Chap, 1. Kellisons fond conceit and error, concerning the founda­tions of our Religion.

IF it be the part of a wise builder to lay a firme foundation, as our Sauiour Christ Math. 7. teacheth, and common experience prooueth most euidently vnto vs; then we may wel collect, that Kellison our aduersary, in his Suruey, hath shewed himselfe neither wise builder, nor wise man, who in his first booke going about to build the Toure of his Romish Babel doth wholy mistake his foundations, laying the frame of his worke eyther vpon the Pope, whome he supposeth to be a visible Iudge of all controuersies, or vpon the mission and preaching of Romish Masse priestes. Fur­thermore, talking of our Religion, he doth grossely erre in the foundations of it, supposing that it relyeth, first vpon the autho­ritie of our Preachers, then vpon their allegations out of Scrip­tures, thirdly vpon mens priuate spirits, fourthly vpon credible or probable testimonies, and lastly vpō some visible Iudge: mat­ters (certes) rather deuised by him selfe, then taught by vs. The visible Iudge, and authoritie of Priestes, is layd as a foundation of fayth by Stapleton in his booke of doctrinal principles. That which he talketh of priuat spirits, and the allegatiō of Scriptures [Page 2] out of mens own humors, is an imputation of Papists layd vpon vs and that most vniustly. For we build the Church vpon the Prophets and Apostles. Iesus Christ him selfe being the cheefe corner stone, as the Apostle teacheth vs Ephes. 2. And the Scrip­tures we receiue, not as they are interpreted by the Massepriests, or any mans humorous fancy, but as they procéed from the spirit of God by the ministery of his Prophets and Apostles.

Wherefore mistaking the foundation of the worke, we may well imagine, that his discourse, that is a worke raysed either without foundation, or beside the foundation, is most vaine, idle, and absurd. The first Chapter of his first booke, he beginneth with a long declamatory narration, proouing, that no man is to intrude him selfe into the function of the ministery of the Church without mission. But what is that to the foundation of religion, which is the subiect which he promised to handle? Doth he suppose, that the principal foundation of his Massing religion is layd vpon the preaching, or rather not preaching & mission of pol-shorne priests sent out by the Pope to say Masse for quicke and dead? if he doe, then like as his gunpowder consortes went about of late to blow vp the King and Sate, so doth he goe obout to blow vp the Popes Chayre together with all his Cardinals, Friars, Monkes, and Masse-priestes.

For, first the Pope shall neuer be able to proue his mission. Ephes. 4. wee read, that Christ gaue some Apostles, some Pro­phets, some Euangelists, some Pastors, and Teachers. But the Pope is none of all these. His state is too great to be conteyned within this small and weake number. Further he is no successor of Peter. For he rather killeth, thē féedeth Christs shéep. Thirdly he rather medleth with Swordes, then Keyes; and if he handleth the Keyes of the Church, yet can he shewe no Commission for it. Fourthly he is absurd, if he clayme the right of a Bishop. For he doth not the worke of a Bishop. Lastly the Apostles Successors, and Preachers sent from God procéed according to their Commis­sion and Instructions receiued from God. But the Pope procéed­eth according to his owne Decretales and the rules of his owne Chancery. Out then must he goe, and all that pretend to come from him as méere intruders, if we folowe the Apostles rules.

The Cardinals are but of a late standing. S. Peter had no Cardinals about him. Nor were the parish Priests of Rome that [Page 3] assisted the auncient Bishops of that Cittie so gallant fellowes, as these new Cardinals are. They neither preach nor Baptise as Cardinals. And therefore cannot pretend right of succession, eyther from the Apostles, or from auncient Bishops or Priestes. In the holy Scriptures, albeit some alleadge the wordes Cardines terrae, there is no mention of them. Finallye the Fathers knew them not. If then the Popes decretales warrant them not; these Cardines terrae, or rather terren and carnall Cardinalls, may goe in vltimos fines terrae, that is into the vtmoste endes of the earth to seeke for their mission.

The Monkes and Fryars are no where mentioned in Scrip­ture, vnlesse it be Apocalyps. 9. Where wée finde, that Lo­custes did issue out of the smoke of the bothomlesse pit, whereby is signified, that by their smoky traditions they should obscure the light of the Gospell. They succeede not Pastors and Teachers. For their profession is pouertie, chastitie and obedience to mon­kish rules, and not to teach or administer Sacraments. Hierome and all antiquitie put monkes after Priests, and range them in another order. Fryars entred but lately into the Church vnder the conduct of Dominicke and Francis. Their authoritie is wholy from the Pope: and other commission can they shew none. Masse-priestes are not sent to preach and administer the Sacra­ments, but to sacrifice Christs bodie and blood vnder the accidents of bread and wine, for quick and dead, as appeareth in the formall wordes of their ordination. But such a mission is no where found in Scripture. For our Sauiour instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist said, accipite, edite, bibite. That is, take, eate, drinke, and not, sacrificate pro viuis et defunctis, that is, Sacrifice for quicke & dead. True it is, that he saith, hoc facite that is, doe this. But hoc facere doth no where eyther in Scripture or prophane Authors signifie sacrifice this. Virgil is alleadged, where one saith cum fa­ciam vitula. But if they bring no better proofes, the Masse-priests will prooue themselues as wise as Calues. For it is one thing to say, facere vitula, and facere hoc. Beside that, Virgil yet was ne­uer esteemed a good interpreter of Christes wordes. To omitte Scriptures, this sacrificing Preest-hood of the Romanistes, hath no proofe out of Fathers. For no where in any authenticall writing of theirs is any mention made of such an ordination. Nay it is apparant, y^t the same was first talked of by idle Schoole­men, [Page 4] and authorized after a sort by the conuenticle of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth. Finally, neither doe Scriptures, nor Fathers mention any such real, carnal, and corporall sacrifice of Christes body and blood made in the Eucharist vnder the acci­dentes of breade and wine for the sinnes of the quicke and dead, as I haue fully demonstrated in my Bookes de m [...]ssa against Bellar­mine. Nay, the Canon it selfe dooth signifie, that the sacrifice of the Church is offered as well by the people as the Priest, as these words declare, qui tibi offerunt. But the Papists wil not say, that y^e people offereth vp Christs body. Further the Masse-priest pray­eth that God would be pleased to accept the sacrifice: but it is ab­surd to make a Masse-priest mediator for Christs body and blood. If then they bee false Prophets, Theeues, & Robbers, that come without missiō or sufficient warrant; then are the Popes of Rome, Cardinals, Monkes, Fryars and Masse-priests false Prophets, Theeues, and Robbers. And that may in part also bee prooued, by the confession of our aduersarie. For if, (as hee saith) all are to bée reputed such, that can neither shew ordinarie calling from the Apostles, nor extraordinarie from the spirit of God; then are they to bee shunned as false Prophets and false teachers, and punished seuerely, not onely as men lately besmired with Gunne-powder, but also as false Theeues & Robbers. For extraordinarie calling they pretend none, & ordinarie calling authorized by Gods word, they haue none, as hath in part beene prooued. Further we say, that whereas two thinges are to be respected in ordination of Bi­shops & Ministers of Gods word, viz. the rite of ordination, & the substance of the function, whereto they are ordeyned; in the po­pish Church, our aduersaries haue neither of these two lawfull. First they haue no impositiō of hands by Bishops. For they haue no lawful Bishops, & allow y^e impositiō of hands of Abbots. Fur­ther their Bishops are no successors of y^e Apostles, but y^e popes cre­atures, y^t is rather a temporal prince, then a Bishop. The Monks and Fryars are rather called to doe pennance then to preach, whē they are shorne. Secondly their Priests are not called to preach and baptise, which was the forme and substance of the mission of the Apostles and their successors, but to sacrifice Christes body and blood vnder the accidents of breade and wine for quicke and dead: which forme and function, neither Kellison, nor all the rab­ble of Romish Priests and Fryars, shall euer prooue to bee aunci­ent, [Page 5] lawful, or authenticall.

Against our Bishops, Priests and Deacons, no such matter can be excepted. For first it cānot be denyed but that our Bishops were lawfully ordeined by imposition of handes of other lawfull Bishops. The Ordination of Bishop Cranmer & other Bishops then liuing, the Papistes themselues cannot deny to be lawfull. But from them other Bishops folowing receiued the rite of con­secration. Bishop Parker was consecrated by the imposition of handes of Bishop Barloe, Bishop Couerdale, Bishop Scory, and two Suffragans, mentioned in the Acte of consecration yet to be seene: which not onely had succession from such Bishops as our aduersaries account lawfull, but in deede were lawfull Bishops. Our bretherne in Germany and Zuizzerland had imposition of handes from Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer and o­thers: in France from Farel, in Scotland from Knox and others, whome the Papistes cannot deny to haue bene lawfully ordeined Priests, at the least if their owne formes were lawfull. And from these men & their successors, al other Pastors & Ministers of the Church, haue receiued y^e rite of impositiō of handes, or ordination to the Ministery. Neither is it materiall, that the first preachers of the Gpspel in these Countries were not Bishops, and so called, as it was in England. For suppose no Bishop would haue renoū ­ced the heresyes of Popery, nor haue taught sincerely: should not inferiour ministers teach truth, and ordeine other teachers after them? Furthermore, they wanted nothing of true Bishops, but the name and tytle. Finally the rite and imposition of handes by such as are called Bishops is not so necessary, but that in a defecti­on of Bishops of a nation, and in case of other extreme necessitye, Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers: which is prooued first, for that generally the Presbytery or Ministery of the Church hath right to impose handes, and next for that the Keyes are called Claues Ecclesiae, and not Claues Episcoporum: and lastly for that necessitie admitteth not the obseruance of all cere­monyes. As for example, admit a multitude of Christians should goe into the Indiaes without ministers, it is not to be supposed, but they haue power to appoint Ministers among them selues in this case of necessitye.

Secondly it is certaine, that the Bishops and Ministers of reformed Churches haue bene sent to preach and so administer [Page 6] the Sacraments, by such as had authoritye in the Church, and that they haue executed their function accordingly. Why then should any deny them to be truly the Apostles successors?

Finally, the defection of ordinary Priestes in the Romish Church being extraordinary, we may not imagine, that all ordi­nary rites and formes were to be obserued in the vocation of such, as by the instinct of Gods holy spirit were stirred vp extraordina­rily to restore the decayed partes and ruines of Gods Temple.

But sayth Kellison pag. 9. If their Preachers be sent by an ordinary mission, let them shewe their succession. And heere hee alleageth Tertullians wordes lib. de praescript. aduers. haeret. concerning the orders of Bishops, and succession from the Apost­les. And two places out of S. Augustine, in Psal. contr. part. Do­nati. And contr. epist. fund. where he speaketh of the succession of Bishops. Againe, he vrgeth vs, if any thing were extraordinary in those, which first reformed the Church, to prooue their mission by miracles; and runneth into a long discourse of the visibilitie of the Church, of miracles and prophesies. To which wee answere first, that if the succession of Bishops were the onelye proofe of an ordinarie mission, the Papists themselues were in bad tearmes hauing no proofes of their succession of popes so much bragged of, but the testimony of Anastasius, Platina, Naucler, Sabellicus, Onuphrius, Genebrard, Baronius & such like hungrie parasites of the Pope iarring and contending one against another like mas­tye Curres about a bone. Secondly the Greekes, Antiochians and Aegiptians, pretend to this day succession of Bishops, and yet are grossely fallen frō the faith, & want true Bishops. Thirdly, Tertullian & S. Augustine speak of successiō of Bishops, but nei­ther of thē denyeth thē to bee Bishops or pastors, y^t are not ordei­ned by a Bishop, who was not ordered w^t al solēnities. Fourthly, we shew such a succession of Bishops, as y^e Papists thēselues can­not controle, deriuing thē cōcerning order & externall formes from Bishops allowed by our aduersaries, and concerning succession of Doctrine from the Apostles, Fathers and auncient Bishops of the primitiue Church. Fiftly the question concerning the visibi­litie of the Church is diuers from that, which concerneth successi­on. For I hope K. will not say, that hee euer saw the succession of Romish Bishops, or that any Apostle saw his successors. Last­ly wee alleage that the old Prophets were sent extraordinarily, [Page 7] and yet wrought no miracles. Diuers apostolicall men likewise haue beene raysed vp by God at diuers times, and yet wee reade not, that eyther all of them prophecied, or wrought miracles.

This being our answere, of which Kellison could not be igno­rant, but that hee is eyther ignorant of matters in question, or else voide of honesty and good dealing; what is it, I pray you, that hee is able to alleadge against the vocation and mission of Gods mi­nisters in our Churches? First saith he, Page. 11. They say, that the Apostles which were the first Bishops and Pastors had for a time their lawfull successors, but that at the length the church fayled, and the Pastors with it. But while he talketh of mission he lyeth shamefully and without all commission. For first wee distinguish both Bishops and ordinarie pastors from Apostles. So doth the Apostle also, Ephe. 4. Secondly we deny, that Christs Church euer hath fayled. Thirdly wee teach, that the Apostles haue alwaies had some successors, albeit neither in one place, nor without all interruption. If then he haue not fayled in true dea­ling, let him set downe the authors names, that haue affirmed this which hee reporteth, and relate their words sincerely.

age. 13. he addeth, that Luther disobeyed the Pope and the Church, and deuised a new Religion to cloake his villany. But first the Pope and the Church are euill yoaked together. For Christs sheepe heare not the voice of strangers. Secondly these words of villany come out of his shop of mallice. Lastly neuer shall this K. prooue that Luther deuised any new Religion. For he onely impugned late errors, and sought to bring Christians backe to the auncient Catholike faith.

Thirdly he shapeth an other answere for vs Page. 14. & maketh vs to say, that wee had predecessors, but they were inuisible. But this abuse w^t he offereth vs, is too grosse & palpable for neither doe we make our predecessors inuisible. Nor doe we denie, y^t the ancient fathers & holy Bishops of old time, as they taught the Ca­tholicke and apostolike faith, and no more, were out predecessors.

Fourthly hee telleth vs, that such as pretend extraordinarie sending runne vnsent. But he taketh vppon him too too arro­gantlye to limit Gods power, and seemeth plainely to contradict Gods word. S. Paul Ephes. 4, mencioneth Euangelists without limitation either of times or places, and Saint Iohn Apocaly. 11 foresheweth, that God will giue power to his two witnesses [Page 8] preaching against the Kingdome of Antichrist, and the abuses of their times. Neither doth either Optatus or Cypriā, or y^e Apostle speake any word against vs herein. Optatus L [...]b. 2. contra parmen. speaketh of some intruding donatists: & Cyprian, of certaine pre­sūptuous Nouatians, which as the Arch-priests & Iesuites and Masse-priests doe in Englād, thrust thēselues into the ministerie in Africk without warrant. The Apostle Eph. 4. leaueth out the Pope & therefore ouerthroweth our aduersaries cause. But hee saith not one word, why Pastors and teachers may not some­time either hee sent extraordinarily, or furnished with extraor­dinarie power. Finally albeit the Church be built vpon a Rocke, yet particular Churches & Citties may fall into errors, and hard­ly can bee reformed without some extraordinarie helpes.

Fiftly he affirmeth Page. 19. that extraordinarie mission is alwaies to be prooued by extraordinarie signes and tokens of Prophecies or miracles. And to this purpose hee feyneth that both Luther and Caluin endeuoured to prophecy and to worke miracles. But the first is disprooued by the examples of the pro­phets and Apostles. For neither doe we reade, that all the pro­phets wrought miracles, nor that all the Apostles prophesied. Furthermore the Godly Martyrs of old time, and the auncient Bishops were often indued with extraordinarie graces: yet did they not all worke wonders and prophecy. The second is disproo­ued both by our Doctrine and practise. For neither doe wee now practise miracles, or stand vpon prophecies, nor doe wée teach, that the Doctrine of truth is to be confirmed w^t miracles or prophecies. To conuince vs, this K. produceth the testimonye of Cochle­us, Surius, Staphylus, Genebrard, Fontanus, Bolsec, and such like fellowes. But their testimonies are not worth a Nut-shell, being hired to speake shame of the popes aduersaries. Hee is ve­rie light of beleefe, that giueth credit to the wordes eyther of ene­mies, or hired parasites.

Finally he concludeth Page. 28. that we haue no assurance of our Religion by the authoritie of our Preachers, being able to say no more then false Apostles for proofe of their authori­tie. Hee doubteth not also to affirme, that both Brownists, and those of the family of Loue, may as well alleadge Scriptures, and pretend to bee sent of God, as Caluin and Luther. But first he sheweth himselfe a simple Doctor of Diuinitie, y^t teacheth, that [Page 9] the authoritie of preachers is a sufficient assurance for Christi­ans to builde their Religion and faith vpon. As for vs wee be­leeue them no further, then they treade in the steps, and continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets of God. Secondly it is not sufficient to alleadge or pretend Scriptures, but they must bee truelye alleadged. Neither is the priuate fancie of eue­rie capriecious head to be equalled with the determinations of graue men, and well experimented in Scriptures. Lastlye, there is no comparison betweene learned men called and allowed by the Church, & phantasticall fellowes, that rashly presume to leape into the ministeriall function without eyther calling, allowance, or qualities fitting for such a calling.

In his second chapter he shameth not to say, that those which ground their Religion on Scriptures, (which hee like a bad and bare fellow calleth bare) set the gate open to all Heretickes and Heresies. Thus our aduersaries aduauncing the Popes decre­tales, and the vncertaine tradisions of the Romish Church, detest the holy Scriptures, and open their mouthes against God. But wee are rather to beleeue Christ and his Apostles, then such blas­phemous gapers and speakers against holy Scriptures. The A­postle Ephes. 2. saith the faithfull are built vppon the Apostles and prophets. Ephes. 6. the word of God is called the sword of y^e Spirit. And 2. Tim. 3. The scripture is commended as profitable to instruct and reproue, and able to make the man of God per­fit. But neither may the ground of faith be tearmed a gate set o­pen to Heresies, nor is the sword of the spirit a meanes to breede errors. Further how can the same be a gate set open to heretikes being able to make the man of God perfit? certes if the allegati­on of Scriptures were a way to error, our Sauiour Christ would neuer haue sent his hearers to search scriptures. Neither would the auncient Fathers haue termed Scriptures a canon of faith, if they had beene any gate set open to Heresies. Irenaeus in his third booke against Heresies, saith the Apostles first prea­ched the Gospell, and afterwards deliuered the same to vs in Scriptures, that it might be a foundation & pillar of our faith. He sheweth also, that it is the propertie of Heretikes, when they are conuinced by Scriptures, to accuse the Scriptures, and to speake euill of them. Origen in Math. tract. 25. sheweth, that Scriptures are to be brought for proofe of all Doctrines. Nei­ther [Page 10] neede we to doubt, but that of themselues, they are verie suf­ficient. Our Sauiour Math. 4. by Scriptures onely ouercame the Diuell. Neither did the auncient Fathers by other weapons preuaile against Hereticks. In generall councels of olde time not the Popes decretales, but the holy Scriptures were laide be­fore the fathers. Lastly if the word of God cannot be receiued, it is farre more vnlike, that Heretickes will respect the traditions or wrightings of men. Neither is it material, that Hereticks cauil against Scriptures, and detort them to contrarie sences. For such cauils and deprauations may easily be refuted by scriptures, and to such abuses the wrightings of men are much more subiect, then holy scriptures.

But saith Kellison, The Deuill hath alwayes affected to be as like as may be, to Christ and his Apostles in allegation of Scripture. He maketh also a long and lewd narration of here­tikes alleadging Scriptures. But first most false it is, that the de­uil alwayes affecteth to alleadge Scriptures. Nay he alleadgeth traditions, customes and humane deuises more often then Scrip­tures. False it is also, that heretikes more often alleadge Scrip­tures, then the testimony of traditions, Fathers & other reasons. But suppose that heretikes should often alleadge Scriptures; yet we are not to refuse that, which by others is abused. Neither doe wise men refuse meat, because gluttons doe thereby surfet, or for­beare to drinke, for that drunkards abuse wine to excesse. If then Kellison wil néeds folowe heretikes in calumniating scriptures, and not forbeare (as the deuil did) to abuse Scriptures to contra­ry sence, then must he giue Christians leaue to folowe Christ and his Apostles in alleadging Scriptures, and not presume to con­demne those, which prefer Scriptures before traditions, & Gods worde before the Popes decretales.

Pag. 33. and 34. He runneth out into a large field concerning the possession of Scriptures, which (as he sayth) belongeth to Catholikes, & not to heretikes. But what may this make for Papists? whom by many reasons we haue in our Challenge con­uinced to be heretikes, and not Catholikes? Furthermore, the question, which he proposeth here, concerneth the sufficiency and authority, and not the possession of Scriptures. But this is this Surueyors pleasure to abandon matters in Controuersie, and to trifle about needlesse questions.

Afterward he sheweth, why heretikes aledge Scriptures, and mentioneth the decrees & writings of the Pope & the Church. He endeuoreth also to prooue, that Scripture is not easily to be vnderstood. Matters much stood vpon by him, but yet very im­petinent in this place, where the question is about allegation of Scriptures, as an Argument of it selfe only sufficient. Further­more, what if heretikes depraue and wrest Scriptures, shal not true Catholikes rely vpon them? Thirdly the Popes bulles and blundering decretales are not of such qualitye, that they ought to be cōpared to Scriptures: or mentioned, where they are in place. Lastly, Scriptures in matters necessary to saluation, are playne and easy. But what if some places were difficult? should we ther­fore absteine to alleadge Scriptures? nay rather we ought dili­gently to study them, that by vnderstanding of them we may re­solue our difficultyes. Tertullian alleadged by him pag. 37. doth not refuse flatlye to dispute with heretikes by Scripture, or count such disputation lippe labour, as this impudent compag­nion falsely affirmeth. For his common course was to conuince heretikes by Scriptures. But if he thought it frutelesse, at any time to alleadge Scriptures, it was against such onely as denied the Scriptures.

Of holy Scriptures the prophane fellowe speaketh, if not blas­phemously, yet basely and contemptibly. pag. 35. he compareth them to colours vsed by foule women, and to sweete odours vsed by sluttes. pag. 39. he calleth them bare, and compareth them to a nose of waxe, and alloweth the saying of one, that compared them to Aesops Fables, especially vnderstanding the bare letter of Scriptures. Finally, he shameth not pag. 41. to say, that the worde of God with a false meaning is the worde of the deuill. Matters deseruing rather corporal punishment, then verbal cen­sures. We may not therfore maruel, if he rayle at Luther & Caluin belying them without all shame or conscience. First he sayth Lu­ther dissaloweth S. Iames his Epistle. He onely maketh it inferi­our to other Canonical Scriptures, as not esteemed to be his. Secondly he chargeth Caluin and Luther with Misconstruing S. Pauls Epistles. He should rather prooue it then falsely affirme it. Thirdly he saith Luther doth discanon Iob, jest at Ecclesiastes, and contemne all the Gospels, but S. Iohns, the Epistle to the Hebrewes, and that of Iude. But his writings doe refute these [Page 12] slaunders, and nothing doth K. bring to iustifie them. Lastly he sayth Caluin and Luther will haue the bare letter, or joyned with their voluntary exposition to be Iudge of controuersies: matters vtterly vntrue and improbable. For neither doe we ad­mitte the letter without the sence, nor doe we allow voluntary or priuate expositions.

Pag. 46. he falsifyeth the testimony of Scriptures, where he sayth Her selfe confesseth her owne obscurity. For S. Peter 2. Epist. 3. doth not say that the Scriptures are obscure, as this K. pretendeth: but only that certaine thinges in S. Pauls Epistles are difficult. And psal. 119. the Prophet compareth Gods word to a Lanterne, and to light. Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum sayth he, & lumen semitis meis. If any obscuritie and difficultie be attributed to Scriptures by Fathers, it is only in such poyntes, as are not necessary to saluation.

Finally, he reciteth the words of Luther concerning the plain­nesse of Scriptures partially, and obiecteth vnto vs the testimony of Osiander about the differences concerning mans iustification by Christ. But neither is Luther to be blamed, if he reprooue those, that call Scriptures obscure: nor is any credite to be giuen to Bellarmine citing Osiander, nor to Osiander, where he writeth against those that differ from him in the Article of mans iustifi­cation. Long may he declayme against Luther and Osiander and others. But nothing doth his reasoning or rather rayling a­gainst reading of Scriptures effect. For who will not rather fo­lowe the exhortation of Chrysostome exhorting lay-men to get them Bibles, and to read Scriptures, then regarde the babling of this Popish parasite, that calleth readers of scriptures Biblists, and sayth we holde, that to be the true meaning of Scriptures, which euery ones priuate spirit imagineth?

In the third chapter of his first book, he disputeth against those which make their owne priuate Spirit supreme iudge in earth of the interpretation of Scripture. The which as it lanceth the Pope deepely, whose priuate and satanical spirit is the supreame iudge, whome all Papists are bound to follow; so it toucheth not vs at all. For albeit wee refuse the Pope and his adherents for iudges; yet we relye not vpon our owne priuate spirit in ex­pounding scriptures but vpon the spirit of God, y^t eyther speaketh plainely, or expoundeth himselfe in some other place, and for at­teining [Page 13] the right vnderstanding of Scriptures, vse the hope of tonges, the exposition of fathers and all learned men, the discourse of histories, and all other good meanes. Neither did Luther thinke, or proceede otherwise. Why then doth noth this superlu­naticall Surueyor declare, who they bee, that doe attribute the publike and iudiciall interpretation of Scriptures to euery mans priuate spirit, and in what place? why doth he forge to himselfe an absurde opinion held by none, that I knowe, saue the Papists, who in matters controuersed hold the Popes priuate definition, for a supreme resolution? would hee therein shew his trium­phant eloquence? if this were his purpose; let vs see, I beseech you, what he performeth.

First he saith selfe loue is a good, as guilding, and then tal­keth of the goodmans Cowe, Pans pipe, Appolloes harpe, painting of womens faces, Hens and Chickens, and such like fooleries. But his horrible eloquence declareth him to bee the Chicken of a Buzzard, and a blinde Harper, that cannot discerne betweene selfe loue, & priuate spirits. His reader also may see, y^t hee hath as much skill in painting of faces, as in expounding of scrip­tures. And yet all his Cow eloquence wil not serue to couer the deformities of the painted whore of Babilon, of whome hee is a deuoute seruant, and vppon whome he bestoweth much complex­tion to no purpose.

Luther regardeth it not, albeit some of the Fathers should speake against a point of faith: neither would hee submitte his Doctrine to be iudged by the Romish antichristian prelates. But that sheweth not, that he preferred himselfe before any, but rather that hee preferred the Scriptures and articles of Christian faith before all. And to them he exhorteth all to submitte themselues, ascribing nothing to his owne opinion. But what if Luther shold haue spoken out of square? what is that to the new Religion, he speaketh off? doth our religion depend vpō euery word of Luther? certes no more, then the faith of the Church of Rome vpon the idle discourses of Kellisons Suruey. As for Caluin hee referreth nothing to his owne spirrit, but to the rule of Gods word, to which he submitteth his interpretations, as well of these wordes, hoc est corpus meum, as of other places of Scriptures else where interpreted by him.

Finally, we neither reiect Fathers, nor Councels, nor godlye [Page 14] pastors. The skip-iacke surueyor therefore, that calleth Luther and Caluin Skip-iacks, and like a skip-iack running from matter to matter, makes so long a declamation against selfe loue, and o­uer-weening a mans selfe, did herein seeme to loue himselfe, but too much, and much to offend in ouer-weening and surcuydrie, that pleased himselfe in this Chapter, that is so farre from the pur­pose, so false in respect of vs, and so contrarie to himselfe, and his owne cause.

His fourth Chapter he beginneth, as his manner is, with a pe­danticall declamation against Parricides, shewing how strange­ly they were punished, being sowed into a sacke with a Cocke, a Viper, an Ape, and a Dogge. But to what purpose is all this? doth he thinke, that it is no lesse, then the crime of Parricide, to re­iect some Fathers? why then, the Pope and his agents by the con­fession of this K. are all parricides, and for their dogged and vipe­rous, apish, and cockish natures, deserue to be sewed in sackes, as Ʋrbane the sixt did deale w^t certaine Cardinals, & with y^e beastes of like nature to be throwne into the sea. As for vs wee reiect no Fathers, that consent one with another, and with holy scriptures in matters of faith, but rather the bastardlye writinges of falsa­ries, and of such as take vppon them the names of Fathers, or else such, as hold singular opinions, or varie from the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles of Christ.

Luther had no reason in matter of the Sacrifice of y^e Masse to disclaime the fathers, which all with one voice, as I haue iustifi­ed against Bellarmine, make against the carnall sacrifice of the Popish Masse for quicke and dead. But if hee or Caluin, or any other speake against Fathers, it is not against all, nor against the Bookes, which are certainely knowne to bee theirs, but against counterfet fellowes, and some particuler opinions.

If Caluin should call the men of Trent, Hogges and Asses, he did them a speciall fauour. For they shewed themselues to bée worse, being open enemies of the Christian faith, and moste obsti­nate oppugners of the truth. But they are none of our Fathers, nor of the Fathers of the Church. Nor is the synagogue of Rome maintaining the abuses, which we refuse, our Mother, but the Mother of fornications, or as Petrarch calleth her, the Mother of errors, and the greate Whore described Apocalyps. 17. Gre­gory y^e first wanteth much of y^e learning of former Fathers; yet is [Page 15] neither he, nor his messenger Austen so bad, but that his succes­sors were farre worse. Furthermore, we doe not beleeue, that so wise a man as Gregory the first is reputed, would write so foo­lish Bookes, as the dialogues, that goe vnder his name, and are so full of olde wiues tales, and fabulous toyes.

