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
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
these Cardines terrae or rather terren and carnall Cardinalls may goe in vltimos fines terrae that is into the vtmoste endes of the earth to seeke for their mission The Monkes and Fryars are no where mentioned in Scripture vnlesse it be Apocalyps 9. Where wée finde that Locustes did issue out of the smoke of the bothomlesse pit whereby is signified that by their smoky traditions they should obscure the light of the Gospell They succeede not Pastors and Teachers For their profession is pouertie chastitie and obedience to monkish rules and not to teach or administer Sacraments Hierome and all antiquitie put monkes after Priests and range them in another order Fryars entred but lately into the Church vnder the conduct of Dominicke and Francis Their authoritie is wholy from the Pope and other commission can they shew none Masse-priestes are not sent to preach and administer the Sacraments but to sacrifice Christs bodie and blood vnder the accidents of bread and wine for quick and dead as appeareth in the formall wordes of their ordination But such a mission is no where found in Scripture For our Sauiour instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist said accipite edite bibite That is take eate drinke and not sacrificate pro viuis et defunctis that is Sacrifice for quicke dead True it is that he saith hoc facite that is doe this But hoc facere doth no where eyther in Scripture or prophane Authors signifie sacrifice this Virgil is alleadged where one saith cum faciam vitula But if they bring no better proofes the Masse-priests will prooue themselues as wise as Calues For it is one thing to say facere vitula and facere hoc Beside that Virgil yet was neuer esteemed a good interpreter of Christes wordes To omitte Scriptures this sacrificing Preest-hood of the Romanistes hath no proofe out of Fathers For no where in any authenticall writing of theirs is any mention made of such an ordination Nay it is apparant that the same was first talked of by idle Schoolemen and authorized after a sort by the conuenticle of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth Finally neither doe Scriptures nor Fathers mention any such real carnal and corporall sacrifice of Christes body and blood made in the Eucharist vnder the accidentes of breade and wine for the sinnes of the quicke and dead as I haue fully demonstrated in my Bookes de mâ—ssa against Bellarmine Nay the Canon it selfe dooth signifie that the sacrifice of the Church is offered as well by the people as the Priest as these words declare qui tibi offerunt But the Papists wil not say that the people offereth vp Christs body Further the Masse-priest prayeth that God would be pleased to accept the sacrifice but it is absurd to make a Masse-priest mediator for Christs body and blood If then they bee false Prophets Theeues Robbers that come without missioÌ„ or sufficient warrant then are the Popes of Rome Cardinals Monkes Fryars and Masse-priests false Prophets Theeues and Robbers And that may in part also bee prooued by the confession of our aduersarie For if as hee saith all are to bée reputed such that can neither shew ordinarie calling from the Apostles nor extraordinarie from the spirit of God then are they to bee shunned as false Prophets and false teachers and punished seuerely not onely as men lately besmired with Gunne-powder but also as false Theeues Robbers For extraordinarie calling they pretend none ordinarie calling authorized by Gods word they haue none as hath in part beene prooued Further we say that whereas two thinges are to be respected in ordination of Bishops Ministers of Gods word viz. the rite of ordination the substance of the function whereto they are ordeyned in the popish Church our aduersaries haue neither of these two lawfull First they haue no impositioÌ„ of hands by Bishops For they haue no lawful Bishops allow the impositioÌ„ of hands of Abbots Further their Bishops are no successors of the Apostles but the popes creatures that is rather a temporal prince then a Bishop The Monks and Fryars are rather called to doe pennance then to preach wheÌ„ they are shorne Secondly their Priests are not called to preach and baptise which was the forme and substance of the mission of the Apostles and their successors but to sacrifice Christes body and blood vnder the accidents of breade and wine for quicke and dead which forme and function neither Kellison nor all the rabble of Romish Priests and Fryars shall euer prooue to bee auncient lawful or authenticall Against our Bishops Priests and Deacons no such matter can be excepted For first it caÌ„not be denyed but that our Bishops were lawfully ordeined by imposition of handes of other lawfull Bishops The Ordination of Bishop Cranmer other Bishops then liuing the Papistes themselues cannot deny to be lawfull But from them other Bishops folowing receiued the rite of consecration Bishop Parker was consecrated by the imposition of handes of Bishop Barloe Bishop Couerdale Bishop Scory and two Suffragans mentioned in the Acte of consecration yet to be seene which not