The examination and confutation of a certaine scurrilous treatise entituled, The suruey of the newe religion, published by Matthew Kellison, in disgrace of true religion professed in the Church of England Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. 1606 Approx. 365 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 71 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2012-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2). A13169 STC 23464 ESTC S117977 99853186 99853186 177778

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 2, no. A13169) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 177778) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1190:1) The examination and confutation of a certaine scurrilous treatise entituled, The suruey of the newe religion, published by Matthew Kellison, in disgrace of true religion professed in the Church of England Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. [28], 113, [3] p. Printed by E. Allde for Richard Serger and Edmund Weauer, & are to be solde at the great north dore of S. Paules Church, London : 1606. Dedication signed: Matthew Sutcliffe. Running title reads: The reuew and examination of Kellisons scurrilous Suruey. Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery.

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.

eng Kellison, Matthew. -- Survey of the new religion. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. 2020-09-21 Content of 'availability' element changed when EEBO Phase 2 texts came into the public domain 2011-09 Assigned for keying and markup 2011-09 Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2011-10 Sampled and proofread 2011-10 Text and markup reviewed and edited 2012-05 Batch review (QC) and XML conversion

The Examination and Confutation OF A certaine ſcurrilous treatiſe entituled, The Suruey of the newe Religion, Publiſhed by Matthew Kelliſon, in diſgrace of true religion profeſſed in the Church of England.

Matth. 5.

Bleſſed are yee, when men ſhall reuile you, and perſecute you, and ſpeake all euill of you falſely for my names ſake.

Pſal. 59.

In the euening they ſhall goe to and fro, & barke like dogges, and goe about the Citie. They ſhall runne heere and there for meat: and ſurely they ſhall not be ſatiſfyed, though they tarry all night.

LONDON Printed by E. Allde for Richard Serger and Edmund Weauer, & are to be ſolde at the great north dore of S. Paules Church. 1606.

TO THE HONORABLE Sir Thomas Fleming Knight, Lord chiefe Baron of his Majeſties Court of the Exchequer.

I Do heere preſēt your Lordſhip with a ſmal Treatiſe. Small, I ſay, in reſpect of my labours (for what ſhould I need to labour in anſwering ſo friuolous & triuial matters) and not great in reſpect of the volume, for that fewe wordes might ſerue to cleare all doubtes, that ſtand vpon our aduerſaries bare wordes. Yet I hope, it ſhall not bee eſteemed either vntimely or vnprofitable, if we regard the argument. For it conteineth a neceſſary defence of our Chriſtian faith, and of the profeſſors thereof againſt the wicked calumniations of a rayling Maſſe-prieſt called Kelliſon, and a ſober anſwere to his virulent, and per caſe vinolent inuectiues, by him entitled a Suruey of the new Religion.

The reaſons that mooued mee to direct this diſcourſe to your Lordſhip are diuers. Firſt your deepe iudgement and skill in matters of this nature. Next your piety and zeale for the cauſe of Religion. Thirdly your place in this Chriſtian Common-wealth. And laſtly thoſe honorable fauors, which it hath pleaſed your lordſhip to ſhew to me in particuler, and to Gods Miniſters in generall. For if the ſame were approoued by a man of ſuch authority and iudgement, I doubted not, but it would receiue grace the rather in the common eſtimation of others. And being publiſhed in defence of piety and Religiō, I preſumed it would receiue good intertainment at the handes of euery man ſtudious of truth and piety. Furthermore if any falſe companion ſhould take vppon him, either to giue out falſe particulers of his Maieſties landes, or to make a ſuruey of them without warrant, or iudgemēt, it belongeth to your place in this ſtate, to reuew and controll his indiſcretion, and to puniſh his preſumption. Much more therefore behooueth it you, conſidering your functiō & eminent place in this Chriſtian ſtate, to concurre with vs in cenſuring this madde Surueyor of Religion & controlling his indiſcreete & ranging diſcourſe hauing in ſo many particulers wronged the King of Kinges, and his eternall truth.

What the end was of this his Suruey we may eaſily coniecture. As the Prieſtes, Scribes, and Phariſyes by rayling againſt Chriſt and his Apoſtles ſought to drawe the peoples affection from them, and to allure them to like their errors; ſo this Prieſt of Baal by his ſlaundrous imputations laid vpon Chriſtian Religion, and the profeſſors thereof ſeeketh to diſturne mē from the loue of truth, and to draw them to Popiſh errors. It may be alſo, that ſeeking to defame others, he thought to qualify the enormities of his owne cōſortes, and their wicked Hereſyes. The Donatiſtes, as Optatus in lib. 1. aduerſ. Parmen. teſtifieth, went about to defame other mens liues, that they might cauſe their owne faultes to be paſſed in ſilence. Vt crimina in ſilentium mitterent ſua, vitam infamare conati ſunt alienam.

What ſubſtance is in this worthleſſe worke it appeareth plainely by his tedious preambles, idle diſcourſes, falſe collections, weake concluſions, forged allegations, & his other fooleryes too common in euery Chapter. The whole volume of his ſycophanticall Suruey is nothing elſe, but a compoſition of diuers old endes of childiſh declamations, mingled with a decoction of ſtale calumniations againſt particuler men many times, and in diuers Bookes reiected by vs, and now againe brought forth by him, therby to empoyſon his credulous folowers, if they happen to taſte ſo vnpleaſant a potion. This Booke he had little reaſon to call a Suruey of Religiō. For therein he neither obſerueth rules of Religion, nor of commō ciuility. It might rather haue beene titled a ſurfet of a madde Maſſe-prieſtes malice, degorged out of a corrupt ſtomacke fraught with vndigeſted humors of Popiſh calumniations & Hereſies. Quod deſcriptionis dedecus? ſaith Hierome Lib. 1. contr. Iouinian. That is, what a ſhamefull Suruey is this? But better may we apply theſe wordes to this Suruey. For it is both ſhamefull, and harmefull, and ſeemeth to ſauor rather of a mad-mans malice, then of a Doctors learning and ſobriety. As Epiphanius ſaith of Photinus haereſ. 71. Verba maledicentiae neutiquam conſiſtere valentia euomuit. Hee hath degorged againſt vs many rayling termes, but they haue neither groūd, nor coherence.

I need not inſiſt long to tell your Lordſhip, what manner of man this Kelliſon is. Let his Booke and our anſwer ſpeake. He calleth himſelfe a Doctor. But as Hierome epiſt. 61. ſpeaking of a certaine Biſhop doubteth whether ludio an epiſcopus loquitur, ſo I may doubt of this Doctor, whether hee was an Italian mountebancke, or a Doctor of Doway. Some ſay it is not long ſince this great Doctor was my Lord Vauxes Butler. And the rather I beleeue it, for that he hath ſet vs a broach a Butte of his owne errors, lyes, and fooleryes. His friendes ſuppoſe, that as his heart is become Spaniſh, ſo hee hath better grace in drawing of Spaniſh wine then in talking of Religion.

Little did either the man, or his matter deſerue anſwere. But yet for the inſtruction of the ſimple, and confirmatiō of the weake, I haue beſtowed ſome labour in examining the particulers of this Suruey. Weake men, and ſuch as haue no ſtrength often are ouerthrowne by weake aduerſaries. In pugna pug lum et gladiatorum ſaith Tertullian lib. de praeſcrip. aduerſ. haeret. plerun que non quia fortis eſt vincit quis, aut quia non poteſt vinci, ſed quoniam ille qui victus eſt, nullis viribus fuit.

If by our labours either the weake be confirmed, or the ſtrong emboldened, and ſtirred vp to contend more reſolutely for the truth; they are in part to aſcribe the ſame to your Lordſhip, by whoſe protection I haue the more firmely withſtood the malice of ſuch, as went about to ſtoppe the courſe of my ſtudyes, & to whoſe Patronage I conſecrate this my briefe cenſure of a malicious aduerſaries ſuruey. It ſhould haue come foorth long ſince, if eyther my troubles had giuen me leaſure, or my meanes ability, to publiſh it. But I thanke God, that the ſame encumbrances do not hinder it ſtill.