But should Luther, Caluin, or others ouerlash in speaking of Fathers; yet to doe this K. fauour, I am content to ioyne with him vpon this issue, that the Fathers of the Church in their au­thentical writinges in the greatest controuersies betwixt vs and the Papistes are for vs and against them. And of this hee could not be ignorant, but that he is onely a Schoole pedant, and an ig­norant broacher of new opinions, and not versed in the writings of the Fathers. Against vs he alleageth the most reuerend & lear­ned Father Toby Matthew most worthy Bishop of Durham: but he doth offer him singuler wrong, as that reuerend Bishop will alwaies testifie. Afterward he bringeth in Genebrard a pro­fessed enemy, whose deposition is no more worth, then if this ket­ler should out of his malice speake it. Luthers scruples grew not vpon doubt of the Fathers doctrine, but of the long approbation of the Masse, and other abuses. In fréewill for substance of doctrine we doubt not of the Fathers fauour against the Papistes.

Finally he sayth, The Fathers haue the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit in exposition of Scriptures, and that those which reiect them, reiect also the councels of the Church, and the authority of Pastors, by which the Church is directed: And finallye open a gate to all Heresies. But heere are manye absurdities hoodled together without truth or order. For First he supposeth most falsely, that all the Fathers are reiected by vs. Secondly he confirmeth the expositiō of Fathers to be equal to the determination of the Pope, which neither his holy Father, nor his owne consortes will graunt. Thirdly not euerie one that reiecteth Fathers in some things, dooth therefore reiect coun­cels or all the pastors of the Church. Finally albeit diuers late Councels were reiected, and the testimonies of fathers not admit­ted without choise; yet the definitions of Councels, which are ap­parently deduced out of Scriptures, and the Fathers authentical expositions, consonant to the rule of faith might bee approued by those, which haue authoritie in the Church, which euerie priuate man is to followe, vnlesse by some equall, or greater authoritie [Page 16] that resolution be reuersed. But if Kellisons Doctrine were con­fessed; then might the Pope goe shake his eares. For what shold we need to goe to him, if y^e Fathers haue Gods holy spirit infalli­bly assisting them in the exposition of Scriptures? againe if de­nying of the authoritie of Fathers were y^e opening of a gap to all Heresies, thē did the Popes open gaps to al Heresies, who in their decretaline expositions of hoc est corpus meum, & feede my Sheep, and drinke ye all of this, and infinit such like textes of scriptures decline quite from the common interpretation of Fathers, and nothing regard their authoritie.

The fift Chapter is partly a Scholastical exercise concerning the motiues, that may enduce men to beleeue the Christian fayth, and partly an inuectiue against vs, for that we admit not the rinegued Masse-priestes sent vs hither by the Pope, & their counterfet miracles. And thereupon he would conclude, that we want those probable meanes to enduce reasonable men to be of our religion, which the Papists haue. But first his dispute con­cerning probable motiues to the fayth, is nothing else, but a vaine discourse of his owne foolish motions, disioynted opinions, and improbable fancyes. For not onely the Pagans of olde time, but also the Turkes now may better alleage antiquity, consent, au­thority of mission, the subduing of the worlde to their religiō, miracles and such like motiues, then the Papistes, séeing Pope­ry is nothing else, but a corruption of Christian religion, that is neither so auncient, as Arianisme, nor so largely spread abroad as Paganisme and Turcisme. Neither are the Papistes for lear­ning comparable to the auncient Philosophers. Secondly what­soeuer this K. speaketh of mission, it maketh against the Masse-priestes, that come both without authority, and without any mes­sage deliuered by Christ, or his Apostles vnto them. For neuer shal he prooue the Popes vsurped authority, though he should liue to the worldes end, nor that Masse-priests are to sacifice for quick and dead, and to cut the throat of Princes, which be the principal poyntes of their mission. Thirdly we offer to prooue, that we haue not onely those probable motiues, which he speaketh of, as miracles, consent, antiquity, and such like, to enduce men to like of our religion; but also the worde of God, the testimony of the auncient apostolike Church, and many sure groundes, which our aduersaryes want. Neither néeded this K. to brag much of Bel­larmine [Page 17] or Suarez, seeing their positions stand refuted without answer, but that he which can say little him selfe, must néeds re­lye on others. Fourthly nothing hath this babler to obiect either against the authoritye of our teachers, or their doctrine; which is not more vnsauery, then Colewortes twice or thrice sodden. Where he calleth Boy Masse-priestes olde teachers, and their doctrine also olde, and our teachers and doctrine newe; he like a poore disputer beggeth that, which he cannot by argument effecte or conuince, and like a foolish pleader, talketh of matters preiudi­ciall to him selfe. Nay, when he shall come to tryall, he shall find, that the Fathers in all poyntes of fayth are for vs, and not for the Pope, whose triple-Crowneship, and decretaline doctrine they neuer knewe. Fiftly where he (like a curre) barketh at the me­mory of the renowned Father Bishop Iewel, and snarleth at the most famous learned man the Lord of Plessis Marlj, as if they had corrupted and mis-alledged Scriptures and Fathers, and by vntruthes and weake proofes abused they readers; the first is iustified by maister Whitakers against al the barkings of his ma­licious enimies: the second hath verified his allegations against al his accusers, by the original words of the authors by him alled­ged, in a late edition of his booke, & both these verifications stand without reply. But if we should goe about to collect all the lyes, slaunders, impostures, corruptiōs, falsifications, errors, fooleries, fond conclusions, absurd assertions without ground, and imper­fections of Bellarmine, Baronius, Suarez, Harding, Saunders, Alan, Stapleton and their mates; they would fill Cart-loades of volumes. Finally all this long discourse is as farre from the pur­pose, as Kellison is farre from learning and honesty. For heere hee should reason against the grounds of our Religion. But groundes are one thing, and motiues another: those being cer­taine, these probable, and oftentimes not concludent. But were hee not a beetle-headed Surueyor, as he is a polshorne sacrificer of Baal; he would haue forborne to touch this poynt of motiues. For what motiue can any man haue to beleeue, y^t an vnlearned, bougerly, blinde and wicked Pope is supreme iudge of Religion, that an obscure and infamous Italian hath power to depose the King of England; that Christians are not to beleeue the articles of our christian faith, nor Scriptures, vnlesse they receiue them from the Popes chayre; that Ecclesiasticall traditions, of which [Page 18] the authours and defenders are not yet resolued, are equall to ho­ly Scriptures, that the olde lattin vulgar translation of the Bible is authenticall, and the originall text not, or that Dogges do som­time eate Christes body, or that Christes body and blood is sacri­ficed in the Masse, although the same at the same instant be in hea­uen, and is not consumed, as is the manner of sacrifices; and infi­nite such absurdities?

In the end of the first Chapter hee citeth diuers slaundrous re­ports of Luther and Caluin, and talketh Idely of the good life of Papists, or rather excuseth their lewd life notorious to the world. He doth also alleage the number, antiquity, miracles, and other qualityes of such as taught his religion. Afterward he runneth backe to talke of the succession of Popes. Finally by a tale out of Iosephus of the Iewes and Samaritans Temple he douteth not, but he should winne the victory, if he were to plead against vs. But if he plead no more wisely, then he doth in this place; his au­ditorye should haue good reason to hisse him from the barre. For first his slanderous reportes against Luther and Caluin are mat­ters deuised by Cochleus, Staphilus, Bolsecus, and other popish parasites hired of purpose to deuise slanders against thē: of which Bolsecus in publike synode reuoked his malicious libell. But the matters we obiect to the Popes, and their adherents, are matters recorded in publik actes & authētical histories, the authors wherof were men fauouring popery. Secondly this Lobster-faced fellow would blush to talk of the liues of the Italians and other the popes adherents, but that he knoweth their lewde actes are concealed from the people of England by the remotenesse and distance of their Country. And yet all that know Italy, and the nations sub­iect to the Pope, will say, he hath no reason to stand much vpon their pietye or honestye. Thirdly neuer shall he shewe, eyther that the moderne Popes are the successors of the first Bishops of Rome, or that the Popish Bishops, y^t are now y^e marked slaues of Antichrist, are the true successors of Austen the Monke and his fellowes. Nay the Doctrine that wee professe, being taught by them, and the decretaline doctrine y^t we refuse, being vnknowne to them, it must needes followe, that not the popish Wolues, but our Bishops are their successors, Finally the tale out of Iose­phus doth little fit this K. purpose. For neither hath the moderne Church of Rome any affinitie with the temple of the Iewes, nor [Page 19] can this K. doe any such feates as he imagineth.

Was not then this surueyor both idle, and vnaduised, that run­neth through so many impertinent matters to his particular pur­pose, and so aduerse to his generall cause?

The last Chapter of his first book is yet more extrauagāt, then al y^e rest. For therin he speaketh not one word of the groūds of our Religion, which are the things which he propoūded for the subiect of his discourse; but of the Pope, whome wee take to bee the head of Antichristes Kingdome, and to bee so rightlye called, al­though hee would gladlye prooue him to bee the supreme iudge in matters of Religion. And his reason is, for that euery King­dome hath his King, euerie Dukedome a Duke, euerie Cittie a Major or Bayliffe, euery Army a general, euerie village almost hath a Constable, &c. hee prooueth the same also by Gods order both before the Law and after, and by the example of Saint Peter and of the Bishops of Rome, who, as he saith, were euer called the Vicars of Christ, and successors of S. Peter. And in the end ha­uing runne himselfe out of breath, he concludeth, that we haue no iudge in matters of Religion, and so open a gap to all Heresies. But if he come into his Countrie and reason no better, the Con­stable of the parrish where he landeth, if hee bee a man of any vn­derstanding, may doe well to set him by the heeles. For First hee reasoneth absurdly from politick bodies to Christes mystical bo­dy. Secondly if any argument might bee drawne from thence; yet would this similitude ouerthrowe the Popes monarchy. For albeit, euerie Kingdome, Armie, Cittie and Village hath his go­uernour; yet it were absurd to make one King ouer all the world, one commander ouer all armies, one grand Maior or Constable ouer all the Maiors and Constables of the world. Thirdly, ney­ther was there one supreme iudge of matters of Religion be­fore the lawe, vnder the lawe, or in the time of the Gospell, as I haue at large prooued against Bellarmine in my Bookes De pō ­tifice. Rom. (which are to hot for such a tender fingred Surueyor to handle) nor are we now to conforme our selues to the law, but to Christes institution. Fourthly, for one thousand yeares after Christ, shall not this ranging fellow prooue, that the Bishops of Rome were called Christs Vicars. The title of Peters successors is common to all true teachers succeeding Peter, and importeth no generall commaund ouer the whole Church. Fiftlye, Theo­philus [Page 20] Bishop of Antioche Lib. 2. Autolicum is grossely belyed. So like wise is Chrysostome homil. 34. in epist. 1. ad Corinth. Fi­nally, he wrongeth vs, where he saith we haue no judge of mat­ters of Religion. For the onely supreme iudge that determineth infallibly is God speaking in Scriptures. If any varietie bee a­bout his determination, the supreme iudge of all the church vpon earth is a lawfull generall councell proceeding according to Gods word. In the meane while euerie nation is to stand to the defini­tion of a nationall councel. And to this iudge doe we submit our selues. As for the Papists they submitte themselues to a blinde Pope, that sometime beleeueth not, and seldome vnderstandeth the Articles of the Christian faith. Kellison therefore, that drea­meth of such a fellowes infallible iudgement, hath little reason to talke against the proceeding vsed in the Church of England, for deciding of matters of Religion. Further hee hath neede to be­ware, that the Constable of one parrish or other, take him not within the sphere of his actiuitie, least he place him in the supreme hole of the Stocks, for his supreme idiotisme in matters of iudge­ment concerning religion.

Chap. 2. The foundations of Popish religion discouered to be most weake and foolish.

THus we haue séene how much this K. hath mistaken the grounds of our religion, and how litle he hath to say against them. Let vs therefore nowe consider his supposed groundes, and the common foundations of the popish religion, and what Christians are to thinke of them.

Kellison where he talketh of y^e grounds of our religion, discourseth first of the mis­sion of our Preachers, and Lib. 1. cap. 1. concludeth that no man is to hang his saluation on these newe Ministers. Which argu­eth first, that hee supposeth the mission of the Pope and his sha­ [...] Masse-priestes to be a principall ground of religion, and next, [...] [...]he papists are to hang their saluation vpon them. But this [...]nely a meere foolery, and most grosse impietye, but also an [Page 21] open way to all superstition and Heresie. The same ground is also ouerthrowne by Kellisons owne positions. Meere foolery it is to build our faith vpon a blind ignorant and wicked Pope. Neither can wee esteeme it other then impietie to adde a founda­tion to that, which is already laide, which is Christ Iesus, and to beleeue the Popes determinations, as the word of God.

Furthermore, this being graunted, then will it followe, the Pope teaching Heresie, that all Papists are to followe him, and that when he goeth to hell for teaching errors, according to the Chapter si papa. dist. 40. that Kellison and his consorts are to goe after him. Kellison supposeth, that he cannot erre. But this shew­eth, that his faith is built vppon supposals, yea such supposals as by euident demonstrations are declared to be false.

Finally this ground of the mission of the Popes, and their ad­herent Masse-priestes is ouerthrowne by Kellison his owne dis­course. For if the Popes bee not S. Peters or the first Bishops of Romes successors; then are they, as Kellison saith, intruders and false Prophets, nay theeues and Robbers.

But Saint Peters successors they cannot be, hauing First no vocation to be Apostles. Secondly, taking on them an Office that S. Peter neuer had, to wit, to mannage both the swords, to dis­pose of kingdomes, to cut christian mens throates, that will not re­ceiue their marke, and leauing S. Peters office in feeding Christes shéepe.

Neither are they the lawful successors of the first Bishops. For first they are no Bishops, as neither hauing lawfull election by the people and Clergie, but onely by certaine new vpstart electors called Cardinals, nor preaching or dooing the worke of a Bishop. Secondly, they haue deuised a new Doctrine and faith, diuers from that, which the first bishops of Rome taught, as their decre­tales shew. Thirdly, they haue taken vppon them an vniuersall power both in temporall and ecclesiasticall matters, which the Christian Bishops of Rome in times past neuer had nor challen­ged.

The Masse-priests consequently being authorized by the Pope cannot pretend any lawfull calling or mission. But were they cleare of this exception, yet can they not iustifie their mission. For first they are called ad sacrificandum pro viuis et defunctis, y^t is to sa­crifice for quicke and dead. But of such a calling there is ney­ther [Page 22] ground nor memoriall in the holy scriptures, or auncient fa­thers. Secondly, they teach not the Doctrine of the Apostles and their successors, but of the Popes decretales, and of the Schools Sophisters. Lastly, they are the market slaues of Antichrist ha­uing their crownes shauen, and their handes annointed with his oyle, and with him they fight against the Saints of God. Of their abhominable villanies, I will say nothing at this time, al­though I haue iust occasion being prouoked thereto by the vniust slaunders of this greasie Masse-priest against maister Luther and Maister Iohn Caluin of reuerend memorie. That part of my de­fence shall be reserued to a greater volume.

Secondly, this K. excludeth scriptures from being a foundation of religion. Wherin he hath great reason if we respect the doctrine of Papists. For how can they admit scriptures for a foundation, y^t rayle against them, flye from them, and cannot stand, if their au­thoritie were most eminent, and to bee preferred before all hu­maine deuises? but this sheweth, y^e Kellison is a better Mason to build Babell, and the synagogue of satan, which is vpholden with humane traditions and the Popes sword, thē the Church of God, which is built vppon the Prophets and Apostles, Iesus Christ be­ing the cheefe corner stone.

His third foundation, as it seemeth, is laid vpon Councels and Fathers. For of them hee talketh much Lib. 1. C. 4. but neither doth he name what Councels, nor what Fathers, nor what wri­tings of Fathers he meaneth: matters of verie important conside­ration. For foundations must be certaine. But among the coun­cels actes, and writings of Fathers, there are many thinges ne­uer established by councels, nor taught by Fathers. Further­more the Fathers themselues will not haue their writings taken for canonicall, or authenticall scriptures, as may bee prooued by in­finite testimonies. But I will heere onelye alleadge one or two. Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos saith Hierome in Psal. 86. quamuis disertus sit, non habet authoritatem. He saith plainely, that no Father after the Apostles time hath authoritie. The same Father sheweth, that onely Scriptures are the foundation of the Church: and Augustine lib. 2. Contr. Crescon. c. 31. hath these words: literas Cypriani, non vt canonicat habeo. The like he saith epist. 19. ad. Hieronymum, and epist. 48. shewing that there is great difference betwixt scriptures, and the writings of Fathers. Fi­nally [Page 23] diuers Heretikes haue pretended councels and Fathers.

His last and moste authenticall foundation is the supreme iudgement of the Pope. But that sheweth, that popish religion is rather from man, then God, and that the Papists are rather the synagogue of Antichrist, relying vppon his decretales, then the church of God, that is built vpon also plainelye declare, that there is no certainty in popish Religion, standing vppon the humor of a man, whose opinions are repugnant to other popes, and whose minde may change, and cause him to vtter contrarie Doctrines. Thirdly, it sheweth, that Popish Religion is absurd, being groun­ded vpon the opinions and sentences of ignorant & impious men. Finally, grant this, & then the Papists, if the Pope deny Christ, must all goe to hell with him.

Likewise Stapleton handling of purpose this argument in the preface of his booke of Doctrinall principles, deliuereth vnto vs these seauen principles and foundations of faith, First the Catho­like and Apostolike Church, Secondly, the power of the same church in teaching and iudging matters of faith infallibly, Thirdlye, the persons, in whome this power doth reside. Fourthly, the meanes by which they proceede in teaching & judging. Fiftly, the chiefe heads, about which that power is conuersant. Sixtly, authoritie to interpret Scriptures infalli­bly: and lastly, power to deliuer Doctrines not conteined in Scriptures. But if he had beene bound in statute staple, I doe not thinke he could haue spoken more absurdly, or impiously, & falslye. For First if hee talke of principles demonstratiue of the christian faith, then should he not haue talked of single words, and termes, as he doth, but of propositions or Scriptures conteining the pri­marye propositions of the Christian faith. Secondly if the rude fellow had but had one graine of pietie, he would not haue left out the holy Scriptures out of the number of christian principles. Thirdly, the Church, to speake properlye, is built vpon a founda­tion, and is not the foundation of the Church, vnlesse he will haue both a building without a foundation, and a foundation beside y^e building. Fourthly, it is an absurd course to separate y^e power of the Church, and the persons in whome the same consisteth, from the Church. Fiftly, what more ridiculous, then to call a forme of proceeding, a principle of Christian Doctrine? Sixtly, all Articles [Page 24] of the faith may be called heads, but it is meere foppery to thinke that Christian Religion hath as many foundations, as seuerall Articles. Finally it is moste absurde to beleeue, that eyther the Pope, or the Church of Rome doth interpret scriptures infallibly, or hath the power to adde Articles not contained in Scriptures to the Christian faith. If then Stapletons meaning be, that all tradi­tions not written, and all interpretations of the Pope and his ad­herents, and all the Popes determinations and decretales, and the sayings of the fathers and Councels allowed by the Pope are the foundations of faith, then doth he endeuor to build Babylon, & not Hierusalem, fantasticall deuises, and monstrous chimeraes, and not the true faith; the kingdome of Antichrist, and not Christes church. Nay if these were foundations of faith; then would it fol­low First, that the foundation of the Romish faith is not yet fully laide. For as yet all their decretales, and determinations are not fully published. Secondly we should not know where to finde this faith, these traditions, and interpretations and opinions of Fathers, all of them being not yet resolued. Thirdly, the Romish faith should be a meere humane deuise standing vpon humane fancies. Finally it should be contrary to it selfe, and to scriptures: for such are the Romish traditions and interpretations and alle­gations of fathers.

Canus in his Booke de Locis Theologicis, layeth downe ten groundes, from whence all arguments in controuersies of Diui­nitie in his opinion are deriued. The first is holy Scripture, The 2. traditiō, The 3. is the authoritie of the Catholik church The 4. is the authority of general councels. The 5. is the autho­ritie of the Church of Rome. The 6. is the authoritie of the holy Fathers. The 7. is the authoritie of Schoolemen & Canonists. The 8. is naturall reason. The 9. is the authoritie of Phi­losophers, and ciuill lawyers. The last is the authoritie of hu­mane histories. But first it is no smal wrong to ioyne with holy scriptures, not onely y^e writing of Fathers, but also the writings of Schoolemen, canonists, and profane writers. Secondly, it is the ouerthrowe of faith, to found the same vppon vncertaine and vn­knowne traditions. Thirdly, it appeareth heereby, that the faith of Papists for the moste part is an humane opinion being groun­ded vpon men, nay vpon humane reason. Finally, his groundes are not onely changeable for the moste part, but also contrarie one [Page 25] to another. That is prooued, not onely by the mutability of the de­crees of councels, & Doctrine of councels, Schoole-diuines, Cano­nists, and prophane authors, but also by traditions themselues, of which diuers are abrogated and ceased. This may be demonstra­ted by traditions, by testimonies of Fathers, actes of Councels, the doctrine of Thomistes and Scotistes, Canonists, ciuill Law­yers, and profane writers. For not onely profane writers haue shewed themselues ignorant of matters of faith, but both Schoole­men and fathers haue held contrarie opinions, as shall be prooued when neede is by diuers particulars.

Bellarmine in his Preface in lib. de pont. Rom. is not asha­med to apply these words of the Prophet Isay, Behold I will put a Stone in the foundation of Sion: vnto the pope. There also hee auoucheth the Sea of Rome to bee the foundation of the Faith. Likewise in the end of his preface de verbo dei, he seemeth to holde that the sence of Scriptures is to be fetched from the Popes See, and sencelesse decretales. Lastly the same man doth as confident­ly alleadge the Pope decretales, as Saint Paules Epistles.

Gelasius in the Chapter Sancta. dist. 15. ordeineth, that the Histories of Martyrs and their sufferings are to bee receiued. And commonly the Romish Church doth prooue her traditions partly out of such legends, and partly out of their missals, porte­ses, and other rituall Bookes.

Kellison therefore, when he looketh vpon the ruinous founda­tions of the Romish faith, hath little reason to talke against the foundations of our Christian faith. For First we all agree, that the writings of the Prophets and Apostles are the principles and foundations of our faith: and thus both Scriptures, and Fathers doe teach vs. But the Papists, as may appeare by that, which I haue alleadged, doe one differ from another.

Canus doth not once mention the Pope among his theologicall places: which to Stapleton and Bellarmine is the principall foū ­dation of the worke. Contrarywise Stapleton leaueth Scrip­tures out of his reckoning of principles of faith, which Canus confesseth to be a moste solide foundation of faith. Canus againe numbreth diuers foundations, and places theologicall, which o­thers doe not once mention.

Secondly albeit we doe not build our faith principallye, eyther vpon the actes of councels, or testimonies of Fathers, further [Page 26] then they build their Doctrine vpon holy Scriptures, yet in the interpretatiō of Scriptures wee doe not neglect the authoritie of councels and Fathers. But the Papists, albeit they seeme to found their faith vpon the authoritie of councels, and Fathers, yet regard them not one straw, if it be the popes pleasure to determine contrarie vnto them.

Thirdly, our faith is built vpon the rocke Christ Iesus, but the faith of the Romanists is built vppon the straw and stubble of po­pish traditions & determinations, and as they say; vpon the Pope, who to them is the supreme iudge, and pole-starre of faith shining out of his papall Chaire.

Fourthly our faith is the Christian faith, being built onely vp­on the word of God. Theirs is a decretaline, & an humane faith, be­ing built vpon the Popes decretales, and humane inuentions.

Fiftly, our groundes are immoouable, and agree well one with an other. But their groundes are mutable, and contrary one to an­other.

Sixtly, they cannot deny our groundes, vnlesse they will blas­pheme against holy Scriptures. But vpon their owne groundes they are not yet well agreed. We doe generally refuse them, and antiquity was ignorant of them.

Seuenthly, our groundes are safe and sure. But he that folow­eth the Pope, or beleeueth all that is written in the Breuiaryes and Missals, cannot assure him felfe, that he is in the right.

Finally, it is a thing most ridiculous to beleeue, that whatsoe­uer an vnlearned Pope, or a man voyd of religion determineth in matters of fayth, is to be holden as a matter and firme Article of fayth. For as well may a blind man iudge of colours, as a blind and irreligious Pope of matters of religion. But we are assured, that the Prophets and Apostles haue truly declared vnto vs the whole counsaile of God.

Open your eyes therfore deere Christians, and suffer not your selues to be abused by the impostures of Masse-priestes. You see they are not resolued in the foundations of fayth. And doe you think that these men entend the edification of Gods Church, who [...]rre in the maine principles and foundations of fayth, and cannot stand, vnlesse the Pope, who hath manifestly declared himselfe an enemy of religion, may sit iudge in his owne cause?

Chap. 3. Kellisons Motiues to Popish religion compared with the Motiues, that may enduce men to embrace true Christian re­ligion. Therein also the true motiues to Popery are touched.

KEllison in his first Booke and fift Chapter, talketh of Motiues to Christian religion: but so coldely and barely, as if his cause wanted life and motion. First, he telleth vs pag. 106. that our Sauiour Christ pro­ued his Mission by prophecyes and mira­cles. Among other miracles hee talketh of the strange cōquest, which the Apostles made of Idolatry. Secondly, he sayth we want reason and authoritye to perswade men to our religion, being not comparable eyther to auncient Fathers, or to Bellar­mine, Suarez, and such fellowes, in wit, or learning, or good life, or antiquity, or number, or dignity. Thirdly, he talketh of con­sent & succession. But First the example of our Sauiour Christ, & the conquest made by Christs Apostles ouer Idolatrye maketh against the idolatrous papists. For neither can the Pope prooue his vniuersall Monarchy by Prophets, or by miracles; nor hath any Christian man reason to adhere to papistes, that want confir­mation of their Popes, and Masse-priestes Mission, and yet bring into their Churches heathenish idolatry, and much false and erro­nious doctrine, and namely concerning the 7. Sacramentes, the sacrifice of Christs body and blood in the Masse for quicke & dead, Popish purgatory, and teaching that man by power of free will is able to worke his owne saluation, that we are to make vowes and confessions to Saints, & to offer sacrifice in honor of them, that we are to satisfie for sinnes (whose guilt is remitted) in Purgatory, that the Pope hath power to deliuer soules out of Purgatory by his Indulgences, that his Chaire is the foundatiō of the church and such like doctrines of deuils.

Secondly, y^e ancient Fathers are wholy against the papistes in these poynts. As for the Popes of Rome and their parasites Bellar­mine, Suarez, and the rest, they are not such, as are to be bragged vpon, eyther for learning, wit, good life, or any vertue.

Thirdly, neither are the papistes comparable in number to the Turkes & Pa [...]ās, nor haue they eyther true succession, or consent, or antiquity, y^t maketh for them. Nay if the papistes would stand to these motiues; they were cleerly gone. For neither haue they prophesies or miracles for them, Nor can the Pope, or the Masse-priests prooue their mission by miracles, nor doth antiquity make for them. As for good life, this K. may be much ashamed to speake of it, the filthynes of Popes, Cardinals, Masse-priestes, Monkes, Nonnes and Friars, being so notorious to the worlde, and recor­ded in so many storyes and actes of Councels.

What then is the reason, that so many adhere to papistes, and what are the motiues, that enduce so many to like their religion? Forsooth first Fire and Sword. For they kill all, that will not re­ceiue the Popes marke, or that once mutter against their idola­trous religion.

Secondly, secret and trecherous practises against all that shall once dare to professe the truth. Masse-priestes brewe treason and rebellion, Iesuites set on assassinors. The Pope hath his Agents with all Princes. Neither doth he, or his Agents omit any occasi­on to stirre vp Princes to make warre against them that professe the truth, and to persecute them to death.

Thirdly, excōmunicating, and killing, and poysoning of Kings opposite to the Popes tyranny. By the Popes practice K. Henry the 8. and Quéene Elizabeth were often in danger here in Eng­land. By the trechery of the Leaguers King Henry the 3. was slayne, and Henry the 4. wounded and brought to great extremi­ty in France. Henry of Lucemburgh was poysoned by a Domi­nican Fryar. Frederic the 2. was empoysoned, and in the end murdered, as Matthew Paris doth signifie: and this no dout by the Popes practise.

The 5. of Nouember anno 1605. a trayne of gunpowder was layd by certaine Papistes vnder the vpper house of Parliament, purposing to destroy the King, the Quéene, the Prince, the nobles and commons there assembled; and by their destruction to replant popery in England The treason discouered, they broke forth into open rebellion.

Fourthly, slaundrous Libels; as the inuectiues of Alan and Parsons against Quéene Elizabeth and the State: of Saunders against Her, and her Parents and Counsaile: of the Leaguers [Page 29] and Iesuites against King Henry the 3. and 4. of France, and the rayling discourses written against Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, Knox, and all godly men declare.

