelites out of Egypt, and all the children of Israel thus. "After the custom of the land of Egypt where as ye have dwelt, shall ye not do. And after the manner of the land of Canaan unto the which I shall bring you, shall ye not do, and in their most lawful ways shall ye not walk. Ye shall do my judgments, and my commandments shall ye keep; I am the Lord your God. Do not those things that they have done which were before you." Seek in the xviii. of Leviticus, and these words shall ye find. So learned men whom the King appointed to deliver his subjects from the bondage of the Romish Pharaoh, the Pope, ought to have swept the Church, and driven quite out of it all that ever any Pope had made. And if that Christ's Church could not have been ruled, and ordered Christianly enough by the doctrine of Christ, wherewith the Primitive Church was only governed, then might you now have gone a begging to your father the Pope, otherwise called Antichrist, desiring him to let you have some of his Ceremonies to govern Christ's Church withal, which without them, were not able to stand. The law of the Gospel is a more perfect law for the Christian than the law of Moses was for the Jews. But the Jews needed no other law nor ceremonies than the law of Moses, then the Christian men need no other law (as touching their souls) but the law of the Gospel. Therefore if the CANON LAW and the ceremonies above rehearsed, were all at the devil from whence they came, the Church of Christ might be a great deal better governed than it is now governed, or else was the Church in the Apostles' times but evilly governed, which knew not one of these ceremonies that ye have in the Church at this day.

Now have we shewed you, by the example of the Scripture, that though the ordinances of the Pope had been lawful, that ye ought not to have holden them. Howbeit, I shall prove the Pope's ordinances, which ye hold still, are as much contrary to the Scripture as is light to darkness, and Christ to Belial. Let us, therefore, examine the chief and most laudable ceremonies as ye take them, with the touchstone of the Word of God. Is the creeping of the cross agreeing with the Word [19/20] of God? Whatsoever ye say, I say nay; and thus will I prove it. In creeping of the cross, ye worship the cross; but the worshipping of the cross is contrary to the Word of God; therefore the creeping of the cross is contrary to the Word of God. If ye say that in creeping of the cross, that ye worship not the cross, I shall prove you false, liars, not only by the authority of the Scripture, but also by your own words that I have written, and by your own confession. To worship, as I will prove it by the authority of the Word of God, is to bow to anything, to fall down before anything, to kneel, or with reverent behaviour to kiss anything, for so betokeneth the Latin word, adoro, and the Greek word, proskunew,which word signifieth to kiss. Here 3 Kings, chap. xix. "De re linquam mihi septem millia virorum in Israel quorum genua non sunt incurvata ante Baal, et omne os quod non adoravit eum osculans manum." I will leave unto me seven thousand men in Israel whose knees have not been bowed before Baal, and every mouth which hath not worshipped him, kissing his hand. Ye may see that to kneel, or to bow before an image or an idol, is to worship it, and that likewise, that to kiss an image, or an idol, is to worship it; for here the Scripture sheweth the manner of worshipping, whereby we may know who worshippeth, and who worshippeth not. If ye require more Scripture to prove, that to fall down, and to bow before a thing, is to worship it; hear what is written in the x. chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when Saint Peter came unto Cornelius. Cornelius, as soon as he saw him, "procidens ad pedes adoravit eum," falling down at his feet, worshipped him. It is also written in the xxii. chapter of the Revelation of St John, how that the angel would not suffer John to worship him, in these words: "And after I had heard and seen, I fell down before the feet of the angel to worship him which shewed me these things. And he said unto me, See that thou do not so, for I am thy fellow-servant, &c.: worship God." Now may ye evidently perceive that by these places of Scripture, that to kiss an image reverently, to bow to an image, or before an image, or to kneel to it, or to any such thing, is to worship it. But ye kneel to the cross, and before the cross, ye bow to the cross, and kiss the cross; therefore ye worship the cross in creeping the cross, as ye call it. But some of you, peradventure, possessed with the spirit of the devil, which findeth out ever excuses and defence for his service, idolatry, will answer to me, as the heathen answered to the old Christian men when they blamed them for the worshipping of gold and silver; that ye worship not the image of the crucifix, but Christ Himself, that the image representeth. To this excuse I make this reason. To kiss the cross itself, is to worship the cross itself; but ye kiss the cross itself: therefore ye worship the cross itself. But if this reason be not strong enough, I shall prove it with another place of the Scripture beside the three above rehearsed, that to worship before anything is to worship the same.

[21] It is written, Luke iv., that the devil said unto Christ, "All these things shall be thine, if thou, falling down, wilt worship before me." And Matthew, telling the same history, saith, "I will give thee all these things, if thou wilt worship me." Then, if Luke and Matthew write all one sense, and differ not in rehearsing of the history; then is it all one thing to worship before a thing and to worship a thing. The Greek word that is turned into English, before, is more plain than the English is, for enwpion, beside; before, betokeneth in a man's sight or before one's face. Well, ye worship before the cross; therefore ye worship the cross. Moreover, if that worshipping before an image be not the worshipping of an image, why have ye commanded that no man shall set any candle before any image, save only before the crucifix? Whereas the people might answer to them that accused them for worshipping of images, when they set candles before images and kneeled before images, we worship not the images, we set candles in the honour of the saints that the images do represent, and not in the honour of the images. If this excuse be not allowable, then is not your excuse allowable, when ye say, we worship before the cross, but not the cross. Ye hold still that the saints in heaven are to be worshipped, but ye hold that no images may be worshipped, saving the image of Christ crucified, which commonly is either of gold, or else of silver and gilded with gold. What a driving away of idolatry is this, to forbid the worshipping of images of tree and stone, and to compel men on pain of death, to worship images of silver and of gold? As though the Scripture allowed golden images and silver images to be worshipped. Nay, the Scripture reproveth even the golden images in these words, "The images of the heathen are gold and silver, the works of men's hands; all they that make them be like them, and all they that trust in them." I have proved now by sufficient witnesses of the Scripture, that to worship before an image is to worship it. "Ye worship before the image of the crucifix; therefore ye worship the image of the crucifix. If ye deny still that ye worship the cross, or the image of the crucifix, I will prove you liars by your own words, which ye have both said and intend to say again.