Vouchſafe therfore, my good Lord, to accept of this ſmall diſcourſe, as a memoriall of my dutiful affection towards your Lordſhip, and a teſtimoniall of my gratefull acceptance of your loue and fauor towards me. And as you haue alwayes profeſſed the true Chriſtian and Apoſtolike faith, and deteſted all errors and abhominations of Popery; ſo ſtill endeuour zealouſly to maintaine the ſame truth againſt all the calumniations & treacherous practiſes of all ſuch, as audaciouſly and impudently oppugne the fayth and ſeeke to draw men into errors God will honor thoſe that ſeeke his honor vnfeynedly, and ſuch as cary themſelues as lukewarme, ſhall be caſt out of his mouth, and deemed vnworthy to reſt in his holy Mountaine. Thus relying vpon your fauor, I commend this Treatiſe to your Lordſhip, and your Lordſhip to the Almightyes protection, beſeeching him to bleſſe you and yours in this life, and in the life to come to giue you a crowne of glory promiſed to all thoſe that ſhall perſeuer to the end, and manfully and ſeriouſly contend for the maintenance of truth, and the ſetting foorth of Gods Glory.

Your Lordſhips in all dutifull affection Matthew Sutcliffe.
The Contents of the Booke.

THe Preface to the Reader, wherein Kelliſons two Epiſtles or preambles are cenſured, and diuers poyntes noted in the title and front of his Booke.

Kelliſons fond conceit & error, concerning the foundations of our religion, is noted, and diuers errors of his firſt booke refuted. The foundations of Popiſh religion diſcouered to be moſt weake and fooliſh. The motiues to Popiſh religion mentioned by Kelliſon compared with the motiues of true religion. Therein alſo the true motiues to Popery are expreſſed. Of the markes and propertyes of heretikes. An anſwere to Kelliſons calumniations againſt the doctrine profeſſed in the Church of England concerning Chriſt his perſon, and his two natures. A collection of certaine abſurd & blaſphemous aſſertions of the Papiſts concerning Chriſt his incarnation, perſon, natures and offices. An anſwere to Kelliſons calumniations, charging vs, either to haue no religion at all, or a graceleſſe religion. The Surueyors calumniations againſt our doctrine, concerning God, refuted. That our doctrine giueth due obedience and reſpect both to Princes, and to their lawes. That our doctrine leadeth men to vertue, & deterreth them from vices. A rejection of Kelliſons ſlanderous accuſations, imputing in his 8. booke, Atheiſme, & contempt of religion to the profeſſors of true religion in the Church of England.
THE PREFACE TO THE READER: Conteyning a briefe Cenſure vpon the Title and the front of Kelliſons Suruey, and his two liminare Epiſtles and Praeambles.

THe Deuill, as we read Iob 1. is ſaid To compaſſe the Worlde, and to walke through it, and experience teacheth vs, that he is a very buſie & curious Surueyer. We are not therefore to thinke it ſtrange, if his children do immitate their father, and proue great compaſſers of the world, and contriuers of plots and ſurueyes, to bring men within the circle of their owne errors. Among the reſt, one Kelliſon a copper kettle Maſſe-preiſt, hath ſhewed him-ſelfe a great compaſſer of ſea and land, to winne proſelytes to the Synagogue of Antichriſt, and a buſie and captious ſurueyer to eſpye motes in our Chriſtian faith: & for this end hath ſet out a large volume, called The Suruey of the new Religion.

But firſt we ſay to him, as Chriſt ſaid to a man of his qualitie. Hypocrita, primū eijce trabem &c. Hipocrite, firſt caſt the beame out of thine owne eye, and then thou ſhalt more eaſily ſee to take a mote out thy brothers eye. So we pray him to diſcharge his Romiſh religion of the juſt imputation of noueltie, & then he may with more reaſon taxe others for maintayning newe religion. As for our Religion, it is vniuſtly and abſurdly termed newe. For as Ignatius ſaid in his Epiſtle to the Philippians, Chriſt is our antiquitie. And in religion that is moſt ancient, that is from the Apoſtles, as Tertullian doth ſignifie. If then our Religion be from Chriſt, and is grounded vpon the holy Scriptures, and not vpon late Decretales, and the opinions of Popes, School-men and Canoniſts: how is the ſame reputed newe? doth not Kelliſon remember, that the ſomme of our whole deſire is, that Popiſh nouelties, and the late Tridentine doctrine being aboliſhed, we may returne to the ancient, Catholike and Apoſtolike faith?

Abſurdly alſo he & his conſorts repute the Romiſh moderne religion to be ancient, ſeeing the ſame, as it differeth from the religion profeſſed in the Church of England, is nothing but an hochpot of hereſies, and erroneous & corrupt doctrine, either deriued from late School-men, or firſt eſtabliſhed by the late Conuenticles of Trent, Florence, Conſtance, and Lateran, or by little and little confirmed by corrupt cuſtome. The Popiſh Maſſe (as it now ſtandeth) is but a late patcherie. In the olde ordinall of Rome it appeareth, that neither priuate Maſſes, nor halfe Communions, nor Tranſubſtantiation, nor the ſacrifice of Chriſts body and blood contayned vnder the accidents of bread and wine, for quicke and dead, nor the adoration of the Sacrament with latria, nor prayers to Saints, and for the dead, were in vſe in ancient time. The Fathers doe no where teach, that brute beaſts receiuing a conſecrated hoaſt, eate Chriſts fleſh, or that Chriſts fleſh is receiued downe into mens bellyes: nay they teach quite contrary. The Biſhops of Rome for many yeares vſed not the temporall ſworde; Neither was the Pope Lord of Rome vntill the time of Boniface the 9. Gregory the firſt condemned both the vniuerſall authoritie of one Biſhop ouer the reſt, and the adoration of Images. Neuer was it imagined before the time of the Conuenticle of Trent, that euery pield Maſſe-prieſt, as ofte as he ſaid Maſſe wrought three miracles. The neceſſitie of auricular confeſſion, was firſt decreed by Innocent the third. The number of 7. Sacraments albeit before talked of idly by School-men, was not by any publike authoritie receiued before the Conuenticle of Florence. Finally, it is eaſie to ſhew, that the Popes doctrine concerning Indulgences, Purgatorie, the worſhip of Saints, and Images, extreame vnction, and other poynts of religion in controuerſie betwixt the Papiſts and vs, is lately brought in, and more newe then that religion which we profeſſe, & which by Kelliſon is lewdly and falſely called newe.

Many wonder alſo, why he ſhould call his Treatiſe A Suruey of the newe Religion: ſeeing the poyntes which he handleth, are neither matters of religion, nor profeſſed by vs, nor proued againſt them, vpon whome they are fathered by Cochleus, Staphylus, Genebrard, Bolſec, Stapleton, Sanders, and ſuch like lying paraſites.