Fiftly their impudent lies and fables in setting foorth their owne Religion, and discommending the truth, and such as eyther now, or in time past professed it, as the fabulous tales of Iacobus de voragine, Surius, Baronius, and diuers writers of popish Histo­ries will testifie.

Sixtly, their publishing of counterfet bookes, vnder the names of Fathers, and the corrupting of Fathers by their expurgatorie indexes.

7. Their impudent falsification of ancient Fathers, and other writers, as may bee prooued out of the allegations of Bellarmine, Stapleton, and other popish Proctors.

8. Their false imputations laide vpon others, and their impu­dent denials of thinges done by themselues.

9. The diligent suppressing of the Books of holy Scripture, and all Bookes written in vulgar tongues, concerning matters of re­ligion.

10. The prohibiting of Christians to dispute reason, or question of matters of faith.

11. The ignorance & blindnes of christians, that know nothing, but onely such matters, as the false Fryars and Masse-priestes tel them.

12 The impudent clamors & raylings of this generation in Pul­pits, lying and slaundring all, that professe the Gospell sincerely.

13. The rigor of auriculer confession, by meanes whereof the Popish faction vnderstandeth all mens secrets.

14. The bloody crueltie of the popes agentes, executioners and inquisitors.

Finally, the rewardes and prayses that are giuen to those that trauaile eyther by writing, or practise to maintaine the Popes cause. Without these motiues all the motiues mentioned by Kel­lison were to no purpose.

As for vs wee haue two principall motiues to hold vs in the truth, which would also mooue others to draw vnto vs, if they knew them. The first is the truth and iustice of our cause. The next is the impieties, blasphemies, abhominations, fooleries, ab­surdities, iniustice of Popery. For the truth of our Religion we [...] [Page 30] offer to bring Scriptures, councels, Fathers, antiquitie consent, true succession, law, reason and all other proofes required in the iustification of Religion.

The reasons to deterre men from Popery, we shal God willing deduce at large in a particular discourse. Thus much may serue to requite Kellisons discourse of motiues to Religion for the pre­sent.

Chap. 4. Of the markes and properties of Heretickes.

THe name and nature of Heresie beeing so odious, it is not to be maruelled, if the Pa­trons thereof disguise themselues in their tearmes, names, and titles. The Valen­tinians, as Tertullian in his Book against them testifieth, did colour their most vaine and filthie deuises, with holy names, ti­tles and arguments of true religiō. Sanctis nominibus & titulis & argumentis verae reli­gionis vanissimà at (que) turpissima figmenta configurantes. So likewise doe Papistes vnder colour of Catholike religion present to their followers their hereticall D [...]trine concerning the being of Christes bodie in many places, transubstantiatiō, the carnall ea­ting of Christes flesh with the mouth, the deuouring of Christes body by brute beastes, and the merits of congruitie. Vnder the title of Gods true worship they commend the seruice of the bles­sed Virgin, the adoration of Angels, of Saints, and of their ima­ges; vnder the name of the sacrifice of praise and thankes-giuing they shadow the abhominable idol [...] of the Masse: and vnder the name of succession, the greeuous yoake of the Popes Tyrannye. But as Wolues muffled in sheepes cloathing are discerned by their Woluish qualities; so Hereticks are discouered by certaine markes and hereticall properties. The which if Kellison would or durst haue set downe truely; then would it haue appeared, that Papists, and not we, are Heretikes For first Heretikes are they, that teach new Doctrine in the Church. Haerest deputatur saith Tertullian Lib. de praescript. quod postea inducitur. But such [Page 31] is the decretaline and Trent doctrine of traditions, iustification, Sacraments, purgatorie, indulgences, worship of images, Angels and Saints.

Secondly, they flye the light of Scriptures and speake euill of them. Therefore Tertullian calleth them lucifugas scriptura­rum, and Ierenaeus Lib. 3. aduers. haeres. c. 2. saith, when they are conuinced by Scriptures, they fall to accuse Scriptures, as if they stood not well or wanted authoritie, or were to bee wrested to diuers sences, or else as if truth could not bee sound by those, that are ignorant of tradition. Cum ex scripturis argu­untur, in accusationem conuertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant ne (que) sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inueniri veritas ab h [...], qui nesciant traditionem. And doe not the Papists flye the light of Scriptures, forbidding them to bee read publikelie in vulgar tongues, and punishing such as haue Scriptures translated into their mother tongue without licence? doe they not also say, that Scriptures are like a nose of waxe, or as Kellison saith waxy, and that they depend vpon the Church, and that the truth cannot sufficiently be knowne without tradition?

Thirdly, Heretickes teach otherwise then the Apostles did. Therefore the Apostle. 1. Tim. 1. gaue order to Timothy, that hee should charge some, that they should not teach otherwise. Ʋnde extranei & inimici apostolis haeretici saith Tertullian de prae­script. adu. haeret. nisi ex diuersitate doctrinae, quā vnusquis (que) de suo ar­bitrio aduersus Apostolos, aut protulit, aut recepit? Whence are Heretickes strangers and enemies to the Apostles, but by rea­son of the diuersitie of Doctrine, which euerie one of his owne head either deuised, or receiued contrarie to the A­postles? This qualitie is also incident to the Papistes, that not onely teach otherwise, then did the Apostles, but haue also added to the Apostles doctrine all that trash, which wee desire to be scou­red away, as being contrarie to the apostolike forme of doctrine.

Fourthly Heretickes stand much vpon false miracles and pro­phesies, as the examples both of Montanistes, and Seuerians doe shew. There were also certaine Heretickes called mirabiliarij, confirming all their Doctrines with miracles. Tertullian de prae­scrip. aduers. haeret. Sheweth that Heretickes shall commend the authoritie of their teachers, in raysing the dead, curing the [Page 32] weake, and fore-prophecying things to come. adijcient multa de authoritate cuius (que) doctoris haeretici, illos maxima doctrinae suae confirmasse, mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, futura significasse. In which pointes the Papists doe followe them at the heeles, bragging of the miracles of Dominic, Francis, Ignatius, Xaue­rius and other their Romish Saints, and making miracles & pro­phecies, markes of their Church, and motiues to enduce men to like of their Religion.

Fiftly, Hereticks commonly stand vpon traditions, as wee may reade in Irenaeus. Lib. 3. c. 2. And because Christ said, he had many things to say to the Apostles, which they could not thē beare; ima­gine, that their deuises were conteined in these concealed Doct­rines. Omnes etiam insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt, audacias figmentorum suorum, quas maxime exhorret sensus humanus, saith Augustin tract. 97. in Ioan. bac occasione euangeli­cae sententiae colorare conantur, vbi dominus ait, adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modò. The same humor is like­wise in the Papists, and diuers of them vse these words of our Sauiour, to that purpose, albeit S. Augustine calleth them there­fore most foolish Heretickes.

Sixtly, our Sauiour Christ sheweth, that false Prophets shall come vnto vs in the habit and cloathes of Sheepe, but are in­wardly rauening Wolues. The same we finde partly verified in the Arians, and Donatistes, but moste expressely in the Papistes. For albeit they will bee called Catholikes and Christes sheepe; yet they deuoure true Catholikes, like Wolues, and massacre all, that once dare open their mouthes against their idolatries, and hereticall imaginations. Their inquisitors tribunals are full of blood of innocents, and their garments are red with blood, and carrie euident markes of their crueltie. In France they haue massacred old and young, men and women, and spared none, that came in their way, farre passing in crueltie, both the Donatistes and Arians.

7. To defend their peruerse & erroneous Doctrine, Hereticks are wont to detruncate, and by false expositions, to peruert holy scrip­tures, Tertullian de praescript. saith of marcion, that to fit his pur­pose, he cut the Scriptures at his pleasure: ad materiam suam cae­dem scripturarum confecit. Hierome in epist. ad Galat. c. 5. saith, hee may bee called an Heretike, that vnderstandeth the Scriptures [Page 33] otherwise, then the sence of the holy Ghost requireth, albeit he be not yet departed out of the Church. So likewise the Pa­pists abuse the holy Scriptures moste shamefully in their allega­tions, cutting them, and forcing them contrarie to the meaning of the holy Ghost. The old Latin translation of the Bible cutteth off and addeth to the originall text and yet will they needes haue it authenticall. These words of Isay ecce ponam in fundamentis Si­on lapidem, &c. in praefat. in lib. de pontif. Rom. Bellarmine most im­pudently detorteth to the Pope. Likewise doe the Papists abuse these wordes Hierem. 1. ecce constitui te hodie super gentes, to prooue, that the Pope is made head of nations. These words bibite ex hoc omnes: they conster, as if none of the communicants, but the preest, were to drinke of the chalice.

8. Hereticks conceale diuers of their false & lewd Doctrines Iraeneus lib. 1. c. 23. saith y^t they holde, that they are not to deliuer publikely their mysteries, but in silēce to cōteine thē in secret. Non oportere saith he, omnia ipsorum mysteria effari, sed in abscondito continere per silentium. Tertullian also saith, they hide their myst­eries in secret, ne margaritam porcis, & sanctum canibus iactarent: that is, least they should cast Pearles to swine, and holy things to Dogges. So likewise the Papists pronounce their Canon in secret, and will not, that lay men shal dispute of matters of faith, and thinke it is not fit, that holy Scriptures in vulgar tongues should be read eyther publikely or of all Christians, without restreint. Some also adde the same reasons which Heretickes abusing Christes wordes, doe bring, viz. least pearles should bee giuen to Swine, and holy thinges to Dogges.

9. Clement of Alexandria Lib. 7. Strom. telleth vs, that Heretickes being conuinced doe oftentimes deny their Doct­rine. So likewise Papists openly refuse to professe that the pope hath power to commaund the Subiects, to cut their Kinges throates, and will not graunt that images are to bee worshiped with diuine worship. Yet to their followers in secret they doubt not to propound these pointes without scruple of conscience.

10. Heretickes denying their faith to God, seldome keepe faith to men, as the example of the Pricillianists doth plainely declare. Herein therfore y^e papists doe plainely shew, whome they follow, teaching that faith is not to be kept with Heretickes, and dis­pensing with oathes moste easily. The Rhemists in their annota­tions [Page 34] vpon the 23. of the Actes, doe expressely teach their follow­ers, to breake their oathes, and to runne into wilfull periurie.

11. The liues of Hereticks are verie leud & loose, libera sunt illis omnia et soluta, saith Tertulliā de praescr. Theodoret lib. 1. haeret. fab. in praefat. saith their obscenity is such, that the Stage Players would be ashamed to speake or heare it. And what he saith not, we may imagine by y^e popes of Rome, whose abhominable beast­linesse modest eares refuse to heare. Publikelye they maintaine Stewes, and nothing among Masse-priestes and Fryars is more common, thē vnnatural lust The Pope and his lawes they feare; of Scriptures they speake vnreuerently; God they feare not.

12, They farre excell all men in pride, and will not haue their dooings or doctrine [...] examined. Heerein they resemble Mahomet who would not haue any question made of his law. But the pope excelleth both Mahometans, and all other Hereticks. He will bee honored as God. If he should drawe innumerable soules with him to hell, yet will hee not be taxed for it, as appeareth by the Chapt. Si papa. dist. 40. His determinations, as his folowers hold, are in fallible.

Finally, by our aduersaryes discourse and by their owne con­fession, they may also plainely be conuinced to be Hereticks. For first it is the propertie of Heretickes saith he, Lib. 2. cap. 1. To go out of the Church, & to depart from y^e faith. He might also haue added, teaching Doctrines of Deuils, and forbidding to marry, and commaunding to abstaine from certaine meates, and then the matter would haue beene very cleare. For moste wickedlye they disgrace marriage in y^e Chap. proposuisti. dist. 82. As if marri­ed folkes liued after the flesh, & could not please God, and for­bid their priestes, Fryers and irreligious orders to marrie. They doe also restreine their Monkes frō eating flesh, & forbid lay-men to eate it vpon certaine daies. But albeit, he hath concealed these wordes from vs, yet hath he said sufficient. For teaching a new faith neuer knowne to the Apostles, nor taught by them, the Pa­pists are clearely gon from the faith: and hauing receiued a newe head of their Church, and new foundations of their Doctrine, and strange formes of sacraments, they are closelye departed out of the Catholike church, & imbrace the particuler faith of the Pope. Nei­ther can this their departing be denyed or concealed, for as Arius by denying of Christes diuinitie and equalitie with the Father, [Page 35] and Nestorius for making two persons of Christ, and other Here­tickes for teaching singular pointes of Doctrine contrarie to the doctrine of the Apostles were said to depart out of the Church, and so to abandon the societie of the faithfull, although they might pretend succession, and still claymed the title of the Church, and of Catholikes; so the papists, if they teach any new Article of faith, not taught by the Apostles and auncient Church, they are depar­ted out of the Apostolike and Catholike church.

Secondly he saith, that later standing and noueltie is a marke of Hereticks. And this hee goeth about to proue by Scriptures, and Fathers. But he might well haue spared his labour, for wee doe not deny it. Nay vpon this ground we professe, that wee are able manifestly to demonstrate the Papists to be Heretickes. For such a societie as the Pope and his adherents are, was neuer séene for a long time after the Apostles. If Kellison say contrarie; let him leaue his pedātery, & shew his triple-crowned Pope with two swords treading vpon Princes neckes and cutting their throates and ruling the world, his purple Cardinals, his shauen Masse-priestes, his Monckes, Nonnes and Fryars, and their retinue to haue continued since the Apostles times. Furthermore the doct­rine of the carnal eating of Christes flesh, of transubstantiation, of the subsistence of accidents in the eucharist without their substā ­ces, of the communion vnder one kind, of the popes vniuersal head­ship, of purgatorie, of indulgences, and other pointes decreed in late conuenticles, would be shewed and prooued.

If Kellison can deriue these Doctrines from the Apostles, his holy Father will giue him his blessing: if not, by his owne con­fession his owne consortes are to be anathematized as Heretikes, and the Pope for the head of them.

In his third Chapt. of his second booke, he saith, that particular names takē frō Sect-maisters are notes of Heretickes, which is also a third argumēt to prooue him, & his consorts Hereticks, being al called of their grād sect maister the Pope papists, & some of Be­nedict being termed Benedictines, others of Francis and Domi­nicke, Franciscans, and Dominicans, and of Ignatius Ignatians, and some of Thomas and Scotus, Thomistes and Scotistes. Nay leauing the common name of Christians and catholikes, they will be called Catholike Romans. Against them therfore the word [...] of Hierome contr. Lucifer. may aptly be turned, out of which wee [Page 36] may conclude, that they are not the Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Antichrist. Neither doth Iustine speake any thing against the Valentinians and Marcionistes, or Cyprian against the Nouatians, concerning the imposition of their names, but the same may be applyed against the Papists.

In his fourth chapter he maketh it a propertie of Heretickes to renew old Heresies. Which although it be not incident to all Heretickes; yet it is a verie eminent qualitie in the papists. For from the Simonians they haue borowed their practise of buying and selling ecclesiasticall matters, and the vse of Concubines; from the Carpocratians they haue taken the worship of images; from the Collyridians the saying of Masse, or offering their wa­fer Cakes in honour of our Lady; from the Marcionistes the bap­tisme of Christians by women, and their limbus patrum; from the Valentinians & Manicheies their opinion of the being of Christs body in the Sacrament without soliditie; from the Pelagians the denyall of originall sinne in the blessed virgin, the perfection of iustice, and impeccabilitie of Christians. Finally they haue deri­ued diuers other branches of old condemned Heresies from other Heretickes, as at large I haue shewed in my late challenge.

His fift marke of an Hereticke is want of succession. A sim­ple marke, if wee doe well consider it. For neither in the begin­ning of the world, nor in the time of Aaron, was there anye suc­cession of knowne priestes in the world. Likewise neither our Sauiour Christ, nor Peter did succeede the priestes of the Lawe. For Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedech, and Peter was by Christ designed an Apostle, hauing none to goe be­fore him. But to confesse succession to bee a marke of the Church, and want of succession a marke of an Hereticke; yet would this one property of Heretickes much blemish the Romish See. For neither are the Popes Bishops, or Peters successors, nor can the Papists deriue their Doctrine of y^e popes vniuersall power, of his two swords, of his espousals w^t the church, of his indulgences, of y^e carnal eating & champing Christs flesh with y^e téeth, of Trāsub­stantiation, of the Cōmunion vnder one kinde, of adoring the Sa­crament and the Crosse with diuine worship, of making vowes, confessions and prayers, to Saintes, and such like pointes of de­cretaline Doctrine from the Apostles, or any Apostolike men, which, as Tertullian sheweth, is a necessarie point in succession. [Page 37] Ego saith he, sum Heres Apostolorum, sicut cauerunt testamento suo, sicut fidei commiserūt, sicut adiurauerūt, ita teneo. As if he shold say, none can be y^e Apostles heires, but such as kéepe y^e doctrine cōtain­ed in their testamēt. The same father in y^e same place excludeth he­retikes, as strangers & enemies holding a contrary doctrine to the Apostles. Furthermore the pole-shorne Masse-priests sacrificing Christes body and blood really in the Masse for quicke and dead, and diuers purposes cānot deriue their pedegree eyther from the Apostles, or from the Priestes and ancient Doctors of the church. Finally this forme of gouernment and Doctrine, which is now in the Church of Rome, cannot bee confirmed by any succession of Bishops and Priests. Nay that rotten succession of Popes, wher­vpon the cause of Papists, doth hang as vpon a thrid of a Spider­web, hath no other ground and certainty, then the testimonie of Anastasius the Popes blinde bibliothecary, Martin Polonus, Platina, Sanders, Genebrard, Illesca and such like base fellows which no Christian, I trow, wil admit for the Basis, and founda­tion of his faith.

His sixt marke of heretikes is dissension in Doctrine. and this he prooueth in a long and tedious discourse. But with this mark he brandeth his owne consortes for Heretikes. For they dissent, not onely from the auncient Fathers. But one from another most manifestly. That is aparent, by diuers treatises written of con­trouersies. This is prooued by the differences of Thomistes and Scotistes, and of all Schoolemen one from an other. Neither doe they differ in small matters, but in the highest pointes of Religi­on, as namely whether the holy Ghost proceede more princi­pally from the Father, then the Son, about the diuine notions, about the atributes of God, about Meritum Congrui, about the cause of predestination, about the thing designed by the word hoc in these wordes, hoc est corpus meum, about the conception of the blessed Virgin, and all matters of diuinitie: as the treatises of Schoolemen doe plainely shew.

Bellarmine also doth in moste controuersies no lesse earnestly dispute against his owne consortes, then against vs. Neither is it materiall that all of them professe themselues willing to abide the Popes determination. For vntill he determine somewhat, their contentions are endlesse. And albeit they then cease to contend, yet their differences in opinions appeare neuerthelesse.

The seauenth chapter of his second Booke, discou [...]seth of a sea­uenth marke of Heretikes, and therein he endeuoreth to prooue al to be Heretikes, that follow a particular sect. Nowe who seeth not, that this toucheth the Papists in generall, that restreining themselues within the Romish Church followe the Popes sect. And are bound by their Doctrine to follow him, although he leade them with him to the pit of hell. The Monkes also and Fryars, follow the heades and rules of their seueral sectes, without looking whither they leade them.

The eight marke of an Heretike saith he, is to be condemned by the church, or else as he saith afterward, by generall Coun­cels. which doth no lesse touch his holy Father, then the rest. For cōtrary to the forme of y^e Nicene councel. c. 4, He giueth libertie to Abbots to consecrate Bishops, and contrarie to the 5. Cannon ab­solueth those, that are excommunicated by other Bishops Contra­ry to the 6. Canon hee inuadeth the dioceses of other Patriarkes contrarye to another order hee separateth Priestes from their wiues. With Eutyches condemned in the councell of Chalce­don hee beleeueth, y^e Christ hath a bodie, neither solide nor palpa­ble, nor like to ours. For such is that body which he supposeth to be in the Sacrament. Likewise all the old Heresies, which hee holdeth, are condemned by the whole Church. Lastly all true Christians, doe inwardly abhorre Popish impieties, idolatries, and Heresies.

Finally the Papists generally in the Chapt. ad abolendam. de haeret. condemne them for Heretikes, that teach contrarie to the Doctrine of Christes Church, concerning the Sacraments. But this doth notoriouslye touch themselues. For where the Scrip­tures mention onely baptisme, and the Lordes supper, as seales of Gods grace, they increase the number of Sacraments, and make seauen Where Christ said, take and eate, they say, offer, heaue, hang vp, and carry about. Where Christ ordeined, that all com­municating one kinde should also receiue the other, they sacrilegi­ously depriue the people of the cuppe. Finallye they teach, that Christians are iustified by confirmation and extreame vnction, and that all their Sacraments haue like effectes.

Thus we see, hee hath marked his owne consortes with the markes of Heretikes. But hee shall neuer bee able to fasten his markes vppon vs. In the beginning of his second Booke, hee tal­keth [Page 39] after his declamatorie manner of the diuels disguising him­selfe in the habit of a young gallant (like percase to the young Iebusites and Masse-priestes, that going about to seduce simple soules attire themselues like gallants) or of a Fryar. Hee assu­reth also his disciples, that he is discryed eyther by his staring eyes, or stinking sauor, or horned head, or forked feete, or base voice. But first we would gladly knowe of him, why the deuill should rather speake in a base, then in a meane voice, and next how hee commeth so well acquainted with him, that hee knoweth his whole description from his hornes to his clouen feete. And last­ly how it hapned that speaking of the Deuill in the first part of the period, he forgot himselfe in the second, & speaketh of some mem­ber of the Deuill, and of an Hereticke? what? are Heretikes dis­cerned by their staring eyes, and forked feete, and such like partes? he telleth vs also of the pecking of Birdes, and the counterfeting of alchymistes, grauers and Heretickes, putting grauers of idola­trous images nere to Heretikes, as they doe well deserue. But what is that to vs? if heretikes be such, as counterfet religion, and yet are gone out of the Church, then concerneth it vs nothing. For with our mouth we professe, and with our hart we beleeue all the Christian and Apostolike faith, and dissent not from the Aposto­like church in any one article of faith professed publikelye for a thousand yeares after Christ. Nay wee doe onely relinquish the Papists, as Christians in old time left the Arians and Donatists and as some now leaue the Mahometans, wherein they haue for­saken Christ and his truth. Either then must this K. shew, that as former heretikes haue done, we broach some doctrine contrarye to the ancient faith, or else hee talketh idelye of going out of the Church. Maister Luther he left the Papists hauing once folow­ed their opinions, but not in any point of faith, but rather where they taught contrary to the faith.

Secondly neuer shall he prooue, either that the professors of our Religion are of a later standing, then the moderne Papistes, or that our religion embraceth nouelties. For Luther is not our founder, nor any of late time, but the Apostles of Christ Iesus, whose doctrine left in deposte to the church we embrace, detesting all prophane nouelties of Papistes. Neither doe we bring in any new faith, but reiect the popish later Heresies, and corruptions, though to some they seeme olde. But saith Kellison, the faith [Page 40] hath neuer increased in substāce, but onely in explicatiō, as if their Doctrine of traditions, of Romish interpretations, of the la­tin vulgar translation, of the 7. sacramēts, of iustificatiō by orders and extreme vnction, of transubstantiation, of y^e carnall eating & chāping w^t the teeth of Christes flesh, of y^e sacrifice of Christes bo­dy & blood in the Masse, vnder the accidentes of breade & wine, for quicke and dead, and the Popes vniuersall Monarchie were mat­ters of no substance; or else, as if the substance of these Articles had beene euer beleeued in the Church. This he would insinuate, but the noueltie of them is so apparent, that his consorts are much puzled, when they come to search them in auncient writers.

Thirdly we neither call our selues Lutherians, Caluinistes, Zuinglians, nor any such particular names. Neither is it materi­all, that the Papistes doe call vs in scorne by these names. For who doth credite the malicious tearmes of enemies? nay in this point we are more cléere then the papistes, that call themselues, some Franciscans, some Dominicans, some by other names; which we doe not.

Fourthly wee renounce all old Heresies condemned by aunci­ent Councels, and pronounce Florinus, that held God to bee the author of sinne, Anathema. The like we say of Eunomius, Pela­gius, and their consortes. Neither was Caluin of other opinion, but that his malicious enemies doe falsely impute vnto him, that he should teach, that God is the author of sinne. Wee doe not say with Iouinian, that all sins are equall, nor denie to the bodies of Christians decent buriall. Nor did Hierome writing against Vigilantius allowe prayers to Saints departed, or the merits of Monkery, or teach as the Papistes doe, of vigils or lightes set vp in churches at noone time. But suppose he shold holde opinions cō ­trary to the truth; yet are not his wordes a rule of Heresie. The second synod at Nice allowed a certaine reuerence doone to ima­ges, but nothing so much as the Papistes now giue to them. But whatsoeuer that synode decreed in that point, the same was re­prooued in a synod at Frank-ford, and neuer generallye receiued eyther in the East or West Churches. Aerius was reputed an Hereticke for Arianisme, and not for finding fault with superstitious oblations for the dead. Whatsoeuer his opini­on was it toucheth vs nothing, that doe allow the orders of the Church established among vs. Finally we anathematize the He­resies [Page 41] of the Simonians Menandrians, and others (whome he ri­diculously surmiseth to haue bene condemned for denying the real presence) of the Messalians and Caians, (whome he imagineth to haue beene accounted Heretikes for denying the sacramentes to conteine grace, as the Papistes hold it) of the Nouatians, that de­nyed repentance to publike sinners, of the Gnostikes, Mani­chees, and Encratites (whome hee ignorantlye surmiseth to haue beene condemned for denying marryage to bee a Sacrament) of Heluidius, Rhetorius and all other auncient condemned Here­tikes. If then this Hereticke will obiect Heresies to vs, hee must both set downe the wordes of the Heresie condemned by the Ca­tholike Church, and prooue, that wee holde such an Heresie.

Fiftly, wee want no proofe of our Religion, which may be drawne from true succession. For we do not only communicate in matters of faith with the Apostles, but also with the auncient Bishops of Hierusalem, Antioche, Alexandria, and Rome al­most for a thousand yeares. Wee succeede also to the Bishops of England before Bishop Cranmer in al things, which they taught well, and according to the Catholike fayth. But could we shew no line of succession; yet if we agree in doctrine with the Apostles and first Bishops of the Christian Church, it is sufficient. Ad hanc formam prouocabuntur ab illis ecclesiis saith Tertullian de praescript. aduers. haeret. quae licet nullum ex apostolis, vel apostolicis authorem suum proferant, vt multo posteriores, quae deni (que) quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. He telleth vs playnly, that they are A­postolike Churches that teach the same Doctrine, albeit they were not founded by the Apostles or Apostolike men, nor had any succession of Bishops. Likewise hee sheweth, that they are the Apostles heires, that hold that fayth, which is conteined in their Testament. Seeing then we do only publish Apostolicall Doctrine, and purge away Popish errors; our Churches are most truly Apostolicall. But sayth K. pag. 196. This is to make bare Scripture judge of our Doctrine, and as much, as if we should say, that the Church of God fayled, and that the Synagogue of the Diuell possessed the world many yeares. Hee telleth also how Luther in his preface before the disputation of Lipsia, van­ted, that he had first published Christ. But first this is a com­mon abuse of Heretikes, to call Scriptures bare. Secondly false [...] [Page 44] do clearely disperse this cloud of slaunder. But his foolish attempt may giue cause to vs, to touch both him and his consortes, for their manifold and blasphemous impietyes. In the beginning of his third Booke he sayth, that as the Stoickes commend Zeno, the Platonickes Plato, the Peripatetickes Aristotle, the Epicureans E­picure, the Atheistes Diagoras, so Christians should speake hono­rably of Christ. But if he had not beene of the sect of Diagoras, and a prophane Atheist; he would haue blushed to haue compared Christ to Diagoras, and Epicurus, two prophane and impious men; and Christians to Atheistes, and Epicureans and prophane followers of Philosophers. He would also haue forborne to haue concluded, that christians are to honor Christ, as Atheistes honor Diagoras. But to referre the examination of the impious Doc­trine of this Atheist and his consorts to his proper place, what hath he to obiect against vs and our Doctrine of Christes person, or nature?

First he telleth vs, how Michael Seruetus was a brother of our Religion, and denyed that God the Sonne was true God, or coaequall to his Father. But whatsoeuer his blasphemyes were, he learned them among the Papistes, where he was brought vp, and not among vs, where he was punished for his blasphemyes. Secondly he seemeth to be rather a brother of the Papistes, amōg whome hee learned his impieties, and with whome hee defended the adoration of Angels, then of kinred to vs. Thirdly this igno­rant Surueyor attributeth the heresie of the Arians vnto Serue­tus, where he did wholy deny the Trinity, calling all that beleeue the holy Trinity, atheistes; as may appeare in the proceedings against him.

Next he saith, that Luther in his book against Latomus affir­med, that he could not abide this word, homoousion. A matter most false and slaunderous. His words are conditional. Quod si odit anima mea vocem homoousion, saith he, et nolim ea vti, non ero haereti­cus, quis enim me coget vti, modo rem teneā, quae in concilio per scrip­turas definita est? so it appeareth hee held the thing, and that not wordes, but matters, in his conceite, made Heretickes.