Tell me what do ye sing and say on Good Friday, when ye creep the cross, and the people creepeth after you? Say ye not, "Crucem tuam adoramus Domine;" Lord, we worship thy cross. And that all false excuses should be holden out, that ye say not that by the cross ye mean the passion of Christ. It is written in your ordinary rubrick, "Deportetur crux per medium chori a duobus sacerdotibus, ubi a populo adoretur;" Let the cross be borne through the choir by two priests, that there it may be worshipped of the people. Can two priests carry the passion of Christ in their hands? I trow, nay. Seek then some other shift, for this will not serve. By this time ye cannot deny but that ye both worship images and compel other men to worship them [21/22] also; which thing I shall evidently prove that it is as contrary to the Scripture as Antichrist is to Christ. And thus will I prove it. If it be not lawful to make an image and to have an image, it is not lawful to worship an image had and made. But the Scripture forbiddeth to make images and to have images, then much more it forbiddeth to worship them. Hear the places of the Scripture which forbid the making and having of images; Exodus xx., "Thou shalt make thee no graven image," &c. Leviticus xxvi., "I am your Lord God; ye shall not make you a similitude of a god or a graven image." Deuteronomy vii., "Ye have seen no likeness in that day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest ye, perchance deceived, should make unto you a graven likeness, or the image of a man or a woman, or the likeness of beasts of the earth," &c. Deuteronomy xxvii., "Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or a casten image, the abomination of the Lord." The wise man in the xiii. chapter, curseth both the image and the image-maker. If this be the Scripture and the Word of God that I have rehearsed, then must ye needs grant, that it is not lawful to make an image, or at least, that it is unlawful to make an image, and after that it is made, to worship it. If that ye grant either of these two, as ye must needs do, that it is forbidden by God's holy word either to make images or to worship images that are made: ye cannot deny but that ye be false doctors, which both worship images yourselves, as ye testify in your service, and compel the poor people against their consciences to worship images and commit idolatry for your pleasure. If ye say, the Scriptures before rehearsed forbid to make the images of false gods, as of Jupiter and of Mercury, and of such other, and to worship them, but they forbid not to make the image of Christ, and to worship it. This saying is as false as God is true; for God saith, Deut. v. in the Second Commandment, "Thou shalt make thee no graven image, neither the likeness of any things which are in heaven above, and which are in the earth beneath, and which are in the waters under the earth; thou shalt neither bow to them nor worship them." Now tell me whether Christ is in heaven or no. If he be in heaven, as ye cannot deny but he is, then it is forbidden by the Scripture to make any likeness of him and to worship it, and to bow to it. For the Word of God saith, "Thou shalt make thee no likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, neither shalt thou worship it nor bow to it." But ye make the image of Christ which is in heaven, and bow to it and worship it, therefore ye do openly contrary to the open Word of God. Therefore either condemn and scrape out the Second Commandment, or else leave off the creeping of the cross and the worshipping of the crucifix, in bowing to it and in kneeling to it. For the creeping of the cross and the Second Commandment of God, can no longer agree together. But I will conclude this matter with an argument not easy to assoyle [answer]. If it be unlawful to fall down to worship the better and worthier thing, [22/23] it is much more unlawful to bow, to fall down, to worship the worst thing and the unworthier thing. Saint Peter, Saint Paul, the angel that shewed John his Revelation, are better and more worthy than the image of the crucifix, which ye call the cross. But if they were here altogether, it were not lawful to worship them. Acts x. and xiv; Rev. xxii; therefore much more is it unlawful to bow, to fall down, to worship the image of the crucifix. And yet ye say that ye hold no Popish ordinances contrary to the Word of God.

Is the conjuring of salt and water to drive devils away, and to heal all sicknesses, and to take away sins, agreeing with the Word of God? Ye will answer me in English, that ye make not your holy-water for any such intent, but only to be a remembrance of Christ's blood. But on Sunday, ye will answer me in Latin, that ye make it to drive away devils, to heal all sicknesses, and to purchase forgiveness of sins. Your answer is printed, and it is said every Sunday in every parish-church of England in these words: "Immensam tuam clementiam, Omnipotens aeterne Deus, humiliter imploramus, &c." Almighty, everlasting God, we humbly beseech thee that thou wouldest vouchsafe with thy holiness to bless and make holy this thy creature of salt which thou hast given to the use and profit of mankind, that it may be to all them that receive it, health of both body and soul. And the charm that ye say over the water every Sunday is this: O creature of water, I conjure thee in the name of Almighty God the Father, and in the name of Jesu Christ his Son, that thou may be conjured water to cast out devils and to put away sicknesses, &c. If ye say not these words as oft as ye make holy water, let me be hanged, drawn and quartered as a traitor to Almighty God. How happeneth this, ye gentlemen of the clergy, that ye say one thing in Latin and another in English? If any man speak against this your witched water, ye defend it in the pulpit, and say that ye make it to be a remembrance only of Christ's blood, and not to drive devils away, and to be health of both body and soul, and on the Sunday next following, ye say in Latin, that the people should not perceive your cloked lying, that ye make it to drive devils away, and to be health of both the body and the soul. Ye crafty Canonists, ye play with holy water, Pope Alexander's daughter. . . . No man asketh anything of God but what he believeth possible and may well be. Ye ask of God, that salt may be unto you and to all them that receive it, salvation of body and soul: therefore ye believe that it is possible and may well be, that salt may be salvation to all them that receive it. But salt is another thing besides Christ, and ye believe that men may be saved by it; therefore ye believe that there is or may be another Saviour or salvation besides Christ. I will not suffer you lightly to slip away from me without an answer. Ye say to God Almighty, Grant us that this salt may be salvation or health of body and soul to all them that receive it. Believe ye, that what you [23/24] ask is possible or impossible? If it be impossible, ye be wise prayers. If ye believe that it is possible that ye ask, then believe ye that it is possible that salt may be salvation of both body and soul. But seeing that there are no more parts of a man but his body and his soul, and Christ can do no more to a man but to heal both body and soul, and ye say that it is possible that salt may heal both body and soul; then it followeth that ye believe that your conjured salt may do as much as Christ.

And if this be not a heresy, to say that it is possible that salt may do as much as our Redeemer and Saviour Jesus Christ, both God and man, can do; what is heresy? Now at length thanks be unto God we have found out the right heretics. Let them that have authority to punish heretics look unto them that hold this damnable opinion. Tell me ye which have the Pope's mark in your Crowns, how happeneth that ye be weary of Christ's Salvation, that ye pray the Father of heaven to make you another Saviour of salt? Hath Christ at any time disappointed any of you, or any other that trusted in him, that ye desire the Father to make another Saviour of salt? If he be a sufficient Saviour alone, and disappointed, at no time, them that trust in him; what need ye desire the Father that salt may be health of body and soul? Let them that understand Latin come the next Sunday to the Church when the priest maketh holy water, and they shall be sure to hear the priest desiring the heavenly Father that salt may be salvation and health of both body and soul to all them that receive it. But lest ye should escape, I will prove you open idolaters by this your prayer. To whomsoever ye give the property of God, the same ye make God, as the children of Israel made a God of the golden calf when they said that it brought them out of Egypt. For none but God could deliver them through the Red Sea from Pharaoh and the Egyptians; and so they gave to the calf what was due to God. But ye give the property of God unto salt; therefore ye make a God of salt. I prove thus that ye give the property of God unto salt. The peculiar and only property of God is to be health of both body and soul, and that ye give unto salt: therefore ye make a God of salt, then are ye damnable idolaters. If ye excuse your conjuring of the devil out of salt, water, fire and willow-boughs, and say, we are the successors of the Apostles, nay, their apes, the Apostles cast out devils, why may we not also cast out devils, as the Apostles did? I answer with this question: The Apostles anointed sick men and prayed over them, and they restored them unto their health again: how happeneth that among a thousand that ye anoint, that ye restore not one to his health again?

