A treatise of the cohabitacyon of the faithfull with the vnfaithfull.: Whereunto is added. A sermon made of the confessing of Christe and his gospell, and of the denyinge of the same

In Short

This sixteenth-century theological text acts as an urgent pastoral response to religious tyranny. It addresses the difficult question of whether it is permissible for the "faithful" to dwell among, or participate in the rituals of, the "unfaithful"—specifically, Catholics. Through a structured argument, the author labels the Mass an act of idolatry and rejects the notion that one can inwardly dissent while outwardly conforming. It remains a poignant historical document of the Reformation, capturing the intense pressure to compromise one’s values to avoid exile or execution.

The Story

The narrative arc of this treatise follows a rigorous logical progression designed to strip away the reader’s excuses for spiritual compromise. It begins by defining the core conflict: the daily life of a Christian living under a regime that mandates participation in what the author identifies as "popish superstitions." The central, agonizing question is whether it is lawful to remain in such a society, and if so, how far a believer can go in conforming to outward customs—like attending Mass—to keep their life, property, and standing intact.

The author systematically dismantles the justifications for such "dissembling." Many of his contemporaries argued that they could attend the Mass as a social duty, provided they inwardly rejected the theology behind it and kept their hearts fixed on the true gospel. The text rejects this separation of mind and body, arguing that God demands the whole person. By comparing those who attend the Mass to the ancient Corinthians who shared in the tables of idols, the author insists that outward participation is not a neutral act; it is an act of communion with error. He posits that even if a believer claims to focus on Christ during the ritual, they are nonetheless participating in a service that denies the sufficiency of Christ’s one-time sacrifice, thereby effectively denying the faith they claim to hold.

Moving from the individual to the political, the author outlines the responsibilities of leadership. He argues that princes are obligated to protect the religious purity of their subjects. If a ruler commands acts that violate divine law, the believer’s duty to God must supersede their obedience to the state. Drawing on biblical archetypes like Naboth, who refused to relinquish his ancestral land, the author exhorts his readers to resist the pressures of worldly authorities. The treatise reaches its climax in a sermon that explicitly defines the "denying of Christ." He dismisses the idea that one can be a "secret believer," insisting that faith is a public confession that must be spoken. To remain silent or to feign ignorance when confronted by the authorities is to deny the truth. The book concludes with a stern warning: those who seek to preserve their lives, their comforts, and their worldly status by masking their faith will inevitably lose the very essence of their witness, ultimately falling away into the "filth" of the world they seek to appease.

How It Unfolds

The problem of cohabitation The text sets out the moral landscape, questioning whether the godly can coexist with the ungodly without being corrupted. It frames the danger not merely as a matter of social exposure, but as a risk to the believer’s own theological integrity.

The anatomy of the Mass The author provides a sharp critique of the Catholic liturgy, describing it as a "stinking abomination" that obscures the true nature of Christ’s sacrifice. He argues that by participating in these rites, the believer is forced into a state of public idolatry that cannot be excused by private intent.

The duty of confession The focus shifts to the necessity of outward testimony. The author uses biblical precedents to argue that faith is not a private, hidden sentiment but a public declaration that must be made regardless of the threat of death or imprisonment.

The failure of the princes The author criticizes secular rulers for failing to defend the gospel, accusing them of being more concerned with protecting their own lands and titles than with standing up for divine truth. This section serves as a rallying cry for the faithful to prioritize their allegiance to God over the demands of earthly kings.

The People

The book is driven by the clash between the "faithful" and the "unfaithful," though the real drama occurs within the psyche of the "weakling." The weakling is the central, conflicted figure: a believer who wants to hold onto both their faith and their earthly security. They are beset by "trembling fear" and a "great desire of this world," which leads them to justify their presence at rituals they despise. They struggle against the pressure of the "adversaries"—the authorities and papists—who demand conformity.

The author positions himself as the clear-sighted guide who refuses to allow the weakling to hide behind "dark words and doubtful sentences." He also invokes the figure of Peter, who denied Christ out of fear, as a cautionary mirror for his readers. Finally, the princes appear as flawed characters who have the power to protect the truth but choose comfort, standing in contrast to figures like Naboth, who embodies the courage to refuse a king when the king’s demands violate the laws of God.

In Its Own Voice

"I say that when they have provided that these unfaithful have been taught a good while and truly instructed, they must then enforce and compel them unto those holy and pure rites and worshippinges of Godd which are commanded in the scriptures."

(The author argues that leaders have a moral duty to enforce religious conformity once the people have been properly taught.)

"Thou maiste saye that theis men have learned an arte which hetherto no man coulde attayne, to robb a naked man of clothes, to wringe water out of a pumeise stone, and to bidde a man to get fishe in the aire."

(The author uses vivid sarcasm to mock those who claim they can attend the Mass while inwardly rejecting its meaning.)

What It's Really About

At its heart, the book is a study of the integrity of the witness. It asks whether a faith that is not acted upon is truly faith at all. The author is deeply concerned with the "christian liberty" of free speech—the right and duty to openly profess one’s convictions. The argument is that compromise is a slippery slope; once a believer begins to "play the fox with foxes," they lose the ability to distinguish between their own truth and the errors they are forced to mimic. It is a work about the high cost of holding a belief in a world that demands you hide it.

Why Read It Today

Readers interested in the history of ideas or the development of religious ethics will find this book an intense, bracing encounter with the Reformation mindset. It is not an easy read; the language is archaic, and the tone is unapologetically fierce and uncompromising. One feels the palpable, claustrophobic pressure of a time when one’s outward actions could lead to the stake or the block.

What stays with you is the author's uncompromising insistence on the unity of belief and action. In an age often defined by nuance and the compartmentalization of private and public life, this text stands as a stark, challenging reminder of a time when the stakes of one's convictions were absolute. It is not a book that offers comfort or middle ground; it is a document of conviction, written for a time when survival and integrity were placed on opposite sides of a terrifying divide. It will appeal to those who value historical documents that capture the raw, desperate, and intellectual fervor of the sixteenth century, and who are willing to navigate its difficult prose to understand the depth of the religious crisis that shaped the modern world.