Thirdly hee telleth, how Luther in commentar. in C. 1. Genes. called the Sonne of God, the instrument of God, by which hee created the world. But like an honest Surueyor, hee confesseth that he hath not seene those cōmentaries. and perhaps he wold [Page 45] not see them. For if he had, he might haue seene himselfe conuin­ced to be a lying companion. Now he sheweth himselfe onely to be a light fellow, that beleeueth fables vppon heare say. In his comentaries vpon that booke now no such matter is to be found.

Fourthly he chargeth Luther with leauing out these words in y^e Litany sancta trinitas, vnus deus, miserere nobis: & the word deus out of this sentence, deus fortis, and out of the first of Iohn, the fift Chapter, this sentence, there are three which giue witnesse in heauen, the father, the word, & the holy Ghost, & these three are one. But first the reason, why he left out the wordes mentio­ned in the Litany was not for mislik of the word Trinitie, but for that the dutch word dreifaltigheit did signifie rather triplicitie, then Trinitie. Secondlye it is not like, that Luther did omit ey­ther the word Deus, or the sentence in S. Iohns epistle, concer­ning the Trinitie, because we finde not that obiected vnto him by his moste curious aduersaries. But what if by negligence, or fault of the Coppie these wordes had beene omitted, what is that to vs, that doe not omitte them? hath the surueyor forgot, that hee promiseth a suruey of our Religion?

Fiftly, he chargeth Luther with saying, that as Eutyches said, so it may well be said, that the diuinitie of Christ suffred. But this slaunder is refuted not onely by Luthers booke de concilijs, but also by Bellarmines preface in his dispute de Christo. He one­ly saith, that he disputed with Nestorians which contended that the diuinitie of Christ could not suffer. But hee doth not say that Christes diuine nature could suffer, as Eutyches did, and as this K. would haue vs to surmise.

Page 247. He imputeth vnto Melancthon, that hee should say both in hs booke of common places, and in his book against Stan­karus, that the Sonne of God according to his diuinitie pray­ed to his Father for his kingdome, glory, and inheritance, and that the diuine nature of the Sonne was obedient to his Father in his passion. And the like saying saith K. hath Beza, yea, and Caluin also. But if eyther of them had said any thing, wherupon this accuser might ground his slaunder; he would not haue spared to haue set downe their words at full. Melancthon hath not these words according to his diuinitie. But what if he should speake improperly, shold he not haue leaue to interpret himselfe? Againe suppose there were an error in his words, must we satisfie for [Page 46] his fault? Lastly who knoweth not, that the Fathers sometime by the diuinitie and humanitie of Christ singlye vnderstand his person?

Afterward Page. 248. he inueigheth against the Vbiquetaries who affirme as hee saith, that the diuine attributes are reallye communicated vnto Christes humane nature. But heerein hee sheweth great simplicitie. For this toucheth the Papists that wil haue Christes body to bee both in heauen and earth, and vppon euerie alter at one time: which being graunted the Vbiquetaries omnipresence doth followe necessarily, seeing a body cannot bee in two remote places, but it must be in the midst. Secondly, they wil haue this communication to be per communicationem idioma­tum, so that it appeareth, their meaning is, that after a manner of speech these diuine attributes are communicated to Christes hu­mane nature. Finallye of the opinion of the reall presence of Christes bodye in the Sacrament taught by Papists, this error of the Vbiquetaries, whether in speech or Doctrine proceeded: and therefore it toucheth our aduersaries verie neere, and vs nothing at all.

In the same place hee chargeth Caluin for teaching, that the name of God is attributed to the Father [...], and that hee denyeth Christ to be God of God. Hee saith also that Whitaker heerein subscribeth vnto him, and lastlye that Cal­uin and Iewell and diuers other affirme, that Christ according to his Diuinitie was Preest and mediator. But first both Bel­larmine and this brabler doth calumniouslye reporte Caluins wordes. For writing against Valentinus Gentilis hee saith not, that the father as God hath any preheminence, but as hee is the first person in the Trinitie, and as the Sonne is begotten of the Father. Secondly hee denyeth not, that Christ is God of God, but onely saith, that the phrase is hard, and meaneth, that wee are to vnderstand the wordes personally thus, Christ which is God is of the Father, which is God, & not as if there were two Gods the one proceeding from the other. Thirdly Maister Whitakers wordes being set downe would cleare him. For his meaning is, that the diuine essence doth neither engender, nor is ingendered, those being properties of the persons. Finally both Maister Cal­uin, and the reuerend Father Bishop Iewell, and other our Di­uines doe teach aright, that the office of Christes mediation and [Page 47] Préest-hood belongeth not to eyther nature, singly considered in it selfe, but to the person, that is God and man. But the aduersaries that wil haue Christ as God to act nothing, but ascribe the whole office of Christes Preest-hood to the humane nature, doe deuide the person, and not onelye the two natures, approching neerer to Nestorius, then our teachers to error.

Finally hee alleadgeth the testimony of Egidius Hunnius a­gainst Caluin, as if in expositiō of scriptures he did Iudaizare, or fauour the Iewes. But neither is the testimony of a sworne enemie to be much regarded, nor hath any man that felicitie in ex­pounding Scriptures, that he fayleth in nothing.

In the second chap. he chargeth vs, that we make Christ an ab­surd redeemer, these are the words of this absurd surueyor. And why so, I pray you? forsooth because we hope onelye to be iustified by Christes iustice. But this doth not touch vs onely, but the holy prophets, & apostles also. God by his prpophet Isay. c. 53. saith y^t his iust seruant shall iustifie many by his knowledge, & shal beare their sins. The Apostle. 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs, y^t he is made vnto vs wisdome, righteousnesse, sanctification & redēption. To make his matter good page. 257. hee maketh vs to say, that there is no justice but Christes justice, nor good workes but Christes workes, nor merit but his merit, nor satisfaction but his satis­faction. But these are his owne sottish ideotismes, and not our wordes. For wee doe not denye that there is a certaine im­perfect iustice in man sanctified by Gods holy spirit, and that such doe good workes pleasing vnto God. We confesse also, that man by sinne doth merit death, albeit his workes be not so perfect, that they can deserue eternall life. Finally we know, that the Fathers sometime accompt the obedience of the law to bee a satisfaction, and so cal the performance of penalties enioyned by the Church. But did we attribute all the honor of our iustification and saluati­on vnto Christ our Sauiour; yet this is neither absurditie, nor dishonour to him. But this absurd and kettle Diuine dooth disho­nour and blaspheme Christ ioyning the wordes, absurd and re­deemer together. He doth also contradict the Scriptures, where hee saith, that Christ with one word, or teare, or drop of blood might haue redeemed vs. And therein he passeth the impudency of his holy Father Clement the sixt in the chap. vnigenit. extr. de poenit. & remiss. for he saith, one drop of blood would haue suffi­ced. [Page 48] But this dropping & dreary dunse addeth a teare or a word. How cōtrarie they are to scriptures, these testimonies declare Isay. 53. therfore shal he deuide the spoiles of the strong, because he hath giuen his soule to death. Mat. 20. We reade, that he came to giue his life a ransome for many, and Luc. 24. that so Christ must suffer. and 1. cor. 15. that Christ dyed for vs according to the Scriptures. Gal. 3, We learne, that to deliuer vs from the curse of the law he was made accursed, and Hebr. 2. that it was fitting, that the author of our saluation should by suffering be cōsummated. & Heb. 9. that his testamēt could not bee fulfilled without the death of the testator. Absurdly also he talketh of a storme raysed in heauen for the Sonne of God, when Lucifer wold be like the highest. For it is ridiculous to thinke of any stirre or storme raysed in Heauen, where there is, and alwaies was such quiet and content; or to suppose that Lucifer contended with the Sonne of God. Hee might doe well to tell vs what Deuill tolde him this. For in holy Scriptures no such thing is found. Fi­nally describing the blessed state of man in Paradice, and of his miserie being throwne out of Paradice, vnawares he ouerthrow­eth with his boysterous eloquence two bulwarks of Popery, to wit Freewill and Purgatory. For if euery sinner bee a slaue to his flesh, and a captiue to the Diuell, and a slaue to sinne, and the Diuell, as hee saith; then hath hee not freewill. For to bee free, and bound at one time implyeth contradiction. Againe, if the deuill hold sinners in hell perpetuallye, as page. 254. hee confesseth, then there is no redemption out of Purgatory, which as Papists teach, is in hell.

Pag. 258. he chargeth vs farther, that we teach, that good workes are not necessary, and thence inferre, that no Lawes ey­ther humane or diuine can bind vs in conscience. And lastly he sayth that we hold that no sinnes, nor euill workes can hurt vs, because Christes justice being ours, no sinne can make vs sin­ners. And so he runneth on in a course of wild eloquence, like a Colte that hath broken his halter. But as Hierome sayth in his Booke against Vigilātius, stultum est fingere materiam, cui rheto­rica declamatione respondeatur. It is a foolish and dizardly thing, to feine matters, & thē in a rhetorical surueying declamatiō to an­swer. In his fictions certes this man seemeth neither to haue rea­son, nor conscience. For first albeit we say, that we are not iusti­fied [Page 49] by workes; yet we teach, that as many as are iustified by faith in Christ, are also sanctified by his grace, and that workes are ne­cessary effects of our iustification. Secondly we directly affirme, that Gods Lawes doe bind in conscience, and mans Lawes as farre as they commaund for Gods Lawe, albeit through Christ Iesus we are deliuered from the curse of the law, being iustified by fayth, and walking no more after the flesh, but after the spi­rit. Thirdly we beleeue, that all sinnes and euill workes do hurt those, y^t doe them. Although we also beleeue, that he who is borne of God, and iustified by fayth, sinneth not vnto death. Finally most falsely he maketh vs to teach first, that Christ hath redee­med vs, because no sinne can hurt vs; and next, that we are de­liuered from the Law, because no Law can binde vs; and third­ly, y^t we are deliuered from the Diuel and Hel, because howso­euer we liue, they cannot hurt vs. Nay we pronounce him ana­thema, that shall hold, that eyther sinne cannot hurt, or that the Law bindeth not, or that howsoeuer Christians liue, they cannot be damned to Hell. And thus much may serue to cleare vs from this barking curres slaunders.

But Popish Doctrine concerning our redemption is not so ea­sily defended. For Papistes beleeue, that the Pope by his indul­gences can redeeme soules from Hell. They teach also, that euery man is to satisfie for his sinnes committed after Baptisme. But then Christ is but halfe a redeemer. Neither do they sticke to say, that the sonne of God assuming the nature of Thomas Aquinas, or some other might haue redeemed the world: which is contra­ry to all the promises made to the Fathers concerning the Messi­as to come of the seede of Abraham. Kellison pag. 261. sayth, that Christes Passion was not our formall justification, nor sa­tisfaction (he should haue said Christes Passion, obedience, and iustice, if he would formally haue crossed our Doctrine) but only the meritorious cause, of our redemption and saluation, which deserueth for vs at Gods hands grace, by which together with our cooperatiō we may be saued & redeemed. But if Christ be not our formal justice, thē his iustice was not made our iustice: which contradicteth the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. If he did not form­ally satisfie for vs, then he dyed almost in vaine, and we are to sa­tisfie for our selues. If he be only the meritorious cause of our redemption and saluation, then hath not Christ saued or redee­med [Page 50] vs, but we are to saue and redeeme our selues, as well as we can. If by grace together with our cooperation we are sa­ued and redeemed, as this K. saith; then we are formally saued and redeemed without Christ, which only commeth in as a meri­torious cause. Beside that, if grace here be nothing but charity, or a habit not distinct from Charity, as Schoole-men teach; then our owne workes properly saue vs, and not Christes Passion. Finally if Christes redemption of vs from sinne, be nothing else, but a deseruing of grace, by which we dispose our selues to justification, & if he hath freed vs from the tyrāny of the Di­uill and captiuity of Hell, because he hath procured vs grace, by which we may resist maugre all the force of Hell, and hath satisfied for our sinnes, to obtaine vs grace, that we may satisfie for all our sinnes, as this wicked blasphemer teacheth pag. 262. Then is man the principall cause of his owne iustification, and good workes should goe before iustification, and Christ should not deserue to be called our redeemer, or sauiour, but a grace giuer, that men might free and redeeme them selues. And lastly not Christ should satisfie for vs, but wee should satisfie for our selues: All which poyntes are not only contrarie to Scriptures and ab­surd, but vtterly ouerthrow the worke of Christes satisfaction and ransome payd for vs.

In the third Chapter of his third Booke hee goeth on rayling against vs, & cryeth out with open mouth, that we make Christ no redeemer at all, and his reason is, for that we teach, that euen righteous men are sinners, and that our sinnes are couered by the imputation of Christ his satisfaction and righteousnesse. But his Collection is so foolish, that if there were a whole couent of Fooles in place, he might well prooue Abbot. For Saint Iohn sayth, that if we say we haue no sinne, we deceiue our selues, and the truth is not in vs. And the Apostle Rom. 4. out of the Pro­phet sayth, blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiuen, and whose sinnes are couered. And yet Kellison will not say, but that these holy Apostles acknowledged Christ to bee their redee­mer. Our Sauiour also taught the Apostles to pray for the for­giuenesse of their trespasses. Finally to say, that a Christian can liue without sin, is playne Pelagianisme. Hierome dialog. 1. ad­uers. Pelagianos setteth downe these two propositiōs, for y^e ground of Pelagianisme, that a man may be without sinne, if he will, [Page 51] and that Gods commaundements are easie. Saint Augustine likewise Lib. de haeres. c. 88. reckoneth this assertion among the heades of Pelagius his heresie, that the life of just-men in this world hath no sinne at all. Neither is Kellisons exception of a­ny moment For it followeth not, if Christ make not men cleare without sinne, that Adam is more potent then Christ, because all his posteritie were made sinners. For by the same reason it may be sayd, that as all men were made sinners by Adam; so all should be made righteous by Christ. Furthermore the power of Christs grace exceedeth Adams transgression in this, that Christ deliue­red man of his meere grace. But Adams posteritie by his trans­gression incurred the penalty therof deseruedly. The Apostle sheweth, that Christes grace exceeded Adams transgression. For Christ pardoned many offences, but death came by one mans offence.

He doth also charge vs, that we affirme, that notwith-stand­ing Christes grace, we cānot resist any temptation of the flesh, or the Deuill, that we cannot fulfill the Law (in any sort) that we cannot doe any good worke, but must needs sinne in all our actions. But if hee cannot prooue, that we doe so teach; then I thinke he cannot deny, but that he hath sinned in this action. Let him therfore name them, that so teach, and prooue it out of their wordes if he canne. Or else it will appeare, that we teach no­thing but that which standeth with truth, and with the honor of Christ in atcheuing our redemption.

But our aduersaries will not so easily acquit themselues of teaching lewdly, concerning the article of our redemptiō through Christ. For first Kellison teacheth, pag. 261. as before is no­ted, that Christ is only the meritorious cause of our redempti­on. which is as much as if hee should ascribe the principall and formall cause to our selues. Secondly he sayth, that Christ gaue vs grace, by which together with our cooperation we may bee saued and redeemed. Which being graunted, it followeth, that Christ redeemed vs not, but only procured vs grace, wherby wee might redeeme our selues. Thirdly both hee and his consortes teach, that euerye man ought to satisfye for his sinnes cōmitted af­ter Baptisme. But if a man do satisfye for his sinnes, then is hee his owne redeemer. Fourthly the Papistes hope by the merits of Saintes, to be saued and redeemed. But as he, that serueth many [Page 52] Gods, serueth no God truelye; so hee that hath many redeemers hath no true redeemer. Fiftlye they beleeue, that the Pope by his indulgences can redeeme soules out of purgatorie. Which shew­eth, that Christes redemption is vnsufficient. Finallye in the ca­non of the Masse they professe, that they offer pro redemptione ani­marum suarum: as if the Priest with the sacrifice of the Masse, could redeeme soules.

By the verie same argument also, Lib. 3. c. 4. he endeuoureth to prooue, that wee make Christ no spirituall Phisition. As if Christ did not cure our diseases, when he couereth them, and im­puteth his iustice vnto vs, and sanctifieth vs by the holy Ghost. But if his argument were concludent, then must hee himselfe also affirme, that Christ is no spirituall Phisition. For he will not de­nie, I trow, that Christ dooth couer our sinnes, and that no man in this life is so perfectly cured, but that hee committeth diuers sinnes. To say otherwise is flat pelagianisme. Furthermore he is a good Phisition that taketh away the paine of the disease, albeit hée cannot for the weakenesse of the patient cure the reliques thereof altogether. And Isay, c. 53. saith we are healed by the woundes of Christ. Yet no man will say, that in this frailty wee are so cu­red, that we sinne not. Finally, there is a great disproportion and dissimilitude betwixt the diseases of the bodye and the soule. The paines of the soule diseases follow after this life, the paines of bodilye sicknesses come together with the disease. For the soule diseases God punisheth; for bodilye diseases the Phisition pitieth the patient. The soule diseases consist in disobedience, and acti­ons, which being once done, cannot bée vndoone. But diseases of the bodie consist in distemper, or other euill qualitie, which may be remooued. Although then the diseases of the body may be remoo­ued; yet the diseases of the soule cannot bee perfectly cured, so long as we liue in this world. Nay albeit this K. take Christ for his Phisition; yet he will not say, that hee is cured of all ignorance, malice, defectes and infirmities. Most ridiculous therefore is his discourse of the diseases of the soule, and of his resine and empla­sters of 7. Sacraments, and of his burning in purgatorye, and o­ther his Schoole-trickes and foolerye, and more like to make his reader sicke with the surfet of his suruey, then otherwise.

The fift Chapter of his third Booke, containeth a fragment of some Schoole-lecture concerning the honor due to Law-giuers. [Page 53] But while he would seeme to honour Christ, with the title of a Lawgiuer, he doth much dishonour him comparing him to Moy­ses, nay, to Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, Plato, Trismegistus, and I know not who. Against vs all his bablement maketh nothing. For albeit we doe not confound the law, and the gospell, nor make Christ a lawgiuer like to Moyses, or an exactor of the penalties of lawes, as doe the Papists; yet we doe not denye, that hee may be tearmed, and is after a sort a Lawgiuer. Neither doth eyther Luther or Caluin, deny this absolutelye, as this K. affirmeth. Hardly therefore will hee bee able to charge vs with any fault in this behalfe, vnlesse he will falsifye our wordes, as hee doth Cal­uins. lib. 3. Instit. c. 19. 10. making him to conclude, that Christ­ians are exempted from all lawes: where he hath no such words and onely speaketh of ceremonies, that may bee obserued and o­mitted. But the Papists, albeit they make Christ a Law-giuer, and make that a part of his honour; yet they giue the same pow­er to the Pope, c. translato. de constitutionibus: shewing themselues to be subiects of an other Kingdome, then that of Christ Iesus.

In the sixt Chapter he rayleth not onely at man, but at God, cal­ling him absolutely an angry God, and supposing, that his wrath is no way to be appeased, but by the masse-priests sacrifices. Fur­ther he saith, that Christ offered two sacrifices, the one at his last supper, the other vpon the Crosse, and that he hath many vicege­rentes. But that is contrary to the wordes of the Apostle. Heb. 9. who saith, that Christ was once offered to take away the sinnes of many. This is derogatorie to the honor of Christ, that is a Priest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, and cannot well stand with the Popes generall vicarship, or the office of Masse-priestes his supposed vicegerents. Against vs his vaine brable­mentes effecte nothing, seeing Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, in regard, that he succeedeth none, nor hath any successors or vicegerents in this sacrifice, that he offered once vpon the Crosse. Furthermore this preesthood of Christ af­ter the order of Melchisedech we maintaine, the Papistes ouer­throwe, as at full I haue declared in my third booke de missa a­gainst Bellarmine, where also the absurdities and contradictions of the Masse-priestes are particularly disciphred.

In the seauenth Chapter of his third booke moste wickedly hée would make the world beleeue, that we deny Christ to be iudge [Page 54] of quicke and dead. And his reason is, for that Caluin saith, that Christ shall not condemne a faithfull man. As if it were not the part of a iudge, as wel to acquite, as to condemne. Further if this argument were concludent; then should Kellison denye Christ to be iudge of quicke and dead. For I hope he will not say, that Christ will at the last day condemne faithfull men. He ad­deth also, that we deny to Christ, two offices of a judge, to wit, remuneration, and discussion, because we teach, that man in this corruption of his nature cannot merit heauen by his workes, and that no sinne is in his owne proper nature veniall. But neither is this argument better then the former. For although mens works deserue not the fauour and reward, that shall be shewed them; yet no man will deny, that God almightie that iudgeth of their acti­ons, may reward them. And albeit no sinne is veniall in his pro­per nature, if wee respect the rigour of the lawe; yet there is great difference betwixt sinne and sinne, and the iudge is not one­ly to iudge of the qualitie of sinnes, but also to examine and dis­cusse, whether the partie haue sinned or not. Much idle talke also dooth hee spend about Christes two aduents, as hee calleth them, and about Iewish fancies concerning the Sonne of Ioseph, that, as they dreamed, was to be slaine in the battell of Gog and Ma­gog, and of the dispatch of the iudgement in a trise, and of the pro­nouncing of the sentence in an audible voice. But because these Schoole-boyes fancies belong not to this argument, I wil referre them to bee censured by his owne fantasticall disciples. In the meane while I would pray this surueyor either to prooue them more demonstratiuely, or to affirme them more modestly.

The 8. chapter containeth a packe of calumniations against vs for teaching, that Christians are iustified by faith apprehending Christes iustice, that is imputed vnto vs. And heereof hee con­cludeth, that all men are not onely equally iust, and perfect, as the Beguardes said, but also as iust as Christ himselfe. But his in­ference is foolish & absurde. For although by Christes satisfaction and merits wee are all iustifyed, and acquited; yet there is an imperfect iustice in all the faithful, in some more, in some lesse, and no way comparable to Christes iustice. As for the perfection of Beguardes and Beguines, it proceeded from the opinion of Mon­kish perfection, and therefore much rather deserueth to bee impu­ted to Papists, then to vs. Papists also say, that a man may per­forme [Page 55] the law perfectly, and that no man is saued, but hee that ob­serueth the law. But of the first we may conclude, that their iust­ice is equall to the iustice of Christ, who performed the lawe per­fectlye, and that all they, that are saued by the lawe are equall in iustice: matters somewhat strange and absurd, yet following ne­cessarily of our aduersaries Doctrine.

In the ninth chapter hee goeth about to prooue, that we bring the new Testament, and Christian religion into question. But of all this greate slaunder, hee hath no other ground, then this small and simple collection, that therefore we doe so, because wee teach, that Christ as man, knew not the day of judgement, and that hee increased in wisdome. But therein wee teach nothing but that which both the Scriptures affirme, and ancient Fathers beleeued. Christ speaking of the last day Marc. 13. no man knoweth saith he, no not the Sonne, Nazianzen also Lib. 2. de filio: nouit vt deus saith he, vt homo se dicit ignorare. The same is prooued by the testimonie of Cyril. Luke. chap. 2. saith, that Iesus increased in wisdome, & stature, & in fauour with God & men. And heereupon Ambrose writeth, that Christ according to the flesh was filled with wisdome and grace. Maxentius also in profess. fid. cath. affirmeth, that Christ according to his humani­tie did grow and profit in age and wisedome. Quamobrem fa­tendum est saith he, deum natum ex foemina non secundum diuinita­tem, sed secundum humanitatem, deum in cunis iacentem, pannosum, sordibus inuolutum creuisse et profecisse, aetate, et sapientia secundum humanitatem, non secundum diuinitatem.

Finally, if Christ as man by the Vnion be omniscient, why is he not omnipotent, and praesent in all places? and why should not al the rest of the diuine attributes be really transfused into his hu­manitie, as well as this one?

In the the tenth Chapter he saith, we make Christ a desperate man, and for proofe he alleadgeth certaine places, as taken out of Caluin. But what if Caluin haue not these wordes? doth not this K. desperately abuse his readers patience? I would also com­plaine, that Maister Caluin is wronged, but that the enemies of truth take pleasure in slaundring him. Whosoeuer list to compare Caluins wordes with Kellisons reporte, shall easilye perceiue the wrong offered him. For neither dooth hee say, that the horrible confusion of damnation did fiercelye torment Christ with [Page 56] feare, nor that hee had to doe with the iudgement of God, al­beit Kellison impute both vnto him Falselye also hee translateth Caluins wordes in Math. c. 27. v. 46. turning reum, culpable, and exitio deuotus, already condemned, & making him to affirme, that which hee obiecteth to himselfe, and answereth. But suppose Caluin in tearmes had passed to farre; yet if this surueyor had doon his office, hee would not haue reported other mens wordes, for groundes of our religion.

The eleuenth chapter conteineth nothing but an inuectiue a­gainst Caluin, who supposed, that the article of the creede concer­ning Christes discending into hell, ought to be expounded of his greeuous suffringes in his soule, which in bitternesse might be pa­rangoned, as he thought, to hellish paines. But all this concerneth vs and our religion nothing, which mislike his particular opinion heerein. All this while therefore, that he bauled against Maister Caluin, the Surueyor seemeth to bée out of his way. Further­more moste shamefully hee belyeth Caluin diuers waies. First he saith, that Caluin acknowledged no locall hell. Secondly that hee affirmed, that these wordes, my God my God why hast thou forsaken mee, were the wordes of a damned man. And lastly, that Caluin at the houre of death dispayred and called vpon the Deuill. The two first are confuted by his writings vp­pon the Creede, and the passion. The last by the testimonie of all that were present at his death Neither must Kellison thinke to escape hell for reporting these hellish vntruthes deuised by Bolsec, Genebrard, and such like hel-houndes, vnlesse hee repent. Final­ly hee saith first, that all hellish paines are without end. Next hee counteth it strange, that Caluin brought Christ into hell. And lastly affirmeth, that Christes blood was sufficient to redeeme the Deuill, and the damned. But his followers teach first, that the paines of purgatorie are hellish, and caused by the flames of hell. Next they say, y^e limbus patrum, whither Christ discended is in hell, and lastly that Christ came not to redeeme Deuils, nor tooke the nature of Deuils, but of men.

In the 12. Chapter he goeth about to traduce vs, as not louing Christ. And why? Forsooth because sayth hee, you loue not the Mother of Christ, nor the Saintes, nor the Crosse, nor the I­mages of Christ or the Saintes, nor his Nayles, and other things belonging to him. He might if it had pleased him, haue added [Page 57] also the Asse, wheron Christ rode to Hierusalem, and the Bones of the Paschall Lambe, and the Baskets wherin the Fragmentes were gathered, after hee had fed fiue thousand with fiue Barly loues and two Fishes. But how prooueth hee, that we doe not loue the blessed Mother of God nor the Saintes? Forsooth because we do not worship them, as the Papistes doe. But if this bee an argumēt of want of loue, thē neither the Apostles, nor first Chrsti­ans loued Christ, or his Saintes. He telleth also how Quintin an Heretike vsed the Apostles with lewd termes. But we do de­test Quintin, as we doe Kellison. Thirdly he sayth, that Caluin called Sayntes long eared creatures, and Wicleph called them scurras principis, and that Luther wrote, that euery Ministers yoake-fellowe may bee as holy, as the Mother of God. But these are calumniations deuised by them, that neither loue Christ, nor the professors of the Christian faith. It may be, that Caluin said the Papistes made them to haue long eares, and that Wi­cliph said they were vsed, as Princes vshers. But against Gods true Saints they neuer opened their mouth, or thought basely. Further he talketh idely of the Crosse, of the nayles and Images of Christ, and the Saintes. For it is no great signe of loue to keepe the instruments, which were cause of our friends death, and well may Christians detest the worship of Images, and yet loue the memoriall of holy mē, that either trauailed in setting forth the Christian faith, or suffered for the same. This scuruy Surueyor in seeking to set forth the honor of the Mother of God, and the Saintes; doth most shamfully abuse them, endeuoring to prooue, that we loue not Christ, because that we loue not his Mother, nor his Saintes, euen as those loue not a man, that loue not his Dogge. and so most blasphemosly he compareth Gods Saintes to Dogges. Much hee talketh of the worship of Saintes, and their reliques, after the Popish manner. But if he were the man he would be taken for; he should leaue his vagrant scurueying dis­courses, and prooue the same with arguments. That hee will be able to doe it, wee haue cause to suspect, seeing & feeling his weak­nesse in this kinde.

Pag. 355. hee saith the Saintes see and knowe euen our co­gitations and prayers. But that is as much, as if he should make them Gods. For to God alone it belongeth to search the hearts. He telleth vs also, how they see all in the face of God. But then [Page 58] they must comprehend Gods infinite essence, which implyeth a contradiction.

Thus we see our Doctrine concerning Christes person, and nature cleared. But the wicked Doctrine of Papistes concerning not only the same articles, but also his office, and the partes ther­of, neither shall Kellison, nor all his consortes be able to cleare or defend.

Chap. 6. A collection of certaine absurd and blasphemous assertions of the Papistes, concerning Christ his incarnation, person, na­tures and offices.

THIS argument, if I should prosecute it fully, would require a very ample and large Treatise. The absurd and impious asser­tions of the aduersaries are so many. But I will content my selfe with few, that out of them we may collect, what the qualitie is of the rest.