It is to be thought that the devil setteth as much by your conjuring him away, as he set by the conjuring of the seven sons of the High Priest Sceva, who were conjurers. Read what Luke writeth of them, Acts, xix. chapter: "But certain of the renegade Jews that were conjurers, [24/25] took in hand to call upon the name of the Lord JESU, over them that had evil spirits, saying; We conjure you by JESUS that Paul preacheth. For they that did that were seven sons of Sceva the high priest. But the evil spirit answered and said, I know Jesus and Paul also; but who be you? And the man that had the evil spirit, rushed upon them and overcame them, and had the higher hand over them, so that they fled away out of the house, naked and wounded." Belike the devil setteth as much by your conjuring which are the seven sons of the high priest of this time, the Pope, that is, to wit, Cardinals, Archbishops, priests, monks, friars, and canons, as he set by the conjuring of the seven sons of Sceva, the high priest of the Jews. For I never heard tell that these thousand years that ye cast one devil out of anything that ye conjured yet. It is like also that the devil having the higher hand over you, pulleth the hair of your crowns, as many as are conjurers, and are the sons of the high priest, the Pope. As he rent the clothes of the other high priest's children, and wounded them well. By this mark may we be sure to know a conjurer, and one of the Pope's sons who hath unluckily foughten with the devil. To make an end of this matter; ye say to salt, "Sit salus mentis et corporis;" Be thou health of body and soul: and the Scripture saith of Christ, "Nec est in alio quoquam salus;" There is health in no other. Now can ye not say but that ye hold more Popish traditions contrary to the Word of God than one.

Is the taking away of the one half of Christ's supper from the laymen, agreeing with the Word of God? I think it is not. For theft and sacrilege are contrary to the Word of God. And the taking away of the one half of the supper from the lay people, is theft and sacrilege. Therefore the taking away of the one half of Christ's supper from the lay people, is contrary to the Word of God. Thus prove I that the taking away of the half of Christ's supper, is theft and sacrilege. Theft is the taking away of what belongeth to another, as against the owner's will. Sacrilege is the taking away of a holy thing from them it is due to, against their wills. But ye take from the lay people against their wills, the half of the Sacrament which is due unto them. Therefore ye commit theft and sacrilege. If ye deny that the half of the supper that ye take from them is due unto them; by what authority claim ye the whole supper, that is, both the parts of the Sacrament? If ye say, by the authority of the Scripture, which saith, "Take and eat, this is my body," and, "Drink you all of this;" was this spoken to you and the Apostles only, or was it spoken and commanded unto all Christian men? If ye say that it was said and commanded to you only, and to the Apostles; then do ye the laymen great wrong, who compel the laymen, on pain of death, to receive the half of the Sacrament which was not commanded of Christ to receive it. If that these words, "Take and eat," and, "Drink ye all of this cup," were as well said unto laymen, [25/26] as to priests; then take ye away from the laymen against their wills what is due to them.

But to do so, is to play the thieves and Church-robbers: therefore to take away from the lay people the one half of Christ's Supper, is theft and Church-robbery. But theft and Church-robbery are contrary to the Word of God: therefore it is contrary to the Word of God to take the one half of the Sacrament from the lay people. If this reason be not strong enough, hear another. Whosoever putteth anything to the ordinance and commandment of God, or taketh any thing from it, sinneth deadly. Deut. iv. "Ye shall put nothing to the word that I speak unto you, neither shall ye take anything from it." If it be deadly sin to reprove and disannul a man's testament that is once approved, or to take any thing from it; much more is it deadly sin to take any thing away from the testament of Jesus Christ which the Father of Heaven hath allowed. Galat. iii. But ye taking away from the lay people,--"Bibite ex hoc omnes:" Drink ye all of this; that is, the Sacrament of Christ's blood, take something from the Word of God, and mangle and minish the last will of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and scrape out a part of Christ's will, which was, that all men should drink of his blessed cup: therefore, in taking off the Sacrament of Christ's blood from the lay people, ye sin deadly. If a man had two sons, a priest and a layman, the priest is with his father at the making of his testament, and the layman is away; the father departeth, and commandeth both the layman and the priest to do one thing, and to receive one thing. The testament is allowed. Now whether doth the priest the layman wrong or no, if he will not let him receive the whole thing that his father willed him to receive, or no? Ye see by this similitude, that seeing that ye priests are our brethren, and not masters above us, and are all alike bound to keep Christ's whole will, that ye have no authority to defraud us, and take from us what our Saviour Christ hath commanded us to receive, and would that we should take. Is it agreeing with the Word of God, that a priest may say mass and receive the Sacrament for a layman, and to teach that the priests' receiving of the Sacrament deserveth forgiveness of sins, or at least is profitable for laymen, and for the souls departed? I think, nay. Have ye any text in all the whole Scripture whereby ye can prove that a layman may not as well receive the Sacrament for a priest, as the priest may receive it for a layman? If ye have any, say it out. If one layman cannot receive the Sacrament for another layman, and thereby win him forgiveness of sins, a priest cannot receive the Sacrament for a layman, and thereby deserve him forgiveness of sins. For as one Christian man cannot be christened for another, one cannot be confirmed for another, one cannot be confessed for another, one cannot repent for another, one cannot take orders for another, one cannot be anointed for another, one cannot be married for another; so cannot a Christian man receive the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood for another. [26/27] Then if the priest be a Christian man he cannot receive the Sacrament for a layman. If a layman laboured sore from twelve of the clock to six, and from six of the clock, his supper were ready,--I ask if the layman were sore hungry and thirsty, if the parish-priest should eat the layman's supper from him, and drink up all his drink from him; whether should this priest eating and drinking quench the layman's hunger and thirst or no? Prove they that list, I think nay. So, if the layman have a great hunger and a thirst to be comforted and strengthened in his faith by the receiving of the Sacrament; shall the priest's receiving of the Sacrament comfort the layman's soul, and certify his conscience that his sins are forgiven by the blood of Christ? a trow, nay; or else, but a little. If that the priest's receiving of the Sacrament comfort men's consciences more than if the laymen should receive it themselves; what need sick men that are like to die to have the Sacrament brought unto them, when as the priest's receiving of the Sacrament in the Church, comforteth as well the layman's soul after your opinion, and calleth to his remembrance the passion of Christ so well as though the layman had received it in his house his own self? Ye hold that the receiving of the Sacrament of the priest helpeth more the layman, both dead and quick, than their own receiving; let us try thee with examples, reason, and Scripture. As Almighty God ordained the passover of the Jews, and the eating of their Easter lamb, for a remembrance of their deliverance from the scourging angel, and from the bondage of Pharaoh: so Christ the Son of God, both God and Man, ordained his Supper to be received of all Christian men, that they should call to remembrance the passion of Christ, and the shedding of his most precious blood, which hath delivered our souls out of the bondage of the spiritual Pharaoh--the devil. As the priest and the laymen of Moses' law were all alike bound to keep the feast of their passover, and to thank God for their deliverance from the scourging angel, and from the bondage of Egypt; and the priests could not, by the law of God, give but the half of the lamb to the lay people: so among Christian men, the laymen are as well bound to keep their Easter, and to call to remembrance the death of Christ, and to give thanks for their deliverance from the devil, as the elders of the New Testament are, seeing that they have received like profit of Christ's death and passion. And so the elders cannot by the Word of God take the one half of the Supper from the lay people. As God would not allow it that in the Old. Testament, a priest should eat the Easter lamb for a lay Jew; so will not God allow it in the New Testament, that an elder that ye call a priest shall take the Sacrament for a layman. As one hundred years after that the children of Israel were delivered from the scourging angel, and from the bondage of Egypt, a priest of the Jews could not deserve the deliverance of the laymen by eating the Easter lamb, which was delivered a hundred years [27/28] before; so the elders of the New Testament cannot deserve the deliverance of the laymen of the New Testament; that is, forgiveness of sins, by their receiving of the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood, seeing above fifteen hundred years ago, all the laymen that believe in Christ were delivered from the devil and damnation, as Paul to the Hebrews, in the x. chapter, doth plainly testify in these words: "With one oblation and no more, he hath made perfect for ever all them that are sanctified, and ordained to be saved." Then cannot the priest by the receiving of the Supper of Christ, deserve our forgiveness of sins, and our deliverance, seeing that our deliverance is so long ago passed, and Christ ordained not his Supper to deserve our deliverance from the devil, but to be a remembrance of our deliverance from the devil, and to give God thanks for our redemption and deliverance.

