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
to his clouen feete And lastly how it hapned that speaking of the Deuill in the first part of the period he forgot himselfe in the second speaketh of some member of the Deuill and of an Hereticke what are Heretikes discerned by their staring eyes and forked feete and such like partes he telleth vs also of the pecking of Birdes and the counterfeting of alchymistes grauers and Heretickes putting grauers of idolatrous images nere to Heretikes as they doe well deserue But what is that to vs if heretikes be such as counterfet religion and yet are gone out of the Church then concerneth it vs nothing For with our mouth we professe and with our hart we beleeue all the Christian and Apostolike faith and dissent not from the Apostolike church in any one article of faith professed publikelye for a thousand yeares after Christ Nay wee doe onely relinquish the Papists as Christians in old time left the Arians and Donatists and as some now leaue the Mahometans wherein they haue forsaken Christ and his truth Either then must this K. shew that as former heretikes haue done we broach some doctrine contrarye to the ancient faith or else hee talketh idelye of going out of the Church Maister Luther he left the Papists hauing once folowed their opinions but not in any point of faith but rather where they taught contrary to the faith Secondly neuer shall he prooue either that the professors of our Religion are of a later standing then the moderne Papistes or that our religion embraceth nouelties For Luther is not our founder nor any of late time but the Apostles of Christ Iesus whose doctrine left in deposte to the church we embrace detesting all prophane nouelties of Papistes Neither doe we bring in any new faith but reiect the popish later Heresies and corruptions though to some they seeme olde But saith Kellison the faith hath neuer increased in substāce but onely in explicatiō as if their Doctrine of traditions of Romish interpretations of the latin vulgar translation of the 7. sacramēts of iustificatiō by orders and extreme vnction of transubstantiation of the carnall eating chāping with the teeth of Christes flesh of the sacrifice of Christes body blood in the Masse vnder the accidentes of breade wine for quicke and dead and the Popes vniuersall Monarchie were matters of no substance or else as if the substance of these Articles had beene euer beleeued in the Church This he would insinuate but the noueltie of them is so apparent that his consorts are much puzled when they come to search them in auncient writers Thirdly we neither call our selues Lutherians Caluinistes Zuinglians nor any such particular names Neither is it materiall that the Papistes doe call vs in scorne by these names For who doth credite the malicious tearmes of enemies nay in this point we are more cléere then the papistes that call themselues some Franciscans some Dominicans some by other names which we doe not Fourthly wee renounce all old Heresies condemned by auncient Councels and pronounce Florinus that held God to bee the author of sinne Anathema The like we say of Eunomius Pelagius and their consortes Neither was Caluin of other opinion but that his malicious enemies doe falsely impute vnto him that he should teach that God is the author of sinne Wee doe not say with Iouinian that all sins are equall nor denie to the bodies of Christians decent buriall Nor did Hierome writing against Vigilantius allowe prayers to Saints departed or the merits of Monkery or teach as the Papistes doe of vigils or lightes set vp in churches at noone time But suppose he shold holde opinions cōtrary to the truth yet are not his wordes a rule of Heresie The second synod at Nice allowed a certaine reuerence doone to images but nothing so much as the Papistes now giue to them But whatsoeuer that synode decreed in that point the same was reprooued in a synod at Frank-ford and neuer generallye receiued eyther in the East or West Churches Aerius was reputed an Hereticke for Arianisme and not for finding fault with superstitious oblations for the dead Whatsoeuer his opinion was it toucheth vs nothing that doe allow the orders of the Church established among vs. Finally we anathematize the Heresies of the Simonians Menandrians and others whome he ridiculously surmiseth to haue bene condemned for denying the real presence of the Messalians and Caians whome he imagineth to haue beene accounted Heretikes for denying the sacramentes to conteine grace as the Papistes hold it of the Nouatians that denyed repentance to publike sinners