He profeſſeth him-ſelfe a Doctor, but his Diſcourſe declareth him to be in the number of thoſe of whome the Apoſtle ſpeaketh 1. Tim. 1. Which would be Doctors of the Law, and yet vnderſtand not whereof they ſpeake, nor whereof they affirme. If he haue no more knowledge, then he hath ſhewed in this Suruey, he is a Doctor and profeſſor of Diuinitie of a lowe price. Little certes doth he vnderſtand, what that profeſſion meaneth, that could not diſtinguiſh his owne, & his fellowes calumniations from the grounds and articles of our religion. And euill doth he deſerue the title of a Doctor, & profeſſor of diuinitie, which ſo often ſpeaketh againſt Scriptures: and lib. 1. cap. 2. calleth the proofes grounded vpon them bare: and rather deriueth his diuinitie out of the ſinkes of School-men, and corrupt puddles of Philoſophers, then out of holy Scriptures. Lib. 1. cap. 3. he calleth the working of Gods ſpirit a fancy. Lib. 7. cap. 7. he bluſheth not to write, that juſtification by fayth in Chriſt without workes, is a doctrine opening a gappe to all ſinnes. Againſt Chriſts Prieſthood, this prieſt of Baal talketh prophanely, as if the ſame were imperfect without the addition of Romiſh Maſſe-prieſtes. And with Chriſts Sacrifice he compareth, nay he equalleth the ſacrifice of the Maſſe. Of Chriſtian libertie he diſcourſeth freely, but very fondly, and falſely denying, that the ſame conſiſteth any whit in the deliuerance of mens conſciences from the curſſe of the law, from the yoke of Iewiſh ceremonyes, and humane traditions. Againſt the aſſurance, that Chriſtians haue of Gods fauour, and of their owne ſaluation, he runneth out and reuelleth, as if it were a dangerous poynt of doctrine, and a cauſe of diuers inconueniences: all which doe argue, that he is but a kettle-doctor of diuinitie, and a profeſſor like to thoſe, of whome the Apoſtle ſpeaking Rom. 1. ſayth, When they profeſſed them-ſelues wiſe, they became fooles.

In matters in Religion and Diuinitie, he tumbleth him-ſelfe, as the olde Prouerb ſayth, Tanquam Aſinus in vnguento, that is, as an Aſſe ſmeared with a coſtly oyntment. For although the profeſſion of diuinitie be honorable; yet it fitteth this Beeredrawer or Tapſter, that calleth him-ſelfe a Doctor and profeſſor of Diuinitie, no better, then it fitteth an Aſſe to be perfumed with Muske and Ciuet.

For his deuiſe he chuſeth theſe two Sētences, Doe men gather Grapes of thornes, or Figs of thiſtles? &, They ſhal proſper no further, For their folly ſhalbe made manifeſt to all. The firſt being takē out of Mat. 7. & the ſecōd out of 2. Tim. 3. & both ſeruing vs to cō clude againſt him & his conſortes, whoſe diſcourſes are rather like bundles of thornes, & thiſtles, then like Grapes & Figges. It ſeemeth when he framed them, he ſhooke his lippes like an Aſſe cropping of thiſtles. From a man of ſuch a diſtemperd humour we are not to looke for better frutes. And certes no maruel, if ſuch lying and rayling courſes proſper not. Mendacia non diu fallunt ſayth Cyprian lib. 1. epiſt. 3. That is, Lyes doe not long deceiue, neyther doth darkneſſe continue, when the day beginneth to appeare. Now their lying and cogging, & all their fooleryes are daily more and more made manifeſt. Euripides in Andromacha ſpeaking of the Spartans, calleth them Kings of lyes and ſowers of miſchiefe. And Athanaſius ad Conſtantium ſpeaking of the Arians: Miror (ſayth he) eos ſine vlla abominatione aut horrore mendacij ita falſa &c. potuiſſe dicere. I wonder how without horror and abhomination of the fact, they could deuiſe thinges ſo falſe! But with far better reaſon we may ſay this of Kelliſon & other our aduerſaryes, who in lying and aequiuocating, paſſe both Spartans and Africans, and lay plots of miſchiefe neuer heard of in anye age before. They make no Conſcience what they ſweare. We may not therefore thinke it ſtrange, if he ſpeake any thing ſounding to our diſgrace moſt falſely. As Tertullian lib. contra Hermog. ſayth of that heretike, ſo we may ſay of Kelliſon. Loquacitatem faecundiam exiſtimat &c. He thinketh babling to be eloquence, and impudencye to be conſtancye. And theſe are the frutes and effectes of Kelliſons labours.

It reſteth thē, hauing ſpokē of the Tytle & front of his worke, that wee doe our endeauour to make this mans folly appeare moſt manifeſtly in the reſt of his Suruey, & that wee preſcribe ſome Triacle to ſuch as otherwiſe might percaſe taſte of his poyſoned diſcourſes. But before we paſſe any further, wee are firſt to examine his two praeambular Epiſtles; wherof the firſt is directed to the King, the ſecond to euery other Reader.

Vnto Kings, men of diſcretion vſe not to preſent trifles, or elſe matters not pleaſing their humours, or not ſorting with their royall Majeſties excellencie, endeuouring as much as in them lyeth, to make their giftes correſpond with their greatneſſe. But Kelliſon reſpected all this nothing. For albeit this Suruey be a moſt idle deuiſe, and moſt vnworthy to be preſented to ſo wiſe, learned, pious and famous a King, as conteining nothing elſe but a fardle of lyes, calumniations, and fooleryes, and certaine odde fragments of olde declamations euaporated with age: Yet no inferiour perſon could ſatiſfie him, then our King; ſuch was his arrogancye and impudencie. Nay albeit he plainly perceiued incongruitie, yet could he not forbeare to preaſe into the Kings preſence, and there to offer vp a ſacrifice of his Suruey, a fitter offring for Vulcan, then for any man of note or dignitye.

He ſuppoſeth, that therein he hath committed only three inciuilities. But if he would haue ſpoken plainly, hee ſhould haue named them three groſſe abſurdities, as indeed they are. For firſt, what is, or can be deuiſed more abſurd, then for a bald idolatrous Maſſe-prieſt, to preſume to preſent himſelfe before a religious and Chriſtian King, enimie to all Idolaters, and Prieſts of Ball? for a ſworne ſlaue of King-killing Popes, and a teacher and a maintainer of their wicked & diſloyall doctrine, to preſume to appeare before a King, whoſe life, he & his conſorts haue ſougnt to take away, and whoſe Royall authoritie and Honour, all Papiſts doe empaire, and whoſe Crowne all Maſſe-prieſtes ſeeke to deliuer into the Popes hands? For a fugitiue and an enimie to his Prince & Country, boldly to ſpeak to ſo mightie a King, and ſo kinde a Father to his Country and ſubjects? Secondly, might ſuch an idolatrous Saltpeter-prieſt and a fugitiue Traytor be pardoned for his arrogant and preſumptuous boldneſſe, daring to come into a Princes preſence, that is ſo hardly preſſed with the great weight & multitude of the affayres of ſtate, as himſelfe confeſſeth? yet modeſtie might haue taught him, if any ſparke of modeſty had been in him, & we may not forbeare to tell him, that it is too great rudeneſſe, for fugitiues to thruſt in among the Peeres of the Realme, and for baſe cōpanions to appeare without cōmiſſion among the Ambaſſadours of great Princes, as he hath done. Thirdlie if needs he would preſſe into the Kings preſence, and like a Kettle-maker ſtand among great men with his preſent, then hee ſhould haue thought vpon ſome thing, that might be more gratefull, then this ſcurrilous Libel, containing nothing but calumniations, inuectiues, and declamations againſt that Religion, which both the King and his people profeſſeth, & ſhall alwayes be juſtified to be moſt true and Apoſtolike, againſt him and all his partakers. At the leaſt, if he had nothing to offer, that might pleaſe ſo great a Prince, yet ſhould he haue forborne to offer that, which both to him and all true Chriſtians cannot chuſe, but be moſt vngratefull and odious.