First then Alexander Hales p. 3. qu. 2. membr. 13. sayth, that although man had not fallen, yet Christ should haue bene in carnated. With him also consenteth Vdalricus Lib. 5. sum. and other Doctors. Thomas Aquinas in scripto holdeth the opinion to be probable. But this opinion crosseth Gods councell, maketh man wi­ser then God, and contradicteth both Scriptures and Fathers. Iesus Christ came into the world to saue sinners, sayth the A­postle 1. Tim. 1. where-vpon the glosse addeth, tolle vulnera, tolle morbos, et nulla est causa medicinae. And Augustine ser. 9. super verb. apostoli, si homo non peccasset filius dei non venisset. If man had not sinned, the sonne of God had not come into the world. And Leo in serm. de natiu. si homo in suo honore mansisset, creator mundi creatura non fieret.

Secondly the same Alexander and Vdalricus do affirme, that the three persons in the Trinity may assume one mans nature, tres personae saith Alexāder possunt assumere & communicare vnū & eundem hominem indiuiduum. But this is contrarie to the worke [Page 59] of the incarnation of Christ, and confoundeth the persons, and is a thing not imaginable.

Thirdly Thomas inscripto, and Durande in 3. dist. 2. q. 1. and others say, that God was able to assume an vnreasonable creature. But what is more blasphemous, then to call God a horse or an vnreasonable creature, as the Sonne of God by ta­king our nature, became man, and was truly called man?

4. Bonauenture in 3. dist. 4. sayth, that the Virgin Mary hath destroyed all Heresies, and did merit the reconciliation of all mankinde. Reconciliationem quo (que) toti humano promeruit ge­neri. But if she did merit mans reconciliation, what needed Christes merits? If she killed all Heresies; then was she a more excellent teacher, then the Apostles.

5. Vdalricus Lib. 5. sum. denyeth, that Christ hath two relations of a sonne, the one to his eternall Father, the other to his Mother. Ʋeneramur saith he, in Christo duas natiuitates non duas filiationes. Other Schoolemen also are of his side. But the Scriptures call him both the Sonne of God, and Sonne of man; and if he were not truely the Sonne of man, as he is the Sonne of God; then could he not haue redeemed man.

6. Alexander Hales granteth that this proposition, Christ as he is man, is the adopted Sonne of God, is true: which de­stroyeth by a consequence Christes right, as being the Sonne of God by nature.

7. Durand in 3. sent. dist. 11. admitteth this proposition, Christ is a creature, which commeth nere to Arianisme.

8. Bonauenture in 3. dist. 12. confesseth that in Christ there was a power to sinne. primo modo saith he, fuit in Christo peccandi potentia. And he collecteth this, because hee had freewill. Neither dooth Thomas writing vpon the sentences differ much from him. But Durand goeth beyond both, for hee saith, that if the humane nature of Christ had beene assumed in pure naturalls, that Christ might haue sinned and beene damned: his wordes are these in 3. sent. dist. 12. q. 2. Constat quod humaena natura sibi derelicta potest peccare. Ergo sic assumpta peccare potuit. And againe, quod add [...]tur, si peccare potuit, dānari potuit, concedatur, quia cum damnari sonet, in poenam, non est maius inconueniens dicere Christum damnatum, quam mortuum vel passum. So heere they may see that the blasphe­mous wordes, which they seeke for in Caluin, are expressely to be [Page 60] found in their owne Schoolemen.

9. Bonauenture in 3. sent. d st. 12. saith, that Christ might haue taken flesh of a man, as hee did of a woman. Which de­stroyeth the Article of Christes birth. He seemeth also to graunt, that the Son of God in the shape of a woman might haue redee­med mankinde, albeit it was more decent, that hee should bee a man.

10. The grace of vnion of the two natures in Christ both A­lexander, and Thomas and others hold to be vncreated. Which being graunted it must needes follow, that the vnion of the two natures was from euerlasting, which is the totall ouerthrowe of our Christian fayth.

11. In Christ they deny commonly that there was fayth or hope. But he that wanteth fayth, is an infidell, and he that wāt­eth hope is a desperate man: which to affirme of Christ, is most blasphemous. Nay in this point the Scoole-men are contrary to themselues. For if fayth be an assent to the word of God; & hope be an expectation of thinges future: then eyther had Christ fayth, and hope, or else he beleeued not the word of God, nor expected or hoped for the resurrection of his body: both which cannot be spo­ken of Christ without blasphemy.

12. The Schoole-men commonly hold, that the paynes of Christes Passion were exceeding great, and yet as touching the superior part of his reason, they say that at the same time he was in exceeding pleasure and joy. But this implieth contradiction, that the same man, at the same instant, should suffer in his soule extreme paines, and yet bee in exceeding ioy and pleasure. It is also contrarie to Scriptures: attendite saith he, si est dolor, sicut do­lor meus. Beholde if there be any dolour comparable to mine? But if hee were in exceeding pleasure, many mens passions should ex­ceede his.

13. By the vnion of y^e natures they teach, that Christ was made omniscient. But no reason can bee alleadged, why the atribute of knowledge, should bee more really transfused into Christes hu­mane nature, then the attribute of omnipotēce or omnipresence, and the rest. And therefore Durand graunted, that he had omni­potence per assistentiam.

14. Henricus de Gandauo taught, that there was an other forme in Christes humane nature besides y^e reasonable soule, and [Page 61] that his death was not naturall. Richard de media villa saith, his death was miraculous, and that if the influence of the diuinitie had not been withdrawne, hee could not haue dyed. But this is nothing else, but labour and contention to ouerthrowe Christes true humanitie, by shewing him not to be like to vs, and a plaine way to dissolue the vnion of his two natures.

15. The maister of the sentences lib. 3. dist. 16. holdeth y^e Christ by necessarie course of nature neither suffered, nor dyed. dici potest saith hee, Christum voluntate, non necessitate suae naturae hos defectus, sicut alios suscepisse, silicet necessitatem patiendi in anima, et moriendi in carne. But this taketh away the similitude betwixt Christes humane nature & ours, who in this frailty cannot auoid paine, nor death.

16. Generallye they say, it was not necessarie, that Christ should suffer death for mankinde. Kellison moste impiouslye saith, that one drop of Christes blood, and one teare was a suf­ficient ransome for the sinnes of the world. But this is a plaine ouerthwart course to Gods eternall councell, to Scriptures, and to reason. For how could man by these meanes bee ransomed from death, Gods iustice being not to bee satisfyed, but by death?

17. Antisiodorensis. lib. 3. summae saith, that Christ merited nothing, as he loued God. But y^t maketh God a lyar, that pro­miseth eternall life to those that performe the lawe, and extolleth mans obedience aboue the obedience of Christ. For Papistes graunt heauen to be deserued by such as loue God.

18. They doe holde for the moste parte, that Christ from the first instant of his conception was vir perfectus, and had the perfect vse of reason, and did merit. But this being graunted, there is no difference betwixt a man and an Embryo, or Childe newly conceiued, and Christ must needes haue a soule and body of an other nature then other men.

19. Although Christ bee the vniuersall mediator of all man­kinde, yet Petrus de Tarentasia, and Richard de media villa teach that praelates and Saintes are called particular mediators, praela­ti & viri sancti say they, dicuntur particulares mediatores persona­rum quarundam.

20. They deny, that Christ was a man during the time, that he lay in the graue. In that time also Antisiodorensis dooth de­nie him to be our redeemer, as this word redeemer signifyeth the [Page 62] worker of the mysterie of our redemption. But if he were then no mā, then was our Sauiour sometimes no man, & so the mystery of the vnion of the two natures is dissolued; if then he was no redee­mer, then he lost the honor of the redemption of mankinde; neither of which can be affirmed without grosse inconueniences.

21. Albertus and others say, that Diuels carrie their hell a­bout with them. Which if it bee granted, then the hell of Pa­pistes is no determinate place, neither is it in the bowels of the earth, but also aboue the earth, and in the ayre, and in the Popes chamber, when the deuill is there.

22. Bellarmine lib. 1. de missa. C. 2. saith, that in a true sacri­fice, that is offered to God, it is required, that it bee destroyed. His wordes are, ad verum sacrificium, requiritur, vt id, quod offer­tur deo in sacrificium, planè destruatur. If then the Papists offer vp the verie bodie and blood of Christ in the Masse, as they teach; then they destroy Christes bodie and blood, and depriue vs of Christes body. But this is a most blasphemous assertion, to say that Christes bodie and blood may be destroyed, and such fellowes deserue of all Christians to bee abhorred, as blasphemers, and a­bolishers of Religion.

23. They holde, that not onely wicked and reprobrate men, but also that Dogges and hogges may eate vp Christs true bo­dye. But that is contrarie to all Religion, not onely to cast holy thinges, but also the redeemer of the world, to Hogges and Dogs.

24. They beleeue and teach, that Christes body is in the Sa­crament really, although it bee neither seene nor felt there. They beleeue also that the same body is both in heauen visible, and in the earth inuisible at one time. But this dooth quite ouerthrowe Christes humane nature. For neuer was there man in the world, that had such a bodie.

25. Bellarmine lib. de incarnatione Cap. 11. saith, that God is able to turne all the world into bread, and that all this bread may bee turned into Christes body. But it is moste absurd to thinke, that Christ hath a bodie so great as all the world, or that al the world is no bigger, then a mans body, or that one mans body may bee in all places.

26. They pray vnto Saints to helpe them, and to intercede for them. But what is more absurd, then to leaue Christ, and to pray to those, of whome they haue no certaintie, whether they be saued [Page 63] or not? if they say, they are assured they are saued, they speake ab­surdly. For if they teach aright, that no man, can assure himselfe of his owne saluation, then they teach men absurdly, to assure themselues of the saluation of all those, that are canonized by the Pope.

27. They ouerthrowe the groundes of artes and rules of rea­son and sence, where they teach, that Christes bodye and blood is really in the sacrament, and offered vp continually for quicke and dead. For reason and Arithmeticke teach vs, that many vnityes make a number, & that one & one make two. But this ground the Papists destroy. For albeit vpon this Altar is one bodie, and at the same time another vpon an other, yet doe they denye, that in this case one & one make two. They say also, that albeit Christes body bee entyre vppon three hundred seuerall altars, yet there are not diuers bodies vppon the Altar. Sense also teacheth vs, that wee receiue breade and wine. But they will haue vs rather to beleeue the Pope, then our owne sences. Philosophye teach­eth vs, that no bodye can come to a place, or goe away without lo­call motion. But these teach that Christes bodie beginneth to bée in the Sacrament, and departeth from thence againe, the formes being corrupted, without locall motion.

28. All Christians beleeue, that Christ is the redeemer of the world and the sole and absolute mediator betwixt God and man. But Papists in their Masse make their Priestes mediators be­twixt God and Christes body, that lyeth on the altar, as they say, and that in pitifull sort, included in a small roome. Supra quae saith the Preest, speaking of consecrated hoastes, propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, as if God wold not looke vpon his Sonne, nor accept him without their mediation. And a­gaine iube haec perferri per manus sācti angeli tui in sublime altare tu­um, that is, commaund this sacrifice viz. of Christes bodie and blood, to bee carryed vp vnto thy high altar by the handes of thy holy Angell. So they make Christ a weake and impotent mediator, that cannot ascend into heauen without the Preests Prayers, and helpe of Angels.

29. They beleeue, that their soules are redeemed by Masses (for that they boldely, affirme in the Canon) by indulgences, and me­rits of Saintes and by our owne satisfactions, as it appeareth by their common positions in their Doctrines of indulgences, merits, [Page 94] and satisfactions.

30. They destroy Christes Preest-hood, and that two waies. First, as if he had offered no perfect Sacrifice for mans sinne, they continually offer vp sacrifices for quicke and dead. Secondly as if his prayer were not heard, they runne to our Lady, to Angels and Saints, and make them their mediators. Our Lady they call the gate, and S. Peter the Porter of heauen.

31. They denie Christ to remaine a Preest for euer after the order of Melchisedech, when they teach, that their Masse-priests are after the order of Melchisedech, and that Christ offereth not now but by these Vicar-priestes.

32. They deny Christ to be the onely head, foundation, and teacher of his Church, giuing equall authoritie to vnwritten tra­ditions, and popish decretales, and to Christes doctrine.

Finally, no man can talke more wickedly and dishonorablye of Christs person ond offices then Kellison. Page. 256. he saith the word was mute. But what could the Arians speake more disho­norably of the eternall word, then to say, he was mute?

He saith also, that Christ with one word or teare might haue redeemed vs. But this abaseth the greatnesse of his power, and diminisheth the merit of his passion. Page 261. He affirmeth that Christes passion was not our formal iustification, nor satisfac­tion, but onely the meritorious cause of our redemption & sal­uation, which deserued for vs at Gods hands grace, by which together with our cooperation wee may bee saued and redee­med. He might in more cleere wordes haue said, that Christ did not satisfye for vs, nor saue vs, or redeeme vs, but onely merited for vs, that we might satisfye for our selues, & saue & redeeme our selues. Which doctrine is most blasphemous, moste desperate and derogatorie to the glorious worke of that great redemption, which Christ wrought for vs vpon the crosse.

P. 265. Hee defendeth the mediation and intercession of our Lady, & of the Saintes, for such as worship them & call vpon them. But as they that worship more Gods then one, are indeed with­out God, so this defender of many mediators hath not, nor in­deede acknowledgeth any true mediator.

P. 271. Hee saith, that the seauen Sacraments doe all giue grace, to heale our spirituall woundes: which being added to that, which hee said before of Christes meriting grace, by which [Page 65] together with our owne cooperation wee may bee saued: It appeareth, that hee neither maketh Christ our redeemer, nor the Physicion by whose wounds wee are healed. For you see he as­cribeth it to secondary causes, nay to extreme vnction and ceremo­nies neuer instituted by Christ. Nay hee supposeth, that our di­seases may bee cured by the Priestes of Baal, by the flames of pur­gatorie, and the oyle of indulgences. But let him not deceiue him­selfe. The scalding fire of purgatorie wil not agree with his grea­sie shauen crowne.

P. 283. Hee speaketh eagrely against those, that deny Christ to bee a law maker. But his secret purpose hee dare not vtter, for hée knoweth, that the Romish Church maketh the Popes lawes to binde in conscience, and from Christ to him trāslateth the pow­er to make lawes. But this would haue appeared verye grosse, and would haue shewed, that for Christes tribunall seate, he ment to erect the Popes consistorie.

P. 285. Hee telleth vs, that Christ hath many vicegerents in his Preest-hood. But this doth quite ouerthrow Christes préest-hood, that is without succession and vicegerency being according to the order of Melchisedech, that had neither successor, nor vice­gerent. This K. himselfe will not deny, I thinke, albeit hee be a dull fellowe, that Princes that are present neede no vicegerents. How then commeth it to passe, Christ beeing present with his church, as the Papists say really on the alter, as we say, by his ho­ly spirit, and grace, that this fellow will needes appoint him vice­gerents, bring in a race of Baals Preestes, and bald Sacrifi­cers without lawful institution or commission?

Lib. 3. cap. 7. he talketh of Christes iudgment. And in the 8. Chapter of the same Booke of wrong offerd to Christ by making others equall to Christ. And in the 9. Chapter of those, that make Christ ignorant of his office. But hee had little reason to talke of these matters, seeing the Papistes will haue Christ and the Pope to haue but one consistory, & hold that the Popes iudg­ment is infallible, when he determineth matters of faith. They do also make the Pope head of the Church, and vse other mediators as well as Christ. The glosse also vpon the extrauagant vnam sanctam. de maiorit. et obed. doth blasphemously in a certaine case charge Christ with indiscretion. Non videtur dominus discretus fuisse saith he, vt cum reuerentia eius loquar, nisi vnicum post se talem [Page 66] vicarium reliquisset.

Pag. 338. he commeth in with this prouerbe, loue me loue my Dogge. And there-vpon gathereth, that we loue not Christ, because wee worship not our Lady and the Saynts, comparing them to Dogges. What then remaineth but that the Pope cause this madde Dogges teeth to be knocked out, that biteth he careth not whome, blasphemeth Christ and dishonoreth his Saintes, whom he would seeme to honor?

Chap. 7. An answer to Kellisons calumniations, charging vs eyther to haue no Religion at all, or a gracelesse Religion.

IF Our aduersarie were a man of grauitie, and did dispute like a Diuine, or a man of learning, it were not amisse to bestow some more labour vpon him. But now seeing he doth nothing, but lye like a Sycophant, and rayle like a scurrilous and gracelesse companion deuoyd of reason and honesty, in that which followeth, I will trusse vp his great fardle of foolery within the com­passe of a few leaues. If any thing leaue, it shall not fayle to haue answer God-willing in my next, if he can and will note the de­default.

His first bolt against our Religion is this: you haue no true Priestes, ergo no true Religion, as we may reade, Lib. 4. c. 1. But his antecedent is false. For if by Priestes hee meane true Bishops and Pastors, that truely preach the word, and sincerelie administer the holy Sacraments according to Christ his institu­tion; then haue wee such. Neyther is it materiall, that they haue no ordination from the Pope, nor offer sacrifice for quicke and dead. For neither are the Popish sacrificing shauelinges true Priestes, nor haue they any good ordination being authorized ey­ther by the Pope, that is a lay man, or by Abbots, that haue no right to ordeine Ministers, or by such as haue their ordination from the Pope, who is a mere vsurper of Episcopall authoritye. That they are not true Priests, it appeareth both by their defect of [Page 67] ordination, and also by the false title of their office, being appoin­ted to sacrifice for quick and dead. The scriptures speake often of Priestes or Elders. So likewise do the Fathers. But they vn­derstand such, as preach the word, and administer the sacraments, and not sacrificing shauelinges offring for quicke and dead. Fur­ther we may answer, that for sometime, and in some places Reli­gion may consist without ordinary pastors, & verie well without Popish-priestes. This discourse therefore is all for vs, and a­gainst Kellisons shauen crowne, and idolatrous Priest-hood.

His second bolt is leuelled at our religion very lewdly. For it toucheth not vs, y^t haue not only y^e sacrifices of praise & thanks-gi­uing, & all other spirituall sacrifices vsed among Christians, but also the commemoration of Christes onely sacrifice once offered vpon the Crosse dayly celebrated in the holy Eucharist. But it striketh the Massing Religion deadly. For if there be no Religi­on, where there is no reall and externall sacrifice; then haue the Papistes no Religion. And that is prooued first by Bellarmines wordes Lib. 1. de missa cap. 2. Where he sayth, that in a true sacrifice offered to God, it is required, that the thing offered be destroyed. If then they offer vp Christes body and blood in their Masse; then do they consume and destroy the same, and after­ward leaue themselues nothing to offer. Secondly that sacrifice of Christes body and blood within the accidents of bread & wine, which the Masse-priestes offer for quicke and dead, as they sur­mise, is a mere fancy and imagination of theirs contradicting Christ his institution of the Eucharist, and diuers other places of Scriptures. They alledge, I confesse, some words of the institu­on of the Eucharist, and that which Daniel speaketh of the day­ly sacrifice, and Malachy of the cleane oblation. But they fit not the impure Masse, nor the Idolatrous sacrifice of Baals priests destroying Christes institution, and offring that, which hee com­maunded not to be offered, but to bee receiued in remembrance of his death and Passion. The Fathers also were ignorant of the histrionicall sacrifice of the Masse-priestes. Neither was there a­ny certaine Law or Doctrine established for it before the wicked conuenticle of Trent had enacted their sacrificing Lawes. All which is prooued in my Bookes de missa against Bellarmine, which this K. doth not make any hast to answer. Nay he is more absurd then Bellarmine where he sayth, that Christ powred out [Page 68] his blood at his last Supper. For then hee should haue offered a bloody sacrifice at his last Supper, and powred out his blood twise. To conclude, where he thinketh to commend vnto vs his massing sacrifice, he sheweth that Popish religion is nothing, but mere nouelties and fooleries surpassing the reach of common vn­derstanding.

His third bolt is thus formed Lib. 4. c. 3. they haue noe certentie of Sacraments at all: ergo no Religion. And to prooue his antecedent he sayth, that if any will forsake the Catholique Church and her beleife of seuen Sacraments, that hee hath no morrall nor probable assurance of any Sacraments. But first we deny, that the particuler Church of Rome is the Catholique Church. Secondly we affirme, that the Catholike Church for a thousand yeares did neuer heare of 7. Sacraments, onely and properly so called. Thirdly it is absurd to thinke, that the insti­tution of confirmation, and extreme vnction did aswell proceed from Christ, as Baptisme and the Lordes Supper, or that they worke like effectes. Matrimony, orders and repentance we con­fesse haue their originall from God: but neuer as Sacraments of the new Testament. For they were in vse before Christes time, and want both formes of wordes, and certaine signes, and promises annexed to signes: all which are necessarily required in true Sacramentes.

Kellison braggeth of proofes of Scriptures and Fathers for all matters. But where are they? we can see none brought by him. Nay his Maister Bellarmine hath bewrayed the pouerty of his cause in this behalfe, to no little discredit of himselfe, and discom­fort of his consortes. If then they haue eyther no Religion, or a gracelesse Religion, that haue no assurance of seuen Sacraments, as this K. confesseth; then is Kellison and his company left either without Religion, or with a gracelesse Religion.

Onely this is his comfort, y^t if we haue no graceful religion, yet he hath a greasie Religion, and hopeth to be iustified partly by the greasing of his handes & shauen crowne, and partly by extreme vnction beeing well greased departing out of the world, that hee may burne like a candle in purgatorie, and slippe like an Eele out the gripes of Lucifer.

The fourth bolt is thus framed by this foolish surueying fletch­er. They detract from the dignitie of Sacraments, and attri­bute [Page 69] litle vnto them. Ergo they haue no Religion, or a gracelesse religion. But how doth hee prooue, that we diminish the digni­tie of Sacraments, or attribute lesse vnto them, then is due? hee alleadgeth, how some call them badges or signes, and saith, that we deny that they giue grace, or effectuate any iote of sanctifi­cation in our soules more then the Sacraments of the olde law did. But first no man among vs, will say, or euer did say, that they serue onely for signes or badges of Christianitie, and haue no other vse. Secondly, we all confesse, that God worketh sanctification by y^e sacraments of the new testament, albeit Gods power is not so tyed to sacraments, as the Papistes teach, who affirme, that they conteine grace, and giue that to the signe, that is properly wrought and effected by Gods grace. Thirdly, wee teach, that the Sacraments of the new Testament are Sacra­ments of things passed and exhibited, as the sacraments of Moy­ses lawe were of things future; yet we deny not, y^t God wrought grace by them, as hee dooth by these. And this is consonant both to holy Scriptures and fathers. Finally wee doe not derogate a­ny thing from true Sacraments, that by the word of God is due vnto them, albeit wee preferre baptisme and the Lordes Supper before the pretended Sacramentes deuised by the aduersaries. But if those haue no Religion, that detract from the Sacraments, then haue Papistes but a poore religion, which rebaptise often­times those which are by vs baptised, and in liewe of the holy Eu­charist haue thrust into the Church the idole of the masse. They haue also corrupted the Doctrine both of repentance, & of orders, making their auriculer confession and humane absolutions and satisfactions parts of penance contrarie to all antiquitie, and reor­daining those that are duelye ordered by vs. Finallye they make their Preestes, and Monks, and Fryars, to forsweare marriage. and separate married folkes for Religion, violating the rites of their owne pretended Sacraments.

The fift bird-bolt of this dog-bolt is shot against Luther, Cal­uin, Brentius, Melancthon and diuers other learned Diuines, whome hee chargeth, to haue taken away in effect those Sacra­ments, which they seeme to allow of. But first, hee should haue vnderstood, if both his wits and brayne had not fayled him, that there is great difference betwixt priuate opinions, and Religion. Secondly lewdely doth he prooue, that which maliciously hee ob­iecteth [Page 70] vnto particulers. Luther neuer said nor thought, y^t eyther the wordes of baptisme as they are instituted by Christ may bee omitted; or that the element of water may bee changed into beare, or milke, or other liquor. Nay, therein we reprehend the Papistes, for y^t they are to bolde, not onely in changing and adding wordes, but also in taking away the Elements in the administra­tion of Sacraments. The which appeareth in that they haue thrust in these wordes & aeterni, and mysterium fidei, into Christes wordes, in the institution of the Cuppe, and haue added to bap­tisme, salte, spittle, and other elements, and taken away the Cup from the communicates.

Caluin also with all his might defendeth the integritie of Christs institution both concerning the wordes and elements of the sacraments, & neuer called Christes words magical charmes, albeit the Papists with wordes, and a puffe of winde, as with a charme thinke to transubstantiate bread & wine into the Lordes bodie and blood.

Buccer in c. 26. Math. dooth not deny, that wordes are necessa­rie in the Eucharist. His wordes set downe will cleare him from Kellisons slaunder.

Luther, where he saith, that Children beleeue, saith nothing, but that which S. Augustine and others haue said before him. Of actuall faith in Children he saith nothing, albeit this K. doth actu­ally and falsely report it.

Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 16. 18. saith not, that S. Iohn baptistes baptisme was as good, as Christes baptisme, but that his bap­tisme was one with Christes baptisme: which is also proo­ued, for that Christ was baptized by Iohn, and for that the Apost­les were baptized with no other baptisme. Neither dooth the ex­ample Act. 19. prooue it to bee different. For eyther they were not well baptized, that were baptized into Iohns baptisme, or they were not rebaptized, but onely had imposition of handes and the baptisme of Gods spirit.

True it is, y^t caluin denyeth womē power to baptize: & so wold y^t aduersaries also, if they did not corrupt al good orders. But y^t ad­deth to y^e dignitie of the sacramēt. He saith further, that some that are not baptized may be saued. And so y^e aduersaries graūt also, especiallye when eyther Martyrdome supplyeth baptisme, or a man seeketh baptisme, and cannot haue it in time. That the [Page 71] Children of the reprobate are not to be baptised, or that the Chil­dren of the faithfull neede not to bee baptized Caluin neuer sayd, nor thought. Neither dooth hee say, that wee receiue bare signes in the Lords supper, but the communion of the body and blood of Christ. If then this surueyor would haue set downe these lear­ned mens wordes truelye, then should hee haue had no reason to charge them with taking away the Sacraments, or derogating from them.

But y^e Papistes, while they depend wholy vpō the préests inten­tion, and chop and change wordes in the holy institution, and take away, not onely the substance of bread and wine, but also the Cup from the communicantes, doe indeede depriue Christians of the Sacraments. Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 66. saith that baptisme may bee administred, in lixinio, that is in lye, and Albertus, in Brodio, that is, in pottage. Dionysius Carth. in 4. sent. dist. 3. q. 2. saith, y^t our Ladies name may be added to the name of the Tri­nity, and yet all remaine good. Potest in inuocatione beatae mariae fieri baptismus cum inuocatione Trinitatis. Finally, they teach, that Dogs & Hogs may eate the Sacramēt of the Eucharist, & vse to baptise belles. These are the men therefore, that abuse the Sacra­ments, and depriue Christians of them: & not Luther or Caluin.

His sixt and last bolt is directed against the Liturgie and pray­ers of the Church. But as in other places so heere also the man shooteth at rouers, ranging vp and downe in an idle and tedious discourse concerning the excellency of prayer, which no man cal­leth in question. But that which in the title of his Chapter hee proposeth to himselfe, hee forgetteth, and cannot prooue viz. that eyther wee haue no prayer, or else disorders in prayer. Hee is not ashamed to affirme, that wee haue no prayers at al on wor­king daies. But that is confuted both by common experience and the publike orders of the Church. On Holy daies, hee saith, we spend our time in yelling out Geneua Psalmes. So the De­uill teacheth him to yell out blasphemyes against the prayses of God in Psalmes, translated out of holy Scriptures. And why thinke you? forsooth because wee admit not the filthie idolatrous prayers of the Masse, and breuiaries, and for that also wee pray in tongues vnderstood, and with our spirit, and vnderstanding, and for that we vse not their Baals songs. But when Christians con­sider how Papistes pray like Parrats, not vnderstanding what [Page 72] they say, and sing their monkish Hymmes, & call vpon they knowe not whome, and send vp their prayers before stockes and stones; they haue no occasion, eyther to mislike our Prayers or Psalmes, or to allow their owne. Neither is it materiall, that wee beleeue not, that Prayers merit heauen, or satisfye for our sinnes, or that man naturally hath liberum arbitrium both in knowing and doo­ing thinges pleasing to God. For albeit they merit not, yet they both obtaine thinges necessarie, and remooue thinges hurtfull. A­gaine, albeit wee cannot satisfye for our sinnes by prayers, yet by them we obtaine remission of sinnes, for which our Sauiour hath sufficiently satisfyed. Finally albeit the natural man by freewil and nature dooth neither vnderstand the thinges of God, nor pur­sue after thinges pleasing to God; yet directed by Gods holy spi­rit, by prayers wee obtaine Gods grace, that both enlightneth our vnderstanding, and helpeth our weakenes. So in all these cases prayer is profitable.

Furthermore albeit wee teach, that man is iustified by faith, and that euerie true Christian led by Gods spirit, is to assure him selfe of Gods fauour; yet are wee not to neglect the meanes, nor to contemne Prayers which are exercises of our faith, and helpe to confirme vs, and are meanes to obtaine thinges necessarie for vs. The Surueyor therefore that concludeth against the meanes, be­cause wee assure our selues of the end promised vnto vs through Christ Iesus, is but an ideot disputer. For albeit wee hope to attaine to the end; yet wee doe not deny ordinarie meanes.

Chap. 8. The Surueyors calumniations against our Doctrine con­cerning God, refuted.

