that teacheth that the authoritie of preachers is a sufficient assurance for Christians to builde their Religion and faith vpon As for vs wee beleeue them no further then they treade in the steps and continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets of God Secondly it is not sufficient to alleadge or pretend Scriptures but they must bee truelye alleadged Neither is the priuate fancie of euerie capriecious head to be equalled with the determinations of graue men and well experimented in Scriptures Lastlye there is no comparison betweene learned men called and allowed by the Church phantasticall fellowes that rashly presume to leape into the ministeriall function without eyther calling allowance or qualities fitting for such a calling In his second chapter he shameth not to say that those which ground their Religion on Scriptures which hee like a bad and bare fellow calleth bare set the gate open to all Heretickes and Heresies Thus our aduersaries aduauncing the Popes decretales and the vncertaine tradisions of the Romish Church detest the holy Scriptures and open their mouthes against God But wee are rather to beleeue Christ and his Apostles then such blasphemous gapers and speakers against holy Scriptures The Apostle Ephes 2. saith the faithfull are built vppon the Apostles and prophets Ephes 6. the word of God is called the sword of the Spirit And 2. Tim. 3. The scripture is commended as profitable to instruct and reproue and able to make the man of God perfit But neither may the ground of faith be tearmed a gate set open to Heresies nor is the sword of the spirit a meanes to breede errors Further how can the same be a gate set open to heretikes being able to make the man of God perfit certes if the allegation of Scriptures were a way to error our Sauiour Christ would neuer haue sent his hearers to search scriptures Neither would the auncient Fathers haue termed Scriptures a canon of faith if they had beene any gate set open to Heresies Irenaeus in his third booke against Heresies saith the Apostles first preached the Gospell and afterwards deliuered the same to vs in Scriptures that it might be a foundation pillar of our faith He sheweth also that it is the propertie of Heretikes when they are conuinced by Scriptures to accuse the Scriptures and to speake euill of them Origen in Math. tract 25. sheweth that Scriptures are to be brought for proofe of all Doctrines Neither neede we to doubt but that of themselues they are verie sufficient Our Sauiour Math. 4. by Scriptures onely ouercame the Diuell Neither did the auncient Fathers by other weapons preuaile against Hereticks In generall councels of olde time not the Popes decretales but the holy Scriptures were laide before the fathers Lastly if the word of God cannot be receiued it is farre more vnlike that Heretickes will respect the traditions or wrightings of men Neither is it material that Hereticks cauil against Scriptures and detort them to contrarie sences For such cauils and deprauations may easily be refuted by scriptures and to such abuses the wrightings of men are much more subiect then holy scriptures But saith Kellison The Deuill hath alwayes affected to be as like as may be to Christ and his Apostles in allegation of Scripture He maketh also a long and lewd narration of heretikes alleadging Scriptures But first most false it is that the deuil alwayes affecteth to alleadge Scriptures Nay he alleadgeth traditions customes and humane deuises more often then Scriptures False it is also that heretikes more often alleadge Scriptures then the testimony of traditions Fathers other reasons But suppose that heretikes should often alleadge Scriptures yet we are not to refuse that which by others is abused Neither doe wise men refuse meat because gluttons doe thereby surfet or forbeare to drinke for that drunkards abuse wine to excesse If then Kellison wil néeds folowe heretikes in calumniating scriptures and not forbeare as the deuil did to abuse Scriptures to contrary sence then must he giue Christians leaue to folowe Christ and his Apostles in alleadging Scriptures and not presume to condemne those which prefer Scriptures before traditions Gods worde before the Popes decretales Pag. 33. and 34. He runneth out into a large field concerning the possession of Scriptures which as he sayth belongeth to Catholikes not to heretikes But what may this make for Papists whom by many reasons we haue in our Challenge conuinced to be heretikes and not Catholikes Furthermore the question which he proposeth here concerneth the sufficiency and authority and not the possession of Scriptures But this is this Surueyors pleasure to abandon matters in Controuersie and to trifle about needlesse questions Afterward he sheweth why heretikes aledge Scriptures and mentioneth the decrees writings of the Pope the Church He endeuoreth also to prooue