Beſide theſe abſurdities, our ſurueyor hath runne into diuers groſſe errors. For firſt he compareth the King to an Idole, where he maketh him like a Neptune Lord of the Oceā Sea. So he is not only a worſhipper of Idoles, but alſo would gladlie make an Idole of the King. Secondly, in ſetting forth the Kings prayſes, he ſpeaketh contraries, now repreſenting his majeſtye ſitting in a Throne of terror: and not long after calling him the myldeſt Prince in Europe. But what is more contrarie, then terror and mildneſſe? and what Sect in ſauage crueltie can be compared to Papiſts, that of late haue attempted by fire and Gun-powder to deſtroy him, whome they confeſſe to beethe myldeſt Prince in Europe? Thirdly, he taketh from the King all authority in Eccleſiaſticall cauſes, which he reſerueth to his holy Father, and his dependants: and although in termes he doe not abridge the Kings right in his Tēporalities; yet euery one knoweth, that Papiſts make Kinges the Popes ſubjects, and giue to the Pope power to cenſure and depoſe Kings: which none can maintaine, but ſuch as are diſloyall to Princes, and ſlaues to Popes. Fourthly, moſt cunningly he doth inſinuate, that Kings and Princes are beholding to Prieſtes for their Kingdomes; becauſe they receiue of them (as he ſaith) their conſecration, Crownes and Scepters. So this prating Maſſe-prieſt doth not only treacherouſly ſubject Kinges to the Popes ſword and cenſures, but alſo abſurdly tyeth their right and inheritance to the Crowne, to the rite of conſecration. Finally, not content to debaſe the Kings Royall ſtate, and to deminiſh his right, he compareth himſelfe in his Prieſt-hood moſt proudly to Chriſt himſelfe, and his holy Apoſtles. But none but the diſciples of Antichriſt make them-ſelues in prieſt-hood comparable to Chriſt, nor doe any but falſe Apoſtles make the Apoſtles ſacrificers, and aequall themſelues to the Apoſtles.

Now theſe errors he acknowledged not, nor can excuſe. His inciuility he would gladly excuſe and defend. But his defence is worſe, then the offence it ſelfe. For the firſt (ſaith he) Adrian the Emperour will excuſe me, who commended vnto Minutius his proconſul of Aſia, as a thing of importance: Ne nomen condemnaretur ſed crimen. He maketh alſo along diſcourſe, relating vnto vs, how wrongfully Chriſtians were hated for the name. But what affinity is there betweene the names of Chriſtians, and the names of ſacrificing Maſſe-prieſts? Againe, how can the cyclopicall prieſts of Baal pretend to be ſucceſſors eyther of the Apoſtles, or of auncient Biſhops? Did euer any auncient Biſhop or other Doctor of the Church ſay, that the prieſt did ſwallowe downe Chriſtes body whole into his bellie? againe, if that which is offered be conſumed, as the Papiſts themſelues teach; How can this prieſt K. defend, that hee offereth vp Chriſt vnder the accidents of Bread and Wine, vnleſſe like the Iewes, he murder Chriſt, or at the leaſt deuoure him? Furthermore, Adrian in his Epiſtle to Minutius Fūdanus hath not theſe wordes, ne nomen condemnaretur, ſed crimen. as it is euident by the wordes of this Epiſtle reported by Iuſtine Martyr in his ſecond Apologie. Finally we do not oppugne Maſſe-prieſts for the name of prieſtes, as this dreaming ſuruey or imagineth, but for becauſe being made prieſtes beyond the Seas, they are alwaies ready at their creators the Popes cōmaund, to attempt againſt Princes, to trouble his ſtate, to rayſe ſedition, as the late attempts of Watſon & Clarke, of Pearcy and his mates, ſet on by Prieſtes and Ieſuites to blow vp the whole Parliament, and to make a general maſſacre, and Rebellion, doe plainely declare.

For the ſecond he telleth vs, that he is come from the great Monarch of heauen to ſalute the King; and that he is Gods Legate, and therfore not to be denyed audience, when the Ambaſſadors of the Kings of the earth are heard with ſo fauourable a countenance. But if he come from the Monarch of heauen, why doth he not ſhewe forth his warrant, and proue his heauenly & angelical miſſion? If he be Gods true Legat, why doth he hide his falſe face? If he will be reſpected as earthly Ambaſſadors, then muſt he ſhewe forth a Commiſſion, as earthly Ambaſſadors doe. Otherwiſe he will be taken for the Legat of Sathan, ſet on by the Pope to write heretical diſcourſes and ſcurrilous Libels, to infect the peoples mindes with a diſtaſt of truth, and with ſuperſtitious, heretical and diſloyal humours, & not Gods Ambaſſador ſent to the King, to declare his will. God certes neuer gaue any man commiſſion to perſwade the Popes tyrannical authoritye, the ſacrifice of the Maſſe for quicke & dead, the 7. ſacraments, the worſhip of Saints and Images after the Romiſh facion, and ſuch like doctrines. Further he addeth That the loweſt Subiect may crye, Ʋiue le Roy. But what maketh that for him, that held him-ſelfe for no ſubject of our late Queene being excōmunicate by the Pope, & thinketh it not lawful to ſubject himſelfe to the King, that now is, if the Pope ſhould take Armes againſt him, and excōmunicate him? Furthermore ſuch as he is, are rather to be reputed tall and ſtout Traytors, then low or lowlie ſubjects, crying not viue le Roy, with any true heart, but as Iudas cryed, al hayle to Chriſt, when he betrayed him: or as Squire, that was ſent by the Ieſuite Walpoole to empoyſon the late Queene, cryed God ſaue the Queene, when he put poyſon on the Pommell of her Saddle. If then the Pope ſhall once beginne to diſplay his Banner and thunder out his excommunications againſt the King; then we are not to doubt, but as now Kelliſon cryeth, God ſaue the King, ſo then he would cry, downe with him, downe with him, and with all that followe him, and take parte with him. For ſuch as ment to blow him vp with Powder not being excōmunicat, would not I think, ſpare him being made ſubject to the Popes thundring cenſures.

For the third, hee anſweareth firſt, that it doth agrandiſe a Kinges greatnes, to accept of little preſentes. And next, that he offereth himſelfe as his Maieſties faithfull ſeruant. Laſtly he ſtandeth on ſtilts of high termes, and telleth vs, that he offereth the worſhip of God, the ſaluation and ſafetie of the King and his ſubiects, and the peace of his people. But neyther is his Booke a little preſent being a large fardle of waſt paper, nor can ſo big a lubber paſſe for a ſmall guift: although in truth both be of ſo low a price, that he might much be aſhamed to make offer of either to ſo iudicious a Prince, but that he wanteth both ſhame & iudgemēt. Beſide that, it may be a queſtiō how he can giue himſelfe to the King, that hath already giuen himſelfe bodye and ſoule to the Pope, whoſe mark he carrieth on his ſhauen Crowne. A faithfull Seruant, certes, hee cannot be to the King, ſeeing no man can ſerue two Maiſters. Pearcy promiſed as much as he. Yet ſought he the deſtruction of the King & State, being perſwaded thereto by Ieſuites, and led into treaſon by the rules of Popiſh Religion. As for the Maſſe and Doctrines of Poperie, which he bringeth with him, they leade to deſtruction, and not to ſaluation; they teach idolatrye, and not Gods true worſhip; error and Hereſie, and not true Faith. The Popes obedience is a yoke in ſupportable. His lawes are ſnares, of mens conſciences. His Prieſts and Fryars are the Locuſtes come out of the bothomleſſe pit of Hell. His Religion is neyther Catholike nor auncient, but rather a mixture of new and olde Hereſies. Neither can the King looke eyther for ſafety or peace ſo long as he ſuffereth a generation of viperous Prieſts and Friars depending on an Arch-Prieſt to liue within the bowels of the State, and a packe of Papiſts to vphold the authority of his oppoſites vnder colour of Religion. Take away the Gun powder Papiſts, & ſuch as had rather ſerue Antichriſt, then Chriſt, to bow their knees to Baalim then to worſhip God, and then you remoue the hopes of our enemies, that ſeek to diſturbe our peace, & the firebrāds of troubles, that are the likelieſt meanes to ſet all on a flame.