If that ye hold stiffly still, that the priest's receiving of the Sacrament deserveth for the laymen, both alive and departed, forgiveness of sins, or any manner of help for them; bring out one tittle of the Scripture to prove it withal. If ye can bring no Scripture, answer to this question: Whether is it a commandment of God to all Christians to receive the Sacrament or no? Either it is a commandment or no commandment. If it be no commandment, then are not laymen once in the year bound to receive the Sacrament, neither are priests bound to say mass. If that it be a commandment, how can a priest deserve, in doing that for a layman, what he is bound to do for himself? If it be a common commandment to all men to receive the whole Sacrament, God will not allow it, that one man shall keep the commandment for another, but will require the keeping of the commandment by every one for himself. For if God would allow the keeping of the commandment of one man for another man; then needed no rich men, were they never so wicked, go to the devil for not keeping the commandment of God. For then if priests might keep the commandments for laymen, and deserve them forgiveness of sins, they might hire priests to keep the commandments for them, that they might live like devils and die like saints, and have everlasting life. But now let us see what the Scripture saith concerning this,--That one man may receive the Sacrament and keep the commandment of God for another. "Whatsoever a man soweth" (saith the Scripture) "that shall he reap." The same Scripture saith, "He that soweth scarcely shall reap scarcely." Of the which places I gather, that he that soweth nothing shall reap nothing. Then I reason thus. When the priest saith mass and receiveth the Sacrament, the laymen that are alive and the souls departed sow nothing, for the priest soweth alone; then shall neither the dead laymen nor the quick reap anything, that is, shall receive no reward of God for the priest's saying of mass and the receiving of the Sacrament for them, For if the dead and quick should have profit by the priest's receiving of the Sacrament, when they received it not themselves; then should they that sowed nothing, [28/29] contrary to the Scripture, reap something, and have a reward for doing nothing. Moreover as the five foolish virgins could get no part of the five wise virgins' oil when the bridegroom came; so they that do no good works themselves, shall have no part of other men's good works. Then if the mass and the receiving of the Sacrament be a good work, they that say not mass themselves or receive not the Sacrament themselves, shall have no part nor profit by the saying of mass or the receiving of the Sacrament of others that say mass and receive the Sacrament. How say ye also to this reason? What a priest cannot do for himself that cannot he do for another. But by the receiving of the Sacrament he cannot deserve for himself forgiveness of sins, then can he not deserve forgiveness of sins by the receiving of the Sacrament for others, as for laymen and for the souls departed. That he cannot deserve forgiveness of sins for himself in receiving the Sacrament, thus I prove it. The priest that is ready to receive the Sacrament, before he take it, is either a good man and the servant of God and hath his sins all forgiven, or he is an evil man and the servant of the devil and hath not his sins forgiven. If he be a good man before he receive the Sacrament, and be the servant of God and have his sins forgiven, then his receiving of the Sacrament, deserveth not for him the forgiveness of his sins, for his sins were forgiven before he received the Sacrament.

If the priest a little while before he receive the Sacrament, be an evil man and the servant of the devil, and have not his sins forgiven, and so receive the Sacrament, he deserveth by the unworthy receiving of the Sacrament, the judgment and wrath of God, and no forgiveness of sins, but more punishment for his new sin. Then what is here to spare for the lay people and for the souls departed? If it be true, that when a layman giveth a priest two pence or a groat to say mass for him, and to receive the Sacrament for him: all that the priest deserveth for receiving the Sacrament, is the layman's deserving, when the priest is a deadly sinner, as many a one be; then the priest's deserving of the wrath of God for unworthily receiving of the Sacrament for the layman, must needs be the layman's deserving, and so buyeth he with his money the wrath of God.

Almighty God, save me and all Christian men from such merchandize! Will ye yet say still, that ye hold no traditions of the Pope contrary to the word of God? Say ye that it is agreeing with the word of God, or not contrary to the word of God, that all the Psalms that are sung in the Church, that all the masses that are said in the Church, should be sung and said in the Old Pope's mother-tongue, which the people of England doth not understand? I will prove it contrary to the word of God, though all they that hold on the Pope's side would defend it to be good and lawful. It is a wonderful thing to see how that ye blind bishops pretend to hate the Pope, and yet love so well his works and his deeds, that in all things ye follow him, as near as is [29/30] possible for one man to follow another. The Pope shaveth his head broader than the common sort of priests do, and hath a distinct kind of apparel from all other Christian men also, and will be reckoned higher than his other brethren that are ministers of the word of God, as well as he is, and that contrary to the word of God, which maketh all the Apostles of like authority, and not one above another, and so do ye.