AS it is a heynous Heresie to make God the author of sinne, and condem­ned in Florinus and Blastus; so it is a heynous calumniation to charge innocent christians with so heynous a crime, as to hold God to bee the au­thor of sinne. All this notwithstan­ding, Kellison a Surueyor, as hee calleth himselfe, but not for Christ, but for Antichrist, will needes af­firme, [Page 73] that wee make God the author of sinne and wickednes. But what if we teach contrarie? will it not appeare, that the au­thor of sinne was author also of this shamelesse and sinfull slaun­der? well then let vs see what is publikelye professed by the refor­med churches. In the confession of the French Church, we reade that God is not the author of euill, and that he is cleare of all blame for thinges done euill. The Heluetian Churches con­demne Florinus and Blastus for maintaining the contrarie Doct­rine. Damnanus say they, Florinum & Blastum, & omnes, qui de­um faciunt authorem peccati. The same also wee doe both in our writinges and Sermons publikely teach, and professe. Neither can this K. alleadge either sentence or word to the contrarie. But saith he, lib. 5. c. 1. Caluin and his followers auouch, that God immediatelye and directlye is the author of wickednes: and Melancthō in Rom. c. 8. auoucheth, that Dauids adultery, & Iu­das treachery were as much the work of God, as S. Paules voca­tion. He saith also, that Beza, & diuers others haue like sayings. But first wee are vniustly charged with euery priuate mans opi­nions: neither will our aduersaries thinke it reason, in their owne case to bee so vsed. Secondlye Caluin is much wronged by this foule mouthed curre. For he is so farre from saying, that God is the author of all wickednesse, that expressely lib. 1. instit. c. 18. he teacheth, that God is author of no wickednesse. Falsely also dooth he charge Caluin to say, that God not onely foreseeth mans sinnes, but hath created him of determinate purpose to that end. Hee saith onely, that God dooth not onely permit men to doe what they will, but dooth gouerne their actions, and direct them to such endes, as he appointeth, not that he willeth or acteth their sinne, or the obliquity of the action, but that he directeth their wicked actions to good endes, which is the Doctrine of Saint Au­gustine in enchiridio ad Laurentium, and diuers other places. Me­lancthon also is moste wickedly slaundered by this false and wic­ked fellow, for he hath no such wordes, as those, wherewith hee standeth charged. Neither may we doubt, but this fellowe, that hath such leysure to prye into all mens faults, wold haue set down Bezaes wordes, and any thing writtē or taught by vs, if the same had made for his purpose. Wherefore seeing this K. setteth downe his owne malicious slaunders, and not our words, he may, if he finde anye inconuenience or absurditie redounding thereof, [Page 74] take the same wholy to himselfe, and not impute it to vs. He may also forbeare to prooue, that God is not the author of sinne. For vnlesse himselfe haue any such wicked conceite, we know no man, that will maintaine any such blasphemy.

In his second Chapter of his fift Booke hee chargeth Caluin further with teaching, that Gods will and power doth so domi­neere ouer the wil of a sinner, that he cānot resist Gods motion, which eggeth & vrgeth him to sin. Matters vtterly false & for­ged. For proofe hee citeth Lib. 3. instit. c. 21. 6. et 8. But there is no such matter to be found in those places. There also he is charged to say, that Gods will is a necessity of things. But neither doth he say any such thing in that place; nor if hee should say, that Gods absolute wil doth impose a necessitie of thinges, doth it followe, that God doth egge and vrge men to sinne. It appeareth therfore that this lying companion sought not to finde out truth, but to oppresse truth, and the fauorers ther­of, with lyes and slaunders deuised by himselfe.

Thirdly he supposeth, that we teach, that Gods commaunde­ments are impossible, and that a man can as soone touch the heauens with his finger, as fullfill the least commaundement. But this is so grosse a lye, as a man may almost touch it with his finger. For although we beleeue, that noe man in this frailty of our nature, after the fall of Adam, is able perfectly to fulfill the whole Law of God; yet absolutely and simply no man teacheth them to be impossible. Nay we know they were possible to Adam in the state of innocencie, and that now by grace many commaun­demets may be performed. But suppose we should say, that the Law cannot perfectly bee performed, yet should wee say no more, then Ambrose and Hierome do teach in Galat. 3. and Chry­sostome in Gal. 2. and Bernard serm. 50. in cant. and Thomas Aquinas in Gal. 3. lect. 4. He wold prooue, y^t the cōmaundements of God are easie and light. But therin he sheweth his owne light­nesse, that condemneth himselfe for not performing that, which he taketh to be light. The rest of his illations are meere fooleryes grounded vpon his owne fancyes.

In his fourth Chapter he would inferre that wee make God a most cruell Tyrant, because we teach, that no man is able to per­forme the whole Law of God perfectly. But his inference is most wicked and blasphemous, and could not proceede, but out of the [Page 75] blasphemous thoughts of a wicked Masse-priest. Out of our Doctrine no such matter is to bee inferred. For as in matter of debts, the Creditor may iustly exact his owne, the Debtor hauing bound himselfe to pay, and after proouing vnsufficient & vnable; so man is iustly punnished for not paying his debt, whereto he is boūd, & which by his owne fault he is made vnable to pay. Luther de seruo arb. confesseth, that in this obscure light of nature, and de­bility of vnderstanding man cannot see, why God should not bee vniust condemning him, that cannot chuse but sinne. But yet he accuseth not God eyther of injustice or cruelty, as this man would haue it, but rather accuseth man of blindenesse and igno­rance. And yet others do plainly see, that God doth most iustly exact that at the hande of man, which by his owne default hee is become vnable to performe.

Finally he chargeth the reformers, that they pul down the true God out of his throne, and place an Idole in the same of their owne imagination. And his reason is first, for that all Heretiks are Idolaters; and next for that we hold, that God is the author of sinne, and of a bad nature, vnreasonable, and cruell. But if all Heretikes be Idolaters; then as the Papistes are grosse Here­tiks, so are they grosse Idolaters, holding diuers brāches of the Si­monian, Carpocratian, Collyridiā, Angelican, Manichean, Pe­lagian Heresie, and of diuers other damned Heresies. Againe if all Idolaters pull God out of his Throne; then y^e Papistes that giue Gods honor to creatures, & worship the Sacrament, stockes and stones Idolatrosly, do pull God, as much as in them lyeth, out of his Throne. Finally if we haue cleared our selues from all the iniust imputations of this Sycophant, and shewed, that neither Caluin, nor any of our teachers do hold, that God is author of sinne, or guilty of any iniustice; then I hope the very Papistes thē-selues wil be ashamed to heare such blasphemous termes pro­ceed frō their teachers, & bee more wary hereafter, how they giue eare to our aduersaryes clamours. It is one thinge to crye loud, and another thing to bring sound proofe. Sycophants obiect great crimes: but wise Iudges proceed according to proofes.

Chap. 9. That our Doctrine giueth due obedience and respect both to Princes and to their Lawes.

HOW wickedly the Popes of Rome haue abused the clemency of Christian Prin­ces, it would require a long discourse to relate. This breefly may be verified, that they haue trod downe the maiestie of Kinges, contemned their Lawes, and set variance betwixt the Prince and his sub­iectes from time to time. And yet, as if the Doctrine of Popery, were cleare in this poynt, this K. blusheth not to obiect the faultes of his con­sortes to vs. Like vnto Parmenian the Donatist, who when hee might bee ashamed of his owne faultes, yet blushed not to ac­cuse innocent Catholiques. Cum pro tuis erubescere debueras, saith Optatus to Parmenian, Lib. 2. contr. Parmen. catholicos innocentes accusas. The difference betwixt our Doctrine and Po­pery in this point is very great. We say, it is not lawfull for a­ny subiect to lay violent handes vpon their annoynted Kinges. The Papistes are taught to rebell against Kinges excommunicat by the Pope. Nay Pius the fift in bulla contr. Elizahethā denoun­ceth them excōmunicate, that would not stirre against Queene Elizabeth, and take armes against her.

Secondly we say, that the King is not subiect to any forraine Potentate. They hold, that it is necessary to saluation for the King of England to be subiect to the Pope, and thinke men bound to be­leeue it. Nay they say the Pope is as farre aboue the Emperour, as the Sunne aboue the Moone.

Thirdly we say, that the Kinges Lawes concerning Ecclesi­sticall matters are to be obeyed. The Papistes giue all power in Ecclesiasticall affaires to the Pope, and say that the King therin is but an vsurper.

Fourthly we say, that not only lay-men, but also all Masse-priestes, Monkes, and Fryers, ought to be subiect to the Prince. These fellowes exempt their Clergie and their goods from Prin­ces [Page 77] gouernement, as appeareth by Bellarmines treatise de exemp­tione Clericorum, and diuers decrees of Popes.

Finally we make Princes and Kinges, soueraigne cōmaund­ers ouer their subiects, and immediate exequutors of Gods lawes. Contrariwise the papistes make them most base exequutioners of the Popes Lawes, and therein preuaile so farre, that they not on­ly set Princes together by the eares one with another, but make them the Popes hangmen, and force them to persecute their owne innocent subiects, if they wil not admit the Popes Idolatrous, and Hereticall Religion.

But saith Kellison Lib. 6 c. 1. they teach, that no Prince can binde a man in conscience to obey his Lawes and com­maundements, and giue subjectes good leaue to rebell and re­uolte. This he sayth, and how prooueth he that, which hee saith? forsooth saith he, Luther exhorted the Germaines not to take Armes against the Turke. And in his Booke against the King of England called him all to naught. Secondly he telleth vs of the Rebellion of the Boores in Germanie. Thirdly he citeth cer­taine places out of Luther, shewing, that the Popes lawes, or Princes positiue lawes binde not to mortall sin, nor rule the con­science.

Lastly he spendeth much idle talke about the tumults in France, Flaunders, and Germany. But first what maketh all this to lawes binding in conscience? Secondly the Articles of his accusation containe manifest vntruthes. For neither doe wee giue subiectes leaue to reuolt, neither doe wee deny that Princes lawes doe binde in conscience, as oft as they commaund any thing com­maunded in Gods word, or prohibite thinges by God prohibited. If Luther respected not the Pope, nor his decretale lawes; it is no maruell, seeing hee is no lawfull Prince, but an Vsurper, and the head and maintayner of Antichristes Kingdome. Further­more where hee and Caluin defend Christian mens libertye, as touching their conscience, they say no other thing, then that which they haue learned, and which euerie man may gather out of Saint Iames Chap. 4. where hee sayth, there is owne Law-gi­uer, that can saue and destroy. As for Kellisons proofes they are eyther grounded vpon false reports; or else containe matters im­pertinent. First false it is, that Luther exhorted the Germains not to take armes against the Turke. Nay hee rather encoura­ged [Page 78] them to defend their countrie against the Turke, onely shew­ing them, that if they meant to preuaile against him, they must first correct their liues, and reforme their errors in Religion. But whatsoeuer he said in this argument, it concerneth this matter in question, nothing. Secondly, hee was not King Henries subiect, but dealt against him more freely, as being by subtiltie of Papists set foorth to countenance the Popes leud cause. Thirdly, wee de­fend not the Rebelliō of the rustical Boores in Germany, neyther did Luther spare to reprooue them, and to write against them. Beside that, the cause of their insurrection was not Religion, but temporall oppression. Fourthly wee haue before declared what is Luthers & Caluins meaning concerning the binding of mens consciences. Fiftly, the Germains and States of the low Coun­tries are well able to cleare themselues from all blot of rebellion, or imputation laid vpon them by this sycophant, as may appeare to any that will reade their defences. Finally the Christians in France neuer rebelled, but onely tooke armes in defence of their liues, against such as broke the Kings edictes, and therefore haue beene iustifyed in their actions by the Kings themselues, and by their edictes at diuers times. Wherfore seeing their owne Kings did cleare them; this swad hath no reason to accuse them.

In his second Chapter of his sixt booke he chargeth vs, that our Doctrine dooth bring iudges and tribunall seates into con­tempt. And his reason is partlye, for that Luther and Caluin teach, that the positiue lawes of Princes bind not in conscience, and partlye for that they doe condemne the Popish Doctrine of freewill. But his reason is so simple and soppish, that it falleth of it selfe without our helpe. For albeit the positiue lawes of Prin­ces, that haue no strength of Gods lawe, doe not reach so farre, as to binde the conscience; yet all the lawes of Princes, that haue their ground in Gods law doe binde the conscience also. Likewise the authoritie of Princes is of God, and therefore no man may re­sist thē without offence of conscience. Furthermore albeit positiue lawes of Princes binde not in conscience; yet they doe bind men to susteine the punishment inflicted by Princes lawes not direct contrarie to Gods lawes. Finally albeit mā haue not freewil after the opinion of the Papists in discerning spirituall matters, and dooing works pleasing to God, & tending to the ateining of eternal life; yet he hath freewill to doe lewdly, and therefore iustly deser­ueth [Page 79] to be punished. This fellow therefore rather deserueth to bee punished, that vnderstandeth our cause no better, then admi­red for his profound sophistrie. He addeth, that it followeth by the Doctrine of these nouuellants, that Princes haue no autho­ritie to commaund. But then these olde hacsters must bring in new & strange conclusions. For as wee haue before declared, wee maintaine the Princes authoritie against the vsurpation of the Pope, and obey his lawes better then Papistes, who for a long time haue stood for the Pope against their Princes, both in France and other places. Kellison like an old sycophant may therefore doe well, seeing the Popes tyrannie is so newe, to abstaine from charging others with noueltie, and forbearing to rayle and lye, to produce some better arguments.

In the third chapter of his sixt booke hee concludeth, that wee bring Princes lawes into contempt, and in the fourth and last Chapter, that by our Doctrine, neither the Prince is to rely vp­pon his Subjects, nor Subiects vpon the Prince, nor one vpon another: And all this because Luther and Caluin teach, that Princes meere positiue lawes doe not binde in conscience. But as leapers, that mistake their rising fall oft in the midst, so disputers fayling in their groundes come short of their conclusion. This position of Luther and Caluin I haue heeretofore shewed to haue beene quite mistaken by Kellison. But had they taught so as he imagineth; yet doe they neither bring lawes into contēpt, nor breed any distrust or euil correspōdence betwixt Princes & subiects. For al Gods lawes binde in conscience, & mans lawes as farre as they haue vigor frō Gods law. The authority of Princes is grounded vpon y^e Law of God. From the same also not onely our duty tow­ards our parents, but also of husbands to their wiues, & wiues to their husbands, of children to their parents, & contrarywise for the moste part receiueth strength. Finally the same authoriseth di­uers contracts willing vs so to doe to others, as wee would haue others to doe to vs. Furthermore beside matter of conscience, ci­uill lawes doe sufficiently keepe themselues from contempt by di­uers sortes of ciuill punishments. His frappling out-courses therefore touch vs nothing. But admitte once the wicked and damnable doctrine of Poperye, and giue the Pope leaue to excom­municate Princes; then subiects are assoyled from their fealtie and obedience, oathes are broken, lawes are trodden vnder feet, Kings [Page 80] are murthered and impoysoned, rebellions are raysed, lawfull con­tracts are broken, the Father betrayeth his Children, and setteth fire to them, as hath been seene by practise where Popery beareth sway, and the like doe the Children to their Parents. Finally all lawfull contracts are dissolued, and al iustice is banished. And this we can prooue by diuers practises of the Pope and his adherents in England, Franc [...], Flanders, Germany and other countries. But that wee reserue the full declaration hereof to another place.

Chap. 10. That our Doctrine leadeth men to vertue, & deterreth them from all vices.

AS the Pagans cryed out in old times against Christians, as if they were Atheistes, & y^e lew­dest men that euer liued; so do Papists crye out against Chri­stians of our time. Kellison dooth redouble his cries of A­theisme and blasphemy, and in the seauenth booke of his Sur­uey accuseth vs of loose cary­age, and vicious liuing. And thus it is come to passe, as saith Nazianzen epist. 31. ijdem in­iuria afficiuntur, & accusantur, Honest men are both wronged & accused. But our Doctrine wil alwaies stand firme against their accusations, and we doubt not but the professors of our Religion will alwaies passe for right honest men, whensoeuer they shall bee paralleled eyther w^t popes, cardinals, Monkes, Fryars, Nonnes, or y^e Canaillery & rablement of Masse-priests & their followers.

Many reasons wee haue to perswade vs to obedience of gods Lawes and holinesse of life, whereof these are principall. First Gods commaundement, which wee are to obey; Secondly his honor, which wee are to seeke; Thirdly Christes example, which we are to follow; Fourthly the election and vocation of Christi­ans, which requireth a life answerable to our profession; Fiftly the reward promised to those, that keepe Gods lawes; Sixtly [Page 81] the scandale, that insueth of lewd actions; and lastly the curse and eternall miserye and punishment, that is denounced against the transgressors of the lawes of God.

Heerein wee haue also great aduantage of the Papistes. Wee follow Gods eternall word, that is a lanterne to our feete, and a light to our pathes; they followe obscure and vnwritten traditi­ons, Wee ground our doctrine vpon the Apostles and Prophets, that were moste holy men: they follow the decretales of moste wicked and impure Popes. Wee propose to our selues the ex­ample of Christ and his holy Apostles: they followe Antichrist, and the founders of diuers orders of Monkes and Fryars, and Nōnes, who were rather superstitious, thē zealous, ceremonious, then holy and Religious. Wee punish adulterie in moste places with death, and fornication with shame & reproach; neither doe we admitte publike bordels: they count fornication and adulterie small faultes, and maintaine in all great cities of Italy, and moste Countries subiect to the Pope common bordel houses, whereby greate occasion of corruption of manners is offered to youth, and great offence to Infidels and weake Christians. Wee force none to forsweare marriage: the Papists suffer neither Monkes, Fry­ars, Nonnes, nor Masse-priestes to marrie; whereof many horri­ble sinnes and abhominations follow. We dispense neither with oathes nor promises, nor dissolue contracts: the Pope taketh on him to doe all this, whereby great occasions are offered of periu­rie, and peruerse dealing. Wée set vp no bankes of vsurie: they commonly set vp bankes of vsurie, and call them sometime banks of pittie, because men borrow vpon lesse interest, then of common-bankers. Wee fuffer neither Iewes nor Marans among vs: they admitte both, and take tribute of them, to the great scandale of Religion. We count it a thing abhominable, for men profes­sing Christianitie to empoyson and murder those, that are opposite to them in Religion: the Pope and his adherents count such mur­ders and empoysonments meritorious, and honor the assassiners, as Saints, as appeareth by the example of Iames Clement, Wil­liam Parry, Ghineard, Castel and such like. Such as rebell or conspire against Princes wee detest as Traytors; they honor as Martyrs, as appeareth by the example of Plomptree, the two Nortons, Campian, Ballard, Watson and Clerke and such like. And shortly we doubt not to heare but that Pearcy and Catesbie [Page 82] and the gun-powder Traytors shall be put into the Popes callen­der. Wee giue no power to Preestes to absolue impenitent sin­ners: the popish Masse-preestes absolue all that confesse, and bid them doe pēnance afterward. Nay they absolue, murderers, assassi­nors and Traytors. We allow no indulgences of Popes, that remit, as they say. temporall punishments; they beeing confi­dent vpon the Popes indulgences commit grosse offences. Wee doe not beleeue, that sinnes are doone away by masses: they hope to be iustified by gazing vpon a Masse-preest. Finally, we leaue no hope for sinners after this life: they promise sinners that they shall passe to eternall life through Purgatorie.

Kellisons discourse therefore concerning vertues, which are so rare among the Papistes; and of vices, that so swarme amongst them, was vnreasonably inserted in his Suruey. Against our Doctrine, certes, iustly he can take no exception. In the title of the first Chapter of his 7. Booke, he chargeth vs with taking a­way the hope of Heauen and feare of Hell. But when hee should bring his proofes, hee alledgeth only a broken sentence or two out of Luther and Caluin, which notwithstanding being tru­ly set downe, do make nothing for him. For neither doth Caluin deny, that men ought to doe well for hope of reward, but only con­demneth the humor of those, that respect only reward, as if no­thing els were to moue men to doe good: nor doth Luther mislike, that man should feare Hell, but that Christians should not bee mooued for other causes to refraine from euill, then for feare of Hell. But what is this to vs, if aduantage might be taken of some wordes of Luther or Caluin? Further he runneth backe to talke of Lawes positiue not binding in conscience, most falsly and with­out all colour, charging vs with taking away all feare of Lawes. The rest of his first Chapter of his 7. Book is nothing but a ran­ging discourse of diuers sortes of feare, and of the effects of the hope of reward and feare of punishment, which in Doway might passe for a peece of a Schoole-boyes declamation, but here com­ming out of place, and being not gaynsaid shall passe, as do the rest of his idle declamations, for a peece of pedanticall foolery.

In the second Chapter of the same Booke hee maketh a great matter of faith only justifying, and sayth that therby a gappe is opened to all vice. But his discourse is such, as rather may be­seeme a stage vice, then a Diuine speaking against vice. First hee [Page 83] telleth vs, that Sathan beateth his doctrine into mens heads, and y^t the same was maintained first by those, against whom S. Iohn S. Iames, S. Peter and S. Iude writeth, as Augustine testifieth; and then by Simon Magus, and Eunomius; and lastly by Luther and Caluin. But heerein hee resembleth the Iewes Luke 11. that attribute the miracles of Christ to the power of Belzebub. For this Doctrine of iustification by faith without workes is the Doctrine not of Satan, as this Satanicall Masse-priest affirmeth, but of the holy Ghost. We conclude saith the A­postle Rom. 3. that a man is justified by fayth without the works of the Law. Neither doth he vnderstand the works of the ceremoniall Law, or works done by force of free-will. For then he would not haue excluded all the workes of the Law, nor denyed that Abraham was iustified by workes. Furthermore he would only haue concluded, that man is not iustified by the ceremoniall Law or by workes done by the force of free-will without grace. S. Augustine also lib. de fid. et oper. c. 14. teacheth vs, that man is first iustified, and then doth good workes. His wordes speak­ing of good works are these: sequuntur iustificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. They follow him that is justified, and goe not before in him, that is to be iustified. As for those Christians, that turned the grace of God into wantonnesse, as Saint Iude sayth, and the rest, against whome the Apostles wrote, they did al­together contemne good workes: a matter much condemne and farre from vs. Simon Magus likewise & Eunomius gaue them­selues ouer to a dissolute life, and Eunomius promising saluation to his followers beleeuing only, speaketh not of the true fayth of Christ, but of his owne wicked and Hereticall fayth. But Lu­ther and Caluin neither speake against good workes, nor contēne them, nor allow of their opinions, that contemne good workes, but only exclude them from being the cause of iustification, or concur­ring in the act of iustification before Gods tribunall seate. Other­wise they exhorte all Christians to good works, and highly prayse them, as the fruites of our iustification, and very acceptable in Gods sight. And this Doctrine they deuised not of their owne brayne, but receiued it from the Apostles and the ancient Fathers of the Church. Cum dicit apostolus saith Saint Augustine de fid. et operib. C. 14. arbitrari se iustificari hominem per [...]dem sine ope­ribus legis, non hoc agit, vt praecepta contemnātur, sed vt sciat se quis (que) [Page 84] per fidem iustificari, etiam si legis opera non praecesserint. When the Apostle sayth, that hee beleeueth man to be justified by fayth without the works of the Law, he entendeth not, that the com­maundements should be despised, but would that euery man should knowe, that hee is justified by fayth, albeit the workes of the Lawe goe not before. Against vs therefore neither the words of Iude nor of other apostles make any thing. But against our aduersaries, if S. Augustine bee Iudge, they ayme directly. arbitrantur saith he Lib. de fid. et operib. c. 15. per quasdam poe­nas ignis eos posse purgari ad salutem percipiendam merito fundamen­ti. Hee saith, y^e certaine in his time errooniously beleeued, that such as liue lewdly may be saued through fire holding the founda­tion. And against such hee disputeth and applyeth the Apostles wordes.

Secondly our aduersarie telleth vs, that Luther and Caluin teach, that good-works are mortall sinnes, and that faith accor­ding to Caluins opinion is sinne. But that is rather a lewd & sin­full tricke to impute that to any, which hee neuer wrote nor thought. Nay it appeareth manifestlie, that they teach contra­rie.

Thirdly hee asketh a question, where we reade in Scriptures, that only faith justifieth. But this question we haue alredy an­sweared. And now we say further, that this is found in all places, where either the Law and works are excluded from causing iusti­fication, or else we are said to be iustified freely and by grace, or else are taught that the iust doth liue by fayth. The Apostle Gal. 2. sayth if justice be by the Law, that Chirst dyed in vaine. And Gal. 5. volentes iustificari per legem à gratia exciderunt. While they sought for justice by the Law, they fell from Christ. Nei­ther is our aduersaries exception of any moment, where hee sayth that the workes of the ceremoniall Law, and of the Gentiles are only excluded by the words of the Apostle. For he doth not onely speake of the Gentiles, but of Abraham, y^t was the Father of the faithfull, & denyeth y^t he was iustified by works. The prophet Da­uid also Psal. 32. pronoūceth him blessed, to whome God impu­teth no sin. Which sheweth, y^t it is not the ceremoniall Law, but the whole Lawe, whose transgressions are imputed to vs. And the Apostle generally excludeth all workes for which a re­ward is due from iustification. Ei qui operatur merces non imputa­tur [Page 85] secundum gratiam. He addeth also how fayth may be sayd to justifie. But he might haue remembred, that here he is no tea­cher, but an aduersary. We do therfore rather expect arguments, then documents from him. His exposition of faith iustifying as a disposition, or as a worke is farre from truth, and from the mea­ning of the Apostle, who excluding our workes placeth our true iustification before God in Gods mercy, and Christs iustice made ours by fayth. To conclude this point, seeing none are saued but such as are iustifyed, and none are iustifyed by workes of the law, but such as performe the whole law; it is manifest that before God, which is so iust and holy, and leaueth no sin vnpunished, no sinner is iustified by the workes of the law. If it were otherwise, then would it folow, that Mary Magdalen, and other great sin­ners transgressing the law were iustified by the law.

Fourthly he saith It is an absurd heresie to say, that faith cānot be without workes. But if he speake of a true, liuely and iustifi­ing faith, he is rather an absurd heretike, if he say, that the same may be without good works. The apostle saith that faith work­eth by charity, and that the iust doth liue by faith. But liuely faith is actiue. S. Augustine also lib. de fid. et oper. c. 16. dooth testifie, that true faith cannot bee voide of workes, fides Christi saith he, fides gratiae Christianae, id est ea fides, quae per dilectionem o­peratur, posita in fundamento n [...]minem perire permittit. So it appe­reth, it deserueth not the name of Christian faith, that worketh not by charitie. In this place also this K. accuseth the Lutherans & Caluinistes, as he calleth them, for their euill life. But this is onely an ordinarie phrase of his rayling stile. For not those, that exclude workes from causing our iustification before God, but such as albeit they pretend faith and works, yet neither haue true faith nor good workes, are guiltie of this accusation. If we please to parralell those, whome hee calleth Lutherans and Caluinistes, with the Popes, Cardinals, Masse-priestes and their adherentes, I doubt not, but they will appeare Saintes in the eyes of indiffe­rent iudges in comparison of them. If any man else doubt, let him reade the actes of the Conuenticle of Constance against Iohn the 23. y^e reportes of Iohn y^e 12. Sergius the 3. Landus, Gregory the 6 and 7. Alexander the 6. Paul the 3. Leo the 10. & other Popes set downe in Histories. To speake generally there is great difference betwixt the men of Geneua and Rome, of England and Italy.

Finally he concludeth, if faith onely doe iustifie, that if a man retaine faith, all the vilanyes in the world cannot hurt him: & that hee may assure himselfe, he is iust, howsoeuer he liueth. And this hee goeth about to confirme by Luthers wordes which he re­porteth thus, Sola fides Christi necessaria est ad salutem: cetera om­nia liberrimane (que) praeceptane (que) prohibita. Onely faith is necessary to saluation, all other thinges are free, and neither commaun­ded nor forbidden. But as his dealings are dishonest, so his con­clusion concerning vilanies is most vilanous. For albeit we hold, that a Christian man is to be iustified by faith alone in Christ Ie­sus: yet wee teach also, that he abuseth Gods grace, and deceiueth himselfe, which walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit, and liuing loosely and vngodly supposeth notwithstanding, that he retayneth true faith. Furthermore none of vs euer taught, that euerie one is presently iustified, that beleeueth himselfe to bee iust as this K. boldly auoucheth, but hee that indeede truely beleeueth in Christ Iesus. Lastly this sycophant dooth most vniustly wrest and misreport Luthers words. For in his commentaries in Gal. 2. hee hath not the words alleadged by Kellison, albeit hee boldelye affirme it. Nay hee seemeth to write plaine contrarie. Iustifica­to sic corde per fidem, saith hee, quae est in nomine eius dat eïs deus po­testatem filios dei fieri diffuso mox spiritu sancto in cordibus eorum, qui charitate dilatei eos ac pacatos hilares (que) faciat omnium bonorum operatores, omnium malorum victores, etiam mortis contemptores & inferni. Hic mox cessant omnes leges, omniū legum opera. Omnia sunt iam libera licita, & lex per fidem & Charitatē est impleta. His mea­ning therefore is that those that are iustifyed by faith, haue cha­ritie and doe all good workes, and auoide sinne, not by constraint of lawes, but mooued by Gods spirit working by faith and chari­tie, and beeing stirred to doe well of their free choice. And after the former wordes he addeth, that a sinner looking for righteous­nesse at Gods handes is not to looke vpon his owne workes, but vpon God through Christ. Are not these fellowes then strange collectors that conclude contrarie to a mans words and meaning, and would make Luther a fauorer of licentiousnesse of life, and an enemie of good workes, who expressely condemneth al wickednes and commendeth good works, detracting nothing from them, but that they doe not iustifye before God, but are rather fruites of iustification?