onely had succession from such Bishops as our aduersaries account lawfull but in deede were lawfull Bishops Our bretherne in Germany and Zuizzerland had imposition of handes from Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bucer and others in France from Farel in Scotland from Knox and others whome the Papistes cannot deny to haue bene lawfully ordeined Priests at the least if their owne formes were lawfull And from these men their successors al other Pastors Ministers of the Church haue receiued the rite of impositioÌ„ of handes or ordination to the Ministery Neither is it materiall that the first preachers of the Gpspel in these Countries were not Bishops and so called as it was in England For suppose no Bishop would haue renouÌ„ced the heresyes of Popery nor haue taught sincerely should not inferiour ministers teach truth and ordeine other teachers after them Furthermore they wanted nothing of true Bishops but the name and tytle Finally the rite and imposition of handes by such as are called Bishops is not so necessary but that in a defection of Bishops of a nation and in case of other extreme necessitye Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers which is prooued first for that generally the Presbytery or Ministery of the Church hath right to impose handes and next for that the Keyes are called Claues Ecclesiae and not Claues Episcoporum and lastly for that necessitie admitteth not the obseruance of all ceremonyes As for example admit a multitude of Christians should goe into the Indiaes without ministers it is not to be supposed but they haue power to appoint Ministers among them selues in this case of necessitye Secondly it is certaine that the Bishops and Ministers of reformed Churches haue bene sent to preach and so administer the Sacraments by such as had authoritye in the Church and that they haue executed their function accordingly Why then
For what motiue can any man haue to beleeue that an vnlearned bougerly blinde and wicked Pope is supreme iudge of Religion that an obscure and infamous Italian hath power to depose the King of England that Christians are not to beleeue the articles of our christian faith nor Scriptures vnlesse they receiue them from the Popes chayre that Ecclesiasticall traditions of which the authours and defenders are not yet resolued are equall to holy Scriptures that the olde lattin vulgar translation of the Bible is authenticall and the originall text not or that Dogges do somtime eate Christes body or that Christes body and blood is sacrificed in the Masse although the same at the same instant be in heauen and is not consumed as is the manner of sacrifices and infinite such absurdities In the end of the first Chapter hee citeth diuers slaundrous reports of Luther and Caluin and talketh Idely of the good life of Papists or rather excuseth their lewd life notorious to the world He doth also alleage the number antiquity miracles and other qualityes of such as taught his religion Afterward he runneth backe to talke of the succession of Popes Finally by a tale out of Iosephus of the Iewes and Samaritans Temple he douteth not but he should winne the victory if he were to plead against vs. But if he plead no more wisely then he doth in this place his auditorye should haue good reason to hisse him from the barre For first his slanderous reportes against Luther and Caluin are matters deuised by Cochleus Staphilus Bolsecus and other popish parasites hired of purpose to deuise slanders against thē of which Bolsecus in publike synode reuoked his malicious libell But the matters we obiect to the Popes and their adherents are matters recorded in publik actes authētical histories the authors wherof were men fauouring popery Secondly this Lobster-faced fellow would blush to talk of the liues of the Italians and other the popes adherents but that he knoweth their lewde actes are concealed from the people of England by the remotenesse and distance of their Country And yet all that know Italy and the nations subiect to the Pope will say he hath no reason to stand much vpon their pietye or honestye Thirdly neuer shall he shewe eyther that the moderne Popes are the successors of the first Bishops of Rome or that the Popish Bishops that are now the marked slaues of Antichrist are the true successors of Austen the Monke and his fellowes Nay the Doctrine that wee professe being taught by them and the decretaline doctrine that we refuse being vnknowne to them it must needes followe that not the popish Wolues but our Bishops are their successors Finally the tale out of Iosephus doth little fit this K. purpose For neither hath the moderne Church of Rome any affinitie with the temple of the Iewes nor can this K. doe any such feates as he imagineth Was not then this surueyor both idle and vnaduised that runneth through so many impertinent matters to his particular purpose and so aduerse to his generall cause The last Chapter of his first book is yet more extrauagāt then al the rest For therin he speaketh not one word of the groūds of our Religion which are the things which he propoūded for the subiect of his discourse but of the Pope whome wee take to bee