The Pope forbiddeth to eat flesh many times in the year, as in Lent and on the Fridays, and yet selleth licences for money, to eat at all times, and so do ye. The Pope wills that the CANON LAW and the ceremonies be had in great reputation, and not to be put forth of the Church, though they hinder the preaching of God's word, and the praying with heart and spirit, which are the true and right service of God, and so do ye. And lest the Pope should have any peculiar and several ungodly property to differ by from the Apostles of Christ, that ye should not have, the Pope willeth and commandeth, in all places where he hath domination, that all Psalms and all masses shall be said and sung in his old mother Latin tongue, though the people understand never one word of the Latin tongue; yet this doth he, as a token, that the people, hearing the Romish tongue, which is Latin, should acknowledge themselves to be under the see of Rome. Ye christen in the Pope's tongue, and bury in the Pope's mother-tongue, and sing all the Psalms that are sung in the Pope's mother-tongue, and command straitly that all the things above rehearsed, shall be said, sung, and done in no other tongue but in the Pope's mother-tongue, which is the Latin tongue, as a token that ye swerve not away from the Pope of Rome. The Jews which would never acknowledge the Pope to be their head, sing their service and Psalms in Hebrew. The Greeks, which have of long time departed from the Pope, sing their service in their own mother Greek tongue; the Bemers, which fell long ago from the Pope, have forsaken the Pope's mother-tongue, and sing all their service in their own tongue. The Germans, which of late left the Pope, left also the Pope's tongue, and now sing all service and Psalms in their own tongue; and so all countries which forsake the Pope in very deed and earnestly, forsake the Pope's ordinances and the Pope's Romish tongue, as touching singing Psalms and Service therein. But ye Bishops of England, ye alone among all other nations that forsake the Pope, hold still the Pope's ordinances and the service in the Latin tongue. Ye think, belike, that ye are wiser than all other nations. Howbeit, I shall prove that ye do clean contrary to the Word of God, in singing the service in a tongue that the people doth not understand. Saint Paul, in xiv. chapter of the former Epistle to the Corinthians, doth almost no other thing than disallow your singing and saying in a strange tongue in the Church, that the people doth not understand. But if ye require some testimonies out of that chapter, hear what Paul saith.

"He that speaketh in a tongue (that is, in a language that the [30/31] common people understandeth not) speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man heareth him (that is, understandeth him); but he speaketh secret privities in the spirit. But he that prophesieth (that is, declareth and openeth the Scriptures) in a tongue that the people understandeth, he speaketh unto men's profit for their soul's exhortation and comfort. He that speaketh in a tongue profiteth himself, but he that prophesieth, buildeth the congregation." And a little farther in the same chapter, "As oft as ye meet together, every one of you hath his song, his doctrine, his tongue, his revelation, his interpretation; and let all things be done to the profit of the congregation." So far Paul. What profit hath the unlearned man in hearing the Gospel read in the Latin tongue that he understandeth not, be it never so trimly read or chanted? Even as much profit as a sick man hath of a physician's bill when the apothecary readeth it over the sick man's head in Latin and ministereth nothing to the sick man that is contained therein. Paul saith, moreover, "Whether any man speak in a tongue (that is, in a speech that the common sort understandeth not), let it be done by two together, at the uttermost three, and that by course, and let one expound and tell what it meaneth. But if there be none that will interpret or expound, let him hold his peace, and say nothing in the Church, but let him speak to himself and to God." These are the words and commandment of God taught us by his holy Apostle Saint Paul, whereby your Latin masses and Latin Even-songs are utterly condemned, seeing they are said and sung in a tongue that the Church understandeth not, and ye do not interpret and declare what is said in a tongue that the people doth understand. Are there no more but three, at the utmost, in Paul's speaking in tongues at once? If there be more than three, whether is the commandment of God given by Saint Paul broken or not? I pray you, what mean ye to say in Latin to the lay people that, ye know well, understandeth no Latin at all, Dominus vobiscum; Orate pro me fratres; and Ite missa est? Either ye say these words to God, or to all the people. If ye say them to God, then ye bid God be with God, and that is wisely done, wit [know] ye well: or if ye say them to the lay people, ye speak to them that they should know what ye mean; if ye would that they should know what ye mean, why do you speak Latin to them that ye know can understand none? If ye speak Latin to them because they should not understand you; hold your tongues and speak nothing at all, and then have ye got your purpose, for then they shall not wit [know] what ye mean; and if ye hold your tongues, ye shall not spend in vain so much lip-labour as ye do. Answer me to this, before ye call me a heretic. And when ye have once made a reasonable answer, and confuted and overcome my reasons, if I stand stiffly in my opinions, if I give not over to you, then spare not, but call me heretic as oft as ye will; but if ye cannot overcome these reasons, [31/32] which if they were not of God might be easily overcome, and therefore will not answer, grant by holding of your peace, that ye are overcome, and give over your hold and say--peccavimus cum patribus nostris--we have done amiss with our fathers. More of this shall ye hear hereafter. How happeneth this, that neither ye will read the Scripture in the English tongue yourselves to the lay people, neither will suffer them that can read the Scripture, to read it for their soul's health, and great comfort of others that hear it read? It is without all strife and out of all doubt, that ye love not Christ, and would that all the laymen were blind, and had no knowledge of Scripture, no more than they had twenty years ago, that ye might play your own practices, and have no man to look on to correct you. . . . When the New Testaments came in first, it was counted heresy to have a New Testament, and many have been cruelly handled for selling New Testaments in English, which thing Syger of Cambridge can testify, if he will, as not only a seeing but also a feeling witness.

One noble Canonist bought up half a print of New Testaments, and for the love that he had to the Maker of the Testament, offered them up in a burnt sacrifice, to please Vulcanus and the Pope with all who at those days sat deeply in his conscience. This man left off burning Testaments, and others began to burn men, and as yet have not made an end. But after that the King of his goodness that God gave him, had once granted, that the New Testament might be openly bought and sold, and that every man might have the New Testament and read it, ye bishops for a great while durst say nothing thereto. Ye said as little to the having of the whole Bible in English, which the King, in the spite of you, hath brought into the Church, that all men might know their duties, reading of it, till that ye had confirmed the Pope's doctrine with Act of Parliament, and had slain and murdered the chief maintainers of the Bible, next unto the King. Then ye being loth that your acts should be tried and examined with the Bible, went about, and do so still, to drive the Bible out of the Church again. Ye have given commandment that no man shall read the Bible, so that no man may hear it read; afterwards ye commanded, that no man should read the Bible in service-time. And because men should learn to keep your commandment, that is, while ye read in the choir, the Pope's service and the devil's service, that no man should read the Word of God: ye, of late, murdered one Porter in prison, for no other cause but for reading of the Bible, that other men should not be bold to read it. Ye never put any man to death yet for breaking the seventh commandment; therefore ye reckon it a greater offence to read the Gospel of Saint John in the service-time, and the words that Christ spake, than to break the seventh commandment. And to read the words, Homiliae Gregorii Papae, in the Pope's tongue that all the Church may hear them, is reckoned to be God's service, and to read the Gospel of Jesus Christ [32/33] in the English tongue, that seven or eight may hear, is reckoned of you the devil's service. For ye forbid nothing but what ye reckon is the devil's service.