that Scripture is not easily to be vnderstood Matters much stood vpon by him but yet very impetinent in this place where the question is about allegation of Scriptures as an Argument of it selfe only sufficient Furthermore what if heretikes depraue and wrest Scriptures shal not true Catholikes rely vpon them Thirdly the Popes bulles and blundering decretales are not of such qualitye that they ought to be cōpared to Scriptures or mentioned where they are in place Lastly Scriptures in matters necessary to saluation are playne and easy But what if some places were difficult should we therfore absteine to alleadge Scriptures nay rather we ought diligently to study them that by vnderstanding of them we may resolue our difficultyes Tertullian alleadged by him pag. 37. doth not refuse flatlye to dispute with heretikes by Scripture or count such disputation lippe labour as this impudent compagnion falsely affirmeth For his common course was to conuince heretikes by Scriptures But if he thought it frutelesse at any time to alleadge Scriptures it was against such onely as denied the Scriptures Of holy Scriptures the prophane fellowe speaketh if not blasphemously yet basely and contemptibly pag. 35. he compareth them to colours vsed by foule women and to sweete odours vsed by sluttes pag. 39. he calleth them bare and compareth them to a nose of waxe and alloweth the saying of one that compared them to Aesops Fables especially vnderstanding the bare letter of Scriptures Finally he shameth not pag. 41. to say that the worde of God with a false meaning is the worde of the deuill Matters deseruing rather corporal punishment then verbal censures We may not therfore maruel if he rayle at Luther Caluin belying them without all shame or conscience First he sayth Luther dissaloweth S. Iames his Epistle He onely maketh it inferiour to other Canonical Scriptures as not esteemed to be his Secondly he chargeth Caluin and Luther with Misconstruing S. Pauls Epistles He should rather prooue it then falsely affirme it Thirdly he saith Luther doth discanon Iob jest at Ecclesiastes and contemne all the Gospels but S. Iohns the Epistle to the Hebrewes and that
answered by vs in a Treatise called Turco Papismus And that so sufficiētly that D. Gifford resteth eyther satisfied or silent If then this new surueyor would needes renew their slaunders and vaine obiections he should for his credit sake haue doone wel eyther to haue replyed to our answere or to haue held his peace as his betters haue done Againe if hee had beene so wise and circumspect as he pretendeth to bee he would haue been well aduised before he entred this course least he might giue vs occasion to rip vp the deformities fooleries absurdities Heresies impieties and other abuses of Popery of which I doubt not but his best friendes when they are laid open will bee much ashamed Himselfe being but a new vpstart Doctor lately crept out of my Lord Vauxes Buttery will bee much puzled to make any probable defence for them Thus much may serue for answere to the front of his Suruey and his two liminare Epistles For the rest I shall not neede to say much in this place Onely this I thought good to signifye vnto thee good Reader that thou looke not for any curious or long answere heereafter to wit that the whole volume is nothing but a newe packe of olde calumniations and lyes The forme of his discourse is trifling the Subject rayling Such declamations it should seeme hee was wont in the time of his butlerage to make ouer a canne of Beere His proofes are fancies and bare conceites His witnesses fellowes of a lowe price His conclusions weake collections It may bee eyther neede and hunger or else hope and promise of reward made him so talkatiue How be it least hee might grow proud of his owne prowesse I haue vndertaken to shape him a short answere In the meane while concerning his obiections and proofes this hee may learne of mee for his instruction First that it is a foolish thing for a man to obiect that to others whereof they are cleare and hee moste guiltie and to suruey other mens estates when his owne can abide no suruey Secondly that the bosome and domesticall testimonies of Cochleus Genebrard Bolsec Stapleton and such like are little to be esteemed Fidele est testimonium quod causas non habet mentiendi That testimony saith Hierome ad Saluinam deserueth most credit that hath no causes of fiction Be not then mooued with the largenesse of Kellisons volume nor with his manifold leasings Common barators are wont to put in longest billes whē they haue least matter and shallow waters make moste noise To such lewd and long lies this our short answere will be more then sufficient Vouchsafe therefore to compare both our discourses together and to reade them with indifferency And so thou shalt soone discouer the vanitie of his accusations and giue sentence for our innocency