To ſuch as demaund why hee dedicated this great bale of blotting paper to the King, he giueth this anſwere, that hee cannot want an anſwere, becauſe he cannot want a reaſon. And no doubt, but he imagined, that therein he did pindarize, and ſpeake very eloquently. Yet many want anſweres, that haue farre more reaſon and honeſtie then he, & diuers want no ready anſweres, that proceede without reaſon. Whatſoeuer hee pretendeth, little reaſon had he to offer this bundl e of papers to the King. For albeit learned men preſent their Bookes to Kings, ſuppoſing nothing to bee well begunne, vnleſſe after God the King fauour it, as Vegetius affirmeth: yet this is nothing to this rude peece of worke, that is ſo fraught with calumniations and idle diſcourſes, that neither God nor man can well ſeeme to fauour it. Further although the King delite in Bookes, and hath ſet foorth diuers rare monuments of his rare wit and learning: yet doth hee not take pleaſure in ſuch ſcurrilous ſurueyes. Nor may we thinke, that a man of ſuch iudgement and learning can like or allowe ſuch baſe ſtuffe. Thirdly we confeſſe that the King is indeede, the protector of Religion, the Champion of the Church, and defender of the Faith. But little doth this auaile Kelliſons cauſe, who pleadeth rather for jdolatrie and ſuperſtition, then Religion; for the ſinagogue of Antychriſt, rather then for Chriſts Church; for the errors and abuſes of Poperie, rather then for the faith of Chriſt. Fourthly it is not to be doubted, but that all the Kings true friendes did tryumph and make Bonfires at the Kings happie entrance into the Kingdome, and at his Coronation. But that ſheweth that the Ieſuites, Maſſe-prieſtes and their adherents are not the Kings true Friends. For they tryumph but a little at the Kings proſperitie, and many of them of late haue ſought inſteede of Bonfires, which this K. calleth Feux de Ioy, to ſet the Cittie vppon a fire, & to blow vp the Parliament houſe and places adioyning with Gunne-powder. Other their conſorts are more deſirous to burne the bones & bodies of Gods ſaints, then to make bonfires, when they vnderſtand of the Kinges proſperous ſucceſſe. Fiftly, wee acknowledge that God by his prouidence hath reſerued the King for the Crowne of England, & quietly poſſeſſed him of his Crowne. But we know alſo that the Papiſts haue of late ſought to depriue him of his liberty, life, and Crowne. And Parſons and the Ieſuites of long time haue oppugned the Kings Title, both of them reſiſting not onely the Kings right, but alſo Gods prouidence. Finally if for all theſe fauours God expect at his Maieſties handes, that hee imploye himſelfe in ſome honorable ſeruice for the Catholike Church, and Chriſtes true faith, and for the deliuerance of his Realmes from Aegiptiā captiuitie, and the reſtoring of his ſubjects to the Catholike faith, as Kelliſon deſireth; then is hee to take a reſolute courſe for the remouing of al idolatrous Maſſe-prieſtes, which ſeduce his Subiectes, and turne them from the Catholike faith & their alleageance, to imbrace humane traditions and the decretaline Doctrine of the Pope, and to prefer the Pope before their King. Then is he further to ouerthrow the groues of the jdolatrous Prieſtes, and to prouide that his Realmes be not againe entangled with a yoake of bondage, & ouer-whelmed with ignorance, & Aegiptian darkeneſſe. Laſtly he is to ſee, that Hereſies and falſe Doctrines bee not receiued vnder the colour of Romiſh Religion.

Moſt groſſely therefore hath this Romiſh Legat fayled in the proofes of his preſumptuous attempt, in preſenting his worthleſſe and trifling diſcourſes to the King. But hauing once paſſed the limits of modeſtie, he paſſeth himſelf in impudency, afterward aduenturing to preferre a ſute to the King for libertie to Papiſts, and for tolleration of Popiſh Religion. A matter, that with modeſtie cannot be mencioned to ſo pious a King, and by rules of Religion and ſtate may not be granted: For it is impious, Idolatrous, and heretical. And therfore may not be admitted of chriſtiās. It is factious, rebellious & derogatory both to ye prerogatiue of Princes, & liberty of Subiects. And therfore not to be endured in any wel gouerned ſtate. Finally themſelues admit no Religion contrarie to their owne falſe groundes, if they can doe withall. Why doe they then require that of others, that they yeeld not to others thēſelues? if he deny any point of theſe, he ſhall finde them iuſtified in diuers anſwers framed to the importune ſupplycations of Papiſtes, and wee ſhall alwaies be readye to prooue the ſame againe, as oft as the matter ſhall come in queſtion.

But had he reaſon to come to the King, yet he hath no reaſon to rayle on the Kings predeceſſor Queene Elizabeth of famous memorie, as hee dooth, charging hir firſt with rayſing a ſtorme of perſecution, and next with the ruine of the Catholtke faith. Nay moſt falſely he chargeth a moſt clement and mercifull Queene with perſecution, and a Chriſtian Prince of ſingular pyetie, with hatred of Catholike Religion. Moſte falſely I ſay, for al her actes, and lawes doe argue an excellent moderation in her proceedings, againſt ſuch as moſte violentlye proſecuted her: and ſo farre was ſhe vrged to doe that ſhee did, that the ſecular Prieſtes not onely excuſe her for proceeding againſt Papiſts, but alſo to their vttermoſt defend her. Furthermore no chriſtian Prince in our time ſhewed more zeale in the defence of true Catholike Religion, then ſhe. True it is, that ſhee fauoured not Popiſh errors. But nothing is more different then Popery and Catholike Religion. Neither ſhall this K. euer prooue the contrarie.

Hauing ended his idle diſcourſe concerning the dedication of his book, he maketh bolde to begin his ſute for a tolleration of Popery. But his proceding is ſottiſh & intollerable. He cōmeth to the King as he ſaith, armed with hope, & conſtrayned by neceſſitie in the name of the Kings Catholike ſubiects, in the name of the Catholike Church, in the name of all Catholike Princes, and of all the Chriſtian worlde, nay in the name of the great King of heauen and earth. But as the common Prouerbe is, The hilles trauaile, and out commeth a ridiculous Mouſe. For firſt what hope can this armed fellowe pretend, to obtaine fauourable audience either of the King, or State, that not onely rayleth on true religion, and the Kings true ſubjectes, but alſo pleadeth for ſuch, as of late ſought to deſtroye both the King and State? Againe how can he and his conſortes talke of comming armed with hope, when Cateſbie and his followers came armed with yron, to cut the Kings throte, and to take away our liues: and when his armes are not hope, nor arguments, but bitter Inuectiues, dartes of ſlaunder, and malicious fictions? Thirdly, no man is compelled by neceſſitie to play the Vice, and that without all colour or vizor of modeſtie. For what is more Vice-like, then for ſuch a pild compagnion, to pretend the name of all the Chriſtian worlde, and all Catholike Princes, being not able to ſhewe commiſſion, either from any Prince, or any part of the Chriſtian worlde? Fourthlye, not onely all the Catholike Church, but alſo all Catholike Princes doe diſauow this preſumptuous fellowes pretended Commiſſion, renouncing his impious doctrine concerning the faith and Sacraments, his trecherous opinions concerning the Popes vſurped authority in depoſing and killing Chriſtian King's, his wicked defence of the worſhip of Saints and Angels, and all his idle declamations, lewd lyes, heatheniſh impoſtures, & falſe doctrines & hereſies. Fiftly, the Papiſts of England (for the moſt part) doe euill deſerue the name of ſubjectes. But were they ranked among ſubjectes, yet are they not to be ranked among Catholikes, ſeeing they receiue the errors of the modern Synagogue of Rome, & erre in the faith. How-ſoeuer they think of themſelues, they haue no reaſon to allowe their pild Proctors pleading for others, who putteth them among theeues and murderers: and concludeth; that Papiſts are to haue a tolleration of their opinions, becauſe Theeues and murderers are now pardoned. We ſay his concluſion is weake and ſimple: For faultes once committed, are more eaſily pardoned, then a lycence graunted to commit faultes euer heer-after. Further, offences againſt our brethern, are more eaſilye remitted, then offences, that are directly committed againſt God. Sixtly, if Princes that liue vnder the Pope, and are his vaſſals, would prefer any ſute to the King, they would cōmend it to wiſer Agents, and not to ſuch a balde compagnion. Seuenthly, it is a groſſe conceit of a raw diuine, to thinke, that the Chriſtiā world euer beleeued in the Popes triple Crowne, or guard of Switzers, or embraced the doctrine of the Conuenticle of Trent and Schoolmen concerning Traditions, Sacraments, Purgatory, Indulgēces, worſhip of Saints and Angels, and ſuch like poyntes of Popiſh ſayth. Finally, if this counterfet Legat doe not ſhew his Commiſſion vnder Seale, and plainly proue the Popes Decretales, the doctrine of the Conuenticle of Trent & School-men, the Popes two ſwordes and all the traſh of Poperie; he is to be rejected as a frantike forger of newe Commiſſions, and diſauowed by his clyents, as a fooliſh and ſimple pleader.

