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
Prince yet should he haue forborne to offer that which both to him and all true Christians cannot chuse but be most vngratefull and odious Beside these absurdities our surueyor hath runne into diuers grosse errors For first he compareth the King to an Idole where he maketh him like a Neptune Lord of the Oceā Sea So he is not only a worshipper of Idoles but also would gladlie make an Idole of the King Secondly in setting forth the Kings prayses he speaketh contraries now representing his majestye sitting in a Throne of terror and not long after calling him the myldest Prince in Europe But what is more contrarie then terror and mildnesse and what Sect in sauage crueltie can be compared to Papists that of late haue attempted by fire and Gun-powder to destroy him whome they confesse to beethe myldest Prince in Europe Thirdly he taketh from the King all authority in Ecclesiasticall causes which he reserueth to his holy Father and his dependants and although in termes he doe not abridge the Kings right in his Tēporalities yet euery one knoweth that Papists make Kinges the Popes subjects and giue to the Pope power to censure and depose Kings which none can maintaine but such as are disloyall to Princes and slaues to Popes Fourthly most cunningly he doth insinuate that Kings and Princes are beholding to Priestes for their Kingdomes because they receiue of them as he saith their consecration Crownes and Scepters So this prating Masse-priest doth not only treacherously subject Kinges to the Popes sword and censures but also absurdly tyeth their right and inheritance to the Crowne to the rite of consecration Finally not content to debase the Kings Royall state and to deminish his right he compareth himselfe in his Priest-hood most proudly to Christ himselfe and his holy Apostles But none but the disciples of Antichrist make them-selues in priest-hood comparable to Christ nor doe any but false Apostles make the Apostles sacrificers and aequall themselues to the Apostles Now these errors he acknowledged not nor can excuse His inciuility he would gladly excuse and defend But his defence is worse then the offence it selfe For the first saith he Adrian the Emperour will excuse me who commended vnto Minutius his proconsul of Asia as a thing of importance Ne nomen condemnaretur sed crimen He maketh also along discourse relating vnto vs how wrongfully Christians were hated for the name But what affinity is there betweene the names of Christians and the names of sacrificing Masse-priests Againe how can the cyclopicall priests of Baal pretend to be successors eyther of the Apostles or of auncient Bishops Did euer any auncient Bishop or other Doctor of the Church say that the priest did swallowe downe Christes body whole into his bellie againe if that which is offered be consumed as the Papists themselues teach How can this priest K. defend that hee offereth vp Christ vnder the accidents of Bread and Wine vnlesse like the Iewes he murder Christ or at the least deuoure him Furthermore Adrian in his Epistle to Minutius Fūdanus hath not these wordes ne nomen condemnaretur sed crimen as it is euident by the wordes of this Epistle reported by Iustine Martyr in his second Apologie Finally we do not oppugne Masse-priests for the name of priestes as this dreaming suruey or imagineth but for because being made priestes beyond the Seas they are alwaies ready at their creators the Popes cōmaund to attempt against Princes to trouble his state to rayse sedition as the late attempts of Watson Clarke of Pearcy and his mates set on by Priestes and Iesuites to blow vp the whole Parliament and to make a general massacre and Rebellion doe plainely declare For the second he telleth vs that he is come from the great Monarch of heauen to salute the King and that he is Gods Legate and therfore not to be denyed audience when the Ambassadors of the Kings of the earth are heard with so fauourable a countenance But if he come from the Monarch of heauen why doth he not shewe forth his warrant and proue his heauenly angelical mission If he be Gods true Legat why doth he hide his false face If he will be respected as earthly Ambassadors then must he shewe forth a Commission as earthly Ambassadors doe Otherwise he will be taken for the Legat of Sathan set on by the Pope to write heretical discourses and scurrilous Libels to infect the peoples mindes with a distast of truth and with superstitious heretical and disloyal humours not Gods Ambassador sent to the King to declare his will God certes neuer