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 conteÌ„ne 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 â—â—dem sine operibus legis non hoc agit vt praecepta contemnaÌ„tur sed vt sciat se quisque 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 the 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 that was the Father of the faithfull denyeth that he was iustified by works The prophet Dauid also Psal 32. pronouÌ„ceth him blessed to whome God imputeth no sin Which sheweth that 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 caÌ„not 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 nâ—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
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 that his iust seruant shall iustifie many by his knowledge shal beare their sins The Apostle 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs that 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 that 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 that 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
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. the reportes of Iohn the 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 liberrimaneque praeceptaneque 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 hilaresque 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 that 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
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
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 the 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
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 the 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
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