of the Gnostikes Manichees and Encratites whome hee ignorantlye surmiseth to haue beene condemned for denying marryage to bee a Sacrament of Heluidius Rhetorius and all other auncient condemned Heretikes If then this Hereticke will obiect Heresies to vs hee must both set downe the wordes of the Heresie condemned by the Catholike Church and prooue that wee holde such an Heresie Fiftly wee want no proofe of our Religion which may be drawne from true succession For we do not only communicate in matters of faith with the Apostles but also with the auncient Bishops of Hierusalem Antioche Alexandria and Rome almost for a thousand yeares Wee succeede also to the Bishops of England before Bishop Cranmer in al things which they taught well and according to the Catholike fayth But could we shew no line of succession yet if we agree in doctrine with the Apostles and first Bishops of the Christian Church it is sufficient Ad hanc formam prouocabuntur ab illis ecclesiis saith Tertullian de praescript aduers haeret quae licet nullum ex apostolis vel apostolicis authorem suum proferant vt multo posteriores quae denique quotidie instituuntur tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae He telleth vs playnly that they are Apostolike Churches that teach the same Doctrine albeit they were not founded by the Apostles or Apostolike men nor had any succession of Bishops Likewise hee sheweth that they are the Apostles heires that hold that fayth which is conteined in their Testament Seeing then we do only publish Apostolicall Doctrine and purge away Popish errors our Churches are most truly Apostolicall But sayth K. pag. 196. This is to make bare Scripture judge of our Doctrine and as much as if we should say that the Church of God fayled and that the Synagogue of the Diuell possessed the world many yeares Hee telleth also how Luther in his preface before the disputation of Lipsia vanted that he had first published Christ But first this is a common abuse of Heretikes to call Scriptures bare Secondly false do clearely disperse this cloud of slaunder But his foolish attempt may giue cause to vs to touch both him and his consortes for their manifold and blasphemous impietyes In the beginning of his third Booke he sayth that as the Stoickes commend Zeno the Platonickes Plato the Peripatetickes Aristotle the
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
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
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
the aduersaries that wil haue Christ as God to act nothing but ascribe the whole office of Christes Preest-hood to the humane nature doe deuide the person and not onelye the two natures approching neerer to Nestorius then our teachers to error Finally hee alleadgeth the testimony of Egidius Hunnius against Caluin as if in expositiō of scriptures he did Iudaizare or fauour the Iewes But neither is the testimony of a sworne enemie to be much regarded nor hath any man that felicitie in expounding Scriptures that he fayleth in nothing In the second chap. he chargeth vs that we make Christ an absurd redeemer these are the words of this absurd surueyor And why so I pray you forsooth because we hope onelye to be iustified by Christes iustice But this doth not touch vs onely but the holy prophets apostles also God by his prpophet Isay c. 53. saith that his iust seruant shall iustifie many by his knowledge shal beare their sins The Apostle 1. Cor. 1. teacheth vs that he is made vnto vs wisdome righteousnesse sanctification redēption To make his matter good page 257. hee maketh vs to say that there is no justice but Christes justice nor good workes but Christes workes nor merit but his merit nor satisfaction but his satisfaction But these are his owne sottish ideotismes and not our wordes For wee doe not denye that there is a certaine imperfect iustice in man sanctified by Gods holy spirit and that such doe good workes pleasing vnto God We confesse also that man by sinne doth merit death albeit his workes be not so perfect that they can deserue eternall life Finally we know that the Fathers sometime accompt the obedience of the law to bee a satisfaction and so cal the performance of penalties enioyned by the Church But did we attribute all the honor of our iustification and saluation vnto Christ our Sauiour yet this is neither absurditie nor dishonour to him But this absurd and kettle Diuine dooth dishonour and blaspheme Christ ioyning the wordes absurd and redeemer together He doth also contradict the Scriptures where hee saith that Christ with one word or teare or drop of