the head of Antichristes Kingdome and to bee so rightlye called although hee would gladlye prooue him to bee the supreme iudge in matters of Religion And his reason is for that euery Kingdome hath his King euerie Dukedome a Duke euerie Cittie a Major or Bayliffe euery Army a general euerie village almost hath a Constable c. hee prooueth the same also by Gods order both before the Law and after and by the example of Saint Peter and of the Bishops of Rome who as he saith were euer called the Vicars of Christ and successors of S. Peter And in the end hauing runne himselfe out of breath he concludeth that we haue no iudge in matters of Religion and so open a gap to all Heresies But if he come into his Countrie and reason no better the Constable of the parrish where he landeth if hee bee a man of any vnderstanding may doe well to set him by the heeles For First hee reasoneth absurdly from politick bodies to Christes mystical body Secondly if any argument might bee drawne from thence yet would this similitude ouerthrowe the Popes monarchy For albeit euerie Kingdome Armie Cittie and Village hath his gouernour yet it were absurd to make one King ouer all the world one commander ouer all armies one grand Maior or Constable ouer all the Maiors and Constables of the world Thirdly neyther was there one supreme iudge of matters of Religion before the lawe vnder the lawe or in the time of the Gospell as I haue at large prooued against Bellarmine in my Bookes De pōtifice Rom. which are to hot for such a tender fingred Surueyor to handle nor are we now to conforme our selues to the law but to Christes institution Fourthly for one thousand yeares after Christ shall not this ranging fellow prooue that the Bishops of Rome were called Christs Vicars The title of Peters successors is common to all true teachers succeeding Peter and importeth no generall commaund ouer the whole Church Fiftlye Theophilus Bishop of Antioche Lib. 2. Autolicum is grossely belyed So like wise is Chrysostome homil 34. in epist 1. ad Corinth Finally he wrongeth vs where he saith we haue no judge of matters of Religion For the onely supreme iudge that determineth infallibly is God speaking in Scriptures If any varietie bee about his determination the supreme iudge of all the church vpon earth is a lawfull generall councell proceeding according to Gods word In the meane while euerie nation is to stand to the definition of a nationall councel And to this iudge doe we submit our selues As for the Papists they submitte themselues to a blinde Pope that sometime beleeueth not and seldome vnderstandeth the Articles of the Christian faith Kellison therefore that dreameth of such a fellowes infallible iudgement hath little reason to talke against the proceeding vsed in the Church of England for deciding of matters of Religion Further hee hath neede to beware that the Constable of one parrish or other take him not within the sphere of his actiuitie least he place him in the supreme hole of the Stocks for his supreme idiotisme in matters of iudgement concerning religion Chap. 2. The foundations of Popish religion discouered to be most weake and foolish THus we haue séene how much this K. hath mistaken the grounds of our religion and how litle he hath to say against them Let vs therefore nowe consider his supposed groundes and the common foundations of the popish religion and what Christians are to thinke of them Kellison where he talketh of the grounds of our religion discourseth first of the mission of our Preachers and Lib. 1. cap. 1. concludeth
Epicureans Epicure the Atheistes Diagoras so Christians should speake honorably of Christ But if he had not beene of the sect of Diagoras and a prophane Atheist he would haue blushed to haue compared Christ to Diagoras and Epicurus two prophane and impious men and Christians to Atheistes and Epicureans and prophane followers of Philosophers He would also haue forborne to haue concluded that christians are to honor Christ as Atheistes honor Diagoras But to referre the examination of the impious Doctrine of this Atheist and his consorts to his proper place what hath he to obiect against vs and our Doctrine of Christes person or nature First he telleth vs how Michael Seruetus was a brother of our Religion and denyed that God the Sonne was true God or coaequall to his Father But whatsoeuer his blasphemyes were he learned them among the Papistes where he was brought vp and not among vs where he was punished for his blasphemyes Secondly he seemeth to be rather a brother of the Papistes amōg whome hee learned his impieties and with whome hee defended the adoration of Angels then of kinred to vs. Thirdly this ignorant Surueyor attributeth the heresie of the Arians vnto Seruetus where he did wholy deny the Trinity calling all that beleeue the holy Trinity atheistes as may appeare in the proceedings against him Next he saith that Luther in his book against Latomus affirmed that he could not abide this word homoousion A matter most false and slaunderous His words are conditional Quod si odit anima mea vocem homoousion saith he et nolim ea vti non ero haereticus quis enim me coget vti modo rem teneā quae in concilio