It followeth then, that ye reckon the Pope, God; and Christ, the devil: for him reckon ye God whose words to read and keep ye reckon is God's service. And him reckon ye the devil, or at least the son of the devil, whose words to read and to keep, ye reckon the devil's service, and punish men for the reading of his words. These follow of your deeds. And because every man cannot gather after this manner, as oft as I see just occasion, I shall let you and all England know of your heresies, and wicked opinions, and devilish deeds, that ye do and intend to do; which thing I would not do, if I knew you not to be obstinate wrestlers against God's Holy Word. If ye say, we would not utterly have the Bible suppressed, but we would have it better translated, what time would ye have to correct it? Perchance so many years as the King's Highness shall live, and then after his death, ye have a good hope, with the help of them whose children ye find, to hold it down, till that the prince come to perfect age, and then too, if ye can. For the Bible is the breath of God's mouth, which, ye have read, shall kill your father Antichrist and you. If ye say that we would not have the Bible out of the Church again, but only we desire that God's service shall not be hindered by the laymen's reading. Well, then, what call ye God's service? Ye will say, I am sure, that all that is sung and said in the choir is God's service, as though what were read, said, or sung, in the body of the Church were none of God's service. This answer will I thus improve. The more part of what is read in the Church is no Scripture, as are lying legends, which are bigger than the Bible, sequences, secrets, colates, conjurings of water, salt, fire, and boughs, litany responses, and such others, whose reading, saying, and singing, cannot be God's service. For Christ saith, Matt. xv., "They worship me in vain that teach the commandments of men, and the learning of men." Then seeing that the legends and the colates are made by men, and the clerks in the choir in reading them, teach them; it followeth that they worship God in vain. Then is their service vain. God's service is not vain service, then the greater half of that which is read in the choir is not of God's service, that is, to wit, the legends, colates, conjurings, secrets, sequences, and such others. Now the other part of that which is read in the choir, is pure Scripture, of whose hearing, laymen have as much profit as a lay and unlearned man hath of the hearing of a Latin play or comedy. Howbeit, I will prove that even the most part of that Scripture, seeing that it is said and sung contrary to God's mind, is none of God's service, in all them and in all other that say the Scripture with their lips, and not with their hearts, that is, understand not what they sing and say, and lift not their minds up to God, as do all they that sing Latin service and understand no Latin, as the most part of choristers, singing-men, and soul-priests, and many body-priests also, [33/34] commonly do. God commanded that the Scripture should not be sung or said in a strange tongue, except it were straightway expounded. That is not done. Then is the Scripture said and sung not after God's mind; therefore it is not God's service so sung and said. And that they that understand not Latin, worship not God nor serve God with singing of the Scripture in Latin, thus I prove it. John iv. "God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth;" that is, unfeignedly with heart and mind; so do not they that sing they wot not what. Christ also, Matthew xv., reproveth such servers and worshippers, who neither understand nor mark what they say, in these words:--"This people draweth near unto me with their mouth and worship me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." Now have I proved that your service in the choir is not God's service, but vain lip-labour, except it be sung and said with heart and mind, as they do not who understand not what they sing, except also it be Scripture and sung and said after the ordinance of God. If it be God's service to sing in the choir the homilies of popes, legends of saints, and such verses as, Sacred Mary's merits bring us to heaven, and all in the Latin tongue; then must it much more be God's service to read in the body of the Church, the text of the Scripture, which is better than the Pope's glosses, the Acts of the Apostles, and such other texts of the Scripture. "No man cometh to the Father but through me;" "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Then why forbid ye the better for the worse? Why forbid ye laymen to read the Bible in your service-time, seeing the laymen may have much more profit of hearing five words read in English that they understand, than of five thousand words that they do not understand, be they never so finely chopped, champed, or chanted? Paul saith, "Let all things be done to the edification and profit of the Church;" but your service sung and said in the Latin tongue, is not for the profit of the Church. Therefore it is contrary to the Word of God, that ye should sing the service or say it in the Latin tongue. If ye require the sum of all, together in an argument, take it unto you. No man is edified by hearing what he doth not understand, and therefore hath the King commanded that all laymen shall learn their Pater Noster in English. But the laymen understand not the service said and sung in the Latin tongue; therefore they are not edified, or made any better by hearing it in the Latin tongue.

Is it agreeing with God's Word, that ye forbid all men, both learned and lay, the whole half-year, save twelve days, to marry, and will suffer no man to be a preacher of God's Word, or a minister of Christ's Church, except he forswear marriage first? Is it agreeing with God's Word to say that a priest may not have a wife by the Word of God? I say that this your doctrine is the doctrine of the devil, for Christ alloweth marriage in all men and in all times. "Honourable is marriage among all men," saith Paul; and the same saith, "If they cannot forbear and have not the gift of chastity, let them marry." This commandeth God by [34/35] Paul to be done at all times, yea, even in your holy Lent time, if a man have not the gift of chastity. Ye have boldly and wickedly given sentence in your Convocation-house, that a priest may not have a wife by the law of God, and yet can ye not skew one letter in all the whole Bible that forbiddeth priests to have wives. Ye say that they may have no wives by the Word of God; and yet they may have, as I have proved by the Bible. Therefore ye reckon there is something the Word of God besides the Bible. I think that ye take the CANON LAW for the Word of God, or at least regard it as much as the Word of God. Ye make men believe that ye have Scripture to prove your purpose withal, and yet the chief setter out of this article, the noble waterer of the Pope's Garden, which of his deeds hath his name, when he was required of Martin Bucer, what Scripture he had to prove that priests might not marry, like a perfect canonist, for lack of Scripture, made this reason: "The same authority hath the King over all the priests of his realm, and his other subjects, that a father hath over his children. But a father may forbid the priests of his realm to marry. Then if they marry when he forbiddeth them to marry, they break the commandment of God, which saith, Children, obey your fathers and mothers. Now let us see what followeth of this Gardiner's argument. First, it followeth that the King hath authority to forbid all men in his realm, both that have the gift of chastity and have it not, to marry as long as they live, and so utterly may, by Gardiner's judgment, destroy matrimony. It followeth of this argument, that once in time past, that it was not unlawful for priests to marry, that is, to wit, before the King forbade priests to marry. It followeth of Gardiner's reason, that the King forbade priests' marriage before God forbade them; and that the King made the marriage of priests sin before God, and that it were no sin for a priest to marry, if that the King would not forbid priests to marry.

Mark this well, ye temporal Lords, and ye Burgesses of the Parliament, how, when he is in Germany, he can find out no Scripture to disprove priests' marriages withal; but only that the King's forbidding of priests' marriages, maketh priests' marriages unlawful, and no other thing. And when the King's highness and ye put this matter to the clergy to be tried with the Scripture, whether priests might marry, or no; this with his fellows gave a plain answer, that by the Word of God, priests might not marry.