gaue any man commission to perswade the Popes tyrannical authoritye the sacrifice of the Masse for quicke dead the 7. sacraments the worship of Saints and Images after the Romish facion and such like doctrines Further he addeth That the lowest Subiect may crye Viue le Roy. But what maketh that for him that held him-selfe for no subject of our late Queene being excōmunicate by the Pope thinketh it not lawful to subject himselfe to the King that now is if the Pope should take Armes against him and excōmunicate him Furthermore such as he is are rather to be reputed tall and stout Traytors then low or lowlie subjects crying not viue le Roy with any true heart but as Iudas cryed al hayle to Christ when he betrayed him or as Squire that was sent by the Iesuite Walpoole to empoyson the late Queene cryed God saue the Queene when he put poyson on the Pommell of her Saddle If then the Pope shall once beginne to display his Banner and thunder out his excommunications against the King then we are not to doubt but as now Kellison cryeth God saue the King so then he would cry downe with him downe with him and with all that followe him and take parte with him For such as ment to blow him vp with Powder not being excōmunicat would not I think spare him being made subject to the Popes thundring censures For the third hee answeareth first that it doth agrandise a Kinges greatnes to accept of little presentes And next that he offereth himselfe as his Maiesties faithfull seruant Lastly he standeth on stilts of high termes and telleth vs that he offereth the worship of God the saluation and safetie of the King and his subiects and the peace of his people But neyther is his Booke a little present being a large fardle of wast paper nor can so big a lubber passe for a small guift although in truth both be of so low a price that he might much be ashamed to make offer of either to so iudicious a Prince but that he wanteth both shame iudgemēt Beside that it may be a questiō how he can giue himselfe to the King that hath already giuen himselfe bodye and soule to the Pope whose mark he carrieth on his shauen Crowne A faithfull Seruant certes hee cannot be to the King seeing no man can serue two Maisters Pearcy
the Pope and say that the King therin is but an vsurper Fourthly we say that not only lay-men but also all Masse-priestes Monkes and Fryers ought to be subiect to the Prince These fellowes exempt their Clergie and their goods from Princes gouernement as appeareth by Bellarmines treatise de exemptione Clericorum and diuers decrees of Popes Finally we make Princes and Kinges soueraigne cōmaunders ouer their subiects and immediate exequutors of Gods lawes Contrariwise the papistes make them most base exequutioners of the Popes Lawes and therein preuaile so farre that they not only set Princes together by the eares one with another but make them the Popes hangmen and force them to persecute their owne innocent subiects if they wil not admit the Popes Idolatrous and Hereticall Religion But saith Kellison Lib. 6 c. 1. they teach that no Prince can binde a man in conscience to obey his Lawes and commaundements and giue subjectes good leaue to rebell and reuolte This he sayth and how prooueth he that which hee saith forsooth saith he Luther exhorted the Germaines not to take Armes against the Turke And in his Booke against the King of England called him all to naught Secondly he telleth vs of the Rebellion of the Boores in Germanie Thirdly he citeth certaine places out of Luther shewing that the Popes lawes or Princes positiue lawes binde not to mortall sin nor rule the conscience Lastly he spendeth much idle talke about the tumults in France Flaunders and Germany But first what maketh all this to lawes binding in conscience Secondly the Articles of his accusation containe manifest vntruthes For neither doe wee giue subiectes leaue to reuolt neither doe wee deny that Princes lawes doe binde in conscience as oft as they commaund any thing commaunded in Gods word or prohibite thinges by God prohibited If Luther respected not the Pope nor his decretale lawes it is no maruell seeing hee is no lawfull Prince but an Vsurper and the head and maintayner of Antichristes Kingdome Furthermore where hee and Caluin defend Christian mens libertye as touching their conscience they say no other thing then that which they haue learned and which euerie man may gather out of Saint Iames Chap. 4. where hee sayth there is owne Law-giuer that can saue and destroy As for Kellisons proofes they are eyther grounded vpon false reports or else containe matters