THE EXAMINATION and Confutation of Kellisons scurrilous Suruey of the newe Religion as he tearmeth it Chap 1. Kellisons fond conceit and error concerning the foundations of our Religion IF it be the part of a wise builder to lay a firme foundation as our Sauiour Christ Math. 7. teacheth and common experience prooueth most euidently vnto vs then we may wel collect that Kellison our aduersary in his Suruey hath shewed himselfe neither wise builder nor wise man who in his first booke going about to build the Toure of his Romish Babel doth wholy mistake his foundations laying the frame of his worke eyther vpon the Pope whome he supposeth to be a visible Iudge of all controuersies or vpon the mission and preaching of Romish Masse priestes Furthermore talking of our Religion he doth grossely erre in the foundations of it supposing that it relyeth first vpon the authoritie of our Preachers then vpon their allegations out of Scriptures thirdly vpon mens priuate spirits fourthly vpon credible or probable testimonies and lastly vpō some visible Iudge matters certes rather deuised by him selfe then taught by vs. The visible Iudge and authoritie of Priestes is layd as a foundation of fayth by Stapleton in his booke of doctrinal principles That which he talketh of priuat spirits and the allegatiō of Scriptures out of mens own humors is an imputation of Papists layd vpon vs and that most vniustly For we build the Church vpon the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ him selfe being the cheefe corner stone as the Apostle teacheth vs Ephes 2. And the Scriptures we receiue not as they are interpreted by the Massepriests or any mans humorous fancy but as they procéed from the spirit of God by the ministery of his Prophets and Apostles Wherefore mistaking the foundation of the worke we may well imagine that his discourse that is a worke raysed either without foundation or beside the foundation is most vaine idle and absurd The first Chapter of his first booke he beginneth with a long declamatory narration proouing that no man is to intrude him selfe into the function of the ministery of the Church without mission But what is that to the foundation of religion which is the subiect which he promised to handle Doth he suppose that the principal foundation of his Massing religion is layd vpon the preaching or rather not preaching mission of pol-shorne priests sent out by the Pope to say Masse for quicke and dead if he doe then like as his gunpowder consortes went about of late to blow vp the King and Sate so doth he goe obout to blow vp the Popes Chayre together with all his Cardinals Friars Monkes and Masse-priestes For first the Pope shall neuer be able to proue his mission Ephes 4. wee read that Christ gaue some Apostles some Prophets some Euangelists some Pastors and Teachers But the Pope is none of all these His state is too great to be conteyned within this small and weake number Further he is no successor of Peter For he rather killeth thē féedeth Christs shéep Thirdly he rather medleth with Swordes then Keyes and if he handleth the Keyes of the Church yet can he shewe no Commission for it Fourthly he is absurd if he clayme the right of a Bishop For he doth not the worke of a Bishop Lastly the Apostles Successors and Preachers sent from God procéed according to their Commission and Instructions receiued from God But the Pope procéedeth according to his owne Decretales and the rules of his owne Chancery Out then must he goe and all that pretend to come from him as méere intruders if we folowe the Apostles rules The Cardinals are but of a late standing S. Peter had no Cardinals about him Nor were the parish Priests of Rome that assisted the auncient Bishops of that Cittie so gallant fellowes as these new Cardinals are They neither preach nor Baptise as Cardinals And therefore cannot pretend right of succession eyther from the Apostles or from auncient Bishops or Priestes In the holy Scriptures albeit some alleadge the wordes Cardines terrae there is no mention of them Finallye the Fathers knew them not If then the Popes decretales warrant them not
should any deny them to be truly the Apostles successors Finally the defection of ordinary Priestes in the Romish Church being extraordinary we may not imagine that all ordinary rites and formes were to be obserued in the vocation of such as by the instinct of Gods holy spirit were stirred vp extraordinarily to restore the decayed partes and ruines of Gods Temple But sayth Kellison pag. 9. If their Preachers be sent by an ordinary mission let them shewe their succession And heere hee alleageth Tertullians wordes lib. de praescript aduers haeret concerning the orders of Bishops and succession from the Apostles And two places out of S. Augustine in Psal contr part Donati And contr epist fund where he speaketh of the succession of Bishops Againe he