Can ye abide, ye noble Lords, that these men of Antichrist, shall mock you thus and lie of the King our master, and say of him, that he maketh sin that which God never made sin. I trust you will suffer them no longer; for it is high time to look upon them. Then when as ye, Master Gardiner, with your other fellows, can bring forth never one text of the Scripture, that this aforesaid forbidding of marriage of priests and of the marriage of laymen, for the one half of the year, that it is the doctrine of God, I will prove to you by a plain place of the Scripture, that it is the plain doctrine of the devil. Paul, in the former [35/36] Epistle to Timothy, in the fourth chapter, saith plainly, that Forbidding of marriage is the doctrine of the devil. Therefore, seeing that the Pope and ye teach the same doctrine, ye hold the doctrine of the devil. . . . The devil always from man's creation, his deadly enemy, seeking all the means that he could to pull man from God, perceiving that man had an unfleeable desire given him of God, to increase and multiply his kind, and an unavoidable appetite (few except) therefore to have natural company with his appointed companion, laboured all that he could, utterly to destroy marriage. . . . But because if the devil should have gone about the destruction of marriage in his own person, because he is hateful, he should have sped the worse; he came to a Pope wholly heretic, called Montanus, and him he stirred up to write against matrimony, and so he did, and taught that marriage should be broken, as Eusebius writeth in the fifth Book of the Ecclesiastical Story, and in the fifteenth chapter. But Apollonius, a good Christian man, overcame this heretic and his doctrine, so that he lost all his credence and therewith lost the devil a great number of his true servants. Satan seeing that he could not speed by the means of an open heretic, he came to a certain doctor, and moved him to write against marriage. And that did he in a book which he wrote against Vigilantius, in these words following:--"Bonum est mulierem non tangere; ergo, malum est tangere. Nihil enim contrariatur bono nisi malum. Quamdiu impleo mariti officium, non impleo Christiani. Jubet Apostolus, ut semper oremus. Si semper orandum est, nunquam conjugio serviendum est." The English of this doctor's words is this:--It is good not to touch a woman, then it is evil to touch her. For there is nothing contrary to good but evil. So long as I fulfil the office of a married man, I fulfil not the office of a Christian man. The Apostle biddeth us, that we should always pray. If that we must always pray, we must not give ourselves to marriage or to serve marriage. So far hath the doctor spoken. This doctor's name was Jerome, who, in this point, erred sore, and gave many others occasion to err after him, who believed men without Scripture. Howbeit, Augustine writing De bono conjugii, and other doctors did sufficiently overthrow this error of Jerome, and so was the devil twice disappointed. Yet he would not give over his matter so, but ever sought new shifts, and then he came to his vicar on earth, the bishop of Rome, and him he stirred and moved to destroy matrimony . . . . promising him for his labour to be the richest man in the world, and of the greatest estimation. The Pope hearing these promises, straightway went about to destroy matrimony. And first he commanded all that were his ghostly children and had his mark in their crowns, should forswear marriage. And he made a law that no man should be allowed to be a preacher in Christ's Church except he forswear marriage first. And fain would he have forbidden all laymen to have married too. But when they would not forswear marriage for him, yet he locked up marriage, even from [36/37] all laymen, for the space of the one half of the year save twelve days. Whereby the devil and the world might well perceive his good will, that he had, utterly to destroy marriage; at the least, to move all men to think that marriage was sin, and that the state of marriage was a sinful state. And by the help of this his vicar, the devil gat many a prey. But the Germans seeing that this forswearing of marriage was the highway to the devil, wrote earnestly against this forbidding of marriage and against the foolish and ungodly vows, and against the Pope himself and his authority, and riches which the devil gave him, and at the length utterly forsook the Pope and all his vows and forswearings of marriage, with all other like traditions.

After the Germans, the King, our master, commanded you earnestly to drive out the Pope out of all places of his dominion also, and to preach earnestly against him. Then the devil perceiving that the King was about to drive the Pope out of his realm, was afraid that the King should drive out with the Pope, forswearing of marriage, unlawful vows, and all other ordinances that the Pope made, as the Germans did when they banished away the Pope. And therefore he came to you whom the King had appointed to drive out the Pope, and desired you, that ye would not drive out of England the forswearing of marriage, but that all things concerning marriage of priests should continue as they had continued since the time of Gregory the Seventh; and he promised you so long as ye would do so, that he would help you to hold still your temporal lands, your great honour, riches, and dignity. And so, my lords, for the upholding of your pompous state, ye will not drive out of England the forbidding and the forswearing of marriage. For of that matter ye fear that your honour and estimation do hang. When ye shall make me an answer to this book, tell me what authority have ye beside the authority of Satan, to forbid marriage, or to compel any man to forswear marriage, seeing Saint Paul saith in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in the seventh chapter: "I have no commandment of virgins," that is, I have no authority of God to bind any man or woman to live single without marriage. If that Saint Paul have no authority to compel any man or woman to live without marriage, the King hath no authority to forbid any man to marry. For Saint Paul had as much authority as the King in spiritual matters. Prove the contrary, if ye can. If the King, whom ye grant to be head of the Church, have not that authority, of whom have ye that authority? If ye say ye have any such authority, then ye make yourselves above the King. In your answer, tell me how it happeneth that this place of Paul unto Timothy maketh not for priests' marriages: "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." I say that ye must either let this place serve for priests' marriages, or else ye must lease all your temporal lands, and have nothing wherewithal ye may keep hospitality, which Paul requireth in a bishop. For thus reason ye with this text, for your temporal lands. A bishop must be herberous [hospitable], but without temporal lands, that he [37/38] cannot be, therefore must a bishop have temporal lands. This text of Paul is as free for me as for you. "A bishop must be the husband of one wife." But without a wife, he cannot be the husband of one wife; therefore he must have one wife. If ye expound this place of Paul--"Oportet episcopum esse unius uxoris maritum;" hoc est, fuisse unius uxoris maritum: "A bishop must be the husband of one wife;" that is, a bishop must have been the husband of one wife.--I ask of you, whether all these things that Paul speaketh of here, are required in a man that is to be chosen a bishop, or are they required all in him only that is chosen already, or are they required both in one that is to be chosen, and in him that is already chosen? If ye say that these properties are required all in him alone that is chosen already, then is he eligible and may be chosen to be a bishop which is a drunkard, a murderer, and hath two wives, so that after that he is chosen, he be none of this sort. If ye say that these properties, to be faultless, to be the husband of one wife, watching, sober, lowly, herberous, &c., be required in him only that is not yet chosen a bishop, but standeth in the election to be chosen, and not in him that is chosen already; then may a bishop after that he is chosen once and made bishop, be full of faults, the husband of many wives, a sleeper, a drunkard, high-minded, and unherberous; which thing to grant is an inconvenience. Therefore ye must grant that these properties are both required in him that standeth to be chosen, and in him that is chosen already. Therefore both the man that standeth to be chosen, and he that is now chosen already a bishop, must be faultless, the husband of one wife, modest, herberous, watching, sober, &c. Therefore, either grant that Paul required in a bishop that is chosen, that he have no more wives but one, and that he may have one; or grant that Paul requireth not in a bishop that is made already to be herberous. For those things that Paul speaketh of, in one mood, one tense, in one text, all together, he doth alike require at one time; or else reprove in one time. Then seeing that he saith in one mood, tense, and text together, a bishop must be the husband of one wife, sober, herberous; then doth he alike require that a bishop should have a wife, or no more wives but one, as he requireth that he should be herberous and sober. Then if the having of a wife belong not to a bishop, then soberness and keeping of hospitality belong not to him. If he be not bound to keep hospitality, he must have no lands to keep hospitality. If ye say that oportet esse must signify oportet fuisse, that is, must be, must be taken only for must have been; then it is not required, by your gloss, in a man that is a bishop to be faultless, to have but one wife, to be watching, sober, modest, herberous, fit to teach, no wine-drinker, no smiter, not given to filthy lucre, but it is sufficient if he have been all these. He is sufficient bishop, by your exposition, if he have been faultless, though he be as full of open crimes as a leopard is full of spots. It forceth not, if he have three wives so that he hath had no more wives but one. It maketh no matter if [38/39] he be a sleeping and a dumb dog, so that he hath been watching and diligent. He need not to be sober when he is once made bishop, but he may occupy all manner of excess, so that he hath been sober before he was bishop. It skilleth not whether he be modest or no, it is much if he have been. It is not required in him to be herberous, fit to teach, no wine-drinker, no smiter, after that he is made a bishop, so that when he was a Scholar in Cambridge or Oxford; he hath been herberous, fit to teach, no smiter, and no drunkard. Ye may be then, after that ye be once made bishops, by your turning esse into fuisse, full of all sins, the husbands of a hundred wives, sleeping dogs, drunkards, and murderers. And if a man say unto you bishops, Paul saith ye may not be murderers, ye may not be drunkards, ye may have no more wives than one; ye may, by the juggling of esse into fuisse, that is, by the juggling of be into have been, say yes. And that this is not the meaning of Paul; for Paul requireth not now when we are once made bishops, that we should be sober, and have but one wife; but that before we were bishops, we should have been sober, and the husbands of one wife, &c.

