we bring all ReligioÌ„ 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 the 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 that is not the true church againe what is this to the Pope that 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 that 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 the 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 sâ—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 maÌ„ 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
that 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 the 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
Mother of errors and the greate Whore described Apocalyps 17. Gregory the first wanteth much of the 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 the Fathers haue Gods holy spirit infallibly assisting them in the exposition of Scriptures againe if denying of the authoritie of Fathers were the 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
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 shaâ—â—â— Masse-priestes to be a principall ground of religion and next 〈◊〉 â—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 that 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 that 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 the Kellison is a better Mason to build Babell and the synagogue of satan which is vpholden with humane traditions and the Popes sword theÌ„ 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
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 shal be made manifest to all The first being takē out of Mat. 7. the secōd out of 2. Tim. 3. both seruing vs to cōclude 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
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 coÌ„mon glory of Gods Saints as a rewarde due to Martyrs for their passion Fourthly he sayth Many Virgins haue liued in the flesh like Angels But to say that man can liue without sinne is Pâ—â—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 giueÌ„ ouer preaching and lately haue suffered the Turkish religioÌ„ 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 â—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 ruÌ„neth 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 froÌ„ 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 ReligioÌ„ 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 goâ—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
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 froÌ„ the faith want true Bishops Thirdly Tertullian S. Augustine speak of successioÌ„ of Bishops but neither of theÌ„ denyeth theÌ„ to bee Bishops or pastors that are not ordeined by a Bishop who was not ordered with al soleÌ„nities Fourthly we shew such a succession of Bishops as the Papists theÌ„selues cannot controle deriuing theÌ„ coÌ„cerning 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 with he offereth vs is too grosse palpable for neither doe we make our predecessors inuisible Nor doe we denie that 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 CypriaÌ„ or the Apostle speake any word against vs herein Optatus Lâ—b 2. contra parmen speaketh of some intruding donatists Cyprian of certaine presuÌ„ptuous Nouatians which as the Arch-priests Iesuites and Masse-priests doe in EnglaÌ„d thrust theÌ„selues 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 with 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
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 that 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 that 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 Vrbane the sixt did deale with certaine Cardinals with the 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 the 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
vnlesse he will haue both a building without a foundation and a foundation beside the building Fourthly it is an absurd course to separate the 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 the 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 foūdation 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 â—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 coÌ„quest 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 foundatioÌ„ of the church and such like doctrines of deuils Secondly the 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 Paâ—aÌ„s nor haue they eyther true succession or consent or antiquity that 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 excoÌ„municating 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 weâ— 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
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