His reaſons for tolleration of Popery, are either grounded vpon falſe poſitions, or elſe want forme of good concluſions. That which he ſayth of the Kinges Predeceſſors, that with Crowne, Scepter and Sword, they mainteyned the moderne doctrine, of the Romiſh Church, is vtterly falſe. For they neuer beleeued, that the Pope had power to take away their Crownes, or that Chriſtians (like Canibals) did eate Chriſts fleſh with their teeth, and ſwallowe it downe into their bellyes, or other moderne Romiſh errors, hereſies and impieties. But did any ancient Princes maintaine errors, that bindeth not their poſteritie to continue therein. We are not to folowe the ſteppes of our parents, where them-ſelues tread awrye. Conſtantine left the Paganiſme of his aunceſtors. The auncient Kinges of Spayne were Arians, yet doe the later Kinges of Spayne deteſt Arianiſme. Falſe it is alſo that the people of Scotland in time paſt were of the ſame faith, which this Kelliſon teacheth at Doway. It may bee they built Abbeyes, worſhipped Saints, & vſed ſome popiſh ceremonies more then chriſtian religiō required. But K. muſt prooue, that they beleeued the doctrine of the Cōuenticle of Trent, & al the Popes decretales, & offended in jdolatrie, as groſſely and obſtinately, as the Papiſts doe now, or elſe hee trifleth out time in vaine. Thirdly hee ſpeaketh not onely falſely but alſo abſurdly, where he promiſeth honour to ſuch Princes, as imbrace Poperie. For what can be more diſhonorable, then for Kings to become vaſſals, to loſe halfe their Subjects, halfe their authoritye, halfe their reuenues? doth Kelliſon ſuppoſe it honorable for Kings to be controlled, depoſed, killed? or can any free Engliſh man endure to be ſubiect to Italians and ſtrangers? Fourthly, vainely doth this declaimer promiſe felicitie to the Realme, declyning to popery. There can be no greater bondage, nor miſerie for mens ſoules, then to be entangled with popiſh lawes, traditions and cenſures. Baſe it is to endure the Maſſe-prieſtes extortions and pillages, greeuous to ſee the land deuoured by Caterpillers. Fiftly we confeſſe, it is honorable to conquer Hereſie; but this honor belongeth not to Princes blinded with poperie: which is nothing elſe but a maſſe or compendium of diuers hereſies. Contrarywiſe if Maſſe-prieſts were rooted out, and Gods true Religion in euerie quarter ſincerely receiued; then ſhould we neither feare the wrath of God threatned againſt jdolaters and contemners of Religion, nor the enmitie & oppoſition of men hauing no meanes to hurt vs, but by the practiſes & mutinies of Papiſts. Sixtly, neither is the Religion profeſſed in England new, nor is popery old. And therein I wil ioyne iſſue with this Surueyor, if hee dare maintaine the contrarye. Hee braggeth much, but the ſurfet of popery hath diſtempered his wits. Seauenthly it was honorable, we confeſſe, for Conſtantine to reſtore Chriſtian Religion. But what maketh this for poperie, which was not in the world in the daies of Conſtantine, nor many ages after? Furthermore when Kelliſon ſhall be at any leyſure, and not troubled with his Gunpowder plots of high treaſon, then we will ſhew and prooue to his teeth, that poperie is a corruptiō of faith, & a declination frō Chriſtian Religion to errors & hereſies. Finally, to ſecure the Kings life, and the peace of the State, this wiſe Orator offereth oathes. But Chriſtian people are too well acquainted with the practiſes of Papiſts to truſt them eyther vpon oathes, bands, or pledges. Of late while they were moſte forward to offer oathes, and all ſecuritie that could be deuiſed, then Pearcy and his mates were ſitting powder vnder the Parliament houſe, and laying a plot for a general maſſacre of all true Chriſtians, and for a Rebellion of al diſcontented Perſons, and Papiſts. Further they teach that oathes are not to be performed to Hereticks, & eaſily doth the Pope diſpence with them. Who then is ſo patient as to endure this ſimple fellowes fooliſh prating? theſe cut-throate Prieſtes will murder honeſt men, & their ſoules ſhal ſue them for periury! is not this (trow you) a goodly deuice?

Whether he ſpeake for his owne cauſe, or againſt vs, his idle talke is not much to be regarded, that either affirmeth matters nakedly vpon his owne bare word, or bringeth no better witneſſe then Nicol Borne, Genebrard, Baronius, Thomas Aquinas, & ſuch like, or alleadgeth Scriptures impertinently and falſelye, or elſe belyeth his aduerſaries ſhamefully. Againſt Caluin hee bringeth a place out of his Inſtitutions, as if he taught, that by religion men might diſobey Princes lawes: a matter neither taught, nor euer thought vpon by him. To what end then bringeth he allegations out of Scriptures and Fathers, to diſprooue this rebellious poſition? would hee haue all the world to ſee, that Papiſts diſobeying Princes vpon the Popes warrant repugne both to Scriptures and Fathers?

His skill in Diuinitie we may eaſily conjecture not to be ſingular. For firſt he preferreth the will of man in his conuerſion, before Gods grace. Religion ſayth he, is not tranſfuſed with fleſh and blood, but infuſed by God, with conſent of our will, and operation of grace. Secondly, he maketh mans blood an oblation for ſinne, and a mediation of others conuerſion. Thirdly, he aſſigneth Aureolam martyrum, that is, a degree aboue the cōmon glory of Gods Saints, as a rewarde due to Martyrs for their paſſion. Fourthly, he ſayth Many Ʋirgins haue liued in the fleſh like Angels. But to ſay that man can liue without ſinne, is P •• gianiſme. Laſtly, his groundes are out of Tho. Aquinas, and the School-men. Is it then like that his Babylonian building wil long ſtand?

His notable ſimplicitie is euery where apparant. For ſeeking king the Kings fauour, he rayleth on Religion profeſſed by the King. Pleading for the Pope, he ouerthroweth the authoritie of the Pope. For if the authoritie of Kings be from God, then cannot Popes diſcharge ſubjectes from their dutie and obedience to Princes. Shewing him-ſelfe vnable to write or to diſpute, yet moſt ſimply he chalengeth vs all into the field, offring to diſpute with vs. Laſtly, wanting other meanes, he maketh the King a petitioner vnto him-ſelfe.

His honeſty cannot be great, that rayleth againſt the dead, flattereth ſuch as are able to fauour him, belyeth both the liuing and dead. By Popes ſayth he alwayes Countryes haue beene conuerted. Yet for many yeares haue they giuē ouer preaching, and lately haue ſuffered the Turkiſh religiō to eniambe & get ground vpon Chriſtians. He ſaith further, That our Church began but yeſterday, that our teachers want authoritie, that our doctrine hath the markes of hereſie, that we pull at Chriſts diuinitie, make him no redeemer, ſpirituall Phiſitian, law-giuer, Prieſt, nor Iudge, but make him ignorant, deſperate and damned. He chargeth vs further that we haue neither Prieſt, Sacrifice, Sacrament, nor Prayer: matters impudently and without all colour of truth auowched, as ſhall plainly appeare by our anſwer. If, when he commeth to diſpute, he bring no more truth, Children will iſſe him out of Schooles for an impudent and lying compagnion.