vrgeth vs if any thing were extraordinary in those which first reformed the Church to prooue their mission by miracles and runneth into a long discourse of the visibilitie of the Church of miracles and prophesies To which wee answere first that if the succession of Bishops were the onelye proofe of an ordinarie mission the Papists themselues were in bad tearmes hauing no proofes of their succession of popes so much bragged of but the testimony of Anastasius Platina Naucler Sabellicus Onuphrius Genebrard Baronius such like hungrie parasites of the Pope iarring and contending one against another like mastye Curres about a bone Secondly the Greekes Antiochians and Aegiptians pretend to this day succession of Bishops and yet are grossely fallen froÌ„ the faith want true Bishops Thirdly Tertullian S. Augustine speak of successioÌ„ of Bishops but neither of theÌ„ denyeth theÌ„ to bee Bishops or pastors that are not ordeined by a Bishop who was not ordered with al soleÌ„nities Fourthly we shew such a succession of Bishops as the Papists theÌ„selues cannot controle deriuing theÌ„ coÌ„cerning order externall formes from Bishops allowed by our aduersaries and concerning succession of Doctrine from the Apostles Fathers and auncient Bishops of the primitiue Church Fiftly the question concerning the visibilitie of the Church is diuers from that which concerneth succession For I hope K. will not say that hee euer saw the succession of Romish Bishops or that any Apostle saw his successors Lastly wee alleage that the old Prophets were sent extraordinarily and yet wrought no miracles Diuers apostolicall men likewise haue beene raysed vp by God at diuers times and yet wee reade not that eyther all of them prophecied or wrought miracles This being our answere of which Kellison could not be ignorant but that hee is eyther ignorant of matters in question or else voide of honesty and good dealing what is it I pray you that hee is able to alleadge against the vocation and mission of Gods ministers in our Churches First saith he Page 11. They say that the Apostles which were the first Bishops and Pastors had for a time their lawfull successors but that at the length the church fayled and the Pastors with it But while he talketh of mission he lyeth shamefully and without all commission For first wee distinguish both Bishops and ordinarie pastors from Apostles So doth the Apostle also Ephe. 4. Secondly we deny that Christs Church euer hath fayled Thirdly wee teach that the Apostles haue alwaies had some successors albeit neither in one place nor without all interruption If then he haue not fayled in true dealing let him set downe the authors names that haue affirmed this which hee reporteth and relate their words sincerely age 13. he addeth that Luther disobeyed the Pope and the Church and deuised a new Religion to cloake his villany But first the Pope and the Church are euill yoaked together For Christs sheepe heare not the voice of strangers Secondly these words of villany come out of his shop of mallice Lastly neuer shall this K. prooue that Luther deuised any new Religion For he onely impugned late errors and sought to bring Christians backe to the auncient Catholike faith Thirdly he shapeth an other answere for vs Page 14. maketh vs to say that wee had predecessors but they were inuisible But this abuse with he offereth vs is too grosse palpable for neither doe we make our predecessors inuisible Nor doe we denie that the ancient fathers holy Bishops of old time as they taught the Catholicke and apostolike faith and no more were out predecessors Fourthly hee telleth vs that such as pretend extraordinarie sending runne vnsent But he taketh vppon him too too arrogantlye to limit Gods power and seemeth plainely to contradict Gods word S. Paul Ephes 4 mencioneth Euangelists without limitation either of times or places and Saint Iohn Apocaly 11 foresheweth that God will giue power to his two witnesses preaching against the Kingdome of Antichrist and the abuses of their times Neither doth either Optatus or CypriaÌ„ or the Apostle speake any word against vs herein Optatus Lâ—b 2. contra parmen speaketh of some intruding donatists Cyprian of certaine presuÌ„ptuous Nouatians which as the Arch-priests Iesuites and Masse-priests doe in EnglaÌ„d thrust theÌ„selues into the ministerie in Africk without warrant The Apostle Eph. 4. leaueth out the Pope therefore ouerthroweth our aduersaries cause But hee saith not one word why Pastors and teachers may not sometime either hee sent extraordinarily or furnished with extraordinarie power Finally albeit the Church be built vpon a Rocke yet particular Churches Citties may fall into errors and hardly can bee reformed without some extraordinarie helpes Fiftly he affirmeth Page 19. that extraordinarie mission is alwaies to be prooued by extraordinarie signes and tokens of Prophecies or