blood might haue redeemed vs. And therein he passeth the impudency of his holy Father Clement the sixt in the chap. vnigenit extr de poenit remiss for he saith one drop of blood would haue sufficed But this dropping dreary dunse addeth a teare or a word How cōtrarie they are to scriptures these testimonies declare Isay 53. therfore shal he deuide the spoiles of the strong because he hath giuen his soule to death Mat. 20. We reade that he came to giue his life a ransome for many and Luc. 24. that so Christ must suffer and 1. cor 15. that Christ dyed for vs according to the Scriptures Gal. 3 We learne that to deliuer vs from the curse of the law he was made accursed and Hebr. 2. that it was fitting that the author of our saluation should by suffering be cōsummated Heb. 9. that his testamēt could not bee fulfilled without the death of the testator Absurdly also he talketh of a storme raysed in heauen for the Sonne of God when Lucifer wold be like the highest For it is ridiculous to thinke of any stirre or storme raysed in Heauen where there is and alwaies was such quiet and content or to suppose that Lucifer contended with the Sonne of God Hee might doe well to tell vs what Deuill tolde him this For in holy Scriptures no such thing is found Finally describing the blessed state of man in Paradice and of his miserie being throwne out of Paradice vnawares he ouerthroweth with his boysterous eloquence two bulwarks of Popery to wit Freewill and Purgatory For if euery sinner bee a slaue to his flesh and a captiue to the Diuell and a slaue to sinne and the Diuell as hee saith then hath hee not freewill For to bee free and bound at one time implyeth contradiction Againe if the deuill hold sinners in hell perpetuallye as page 254. hee confesseth then there is no redemption out of Purgatory which as Papists teach is in hell Pag. 258. he chargeth vs farther that we teach that good workes are not necessary and thence inferre that no Lawes eyther humane or diuine can bind vs in conscience And lastly he sayth that we hold that no sinnes nor euill workes can hurt vs because Christes justice being ours no sinne can make vs sinners And so he runneth on in a course of wild eloquence like a Colte that hath broken his halter But as Hierome sayth in his Booke against Vigilātius stultum est fingere materiam cui rhetorica declamatione respondeatur It is a foolish and dizardly thing to feine matters thē in a rhetorical surueying declamatiō to answer In his fictions certes this man seemeth neither to haue reason nor conscience For first albeit we say that we are not iustified by workes yet we teach that as many as are iustified by faith in Christ are also sanctified by his grace and that workes are necessary effects of our iustification Secondly we directly affirme that Gods Lawes doe bind in conscience and mans Lawes as farre as they commaund for Gods Lawe albeit through Christ Iesus we are deliuered from the curse of the law being iustified by fayth and walking no more after the flesh but after the spirit Thirdly we beleeue that all sinnes and euill workes do hurt those that doe them Although we also beleeue that he who is borne of God and iustified by fayth sinneth not vnto death Finally most falsely he maketh vs to teach first that Christ hath redeemed vs because no sinne can hurt vs and next that we are deliuered from the Law because no Law can binde vs and thirdly that we are deliuered from the Diuel and Hel because howsoeuer we liue they cannot hurt vs. Nay we pronounce him anathema that shall hold that eyther sinne cannot hurt or that the Law bindeth not or that howsoeuer Christians liue they cannot be damned to Hell And thus much may serue to cleare vs from this barking curres slaunders But Popish Doctrine concerning our redemption is not so easily defended For Papistes beleeue that the Pope by his indulgences can redeeme soules from Hell They teach also that euery man is to satisfie for his sinnes committed after Baptisme But then Christ is but halfe a redeemer Neither do they sticke to say that the sonne of God assuming the nature of Thomas Aquinas or some other might haue redeemed the world which is contrary to all the promises made to the Fathers concerning the Messias to come of the seede of Abraham Kellison pag. 261. sayth that Christes Passion was not our formall justification nor satisfaction he should haue said Christes Passion obedience and iustice if he would formally haue crossed our Doctrine but only the meritorious cause of our redemption and saluation which deserueth for vs at Gods hands grace by which together with our cooperatiō we may