per scripturas definita est so it appeareth hee held the thing and that not wordes but matters in his conceite made Heretickes Thirdly hee telleth how Luther in commentar in C. 1. Genes called the Sonne of God the instrument of God by which hee created the world But like an honest Surueyor hee confesseth that he hath not seene those cōmentaries and perhaps he wold not see them For if he had he might haue seene himselfe conuinced to be a lying companion Now he sheweth himselfe onely to be a light fellow that beleeueth fables vppon heare say In his comentaries vpon that booke now no such matter is to be found Fourthly he chargeth Luther with leauing out these words in the Litany sancta trinitas vnus deus miserere nobis the word deus out of this sentence deus fortis and out of the first of Iohn the fift Chapter this sentence there are three which giue witnesse in heauen the father the word the holy Ghost these three are one But first the reason why he left out the wordes mentioned in the Litany was not for mislik of the word Trinitie but for that the dutch word dreifaltigheit did signifie rather triplicitie then Trinitie Secondlye it is not like that Luther did omit eyther the word Deus or the sentence in S. Iohns epistle concerning the Trinitie because we finde not that obiected vnto him by his moste curious aduersaries But what if by negligence or fault of the Coppie these wordes had beene omitted what is that to vs that doe not omitte them hath the surueyor forgot that hee promiseth a suruey of our Religion Fiftly he chargeth Luther with saying that as Eutyches said so it may well be said that the diuinitie of Christ suffred But this slaunder is refuted not onely by Luthers booke de concilijs but also by Bellarmines preface in his dispute de Christo He onely saith that he disputed with Nestorians which contended that the diuinitie of Christ could not suffer But hee doth not say that Christes diuine nature could suffer as Eutyches did and as this K. would haue vs to surmise Page 247. He imputeth vnto Melancthon that hee should say both in hs booke of common places and in his book against Stankarus that the Sonne of God according to his diuinitie prayed to his Father for his kingdome glory and inheritance and that the diuine nature of the Sonne was obedient to his Father in his passion And the like saying saith K. hath Beza yea and Caluin also But if eyther of them had said any thing wherupon this accuser might ground his slaunder he would not haue spared to haue set downe their words at full Melancthon hath not these words according to his diuinitie But what if he should speake improperly shold he not haue leaue to interpret himselfe Againe suppose there were an error in his words must we satisfie for his fault Lastly who knoweth not that the Fathers sometime by the diuinitie and humanitie of Christ singlye vnderstand his person Afterward Page 248. he inueigheth against the Vbiquetaries who affirme as hee saith that the diuine attributes are reallye communicated vnto Christes humane nature But heerein hee sheweth great simplicitie For this toucheth the Papists that wil haue Christes body to bee both in heauen and earth and vppon euerie alter at one time which being graunted the Vbiquetaries omnipresence doth followe necessarily seeing a body cannot bee in two remote places but it must be in the midst Secondly they wil haue this communication to be per communicationem idiomatum so that it appeareth their meaning is that after a manner of speech these diuine attributes are communicated to Christes humane nature Finallye of the opinion of the reall presence of Christes bodye in the Sacrament taught by Papists this error of the Vbiquetaries whether in speech or Doctrine proceeded and therefore it toucheth our aduersaries verie neere and vs nothing at all In the same place hee chargeth Caluin for teaching that the name of God is attributed to the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that hee denyeth Christ to be God of God Hee saith also that Whitaker heerein subscribeth vnto him and lastlye that Caluin and Iewell and diuers other affirme that Christ according to his Diuinitie was Preest and mediator But first both Bellarmine and this brabler doth calumniouslye reporte Caluins wordes For writing against Valentinus Gentilis hee saith not that the father as God hath any preheminence but as hee is the first person in the Trinitie and as the Sonne is begotten of the Father Secondly hee denyeth not that Christ is God of God but onely saith that the phrase is hard and meaneth that wee are to vnderstand the wordes personally thus Christ which is God is of the Father which is God not as if there were two Gods the one proceeding from the other Thirdly Maister Whitakers wordes being set downe would cleare him For his meaning is that the diuine essence doth neither engender nor is ingendered those being properties of the persons Finally both Maister Caluin and the reuerend Father Bishop Iewell and other our Diuines doe teach aright that the office of Christes mediation and Préest-hood belongeth not to eyther nature singly considered in it selfe but to the person that is God and man But