In the third Chapter hee affirmeth, that Luther and Caluin in assuring men by an assured faith of electiō, remission of sinnes, justice, and perseuerance in the same loose the bridle to all ini­quitie. But had not hee loosed the reines of his malicious tongue, and suffered the same to range without restraint against such as defend the truth; he would neuer haue vttered so much falsehood and villany against Luther and Caluin. For they say not, that whatsoeuer mens liues be, they may boldly rely on Christ: or else, that men beeing clogged with al the sins of the world are to beleeue, that they are iust, as this surueying sycophant gi­ueth out, but rather, y^t no mā is to presume of his faith or of Gods mercie, or iustice without repentance and good life, which are the fruites & markes of a good faith. And Luther albeit he say that life cannot be lost by any sinnes, vnlesse a man will not beleeue: yet hee doth not speake of sinnes to come, but of sinnes past and doone away by the grace of Christ through baptisme and repen­tance.

Further out of Luthers wordes lib. de capt. Babyl. concer­ning the effect of faith he collecteth, that howsoeuer a man liue, & though he bee neuer so incredulous in the Articles of his be­leefe; yet if he beleeue that hee shall be saued, that it shall bee so. But no such conclusion can bee drawne from his wordes or Doctrine. Nay hée sheweth that good life cannot bee separated from true faith, and neuer ment to disioyne the faith of the articles of the Creede, from iustifying faith, this beeing deriued from that faith. Lastly albeit Christians being iustifyed by faith, hope they shall bee saued; yet no man euer beleeued, that iustification is nothing else but an assurance that he shall bee saued, as the Sur­ueyor surmiseth.

Page. 540. he calleth the faith of a mans owne saluation phan­tasticall, as if the Apostle Saint Paul beleeuing that nothing should separate him from the loue of God were phantastical. Fur­thermore how can a man professe himselfe a Christiā, if he beleeue not remission of sinnes and eternall life? and if he beleeue this, how can hee chuse but beleeue his owne saluation? againe how can we pray without doubting, if we doubt of remission of sinnes, which wee craue in the Lordes Prayer? finally the Sacraments are seales of this assurance of saluation when they are applyed to euerie particular Christian.

His last reason or rather reasonlesse argument to prooue, that assurance of faith bringeth foorth loosenesse of life, is this: be­cause a man, as hee thinketh, may apprehend Christes justice to bee his, eyther being mooued to sinne, or being in the act of sinne. But this is his owne weake surmise. For hee that truelye apprehendeth Christ is clad with his iustice, and guided by his grace, and preserued from sinning. And he that walloweth in sin, and yet presumeth of Christes grace, is not partaker eyther of his grace or iustice.

In his 7. Booke and 4. Chapter hee inueigheth against vs for teaching that sinne is not imputed to a faithfull man. But all Christians are rather to exclaime against him, that beleeueth that sinnes are neither doone away by repentance, nor purged by faith in Christes blood, but alwaies imputed vnto true beleeuers. To helpe foorth with a bad matter, hee saith that Caluin lib. 3. instit. c. 14.17. and chap. 18.8. saith plainely that all iust and faithfull mens workes are sinnes. But this is a plaine lye, and sheweth that this surueyor dooth vse but little iust and plaine dealing. For in those places no such thing is to be found. Nay, it implyeth con­tradiction to bee a good worke, and a sinne both together. After this hee concludeth, because sinne is not imputed vnto them that beleeue, that Christians are not to feare theftes, or adulteryes, or other sinne. But his conclusion doth but lewdly follow vpon his premisses. For albeit former sinnes are doone away by true faith and repentance; yet all true Christians beeing once cured are to take heede they sinne no more. Further repentance bring­eth with it newnesse of life and a care to auoide sinne afterward, and not as K. surmiseth, a boldnesse in sinning.

The fift Chapter conteineth nothing almost but vaine repeti­tions and odious calumniations against Maister Luther and Caluin and other Godly mē. First he saith, that they condemne the iust mans good deedes as mortal sinnes. But this hath bin declared to bee a mortall or rather capitall slaunder. For althogh they hold, that euen in the workes of good men there are imper­fections, and that many actes to vs seeming good are euill; yet they no where say, that the iust mans good deedes are mortall sinnes. in the wordes by K. alleadged partially, there is no such matter. Secondly hee chargeth them to teach, that the faithfull mans euil deedes are good and honest. But therein hee dealeth vnfathful­ly [Page 89] and dishonestly. For they doe not diminish mens sinnes, but commend Gods great mercy, that imputeth them not, albeit they be very great and heynous. Thirdly hée affirmeth, that Caluin teacheth, that originall sinne hath blotted out the image of God in man. But if all the vntruthes of this slauderous Sur­uey, were blotted out, the rest would scarce serue to stoppe one Vi­negar bottle. Caluin saith, that the image of God in man is not lost by his fall, but onely blemished and defaced. The same man, where he speaketh of the workes of Infidels saith not that all of them are sinnes, but that they sinned all in their morrall acti­ons. And this he prooueth out of Augustine lib. 4. contr. Iulianum. Finally, none of vs teaching, that our will is vnable to performe any good worke tending to the attaining of eternall life, dooth ey­ther teach contrarie to scriptures, or ouerthrowe Artes, or extin­guish reason, or make all sinnes equal, albeit this K. in his brable­ment dooth charge vs therewith.

In the sixt Chapter he runneth beside himselfe, and entreth in­to a tedious declaration concerning free-will, and diuers odious repetitions of the same matters. But what will you say, is this to the purpose? Forsooth no more then if hee should tell you what commaund he had in time past ouer the Hogsheades in my Lord Vauxes Sellar. For we do not deny free-will in all thinges, as did the Manachees, who held that sinne proceeded not from our will, but from the substance of the euill soule, and therfore are iust­ly refuted by Saint Augustine in his Booke de duab. anim. c. 11. neither did Luther deny free-will simply, but only in thinges that concerne the attaining of the Kingdome of heauen. Furthermore neither doth Luther teach, that free-wil goeth necessarily that way, which either the spirit spurreth it, or the Diuell vrgeth it, as this lewd Sycophant ridden and spurred on by no good spirit shamefully lyeth: nor doth Caluin affirme, that Gods prouidence and predestination taketh away free-will, as hee desperatly and imprudently chargeth him: neither do we either teach. that man sinneth vnwillingly, or deny, that he hath his will free in naturall & ciuill matters. What thē is it that pincheth this thick-skind fel­low? Forsooth because we say that the naturall man neither dis­cerneth the thinges, that are of God, nor by his free-will is able to performe them. This is it, which the semipelagian Papistes mis­like, and against which Doctrine Kellison marshalleth all his [Page 90] forces, if such weake stuffe at the least, may bee termed forces. And first he endeuoreth to prooue free-will. But if by this word he vnderstand only an abilitie & wil to doe wickedly, then we deny not, but mā hath free-will. If by free-wil he vnderstand that will and power in spiritual matters and concerning eternal life, which the conuenticle of Trent and other Romish teachers doe meane; then he may do well to take a larger terme to prooue his Doctrine. That conuenticle sess. 6. c. 1. et. 5. speaking of free-will in matters concerning eternall life, saith, it is only attenuated, and weakned and not extinguished or lost by the fall of Adam. Ga­briel Biel Lib. 2. d. 27. 4. teacheth. that a man by force of free-will may remoue the barre (of Gods grace) that is mortall sinne; because hee may cease from the consent and act of sin­ning, yea hate sinne, and frame his will not to commit sinne. Homo existens in peccato mortali saith he, potest remouere obicem, hoe est peccatum mortale: quia potest cessare à consensu et actu peccandi, imò odisse peccatum, et velle non peccare. Commonly they hold, that man in his naturall faculties, was left sound after the fall; that the will by the force of nature is able to dispose it selfe to re­ceiue grace: that the same is able by the force of nature to a­uoyde euery mortall sinne, and to fulfill the Law of God, as touching the substance of the act. But the Scriptures teach vs, that the vnregenerate man is dead, and sould vnder sinne. 1. Cor. 2. Wee read that the naturall man vnderstandeth not the thinges that are of God, and that they are foolishnesse vnto him. And 2. Cor. 3. that all our sufficiencie is of God. Si ad aliquid idonei sumus, id ex deo est, saith the Apostle.

Secondly he saith if man haue no free-will, that then all vice may goe for currant. But if hee meane free-will and the power therof according to the Doctrine of the Papistes; then his conclu­sion wil not passe for currant, nor will his vize-ship prooue more vicious holding with vs according to the Doctrine of the Scrip­tures and Fathers, then he now is esteemed defending the decre­tales of Popes, and Copper Doctrine of Schoole-men.

The seauenth Chapter of his 7. Booke containeth an inuec­tiue against vs, as if we taught, that all Gods commaundements are simply impossible. But heerein it seemeth, that wilfully he [...] mistaketh our Doctrine, that hee might the better vent his swel­ling eloquence to his gaping and witlesse Diciples. For we nei­ther [Page 91] hold, that the Law is simply in it selfe impossible, nor teach that it is impossible simply for the regenerat man, to performe the Law of God in part. But we say, that the vnregenerate cannot performe any Law of God in such sort as hee should, and that the regenerate cānot so perfectly performe the whole law, as he ought. And this we know is the doctrine of the holye Apostles & Fathers of the Church. Saint Peter Act. 15. saith the Law was a yoake which neither the Disciples of Christ, nor their Fathers were able to beare. Quid tentatis deum saith he, vt imponatur iugum super ceruices discipulorū, quod ne (que) patres nostri, ne (que) nos portare po­tuimus? Saint Paul Rom. 7. speaking of himselfe saith the Law was spirituall, and he carnall sold vnder sinne. And Rom. 8. the affection of flesh is death and enmitie against God, and is neither subject to the Law of God, nor can bee. Saint Am­brose in Galat. 3. saith that the commaundementes of God are so great, that it is impossible to keepe them. Tanta sunt mā ­data, vt impossibile sit seruari ea. Likewise lib. 9. epist. 71. He saith, no man can auoide sinne. Peccatum nemo euitare potest. And with him cōsenteth S. Hierome in c. 3. ad Galat. affirming, that no man can performe the Law. Augustine lib. de perfect. iustit. sheweth reason, why no man is able to fulfil that which is commaunded. S. Chrysostome in his Homilyes vpon the epistle to the Romans speaking of the Law, affirmeth plainely, that it is a matter impos­sible to fulfill it. Id verò saith he, nemini possibile est. And Bernard serm. 50. in cantic. saith that God commaunding thinges impos­sible made not men transgressors, but humble. And this is so plaine a matter, that Thomas Aquinas wrighting vpon the third to the Galat. confesseth freely, that it is impossible to fulfill the whole Law. Implere totam legem saith hee, est impossibile. But what should we neede to produce so many testimonies, when the Pelagians are condemned for Heretickes for saying, that a man may liue without sinne (which must needes follow if a man be able to fulfill the whole Law) and when experience teacheth vs, that euen the iust man falleth and all of vs offend in many things? if then all those that affirme the Law to be impossible giue occa­sion of all impietie, as this sottish Surueyor, affirmeth; hee had néede to distinguish subtilly, if he meane to cleare the ancient Fa­thers and Christes Apostles from impietie. If he teach contrary to them; then is his Doctrine more like to sauor of impietie, then [Page 92] that of the holy Apostles and auncient Fathers.

The rest of his seauenth Booke is nothing else, but a rest of ray­ling termes, degorged out of his cankerd and malicious stomacke, and voyd of truth and proofe. We answer therefore breefly, and plainlye to the entent that heerafter hee may bee better enformed concerning our Religion first that Christ hath not freed vs from the obedience of Lawes, and that this is no part of our fayth to hold so. Nay we say, that faithfull men, as they are freed from the curse of the Law for their sinnes, so by diuers arguments they are exhorted and stirred vp to hearken to the wordes of the Law, and to yeeld their obediēce vnto it. Secondly we pronounce them anathema, that shall say, that God is the author of sinne: and haue, I trust, fully discharged Maister Caluin from this most vn­iust imputation. Thirdly we take them to bee brutish Heretikes in the forme of men, that doe not diligently distinguish betweene vertue and vice. In our Doctrine there is not the least suspicion of any such matter. Fourthly of conscience wee speake according to the holy Apostle, that groundeth it not vpon the Popes decre­tales, but vpon the Law of God. Fiftly we hate all pride, knowing that humility is the cognizance of Christians, and ground-worke of all vertues. Sixtly wee exhort men to labour diligently in their vocation thinking them vnworthy to eate, that will not worke. Wee exhort all men also to doe good workes and that while it is day, because the night commeth when no man can worke; so farre are we from allowing idlenesse. Seuenthly we hold that Mari­age is honorable among all degrees of men, and say that God will iudge adulterers and fornicators. We teach chastity, wee punish vnchast and lecherous persons. Finally our Doctrine doth shew the way for sinners to arise, and to be loosed from the bondes of sinne. What a shamlesse fellow then is this to make these Doc­trines falsely imputed to vs rules of our Religion, when we not only renounce them, but also detest them, and the reporter of them?

The Papists iustly char­ged with that which is fals [...]ly i [...]ed [...]But if we looke backe and reflect our eyes vpon the Doctrine and practice of Papists, we shal then perceiue them to be guilty of that, which they most wickedly and slaundrously impute vnto vs. First as if Christ had freed them from al lawes, so they contemne all Lawes. The Pope taketh vppon him not only to dispence a­gainst the Doctrine of the Apostle, and the Law morall, but also [Page 93] to loose the subiectes from the obedience of lawes, & to arme them against their Princes. The Masse-priests and marked slaues of Antichrist are exempted from al burthens of Law. And Emanuel sa in his Aphorismes saith, that the rebelliō of a Clerke against. his Soueraigne Lord is no treason, because he is not his Subject

Secondly, albeit they say, that God is not the Author of sinne, yet they hold, that their idolatrous doctrine of worship of Angels, Saintes, and Images, that the rebellious and treacherous pract­ises of Subiects against Princes vpon warrant of the Pope, that the hereticall opinions and traditions of the Synagogue of Rome, which are moste wicked and sinfull, are of God. They blush not also to say that the pope & papacy is of God. But he is the man of sinne, and his state is the Kingdome of Antichrist.

Thirdly, as if they put no difference betwixt vertue and vice, so they chuse Prelates, Cardinals, Popes indifferentlye, without respect to the [...]r pietie, learning, and other good qualities. The Pope he dispenseth with all vices, the people liueth moste beastly. Petrarch in his Sonnets calleth Rome Babylon, in regard of the confusion there. In his Epistles without title speaking of the Popes Court, all goodnesse, saith he, is there lost. Omne ibi bo­num perditur. Bernard lib. 4. de consid. speaking of the Romans saith, they were impious towards God, profane in hādling holy thinges, seditious one toward another. Breidenbach in the historie of his trauailes, sheweth a maruellous corruption to haue growne among the people of his time. Recessit lex à sacerdotibus, saith hee, à principibus iusticia, consilium à senioribus, à populo sides. That is, the Lawe is departed from Preestes, justice from rulers, counsell from the Elders, and good dealing from the people. And least any man might doubt of the indifferent opini­on that Papists haue both of good & bad, the Pope granteth indul­gences to all, and Preestes absolue all that come to them, and pro­mise heauen to all.

Fourthly, hee that seeketh for conscience, must neuer hope to finde it among Papistes, who making conscience to worke on a holy day, and to eate flesh on Frydaies, were nothing scrupulous to murder olde and young, men and women, and all sortes of peo­ple, and without forme of law to kill many thousands of innocent Christians, as may appeare by the bloody massacre of France An­no 1572. and by diuers exequutions doone vpon men of our re­ligion [Page 94] both there and in other places. Of late in England Pearcy and his mates being resolued to blow vp the vpper house of Par­liament, and to make a generall massacre of such as feared God, were absolued by Iesuites and Masse-priestes, and promised hea­uen for their good seruice. To make a somme of all, they make no conscience to make idoles, and to worship them, to violate the Saboth, to rebell against Magistrates or parents, or to breake any law of God. But to breake the Popes orders, or their owne traditions, they accompt it a matter very heynous.

Fiftly, next to Lucifer the Pope excelleth in pride He treadeth on Princes neckes, he giueth his feete to bee kissed, hee rideth on mens shoulders, he is called a God on the earth and vsurpeth his honor. Such also are the Prelates and the rest of the popish Cler­gie. Auentinus lib. 6. annal. in praef. sheweth they excell in pride, and with goods giuen to the poore keepe Dogges, Horses, Har­lots. Pauperum alimentis canes, equos, scorta alunt.

Sixtly, neuer was idlenesse more in price, then since Monkes and Fryars came into the world. They deuoure the fruites of the painefull labour of others, and intend nothing but to eate, drinke, sleepe and to inioy carnall pleasures. Of such we may say with the Apostle. 2. Thess. 3. Hee that laboureth not, let him not eate.

Seauenthly, albeit the Masse-priestes, Monkes, Nonnes and Fryars forsweare marriage; yet not sect of Religion, or state of men or women is more impure. Honorius Augustodunensis speaking of Nunnes, saith they are more common then Har­lots. Omnibus fornicarijs peius prosternuntur. In England most hor­rible abhominations were found in the visitation of Abbyes. Pe­trus de Alliaco lib. de reformat. Eccles. and Theodoric à Niem in nemore vnion. & diuers others shew, that albeit Priestes were not marryed; yet commonly they kept Harlots, and that now is eui­dent, in our times, by common experience. Sacerdotes moderni saith Holcot in lib. sap. lect. 182. sunt similes sacerdotibus Baal, sunt an­geli apostatici, sunt similes sacerdotibus Dagon, sunt sacerdotes pria­pi, sunt angeli abyssi. The Priestes of his time he resembleth to hea­then Priestes, and sheweth how much they were subiect to leche­ry, and heathenish impieties.

Finally, the Doctrine of Popery is a doctrine full of licencious­nesse, the Popes of Rome take vpon them to dispense with all sins and wickednes. Their indulgences as the Germans Grauam. 3. [Page 95] complaine, are causes of many mischiefes, hinc stupra say they, incestus, adulteria, periuria, homicidia, furta, rapinae, foenora, ac tota malorum lerna. They take vppon them to absolue moste wicked sinners, à poena & culpa. Nay euerie Masse-priest challengeth to himselfe power to giue absolution to such as come to confession. The Iesuites of late absolued them before hand, which by gun-powder went about to blow vp the Parliament house. Hāmond the Iesuite absolued Pearcy, Catesby and their fellowes taking armes against their King and Countrie. While men hope to sa­tisfie for their sinnes in purgatorie, they deferre repentance to the last breath. Their enemies they tye with yron bondes. Alex­ander the 3. would not release the Emperor, vntill he had trod on his necke with his feete, and vsed him with greate indignities. Contrarywise they promise heauen to their friends, though laden with greeuous si [...]s. They hold euerie transgression of the Popes decretales to bee sinne. This is therefore a Religion, that both promiseth reward to cutthroates & greeuous sinners, and by their indulgences, absolutions, and fancies of purgatory hold a sinner so fast bound in sinne, that there can bee no hope for him, to bee loo­sed as long as he followeth their wicked Doctrines. As for Luther and Caluin they are farre from such wicked courses. They teach christian liberty. But they extend it not so, y^t they exempt Christi­ans eyther from y^e obedience of Gods lawes, or mans lawes, but onely from the cursse of the law, and from humane traditions, that they binde not mens consciences. They distinguish Christ & Moy­ses. And so would Kellison too, but that hee talketh hee knoweth not what. Of Moyses his law they make diuers vses, and onelye detract from it the effect of iustification, and saluation by reason it accuseth man of sinne and is not fulfilled. The Apostle also teach­eth, if iustice were of the law, that Christ had dyed in vaine. Of the author and original of sinne, and of conscience, they teach most Christianlye, following therein the Doctrine of the Apostles and holy Fathers of the church. The pride of the Pope & his adherents they detested and refused both by wordes and examples; and so farre were they from idlenesse, and allowing of idlenesse, that they thought him vnworthy to liue or eate, that laboured not in some honest, and lawfull vocation. Concerning chastitie they taught as truely, as the Papists wickedly. They shewed, that it consisted not in forswearing marriage, but in abstinence from all filthie [Page 96] thoughtes, actes and speeches. That which some impute to Lu­ther, of taking the Mayde, when the wife refuseth, is a meere calumniation. He sheweth onely what some doe, or at the least threaten to doe, and not what they ought to doe. Of the degrees of consanguinitie they teach better then the Pope. They neuer taught, that a man might marrie his brothers wife, or his Neece, or his Sister, as the Popes haue doone. Finally they hold no sin­ners fast bound in sinnes, but shew the right way, how to rise from sinne, by faith in Christ and true repentance, clearing those doubts, which before had entangled many Christian soules, and brought them to vtter destruction. If then this K. had not had his conscience seared, & his eyes seeled, and his vnderstanding darkned in these points, he would haue seene and acknowledged the defor­mities of his owne fellowes Doctrine, and abstained from accu­sing others.

Chap. 11. A reiection of Kellisons slaunderous accusations, imputing in his 8. Booke, Atheisme, and contempt of Religion to the pro­fessors of true and Christian Religion in the Church of Eng­land.

COnsorte not thy selfe with detractors saith Salomon Prouerb. 24. For their dest­ruction shall come vppon them sudden­ly. But Kellison was not so wise, as to borrowe light from so wise and prudent a King. He hath chosen rather, to imitate fooles, who as if all their treasure were in their tongues, count it gaine, to speake lewdely of their betters. Istic est thesau­rus stultis in lingua situs saith plautus in paenulo, vt quaestui habeant malè loqui melioribus. Forgetting his friendes in Italy, Spaine, and other countries groaning vnder the captiuity of Antichrist: in his preface he chargeth his natiue coūtry of England, as vnfortunate for ingendring a certaine Monster called Atheistes. But if our Countrie men had lesse frequented Italy, there had béene farre lesse [Page 97] Atheisme, then in England now there is. It is well knowne, that Machiauelisme came from Italy, and rose not in England, and how Englishmen Italienated are said to be like Diuels incarna­ted. Furthermore if the Masse-priestes, as they haue brought with them the dregges of Popish heresies, had not also brought with them the sinnes of Sodome, and mixed diuine Religion with temporall policies, and state practises, seeking with fire and Gun-powder to reestablish in this kingdome the Popes tyranny; then had he had no colour of this imputation. Neither dooth this any way concerne vs, that professe Religion heere in England, beeing the proper crime of the Italianated and Hispaniolized Masse-priestes and their consortes, that beeing inspired with the malici­ous spirit of Antichrist, liue like Atheistes and Sodomites, & teach rebellion, murder of Princes, periurie, equiuocations, and diuers other pointes of Doctrine repugnant both to Religion and ciuill pollicy.

In the first Chapter of his 8. Booke, hee affirmeth,Kellisons calumniati­tions, as if our doctrine sauored of Atheisme refuted. that cer­taine poyntes of our Doctrine open a gappe to a deniall of the diuine Majesty. But when hee commeth to particulars, hee powreth out of his wide mouth a streame of impudent slaun­ders. First hee saith, wee are not afrayd to auouch, that God is the author of all sinne and wickednesse: and that he hath or­dained vs to sinne from all eternitie, that wee sinne by Gods will and commaundement, and that he vrgeth vs to sinne. And concludeth, that wee make God cruell and tyrannicall, as com­maunding vs that, which wee cannot performe, wanting free­will, and punishing vs for faultes, which wee cannot auoyde. But first hee doth not so much as offer to prooue his charge eyther out of the Doctrine of the Chuch of England, or out of any mans wrightinges, whose name is of any note in our Church. Nay hee knoweth, wee teach contrarie to that, which he imputeth vnto vs. May he not then be ashamed to charge his aduersaries with mat­ters so false and improbable? Secondly, hee is neither able to con­uince Maister Caluin of any such impious Doctrine, nor hath he reason to make so greate clamours, if anye one priuate man of our teachers should hold any point of erroneous Doctrine. Lastly, before hee come at his conclusion, hee must make better proofe of his premisses, if he meane to haue the particulars of his suruey to passe without censure. He must also vnderstand, that albeit we [Page 98] haue not freewil, or liberium arbitrium in discerning the thinges of God, and dooing thinges pleasing to his diuine Maiestie; it fol­loweth not, that God is therefore cruell or tyrannicall, because by our owne default we became vnable to performe the Lawe, and blinde in discerning matters tending to eternall life.

The rest of the first Chapter containeth a long inuectiue against Atheistes, and certaine weake arguments brought to prooue, that there is a God. But as in the first hée toucheth his owne fellowes, so in the second hee confirmeth them in their Atheisme, being able to bring no better arguments to confute them, and in the whole behaueth himselfe fondly and vnlearnedly. First hee saith, that neither reason, nor faith, nor both together are able to discouer, what God is. But therein hee discouereth by his owne confession, that hee is a poore Surueyor of Religion, not knowing what God is, and a silly Doctor of Diuinitie, if hee deny that Scriptures teach vs what God is, as farre as is necessarie for vs to know.

Pag. 642. he saith, that creatures in God are increate, infi­nite, perfect, and that all of them in God are God. Which as­sertion first taketh away the distinction betwixt God and crea­tures. Next aduanceth creatures to a diuine being. And thirdly commeth neere to Seruetus his impiety. For if a creature in God is God, why may not Kellison also say, that God in a stone is a stone, and in Iron Iron, as Seruetus did, if Bellarmine in praefat. ante tom 1. disput. say truly. Neither can it excuse him, that God foresawe and foreknew all thinges, and as Philosophers say, had ideaes in him. For this deuise of ideaes is a Philosophical fancy, and yet cannot make Kellisons assertion good, seeing the platoni­call philosophers distinguish ideaes from the thinges them-selues and make them separate from them.

Pag. 645. he talketh of conuincing a God-head, and sayth, that the world by Philosophers is called Alle. But the first speech is impious seeming to import, that he meaneth to ouercome God, and to confute him, as hee hath alredy endeuored to confute his truth. The second proceedeth of ignorance. For hardly will hee bee able to shew, in what tongue Philosophers call the world, Alle.

Pag. 648. he belyeth Caesar, where hee maketh him say, that the first inhabitants of England sprang out of the earth, as [Page 99] herbes or Toad-stooles. Caesar in his commentaryes talketh neyther of hearbes nor Toad-stooles, and vtterly reiecteth this falshood.

Pag. 649. he would gladly prooue, that there is a God by the conuulsions of men possessed. And pag. 650. by Witches. Hee sayth also, that such as are possessed by Deuils somtimes howle like Dogges, somtime yell like Wolfes. But his argumentes from Witches and possessed with Deuils prooue the Deuill, ra­ther then God. Secondly his proofes are weake being drawne rather from illusions and counterfet trickes, then from matters e­uidently true. Lastly it is hard to be beleeued, that he hath heard any, that eyther howled like Dogges, or yelled like Wolfes. These proofes therfore are liker to draw men to infidelitye, then otherwise.

Afterward he talketh idlely of the heauy and lumpish nature of the earth; an element, as it seemeth predominant in him, of the Common-wealth of Bees so well ordered, that a Statist may learne policy from it, as he beleeueth, of the leapes of Hares, of Foxes and Fearne bushes, of Spiders and spider-webs, and such like vaine and idle similitudes. But what should I follow or runne after him, that runneth so farre not onely from his argu­ment, but from himselfe also?

In the second chapters rubrike he affirmeth that our Doctrine, ruineth al Religiō. But in the Chapter it selfe there is no ground brought for proofe of his assertiō. Only in the latter end he doth a­fresh charge vs with holding, that God is the author of all sinne. And thereof concludeth, that those which beleeue this must needes haue cold hearts in Religion. But we haue declared his antecedent to be false and fantasticall. What then shall we need to beat downe his ruinous consequent? The rest of this Chap­ter containeth diuers poyntes of popish Doctrine cōcerning Gods true worshippe, Heretikes and their markes, Christes honor, Priestes an sacrifices, succession, vnity, vniuersality, here idelye repeated, and formerly refuted. Pag. 671. he beareth vs in hand, that the moderne Romish Religion is most conformable to the Doctrine planted by the Apostles. But he shall not be able to prooue all his life, halfe of that which he hath affirmed in one line. He saith, he hath prooued it in his commentaries in secunda secū ­da. But his proofes are weake, and therefore dare not abide the [Page 100] light. If he come forth with his proofes of his Religion heerafter, we will pray him also to shew, that the Romish Doctrine of blow­ing vp Princes and Parliament-houses with Gun-powder, of breaking of oathes, of lying and equiuocating, of the Popes vni­uersall Monarchye, of kissing the Popes Pantoufle, of iustifica­tion by confirmation, extreme vnction, Mariage, and orders ex o­pere operato, of taking Christ with the teeth, of transubstantiation, halfe communions, priuate Masses, prayer in a tongue not vnder­stoode, worship of Saintes and Angels, and the rest of those Po­pish Heresies which we refuse, are conformable to that Religion, which was first planted by the Apostles.