other places of Scriptures They alledge I confesse some words of the instituon of the Eucharist and that which Daniel speaketh of the dayly sacrifice and Malachy of the cleane oblation But they fit not the impure Masse nor the Idolatrous sacrifice of Baals priests destroying Christes institution and offring that which hee commaunded not to be offered but to bee receiued in remembrance of his death and Passion The Fathers also were ignorant of the histrionicall sacrifice of the Masse-priestes Neither was there any certaine Law or Doctrine established for it before the wicked conuenticle of Trent had enacted their sacrificing Lawes All which is prooued in my Bookes de missa against Bellarmine which this K. doth not make any hast to answer Nay he is more absurd then Bellarmine where he sayth that Christ powred out his blood at his last Supper For then hee should haue offered a bloody sacrifice at his last Supper and powred out his blood twise To conclude where he thinketh to commend vnto vs his massing sacrifice he sheweth that Popish religion is nothing but mere nouelties and fooleries surpassing the reach of common vnderstanding His third bolt is thus formed Lib. 4. c. 3. they haue noe certentie of Sacraments at all ergo no Religion And to prooue his antecedent he sayth that if any will forsake the Catholique Church and her beleife of seuen Sacraments that hee hath no morrall nor probable assurance of any Sacraments But first we deny that the particuler Church of Rome is the Catholique Church Secondly we affirme that the Catholike Church for a thousand yeares did neuer heare of 7. Sacraments onely and properly so called Thirdly it is absurd to thinke that the institution of confirmation and extreme vnction did aswell proceed from Christ as Baptisme and the Lordes Supper or that they worke like effectes Matrimony orders and repentance we confesse haue their originall from God but neuer as Sacraments of the new Testament For they were in vse before Christes time and want both formes of wordes and certaine signes and promises annexed to signes all which are necessarily required in true Sacramentes Kellison braggeth of proofes of Scriptures and Fathers for all matters But where are they we can see none brought by him Nay his Maister Bellarmine hath bewrayed the pouerty of his cause in this behalfe to no little discredit of himselfe and discomfort of his consortes If then they haue eyther no Religion or a gracelesse Religion that haue no assurance of seuen Sacraments as this K. confesseth then is Kellison and his company left either without Religion or with a gracelesse Religion Onely this is his comfort that if we haue no graceful religion yet he hath a greasie Religion and hopeth to be iustified partly by the greasing of his handes shauen crowne and partly by extreme vnction beeing well greased departing out of the world that hee may burne like a candle in purgatorie and slippe like an Eele out the gripes of Lucifer The fourth bolt is thus framed by this foolish surueying fletcher They detract from the dignitie of Sacraments and attribute litle vnto them Ergo they haue no Religion or a gracelesse religion But how doth hee prooue that we diminish the dignitie of Sacraments or attribute lesse vnto them then is due hee alleadgeth how some call them badges or signes and saith that we deny that they giue grace or effectuate any iote of sanctification in our soules more then the Sacraments of the olde law did But first no man among vs will say or euer did say that they serue onely for signes or badges of Christianitie and haue no other vse Secondly we all confesse that God worketh sanctification by the sacraments of the new testament albeit Gods power is not so tyed to sacraments as the Papistes teach who affirme that they conteine grace and giue that to the signe that is properly wrought and effected by Gods grace Thirdly wee teach that the Sacraments of the new Testament are Sacraments of things passed and exhibited as the sacraments of Moyses lawe were of things future yet we deny not that God wrought grace by them as hee dooth by these And this is consonant both to holy Scriptures and fathers Finally wee doe not derogate any thing from true Sacraments that by the word of God is due vnto them albeit wee preferre baptisme and the Lordes Supper before the pretended Sacramentes deuised by the aduersaries But if those haue no Religion that detract from the Sacraments then haue Papistes but a poore religion which rebaptise oftentimes those which are by vs baptised and in liewe of the holy Eucharist haue