Theſe being the principall poyntes and whole ſomme of this rude Orators pleading before his Majeſtie, wherein no dout he hath made the faireſt ſhew he could of ſuch baſe wares; We may eaſily imagine, that his ſpeech to the common reader is more rude, harſh, and diſioynted. In the beginning of his epiſtle, he rūneth out like a wilde diſcourſer, into a long ſenceleſſe, and vnreaſonable ſpeach concerning inanimate & vnreaſonable creatures. But it muſt needes be a dull, dead, and vnreaſonable cauſe, that hath ſuch dead & vnreaſonable aduocates to plead for it. He turneth the Sunne into a Cocke, & a Candle, and birds into Carpenters, & brute beaſtes into hearbiſts. But whereto tendeth this brutiſh diſcourſe, voyde both of the light of the Sunne, and of the light of reaſon? doth he place his conſortes among feathered fooles, or elſe among brute beaſts? from ſenceleſſe creatures (in which ranke we may place a good parte of this Surueyer and his conſortes) he leapeth to brute beaſtes, and frō brute beaſtes to man. And yet nothing he writeth, that may beſeeme a ſenſible creature, much leſſe a reaſonable and diſcreete man. The end and marke of all his wilde vagary is this, to ſhewe, that becauſe God hath giuen vs a will wholy bent to good, and an vnderſtanding naturally enclined to truth, & auerted from all vntruthes, he hath therfore made an exact Suruey of the new Religiō, as he ſaith. But firſt theſe things hang no better together then if he ſhould ſay he would to Rome, becauſe Totnam is foure miles from London, and Doway is turned Spaniſh. For man may haue an vnderſtanding and will, and yet frame no ſuch falſe ſurueyes. Nay if this ſurueyor had either had any vnderſtanding, or good purpoſe, he would neuer haue imployed his labour in ſuch a lewde peece of ſeruice. Further neither dooth mans wil deſire any good thing tending to eternall life, or vnderſtand any ſuch thing, ſo long as he is vnregenerate by Gods grace. The wordes of the Apoſtle are cleare. There dwelleth no go d thing in my fleſh. And againe, the naturall man vnderſtandeth not the things that are of God. Thirdly, if mans will & vnderſtanding had beene ſo inclined, as he pretendeth; then would Kelliſon neuer haue liued vnder the yoke of Poperie, nor beleeued the abſurdities of popiſh Religion: of which we ſhall ſpeake God willing, particularly heereafter. Fourthly ſo farre is his ſuruey from exactneſſe, as a ſurfet of foolery from ſound vnderſtanding and reaſon. Finally, nothing ſhall this K. bee able to alleadge in our Religion, that abhorreth eyther from reaſon, or rule of good vnderſtanding. The miſſion and calling of our Biſhops and Miniſters ſhal be iuſtified againſt all the barking of Maſſe-Prieſtes and Ieſuites. The markes of Hereticks ſhall be wiped from our ſelues, & deeply imprinted vpon our aduerſaries. Our Doctrine ſhal be cleared from the vniuſt imputations of our aduerſaries, and euerie indifferent man ſatisfied, that we neither empayre Chriſtes honor, nor deny his Preeſthood. But contrariwiſe the Papiſts communicate Chriſts honor to creatures, & his preeſt-hood to Maſſe-Prieſtes. We ſhall alſo proue by plaine euidence, that we vpholde the authoritie of Princes and their lawes, which the Papiſts ouerthowe and deſpiſe. Wee doubt not further to demonſtrate, that none of vs euer taught, that God is author of ſinne, or cruell, or tyrannicall in his proceedings. Finally, we ſhould bee much aſhamed, if vices and all impieties were not better cenſured and puniſhed in England, then in Italy, Spaine, and other popiſh Countries.

Theſe matters which Kelliſon vanteth, that hee will make good againſt vs, haue been not onely formerly obiected vnto vs by William Raynoldes and D. Gifford in their rayling volume intituled Caluino-turciſmus, but alſo anſwered by vs in a Treatiſe called Turco Papiſmus. And that ſo ſufficiētly, that D. Gifford reſteth eyther ſatisfied, or ſilent. If then this new ſurueyor would needes renew their ſlaunders and vaine obiections, he ſhould for his credit ſake haue doone wel, eyther to haue replyed to our anſwere, or to haue held his peace, as his betters haue done. Againe if hee had beene ſo wiſe and circumſpect, as he pretendeth to bee; he would haue been well aduiſed before he entred this courſe, leaſt he might giue vs occaſion to rip vp the deformities, fooleries, abſurdities, Hereſies, impieties and other abuſes of Popery, of which I doubt not, but his beſt friendes, when they are laid open, will bee much aſhamed. Himſelfe being but a new vpſtart Doctor, & lately crept out of my Lord Vauxes Buttery, will bee much puzled to make any probable defence for them.

Thus much may ſerue for anſwere to the front of his Suruey and his two liminare Epiſtles. For the reſt, I ſhall not neede to ſay much in this place. Onely this, I thought good to ſignifye vnto thee, good Reader, that thou looke not for any curious or long anſwere heereafter: to wit, that the whole volume is nothing but a newe packe of olde calumniations and lyes. The forme of his diſcourſe is trifling, the Subject rayling. Such declamations, it ſhould ſeeme hee was wont in the time of his butlerage to make ouer a canne of Beere. His proofes are fancies and bare conceites. His witneſſes, fellowes of a lowe price. His concluſions weake collections. It may bee, eyther neede and hunger, or elſe hope and promiſe of reward made him ſo talkatiue. How be it leaſt hee might grow proud of his owne proweſſe, I haue vndertaken to ſhape him a ſhort anſwere. In the meane while, concerning his obiections and proofes, this hee may learne of mee for his inſtruction. Firſt that it is a fooliſh thing for a man to obiect that to others, whereof they are cleare, and hee moſte guiltie: and to ſuruey other mens eſtates, when his owne can abide no ſuruey. Secondly that the boſome and domeſticall teſtimonies of Cochleus, Genebrard, Bolſec, Stapleton and ſuch like are little to be eſteemed. Fidele eſt teſtimonium quod cauſas non habet mentiendi. That teſtimony ſaith Hierome ad Saluinam, deſerueth moſt credit, that hath no cauſes of fiction. Be not then mooued with the largeneſſe of Kelliſons volume, nor with his manifold leaſings. Common barators are wont to put in longeſt billes, whē they haue leaſt matter: and ſhallow waters make moſte noiſe. To ſuch lewd and long lies, this our ſhort anſwere will be more then ſufficient. Vouchſafe therefore to compare both our diſcourſes together, and to reade them with indifferency. And ſo thou ſhalt ſoone diſcouer the vanitie of his accuſations, and giue ſentence for our innocency.