And so now we may be what we list. Wherefore I marvel the less that so many bishops which have been in Cambridge and Oxford, before they were bishops, watching and fit to teach, are become sleeping dogs that dare not bark, and more fit to flatter than to teach God's word purely without the leaven of the doctors, seeing that they are discharged from all things that Paul requireth of a right bishop by this gloss, a bishop must be, that is, a bishop must have been. But according to their gloss, the honest common people speaketh of them after this wise. How continueth doctor Ericeus in preaching God's word and in promoting the Gospel? Another answereth by and bye, qui fuit. But ye care not for the common report, ye be so far past all shame. But to conclude this matter. That doctrine that forbiddeth what Christ ordained is contrary to Christ: but your doctrine forbiddeth that which Christ ordained. Therefore your doctrine is contrary to the doctrine of Christ. . . . Solomon, in the sixth chapter of the Proverbs, saith, that adultery is the greater offence than is theft; therefore if theft be worthy of hanging, adultery is worthy of it, and a greater punishment beside. Saint Paul saith in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, "Let not fornication be so much as once named among Christian men;" that which is forbidden to be named is forbidden to be done. But fornication is forbidden to be named; then much is it forbidden to be done and allowed. Paul calleth fornication leaven, and wills that such as be so should be excommunicated, and not suffered to come among other Christian people till they were ashamed of their sins, and intended to commit that offence no more, 1 Cor. v. Almighty God, Deut. xxiii., forbiddeth that any such person should be suffered among his folk . . . .

Now have I tried the chief of your Popish ordinances and traditions, [39/40] and I have found them contrary to the Word of God. Now is there nothing to let [hinder] me, but that I may conclude my aforesaid argument without any contradiction or gainsaying, Whosoever holdeth still the Pope's doctrine, which is contrary to the Word of God, holdeth still the Pope that the King would have driven out of England. But I have proved sufficiently that ye hold still the Pope's doctrine, which is contrary to the Word of God. Therefore I have proved that ye hold still the Pope that the King would have driven out of England.

By this time, I trow, that the fox is found out. And they are known that maintain him and hold him still in this realm, after that the King hath commanded him to be utterly banished out of all places of his dominion. If such a poor man as I should hold still in England the King's enemy that he commanded me to drive out of his realm, I should be taken as a traitor. But ye hold still the King's enemy that he commanded you to drive out of his realm: then whether may a man call you traitors or no? If ye be no traitors, prove in your answer that ye will send me, that ye hold no doctrine of the Pope contrary to the Word of God. If ye be traitors and heretics and unlearned, and have no knowledge but in the CANON LAW, and in old glosses and fantasies of men, answer nothing to my arguments, but forbid my book to be read, and in holding your peace, consent that all that is said of you in this book is true. If ye be learned men and have knowledge in the Scriptures and love learning, answer me like learned men, and be not like privy murderers, which will not tell a man that they murder, wherefore they kill him, but suddenly, without any asking of any question, slay him suddenly. Tell me by the Scripture, where I have said amiss, and if I recant not, call me heretic, and do to me as ye should do to a heathen man. But if ye condemn my book and cannot overcome it by the Word of God, I shall set a play of your mischievous tyranny in Latin, that all the learned men that are now alive, and the age for to come, shall know you what ye be and what ye have been, Almighty God give you grace to amend. Amen.

[The following passage extracted from Stat. 28 Hen. VIII. c. 10. Sects. 6, 7, shews that the King's Highness had really commanded the Romish Fox to be driven out of his Realm. Every person on admission to any degree was thereby required to make oath before the Commissary of the University:--"That he fromhensforth shall utterly renounce, refuse, relinquissh, or forsake the Bisshopp of Rome, and his auctorite, power, and jurisdiction; and that he shall never consent nor agree that the Bisshopp of Rome shall practise, excersise, or have any manner of auctorite, jurisdiction, or power within this Realme, or any other the Kynges Dominyions, but that he shall resist the same at all tymes to the uttermost of his power; and that fromhensforth he shall accepte, repute, and take the Kynges Majestie to be the oonly supreme hedd in erth of the Church of Englond; and that to his connyng wytt and uttermost of his power, without gile, fraude, or other undewe meane, he shall observe, kepe, maynteyne, and defende the hole effectes and contentes of all and singuler actes and Statutes made, and to be made, within this realme, in derogacion, extirpacion, and extinguysshment of the Bisshopp of Rome and his auctorite, and all other Actes and Statutes made, and to be made, in reformation and corroboration, of the Kynges Power, of supreme heed in erth, of the Churche of Englonde; and this he shall do agenst al manner of personnes of what estate, dignytie, degre, or condicion they be, and in no wise do, nor attempte, nor to his power, suffer to be doon, or attempted directly or indirectly, any thing or thinges prively or apertely to the lett, hyndraunce, damage, or derogacion thereof, or of any parte thereof by any manner of meanes or for eny manner of pretence; and in case any oth be made or hath been made by hym to eny person or personnes, in mayntenance, defence, or favour of the Bisshopp of Rome, or his auctorite, jurisdiction, or power, he repute the same as vayne and adnychilate: So help hym God, All Seyntes, and the Holy Evangelistes."] ED.

FINIS.

Project Canterbury