thrust into the Church the idole of the masse They haue also corrupted the Doctrine both of repentance of orders making their auriculer confession and humane absolutions and satisfactions parts of penance contrarie to all antiquitie and reordaining those that are duelye ordered by vs. Finallye they make their Preestes and Monks and Fryars to forsweare marriage and separate married folkes for Religion violating the rites of their owne pretended Sacraments The fift bird-bolt of this dog-bolt is shot against Luther Caluin Brentius Melancthon and diuers other learned Diuines whome hee chargeth to haue taken away in effect those Sacraments which they seeme to allow of But first hee should haue vnderstood if both his wits and brayne had not fayled him that there is great difference betwixt priuate opinions and Religion Secondly lewdely doth he prooue that which maliciously hee obiecteth vnto particulers Luther neuer said nor thought that eyther the wordes of baptisme as they are instituted by Christ may bee omitted or that the element of water may bee changed into beare or milke or other liquor Nay therein we reprehend the Papistes for that they are to bolde not onely in changing and adding wordes but also in taking away the Elements in the administration of Sacraments The which appeareth in that they haue thrust in these wordes aeterni and mysterium fidei into Christes wordes in the institution of the Cuppe and haue added to baptisme salte spittle and other elements and taken away the Cup from the communicates Caluin also with all his might defendeth the integritie of Christs institution both concerning the wordes and elements of the sacraments neuer called Christes words magical charmes albeit the Papists with wordes and a puffe of winde as with a charme thinke to transubstantiate bread wine into the Lordes bodie and blood Buccer in c. 26. Math. dooth not deny that wordes are necessarie in the Eucharist His wordes set downe will cleare him from Kellisons slaunder Luther where he saith that Children beleeue saith nothing but that which S. Augustine and others haue said before him Of actuall faith in Children he saith nothing albeit this K. doth actually and falsely report it Caluin lib. 4. Instit c. 16. 18. saith not that S. Iohn baptistes baptisme was as good as Christes baptisme but that his baptisme was one with Christes baptisme which is
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
appeare Saintes in the eyes of indifferent iudges in comparison of them If any man else doubt let him reade the actes of the Conuenticle of Constance against Iohn the 23. the reportes of Iohn the 12. Sergius the 3. Landus Gregory the 6 and 7. Alexander the 6. Paul the 3. Leo the 10. other Popes set downe in Histories To speake generally there is great difference betwixt the men of Geneua and Rome of England and Italy Finally he concludeth if faith onely doe iustifie that if a man retaine faith all the vilanyes in the world cannot hurt him that hee may assure himselfe he is iust howsoeuer he liueth And this hee goeth about to confirme by Luthers wordes which he reporteth thus Sola fides Christi necessaria est ad salutem cetera omnia liberrimaneque praeceptaneque prohibita Onely faith is necessary to saluation all other thinges are free and neither commaunded nor forbidden But as his dealings are dishonest so his conclusion concerning vilanies is most vilanous For albeit we hold that a Christian man is to be iustified by faith alone in Christ Iesus yet wee teach also that he abuseth Gods grace and deceiueth himselfe which walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit and liuing loosely and vngodly supposeth notwithstanding that he retayneth true faith Furthermore none of vs euer taught that euerie one is presently iustified that beleeueth himselfe to bee iust as this K. boldly auoucheth but hee that indeede truely beleeueth in Christ Iesus Lastly this sycophant dooth most vniustly wrest and misreport Luthers words For in his commentaries in Gal. 2. hee hath not the words alleadged by Kellison albeit hee boldelye affirme it Nay hee seemeth to write plaine contrarie Iustificato sic corde per fidem saith hee quae est in nomine eius dat eïs deus potestatem filios dei fieri diffuso mox spiritu sancto in cordibus eorum qui charitate dilatei eos ac pacatos hilaresque faciat omnium bonorum operatores omnium malorum victores etiam mortis contemptores inferni Hic mox cessant omnes leges omniū legum opera Omnia sunt iam libera licita lex per fidem Charitatē est impleta His meaning therefore is that those that are iustifyed by faith