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
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
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
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
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