9. epist 71. He saith no man can auoide sinne Peccatum nemo euitare potest And with him coÌ„senteth 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 obedieÌ„ce 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 falsâ—ly iâ—â—â—â—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 rebellioÌ„ 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 theâ—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 haÌ„dling 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
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 Viue 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
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 the 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
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 â—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 the Pope his adherents vpoÌ„ 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