impertinent First false it is that Luther exhorted the Germains not to take armes against the Turke Nay hee rather encouraged them to defend their countrie against the Turke onely shewing them that if they meant to preuaile against him they must first correct their liues and reforme their errors in Religion But whatsoeuer he said in this argument it concerneth this matter in question nothing Secondly hee was not King Henries subiect but dealt against him more freely as being by subtiltie of Papists set foorth to countenance the Popes leud cause Thirdly wee defend not the Rebelliō of the rustical Boores in Germany neyther did Luther spare to reprooue them and to write against them Beside that the cause of their insurrection was not Religion but temporall oppression Fourthly wee haue before declared what is Luthers Caluins meaning concerning the binding of mens consciences Fiftly the Germains and States of the low Countries are well able to cleare themselues from all blot of rebellion or imputation laid vpon them by this sycophant as may appeare to any that will reade their defences Finally the Christians in France neuer rebelled but onely tooke armes in defence of their liues against such as broke the Kings edictes and therefore haue beene iustifyed in their actions by the Kings themselues and by their edictes at diuers times Wherfore seeing their owne Kings did cleare them this swad hath no reason to accuse them In his second Chapter of his sixt booke he chargeth vs that our Doctrine dooth bring iudges and tribunall seates into contempt And his reason is partlye for that Luther and Caluin teach that the positiue lawes of Princes bind not in conscience and partlye for that they doe condemne the Popish Doctrine of freewill But his reason is so simple and soppish that it falleth of it selfe without our helpe For albeit the positiue lawes of Princes that haue no strength of Gods lawe doe not reach so farre as to binde the conscience yet all the lawes of Princes that haue their ground in Gods law doe binde the conscience also Likewise the authoritie of Princes is of God and therefore no man may resist thē without offence of conscience Furthermore albeit positiue lawes of Princes binde not in conscience yet they doe bind men to susteine the punishment inflicted by Princes lawes not direct contrarie to Gods lawes Finally albeit mā haue not freewil after the opinion of the Papists in discerning spirituall matters and dooing works pleasing to God tending to the ateining of eternal life yet he hath freewill to doe lewdly and therefore iustly deserueth to be punished This fellow therefore rather deserueth to bee punished that vnderstandeth our cause no better then admired for his profound sophistrie He addeth that it followeth by the Doctrine of these nouuellants that Princes haue no authoritie to commaund But then these olde hacsters must bring in new strange conclusions For as wee haue before declared wee maintaine the Princes authoritie against the vsurpation of the Pope and obey his lawes better then Papistes who for a long time haue stood for the Pope against their Princes both in France and other places Kellison like an old sycophant may therefore doe well seeing the Popes tyrannie is so newe to abstaine from charging others with noueltie and forbearing to rayle and lye to produce some better arguments In the third chapter of his sixt booke hee concludeth that wee bring Princes lawes into contempt and in the fourth and last Chapter that by our Doctrine neither the Prince is to rely vppon his Subjects nor Subiects vpon the Prince nor one vpon another And all this because Luther and Caluin teach that Princes meere positiue lawes doe not binde in conscience But as leapers that mistake their rising fall oft in the midst so disputers fayling in their groundes come short of their conclusion This position of Luther and Caluin I haue heeretofore shewed to haue beene quite mistaken by Kellison But had they taught so as he imagineth yet doe they neither bring lawes into contēpt nor breed any distrust or euil correspōdence betwixt Princes subiects For al Gods lawes binde in conscience mans lawes as farre as they haue vigor frō Gods law The authority of Princes is grounded vpon the Law of God From the same also not onely our duty towards our parents but also of husbands to their wiues wiues to their husbands of children to their parents contrarywise for the moste part receiueth strength Finally the same authoriseth diuers contracts willing vs so to doe to others as wee would haue others to doe to vs. Furthermore beside