In the third Chapter hee affirmeth, that in contempt of the Churches authority we bring all Religiō into contempt. But how prooueth hee, that wee contemne the Churches authoritie? First he sayth, it is a maxime, and almoste an article of fayth a­mong vs, that the true Church, which once was, hath erred grossely, and in no lesse matters, then fayth, justification, merit, free-will, workes, satisfaction, Purgatory, prayer to Sayntes, worship of Images, number & vertue of Sacraments, sacrifice and such like. But if hee meane the whole Catholique Church; this is neither article, nor maxime, nor opinion of ours, that the whole Church hath erred grossely. If he meane the Pope, and his adherents, and parasites, why should not they erre as well, as the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Hierusalem, and Constanti­nople? That they haue indeed erred, we haue already prooued, and offer our selues alwayes ready to prooue: and it is most apparant, for that their Doctrine is not only diuers, but also contrary to the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, and namely in the points aboue specified.

Next hee sayth Luther cared not for a thousand Churches, and Caluin, Beza and others despised all the Councels, and an­cient Fathers. But neyther the contempt of the Synagogue of Rome, nor the reiection of diuers Conuenticles assembled by Popes, nor the refusall of diuers counterfet Bookes alledged vn­der the name of Fathers, or of some Fathers singuler opinions doth argue anye contempt of the true Church, or of lawfull councelles, or of the authenticall writinges and common Doc­trines of Fathers. Further, I would haue thought, that reason might haue taught him, talking so long of Religion, that priuate [Page 101] mens sayinges and opinions should not so often haue beene im­puted generally to vs or to the whole Church.

To prooue, that contempt of the Churches authoritie bringeth Religion into contempt, hee alleadgeth, that wee cannot knowe, which is Scripture, which not, but by the voice of the Church. But first this is nothing to vs, which doe much esteeme y^e autho­ritie of the Apostolike and Catholike Church. We say also, that euerie priuate man is to reuerence the iudgement of the true Church. But what is this to the Romish synagogue y^t is not the true church? againe what is this to the Pope, y^t is an oppressor of the church, and an enemie of Christian Religion? if Kellison wil contend, that the sentence of the Pope, which neither vnderstan­deth, nor percase can reade Scriptures in the originall tongues, must needes be followed in deciding the controuersies about Ca­nonical scriptures; his owne schollers wil laugh at him, y^t maketh a betilheaded fellow iudge in matters of religion, & a blinde man iudge of colours. If he refer men to the particular church of Rome, that now is, it will bee said, that she cannot bee iudge and partye, and that the auncient Church is much to bée preferred before her. Saint Augustine, wee confesse among manye other reasons was enduced also to beleeue by y^e churches authoritie. So likewise are many more then he. But K. remooueth all other reasons and mo­tiues in matter of discerning scriptures, and maketh his moderne Church a necessarie cause and almost sole motife of faith, as if none were to beleeue eyther scriptures, or any other Article of faith vn­lesse hee bee resolued by the Pope, and the moderne Church of Rome. Blasphemously also hee affirmeth, that the Romaine Church being contemned, wee can no more assure a man of Scripture, then of a Robin-hoodes tale. But to vse these com­parisons is blasphemye. To make so much of nothing, and to stand so much vpon a blinde Pope, and to preferre the Romaine moderne Church before the auncient, and all other moderne chur­ches, is foolery.

In the fourth Chapter he beareth his Reader in hand, that wee reject some bookes of Canonicall Scripture, and for proofe saith that Luther reiected the Booke of Iob, Ecclesiastes, and all the Gospels saue that of Iohn, and that we reiect the Bookes of Iu­dith, Tobia, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdome, and the Machabees. But these latter Bookes hee shall neuer prooue to be canonicall, vnlesse wée [Page 102] take the Canon largelye, as Saint Augustine sometimes see­meth to doe. S. Hierome in prol. galeato, Athanasius in Synops. Gregorius Nazianzenus in carminibus, Epiphanius in lib. de pond. & mensur. and the moste and best Fathers esteeme of them no o­therwise, then we doe. The calumniation concerning Luther wee haue answered already. But saith K. they will needes re­ceiue Scripture at the Roman Churches hand. And of this hee would inferre, that as well we ought to follow that Church in the number of bookes, as in receiuing canonicall Scripture vpon that Churches warrant. This s [...]ith hee, but hee taketh that for graunted, that no man yeeldeth him. For wee take the Scrip­tures as the Church of Rome her selfe did, from the Prophets and Apostles. We doe also assure our selues, that the iudgement of the Apostolike Church is farre to be preferred before the iudge­ment of the Apostaticall moderne Romish Church. Lastlye wee answere to his argument, that wee haue diuers arguments to as­sure vs of the authoritie & truth and number of canonicall bookes of Scriptures, beside the testimony of any one particular Church, as for example the testimony of Scripture it selfe, the likenesse, Maiestie antiquitie, truth, stile of Scripture and such like.

In the fift chapter he endeuoreth to prooue, that our dissensi­ons in Religion doe open a gappe to contempt of Religion. And thereupon talketh his pleasure of Caluinistes and Luther­ans, Puritanes, Protestants, soft and rigid Lutherians, Zuingli­ans, Bezites, Anabaptistes, Libertines, Brownistes, Martinistes, family of loue, and damned crew. But first the damned crew is by vs damned. In this late conspiracie of Papists, Edward Bayn­ham, that is knowne to bee of the damned crewe was choson for a fit mā to goe as nuntio from this damned crew to the Pope. Ana­baptistes, Libertines, & the family of loue, are more among the Papists, then among vs. We say to them anathema maranatha. The Brownistes and Martinistes, wee generally condemne. The rest are the names of slaunder deuised by Papistes. To answere his obiection therefore, wee say, that the Churches of Germanye, France, and other countries doe well agree: and priuate men doe submitte themselues to the determination of a free generall coun­cell, and in the meane while to their nationall Churches.

The groundes of his sixt chapter are laide vpon the Popes head-ship. For because wee want a visible head, hee supposeth [Page 103] wee giue great aduantage to Atheistes. But as the Popes head­ship is a matter rather fancied, then prooued out of Scriptures or Fathers; so what so euer is thereupon built, the same is founded vpon fancie, and not worth a head of Garlike. That Saint Pe­ter did rule both the Apostles and all the church, as Christes vi­car generall, and head of the Church, it cannot bee prooued. All the Apostles were called alike, and sent to teach and administer the Sacraments alike. They had also the keyes of the Church giuen to them by one ioynt commission, and Paul professeth, that the principall of the Apostles gaue vnto him nothing. But had Peter had any such monarchy, as is pretended; yet that is nothing for the aduantage of our triple crowned Popes, that are so vnlike to Peter, and kil Christes sheep, as he fed them. Nay the auncient Bishops of Rome neither gaue lawes to the whole church, nor or­dained bishops in all quarters, nor receiued appeales out of al the world, nor reserued certaine cases to themselues, nor practised the rest of the moderne Popes authoritie. But saith K. where a head wanteth, there euerie man may preach, and embrace what Re­ligion he will. As if generall and prouinciall councels, and Bi­shops in their Diocesses, & Godly Princes in their Kingdomes, were not able to remedy this disorder. Other meanes certes there was not in the primitiue Church, and he that looketh, that Popes should redresse Atheisme, and other abuses, is himselfe much a­bused.

In the last Chapter hee saith, that denying the reall presence (taught by the Popish Synagogue) we ruine Christian Religi­on, and call all other mysteries of faith in question. But his proposition is moste false, and absurd. For not those which deny the Cyclopicall eating of Christes flesh, and the carnall pre­sence thereof vnder the accidents of bread and wine, but such ra­ther, as hold that Christes flesh and blood is receiued of reprobats persons, nay Hogges and Dogges, and is swallowed downe into the belly, and deny thinges felt and seene, doe bring a slaunder vpon Religion, and call all holy mysteries, not onely into questi­on, but into contempt also. Auerroes for this grosse opinion onely affirmed, that the Religion of Christians was of all other most ridiculous. For what can bee deuised more ridiculous, then to make a God, and to eate him vp presently? this doctrine of Papists hath beene a great stumbling blocke both to Gentiles [...]nd Christ­ians, [Page 104] and is so improbable and contrarie to Christes institution, the expositions of Fathers, and common reason, as nothing more. Kellison, I confesse, braggeth that he will bring as plaine proofes for the reall presence, as are brought in scriptures, either for the holy Trinitie, or Christes incarnation. Or else he promiseth he will yeelde the bucklers. Which if hée would haue performed, then had he long ere this lost and forsaken the field. For he bring­eth onely two places, and neither of them to his purpose, as I haue at large declared in my Book de missa against Bellarmine, where all the cauillations of our aduersaries are particularlye discussed, and so stand, for any thing either this doughty Doctor of Do­way, or Bellarmine can say against vs. Furthermore the com­parison of the popish reall presence, and the Doctrine thereof com­pared with the great mysteries of the holy Trinitie, and Christes incarnation, declareth him to bee an Atheist, that beleeueth such fundamentall pointes of Religion no more, then the popish absurd Doctrine of the carnal and canibal like eating of Christes flesh, and drinking of his blood and receiuing them with our mouth into our bellyes.

Diuers other absurdities hee committeth also in this Chapter. page. 698. speaking of popish sacrifices: by sacrifice saith he, wee consecrate to his seruice the liues, and substance of brute beastes. So it appeareth, if they sacrifice Christ in the Masse, that they kill him, and compare him to brute Beastes. page. 710. hee falsifyeth Saint Augustines wordes in his tract. vpon S. Iohns Gospell. page 713. hee confoundeth real, & sacramentall eating. There also hee saith, that Christ would not say, he meant a figu­ratiue and spirituall eating: but moste falsely. For Christ saith that the flesh profiteth nothing. And both Origen and Austen do expound these wordes of eating Christes flesh spirituallye and fi­guratiuelie. Lastly to prooue the real presence, hee alleadgeth page. 728. a testimonie out of S. Andrewes legend.

But neither can he prooue his carnall reall presence, nor iusti­fie his assertion, where hee maketh them Atheistes and ruiners of Christian religion, that deny this absurd, scandalous and blasphe­mous Doctrine.

Wherfore as by lawful tryall we haue acquited our selues & our doctrine of all suspition of Atheisme; so wee doubt not, but to lay the same most iustly vpon y^e Pope, & his adherents, & vpō their [Page 105] impious & wicked doctrine.Outward professors of Popery in­ward A­theistes. Bernard in serm. 1. in Conuers. Pauli. beganne to complaine long since, both of the iniquitye of Popes, and of the dissolutenesse of Preest and People. Egressa est iniquitas à senioribus iudicibus vicarijs tuis saith he, qui videntur re­gere populum tuum. Non est iam dicere, vt populus, sic sacerdos, quod nec sit populus, vt sacerdos.

Petrarch in his Sonnets calleth Rome false and trayterous Ba­bylon and the mother of errors, and chargeth her with seruing Venus and Bacchus rather then the God of heauen. In his E­pistles without name speaking of the Popes Court, hee saith, it is voide of all goodnesse, and that there is neither libertie, nor rest, nor joy, nor hope, nor faith, nor charitye, but contrariwise greate losse and casting away of mens soules. Omne ibi bonum perditur, sed primum omnium libertas, mox ex ordine, quies, gaudium, spes, fides, Charitas, animae iacturae ingentes.

Wernerus in fascic. temporum in Martino. 2. Adriano. 3. & Ste­phano. exclaimeth, as if holy men were perished from the earth, and truth diminished among the Sonnes of men, and as if that were a moste wicked time. ô tempus pessimum saith he, in quo de­fecit sanctus, & deminutae sunt veritates à filijs hominum!

Breidenbachus in historia peregrinat. sua, reporteth, that in his time, the law was departed from priestes, justice from Princes, counsaile from the Elders, faith from the people, loue from pa­rents, reuerence from Subjects, charitie from Praelates, Religi­on from Monkes, honesty from young men, discipline from the Clergie. His wordes are these: Recessit lex à sacerdotibus, à principibus iustitia, consilium à senioribus, à populo fides, amor à paren­tibus, à subditis reuerentia, charitas à praelatis, religio à monachis, à iu­nenibus honestas, à clericis disciplina.

In veritate comperi saith Walterus Mapes quod sceleri cleri stu­det vniuersitas, liuor regnat, veritas, datur funeri, haeredes luciferi sunt praelati. That is, of a truth I finde, that the whole (Romish) Clergie dooth study vilany. Enuie reigneth, and truth is bu­ryed. Such Clergiemen are the heyres of Lucifer. And againe non est qui faciat bona istorum, quorum conscientia speluncae est latro­num. There is none of these, that dooth good, their conscience is like a denne of theeues.

Mathew Paris in Henr. 3. saith, that in those times the sparks of faith began to grow cold. Temporibus illis ingruentibus igni­culus [Page 106] fidei coepit nimis refrigescere.

Petrus de Alliaco in lib. de reformat. eccles. noteth the luxu­riousnes, auarice, idlenesse, blasphemies, magicke artes, and su­perstitions, and that both of Princes and people of his time.

Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his legat Cheregatus con­fesseth ingeniously the corruptions of the church of Rome and Ro­manistes. Omnes nos saith he, declinauimus, vnusquis (que) in vias suas, nec fuit iam diu qui faceret bonum, non fuit vs (que) ad vnum.

The Bishop of Bitonto preaching in the first session of the conuenticle of Trent & speaking of the manners of the people then, confesseth, that they said in their heart, that there was no God, dicunt in corde suo saith he, quod non est Deus.

This may also bee specified by infinite examples both of Popes and Cardinals, and their followers. Theodoricke à Niem. de schism. lib. 2. c. 42. calleth Gregory the 12 and Petrus de Luna Elders of Babylon, and saith, that such iniquitie was gone from them, that the Catholike faith was therby ouershadowed, and that Religion suffered Shipwracke, and that vertue was depar­ted from all men. Vt Catholica fides obnubiletur, & omnis religio naufragium patiatur. Virtutes ab omnibus recesserunt.

Iohn the 12. or as some number, the 13. dranke to the De­uill in his meriment, and called vpon him, when he playd at Dice, and as the Histories set out by Papistes themselues declare, was a wicked fellow.

Gregory the seuenth, as Beno the Cardinall writeth had com­merce with the Deuill, and was in the Councell of Brixina con­demned for a Magician. Hee saith also, that hee cast the Sacra­ment into the fire, which is not so much in him to bee maruelled. For hee that worshipeth the Deuill, cannot esteeme much of the body of Christ, which as Papists hold, is contained vnder the formes of bread and wine in the Sacrament. This man, when he dyed, as Sigebertus witnesseth, confesseth, that by the per­swasion of the Diuell, hee had raysed many stirres in the world.

Siluester the second, as storyes report, made a compact with the Deuill. It is sayd also, that Gregory the 6. Bonet the 9. Paul the third, and diuers other Popes were Magicians, and Negroman­cers. But such men, as giue themselues to art Magick, renounce God and serue the Deuill.

Of Sixtus the fourth we read, that hee laughed at Religion, [Page 107] and beleeued not, that their was a God.

Vpon Alexander the sixt Sanazar wrote these verses, as a me­moriall of his impieties:

That is he disolued both Gods Lawes, and mans Lawes, and beleeued not that there was a God.

Clement the 7. as is said, when hee drewe neere to his end, told those which stoode about him, y^e shortly he hoped to bee resolued of that, of which he had euer much doubted, viz. whether there were eyther Heauen or Hell, or no. And the rather wee beleeue this report, because these verses were written of him.

that is, a contemner he was of God, a flagitious fellow, and à publique enimie of his Country.

Iohn the 23. was condemned by the councell of Constance for denying the resurrection of the dead, and for other poyntes of A­theisme. Leo the 10. esteemed the Gospell no otherwise then as a fable. And of Iulius the third, the Papistes them-selues reporte diuers speaches sauoring of Atheisme.

If then Atheisme do so raigne in the Popes of Rome, whome the Papistes call most holy, and honor as the heades and founda­tions of their Church, & supreme Iudges of all controuersies, and are bound to follow, albeit they may lead infinite soules to Hell, as it is said in Chap. si Papa. dist. 40. it is no maruell, although the Masse priests and their followers be tainted with Atheisme, and contempt of Religion. Machiauell, whome many Atheists follow, was no English-man but an Italian, and a great friend of Clement the 7. to whōe also he dedicated his Florentine historie. Neither was he an English-man, that held it a peccadillo or lit­tle sinne, no creer en dios, that is, not to beleeue in God. That I­talian, that beleeued no other Trinity, then Messer domine dio, il papa et nostra donna, et preti et frati, that is, God Almightie, the Pope and our Lady, and Priestes and Friars, learned not his im­piety, I trow, from vs.

TheThat the Doctrine of Popery ten­deth to A­theisme. very doctrine of Popery tendeth to Atheisme and igno­rance of God. Generally the lay-people think themselues safe, if [Page 108] they beleeue, as the Church beleeueth, and so Hosius and others teach their Disciples. But what, I pray you, is this, but Atheisme for men to be ignorant of Christ his grace, and of the meanes of their saluation, and of Gods true worship?

Ephes. 2. the Gentiles worshipping many Gods are sayd to be without God in the world. May not then the same be verifi­ed of Papistes, that worship so many Angels and Saintes, and giue the honor of God to the Sacrament, to the Crucifixe, and the Images of the Trinity?

Thirdly how can we esteeme them to haue any feeling of true piety, that speake so lewdly of Scriptures? Some call them a Nose of Waxe, some a Ship-mans Hose, some a bare Letter, some Inky Diuinity, some a matter of strife, some the ground of He­resies. Kellison pag. 687. saith, if a man contemne the authori­ty of the Romane Church, that hee shall no more bee able to as­sure himselfe of Scripture then of a Robin Hoodes tale. Pag. 41. hee saith the Scripture with a false meaning is the word of the Deuill. As if the Scripture being endited by the holy Ghost could in any respect be called the word of the Deuill. Pag. 39. he compareth Scriptures to Aesopes Fables, and saith they are of a Waxie nature. But he that is of God heareth Gods worde, and speaketh reuerently of Scriptures.

Fourthly none but Atheistes, and such as sauour of Atheisme directly violate and impugne Gods commaundements, and make Lawes repugnant vnto them. But the Papistes offend heerein both greeuously and notoriously. God sayth thou shalt haue no other Gods but me: the Popish faction sayth contrary, thou shalt haue other Gods, commaunding their followers to call vppon Saints and Angels, to worship the Sacrament and Crucifixes, to confesse their sinnes, & to offer Christes body and blood in y^e ho­nor of Saintes and Angels. Tursellinus a Iebusite in his Epistle to Peter Aldobrandini before his storie of Loreto. saith Christ hath made his Mother partaker of his diuine Majestie & pow­er as farre as it was lawfull. Matrem suam saith he praepoteus ille deus diuinae maiestatis, potestatis (que) sociam, quatenus licuit, asciuit.

In the second Commaundement we are directly prohibited to make grauen Images, to the intent to bow to them, and to wor­shippe them. But the Papistes haue impiously blotted out this commaundement in their short Catechismes, & commaund men [Page 109] vpon paine of death and damnation to fall downe before Cruci­fixes, and other Images, and to worship them somtime with dou­lia, sometimes with latria, according to the subiect.

The third Cōmaundement forbiddeth vs to take Gods name in vaine. But Papistes in their rascall Rhemish annotations in Act. 23. teach their followers to periure them-selues, & in their resolutions of cases of consciene teach them how to equiuocate, & to frustrate othes. And the Pope commaundeth his followers to break their othes giuen to Princes by him excommunicate vppon paine of damnation.

God commaundeth subiects to obey Kinges, and Children to honor Parents. The Pope commaundeth them to Rebell and take armes against such as he excommunicateth, and willeth Chil­dren to be exequutioners of their Fathers, by his inquisitors be­ing falsely iudged Heretikes.

God forbiddeth murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false wit­nessing and concupiscence. The Pope promiseth heauen to mur­derers of Princes, and to Gun-powder Traytors, permitteth common stewes, & receiueth the hyre of Whores, commaundeth all his followers to spoyle such as by him are most vniustly ex­communicated, by lyes and forgeryes maintayneth his vsurped Monarchy, and determineth in the conuenticle of Trent, that con­cupiscence is no sinne in the regenerate. Can we then doubt, whether Papistes be Atheistes?

Fiftly, none but Atheistes eyther take to themselues diuine ho­nor, or giue the same to creatures. But the Pope c. satis. dist. 96. taketh to himselfe the name of God. In the first Booke of Cere­monies. c. 7. hee applyeth to himselfe the honor, that is proper to Christ saying, All power is giuen to me in heauen and earth. In c. quoniam. de immunitate in 6. he claymeth to be the spouse of the Church. His flattering parasites call him a God on the earth, and our Lord God the Pope, and such like tearmes, as may bee prooued by the testimonie, of Felin in c. ego N. de iureiurando. and by the glosse in c. cum inter non nullos. extr. de verb. signif. Tho­mas Waldensis a man much esteemed by Stapleton, in prolog. Tom. 1. doct. fid. thus cryeth out to Pope Martin, Lord saue vs, wee perish. Simon Begnius in concil. later. sess. 6. calleth Leo the x. the Lion of the tribe of Iuda, and a Sauiour. Ecce venit Leo de tribu Iuda saith he. And againe te Leo beatissime, saluatorē expecta­uimus. [Page 110] The same may also be prooued by infinite other testimo­nies.

Sixtly Atheistes they are, that make a mocke of Christian Re­ligion. But this is a common crime of Popes and Papistes. for commonly they vse wordes of Scripture to make sport with­all. As did Bon [...]face the 8. casting ashes into Prochetus his eyes and turning these wordes memento homo quod cinis es, into a iest. They also say, that Christ may be eaten of Hogges and Dogges, and hang him vpon euerie Altar. Gregory the 7. cast him into the fire. When the Pope rideth abroade he sendeth his God of past among the baggage and scullery. When their Saints doe not answere their desires, they cast them into the water, and rayle on them.

Seauenthly not contenting themselues with Christian Reli­gion, they haue forged diuers new Relgions, and place more per­fection in them, then in Christian Religion. Vnto S. Francis they giue the title of figuratiue Iesus, and say, that the order of S. Dominicke is protected vnder our Ladyes gowne in heauen: all which be trickes of Atheisme.

Eightly the worship of Angels and Saintes is confirmed with infinite lies, and most ridiculous fables redde publikely in popish Churches. And yet no man alloweth them, but such, as make mockes at Religion.

Ninthly it is playne Atheisme to deuise, new worships of God. For Christians haue but one God and one worship of God prescribed in his word. It is also atheisme to violate Christes in­stitution in his Sacraments. But Papists haue deuised diuers new formes in worshipping of God by Masses prayers to saints, incensing of images, leading about Asses, carying of palmes, and infinite such like ceremonies. They haue also deuised new Sacra­ments, and made them equal to baptisme and the Lords Supper. Vnto bapisme they haue added chrisme, salt, spittle, light. From Christes supper they haue taken the Cuppe. They haue abolished bread and wine. Of a Sacrament to bee receiued they haue made a sacrifice to be heaued and offered. That which should bée common to all, they haue made priuate, & where Christians shold celebrate the memorie of Christes death in the Lordes Supper, these commaund the Sacrament to bee administred in a tongue not vnderstood, where the People vnderstandeth neither what is [Page 111] doone nor said.

Finally by the confession of Kellison the Papists may be con­uinced to be execrable Atheistes.Papists pro­ued Atheists by Kellisōs confession. For if Atheistes bee monsters begotten by Heresies, as he saith, then are Papists mōsters. For they maintaine many old and new Heresies, as hath often beene prooued, and are easily conuinced to bee Atheistes. The heresies of Simon Magus, Carpocrates, the Scribes and Pharises, the Ca­pernaites, of Marcus, the Encratites, Collyridians, Eutychians, Pelagiās, Staurolatriās, & diuers others are cōmon among them.

Page. 261. he saith, that Christes passion was not our formall justificatiō, or satisfactiō. He meaneth likewise, that his iustice is not our formall iustice, and saith that he is onely the merito­rious cause of our redemption and saluation, which deserueth for vs at Gods hands grace, by which together with our coo­peration we may be saued & redeemed. But this is most horri­ble impietie, and taketh from Christ the honor of our redemption, saluation, and iustification, making man to be his owne redeemer and sauiour.

Pag. 667. hee reckoneth them among Atheistes, that make God cruell and tyrannical. But so doe the Papistes making our Lady more mercifull then Christ, and setting out him with Dartes and Thunder-boltes, and her with mercy and pittie. They do also say, that God punisheth sinnes forgiuen with cruell torments in Purgatory, and make the Pope to graunt indulgen­ces, which God doth not.

Pag. 668. hee insinuateth them to bee Atheistes, that erre in Gods worship, and offer not lawfull sacrifices vnto him. But of this crime y^e Papistes are most guilty pretending to offer Chistes body and bloud really which was neuer commaunded them, nor can be done more then once, and erring wholy in the worship of Saints and images.

Pag 674. He giueth out boldly, that those which cōtemne the Churches authoritie bring all Religion into contempt. But audaciously hee therein condemneth the Pope and Synagogue of Rome. For none euer did more proudly condemne the authoritie of the church then they. The Pope claymeth to be aboue the ge­nerall councell, and aboue the Church. If the whole world shold giue sentence against the Pope, they say his sentence is to be pre­ferred before all. Him they honor as supreme iudge. The autho­ritie [Page 112] of the Fathers they regard not, if he say contrary. They giue him power to dispense against the Law, and against the Apostle.

Page. 689. he saith, that such as admit some bookes of Scripture & reiect others, open a gappe to contempt of all Scripture and re­ligion. But if such, as reiect Scriptures, and contemne them, be Atheistes; then are Papistes superlatiue Atheistes They also re­iect the third and fourth bookes of Ezras, and the third and fourth of the Machabees. Lastly they esteeme not, in allowing, or disa­lowing of canonicall Scriptures, eyther the sayings of Fathers, or the iudgement of the auncient Church, but wholy rely vpon the opinion of the Doctors of Trent, and the Pope. They preferre the olde Latin translation before the original text of the Bible, and al­low no sence of Scripture, but that which the Romish church ap­prooueth.

Page 693. he maketh dissension in Religion to be a note of A­theisme, but if that be so; then hath he branded his owne consorts with a marke of atheisme. For hardly shal you finde one article of Religion, wherein the wrangling Schoolemen doe not differ one from another. Bellarmine quarrelleth as often with his owne fellowes almoste, as with vs. About the diuine attributes, and notions they are not yet resolued. If they durst, many would dis­pute against the Popes Monarchye, dispensations, indulgences and such like. The Masse, as yet, is not perfectly setled.

Page 696. he signifyeth, y^e erroneous opiniōs about the head-ship of the Church, are enducements to atheisme: which being graun­ted, then are the Papistes in a fayre way to atheisme. For vnder the title of Christ the sole and true head of the church they admit Antichrist, and bring vs foorth a monster, not onely with two heades, but with as many heades as Popes. There wanteth ther­fore nothing, but some Hercules, to cut of these Hydraes heades, and to restore to Christ his right of headship. Further in euerye vacation they want their visible head, which as Kellison saith, giueth adauantage to Atheistes, and maketh them to make a mocke at Religion. They haue also some times Popes without brayne, or witte: which is as great an inconuenience, as the rest.

Finally if such as teach erroneously of the presence of Christes body & blood in y^e sacrament, & vnderstād not y^e words of Christes institution, ruine Christian Religion, and call all other myste­ries of the faith into question, as Kellison Page. 698. resolutelye [Page 113] and peremptorily auoucheth; then will it plainely fall out, that the Papistes are ruiners of Religion, and haue no assurance of a­ny point of faith by them defended. For as I haue before touch­ed, and shall else-where more plentifully declare, they erre moste grossely in their Doctrine concerning the real presence, and haue shamefully mistaken and corrupted Christes institution of that holy mysterie.

Wee may therefore conclude first, that as the true professors of the christian faith in the church of England are moste innocent and cleare of this shamelesse imputation of atheisme moste wrongfully charged vpon them by this surueying, or rather surfeting Syco­phant; so the Papists our aduersaries and the principall actors a­mong them are much to be suspected, that vnder colour of Popery, they couer a secret poyson of atheisme. Secondly if eyther our ad­uersaries, or any other would with indifferent eyes and vnpartial iudgement consider eyther the articles of our faith, which we pro­fesse, or the deformities and abuses of poperie which we refuse and detest, discerning truth from the slaundrous imputations of such wicked sycophants as this; that then they would neither mislike vs for our forsaking the Synagogue of Satan, nor allowe the im­pious courses of our rayling aduersaries, nor long sticke in the myrie and filthie puddle of popish errors, and indure his tyranni­call gouernement.

ALmighty God, which hast told vs, that Antichrist shal be re­uealed, and slayne by the breath of the mouth of the Lord Ie­sus, and destroyed with the brightnesse of his comming, vouchsafe dayly more and more to reueale him to all the christian world, and to discouer his trecherous and murdrous practises to all true Ca­tholikes, and to dispell the mistes of calumniations, lyes and for­geryes, which his agentes doe dayly endeuour to spread abroad a­gainst the professors of truth, that so the truth appearing, both such as are in error may be reformed, and the weake confirmed in the sincere profession of the Gospell, & the Kingdome of Antichrist destroyed through our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus. And let all those, that wish the prosperity of Sion, and the conuersion or confusion of Babel, say alwaies Amen. Amen.