THE EXAMINATION and Confutation of Kelliſons ſcurrilous Suruey of the newe Religion, as he tearmeth it.
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 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 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, yt the ſame was firſt talked of by idle Schoolemen, 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 ye 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 ye impoſitiō of hands of Abbots. Further their Biſhops are no ſucceſſors of ye Apoſtles, but ye popes creatures, yt 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, 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 ye 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 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, yt are not ordeined by a Biſhop, who was not ordered wt al ſolēnities. Fourthly, we ſhew ſuch a ſucceſſion of Biſhops, as ye 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, 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 wt he offereth vs, is too groſſe & palpable for neither doe we make our predeceſſors inuiſible. Nor doe we denie, yt 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 preaching againſt the Kingdome of Antichriſt, and the abuſes of their times. Neither doth either Optatus or Cypriā, or ye 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 wt 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, yt teacheth, that 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 ye 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 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 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, yt eyther ſpeaketh plainely, or expoundeth himſelfe in ſome other place, and for atteining 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, yt 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 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 wt certaine Cardinals, & with ye 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 ye 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 ye firſt wanteth much of ye learning of former Fathers; yet is 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 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 ye Fathers haue Gods holy ſpirit infallibly aſſiſting them in the expoſition of Scriptures? againe if denying of the authoritie of Fathers were ye 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 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, yt 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 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, yt are now ye 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 yt 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 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 ye 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 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 ye 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 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, yt is to ſacrifice for quicke and dead. But of ſuch a calling there is neyther 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, yt 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, ye 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 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 ye building. Fourthly, it is an abſurd courſe to ſeparate ye 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 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 ye 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 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 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, ye 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, yt 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 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 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 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 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 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 yt 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 ye 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 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye 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, 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 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 ye popes vniuerſall power, of his two ſwords, of his eſpouſals wt the church, of his indulgences, of ye carnal eating & champing Chriſts fleſh with ye 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. 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 ye Apoſtles heires, but ſuch as kéepe ye doctrine cōtained in their teſtamēt. The ſame father in ye 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 ye 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, ye 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 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 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 ye carnall eating & chāping wt the teeth of Chriſtes fleſh, of ye 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 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 〈2 pages missing〉 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 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 ye 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 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 yt his iuſt ſeruant ſhall iuſtifie many by his knowledge, & ſhal beare their ſins. The Apoſtle. 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs, yt 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. 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 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, yt 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, yt 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 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 ye ground of Pelagianiſme, that a man may be without ſinne, if he will, 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 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. 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 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 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 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, ye 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 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 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 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 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 ye 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 ye reaſonable ſoule, and 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 ye 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 yt 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, yt haue not only ye 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 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, yt 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 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 ye 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, yt 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 vnto particulers. Luther neuer ſaid nor thought, yt 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 yt 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, yt caluin denyeth womē power to baptize: & ſo wold yt aduerſaries alſo, if they did not corrupt al good orders. But yt addeth to ye dignitie of the ſacramēt. He ſaith further, that ſome that are not baptized may be ſaued. And ſo ye aduerſaries graūt alſo, eſpeciallye when eyther Martyrdome ſupplyeth baptiſme, or a man ſeeketh baptiſme, and cannot haue it in time. That the 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 ye 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, yt 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 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, 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, 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, yt 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 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 ye 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 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 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 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 ye 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 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, & ye 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 wt popes, cardinals, Monkes, Fryars, Nonnes, or ye 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 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 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 telleth vs, that Sathan beateth his doctrine into mens heads, and yt 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 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, ye 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, yt was the Father of the faithfull, & denyeth yt he was iuſtified by works. The prophet Dauid alſo Pſal. 32. pronoūceth him bleſſed, to whome God imputeth no ſin. Which ſheweth, yt 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 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. ye reportes of Iohn ye 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, yt 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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, yt they exempt Chriſtians eyther from ye 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ye 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 yt is not the true church? againe what is this to the Pope, yt 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, yt 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 ye 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 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 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, 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 ye Pope, & his adherents, & vpō their 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 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, and beleeued not, that their was a God.

Riſerat vt viuens caeleſtia numina Sixtus, Sic moriens nullos credidit eſſé Deos. ſaith one.

Vpon Alexander the ſixt Sanazar wrote theſe verſes, as a memoriall of his impieties: Humana iura, nec minus caeleſtia, Ipſoſ que ſuſtulit deos &c. 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, ye 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.

Contemptor diuum, ſcelerum vir, publicus hoſtis,

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 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 ye 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 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. 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 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 ye 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 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, ye 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 ye ſacrament, & vnderſtād not ye words of Chriſtes inſtitution, ruine Chriſtian Religion, and call all other myſteries of the faith into queſtion, as Kelliſon Page. 698. reſolutelye 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.

An aduertiſment to the Reader.

RIDICVLOVS it is, gentle Reader, for him, that entreth into the Battle, to complaine of blowes. He that cōmeth to ſtrike others muſt not thinke ſtrāge, if he be ſtriken himſelfe. And yet I perceiue my aduerſaryes bluſh not to complaine, that heerein they haue receiued wrong. They, I ſay, that come like wolues with open mouth to deuoure vs, & raile at M. LVTHER, Maiſter CALVIN, & al the church of England, as if it conſiſted of Heretikes, Schiſmatikes, looſe liuers, & Atheiſtes, nay of a ſort of men worſe then Turkes and Pagans, finde fault with me, if I tell them of their hereſies, Treaſons, Gun-powder practiſes, Idolatryes, infidelitie, perjuries, and other vilanies.

Whether they, or we haue reaſon, I referre my ſelfe to indifferent judges, that ſhal read the Treatiſes of both the partyes. HILARY in his Book againſt CONSTANTIVS thought it no fault to ſpeake ſharply, if truely. Si falſa dicimus, ſaith he, infamis ſit ſermo malidicus. That is, if we ſpeake vntruth, let our tarte ſpeache ſeeme infamous. Otherwiſe he challengeth the liberty of Apoſtles in cenſuring manifeſt faults. Si vniuerſa haec manifeſta eſſe oſtendimus ſaith he, non ſumus extra apoſtolicam libertatem, & modeſtiam. Saint HIEROME apolog. 2. in Ruffin. thinketh it lawfull to barke for Chriſt, becauſe Dogges barke for their Maiſters. Canes latrant pro dominis ſuis, tu non me vis latrare pro Chriſto? Beſide that, when a man is accuſed of Hereſie, hee would not haue him patient.

If then we neither ſhew impatiency, nor ſpeake doggedlie, but only report thoſe crimes truely, of which our aduerſaryes are moſt guilty; it is then our aduerſaries euill conſcience that pincheth, rather then our tart ſtile that byteth. To let Dogges baule without correcting were nothing elſe, but to encourage them in their dogged ſnarling and barking: and Biſhop Iewell of reuerend memory and others, that haue vſed this mildeneſſe haue greatly confirmed our aduerſaryes malice.

This therfore vnderſtand, that it is not out of ſtomacke, but out of iudgment, that wee take this courſe of plaine dealing. Phryx plagis emendatur. The PHRYGIAN, and ſuch as are of his baſe humor, are bettred with ſtripes, rather then with gentle wordes. There diſtemper is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as THEOPHRASTVS ſaith in ſympoſ. apud Plutarchum, That is, a drunkenneſſe without wine. But it may be corrected with a ſad and tart anſwere. Further, neceſſity forced vs, for the repelling of their malicious ſlaunders, to ſhewe, that they are to bee charged with thoſe crimes juſtly, which they impute to innocēt men moſt falſely. And it may bee, if truth make them not ceaſe their barking, yet ſhame will make them barke more ſoftly.

This is the reaſon of our doing: which if thou be indifferent, I hope thou wilt allow. If enimie, I hope thou canſt not juſtly condemne. And if thou beeſt experimented in theſe courſes, thou canſt not chuſe but acknowledge the ſame to bee both profitable, honeſt, and neceſſary. Profitable to repreſſe the malice of ſuch Curres, as continually barke againſt truth: honeſt for the defence of the pious memorie of the innocent: and neceſſary for the ending of theſe brablements. If the aduerſaries giue vs no occation to lay open theit faultes, we ſhall be content to burye them in ſilence. If they perſiſt in rayling and reuiling at honeſt men, they muſt haue patience to heare our free anſwer. Againſt Popes, Cardinals, Monkes, Fryers, Maſſe-prieſtes and their ſeditious Salt-peter followers, wee cannot want either wordes, or matter. This is that which I thought good to aduertiſe thee, and which I hope will ſatiſfie all, if they bee indifferent. If not indifferent, they haue no reaſon to take vppon them, to bee our judges, nor we to vnder-goe their cenſure, nor you to miſlike our ſtile, as too ſharp and vnfitting.

Laus Deo.