haue charitie and doe all good workes and auoide sinne not by constraint of lawes but mooued by Gods spirit working by faith and charitie and beeing stirred to doe well of their free choice And after the former wordes he addeth that a sinner looking for righteousnesse at Gods handes is not to looke vpon his owne workes but vpon God through Christ Are not these fellowes then strange collectors that conclude contrarie to a mans words and meaning and would make Luther a fauorer of licentiousnesse of life and an enemie of good workes who expressely condemneth al wickednes and commendeth good works detracting nothing from them but that they doe not iustifye before God but are rather fruites of iustification In the third Chapter hee affirmeth that Luther and Caluin in assuring men by an assured faith of electiō remission of sinnes justice and perseuerance in the same loose the bridle to all iniquitie But had not hee loosed the reines of his malicious tongue and suffered the same to range without restraint against such as defend the truth he would neuer haue vttered so much falsehood and villany against Luther and Caluin For they say not that whatsoeuer mens liues be they may boldly rely on Christ or else that men beeing clogged with al the sins of the world are to beleeue that they are iust as this surueying sycophant giueth out but rather that no mā is to presume of his faith or of Gods mercie or iustice without repentance and good life which are the fruites markes of a good faith And Luther albeit he say that life cannot be lost by any sinnes vnlesse a man will not beleeue yet hee doth not speake of sinnes to come but of sinnes past and doone away by the grace of Christ through baptisme and repentance Further out of Luthers wordes lib. de capt Babyl concerning the effect of faith he collecteth that howsoeuer a man liue though he bee neuer so incredulous in the Articles of his beleefe yet if he beleeue that hee shall be saued that it shall bee so But no such conclusion can bee drawne from his wordes or Doctrine Nay hée sheweth that good life cannot bee separated from true faith and neuer ment to disioyne the faith of the articles of the Creede from iustifying faith this beeing deriued from that faith Lastly albeit Christians being iustifyed by faith hope they shall bee saued yet no man euer beleeued that iustification is nothing else but an assurance that he shall bee saued as the Surueyor surmiseth Page 540. he calleth the faith of a mans owne saluation phantasticall as if the Apostle Saint Paul beleeuing that nothing should separate him from the loue of God were phantastical Furthermore how can a man professe himselfe a Christiā if he beleeue not remission of sinnes and eternall life and if he beleeue this how can hee chuse but beleeue his owne saluation againe how can we pray without doubting if we doubt of remission of sinnes which wee craue in the Lordes Prayer finally the Sacraments are seales of this assurance of saluation when they are applyed to euerie particular Christian His last reason or rather reasonlesse argument to prooue that assurance of faith bringeth foorth loosenesse of life is this because a man as hee thinketh may apprehend Christes justice to bee his eyther being mooued to sinne or being in the act of sinne But this is his owne weake surmise For hee that truelye apprehendeth Christ is clad with his iustice and guided by his grace and preserued from sinning And he that walloweth in sin and yet presumeth of Christes grace is not partaker eyther of his grace or iustice In his 7. Booke and 4. Chapter hee inueigheth against vs for teaching that sinne is not imputed to a faithfull man But all Christians are rather to exclaime against him that beleeueth that sinnes are neither doone away by repentance nor purged by faith in Christes blood but alwaies imputed vnto true beleeuers To helpe foorth with a bad matter hee saith that Caluin lib. 3. instit c. 14.17 and chap. 18.8 saith plainely that all iust and faithfull mens workes are sinnes But this is a plaine lye and sheweth that this surueyor dooth vse but little iust and plaine dealing For in those places no such thing is to be found Nay it implyeth contradiction to bee a good worke and a sinne both together After this hee concludeth because sinne is not imputed vnto them that beleeue that Christians are not to feare theftes or adulteryes or other sinne But his conclusion doth but lewdly follow vpon his premisses For albeit former sinnes are doone away by true faith and repentance yet all true Christians beeing once cured are to take heede they sinne