miracles And to this purpose hee feyneth that both Luther and Caluin endeuoured to prophecy and to worke miracles But the first is disprooued by the examples of the prophets and Apostles For neither doe we reade that all the prophets wrought miracles nor that all the Apostles prophesied Furthermore the Godly Martyrs of old time and the auncient Bishops were often indued with extraordinarie graces yet did they not all worke wonders and prophecy The second is disprooued both by our Doctrine and practise For neither doe wee now practise miracles or stand vpon prophecies nor doe wée teach that the Doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles or prophecies To conuince vs this K. produceth the testimonye of Cochleus Surius Staphylus Genebrard Fontanus Bolsec and such like fellowes But their testimonies are not worth a Nut-shell being hired to speake shame of the popes aduersaries Hee is verie light of beleefe that giueth credit to the wordes eyther of enemies or hired parasites Finally he concludeth Page 28. that we haue no assurance of our Religion by the authoritie of our Preachers being able to say no more then false Apostles for proofe of their authoritie Hee doubteth not also to affirme that both Brownists and those of the family of Loue may as well alleadge Scriptures and pretend to bee sent of God as Caluin and Luther But first he sheweth himselfe a simple Doctor of Diuinitie
these Cardines terrae or rather terren and carnall Cardinalls may goe in vltimos fines terrae that is into the vtmoste endes of the earth to seeke for their mission The Monkes and Fryars are no where mentioned in Scripture vnlesse it be Apocalyps 9. Where wée finde that Locustes did issue out of the smoke of the bothomlesse pit whereby is signified that by their smoky traditions they should obscure the light of the Gospell They succeede not Pastors and Teachers For their profession is pouertie chastitie and obedience to monkish rules and not to teach or administer Sacraments Hierome and all antiquitie put monkes after Priests and range them in another order Fryars entred but lately into the Church vnder the conduct of Dominicke and Francis Their authoritie is wholy from the Pope and other commission can they shew none Masse-priestes are not sent to preach and administer the Sacraments but to sacrifice Christs bodie and blood vnder the accidents of bread and wine for quick and dead as appeareth in the formall wordes of their ordination But such a mission is no where found in Scripture For our Sauiour instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist said accipite edite bibite That is take eate drinke and not sacrificate pro viuis et defunctis that is Sacrifice for quicke dead True it is that he saith hoc facite that is doe this But hoc facere doth no where eyther in Scripture or prophane Authors signifie sacrifice this Virgil is alleadged where one saith cum faciam vitula But if they bring no better proofes the Masse-priests will prooue themselues as wise as Calues For it is one thing to say facere vitula and facere hoc Beside that Virgil yet was neuer esteemed a good interpreter of Christes wordes To omitte Scriptures this sacrificing Preest-hood of the Romanistes hath no proofe out of Fathers For no where in any authenticall writing of theirs is any mention made of such an ordination Nay it is apparant that the same was first talked of by idle Schoolemen and authorized after a sort by the conuenticle of Florence vnder Eugenius the fourth Finally neither doe Scriptures nor Fathers mention any such real carnal and corporall sacrifice of Christes body and blood made in the Eucharist vnder the accidentes of breade and wine for the sinnes of the quicke and dead as I haue fully demonstrated in my Bookes de mâ—ssa against Bellarmine Nay the Canon it selfe dooth signifie that the sacrifice of the Church is offered as well by the people as the Priest as these words declare qui tibi offerunt But the Papists wil not say that the people offereth vp Christs body Further the Masse-priest prayeth that God would be pleased to accept the sacrifice but it is absurd to make a Masse-priest mediator for Christs body and blood If then they bee false Prophets Theeues Robbers that come without missioÌ„ or sufficient warrant then are the Popes of Rome Cardinals Monkes Fryars and Masse-priests false Prophets Theeues and Robbers And that may in part also bee prooued by the confession of our aduersarie For if as hee saith all are to bée reputed such that can neither shew ordinarie calling from the Apostles nor extraordinarie from the spirit of God then are they to bee shunned as false Prophets and false teachers and punished seuerely not onely as men lately besmired with Gunne-powder but also as false Theeues Robbers For extraordinarie calling they pretend none ordinarie calling authorized by Gods word they haue none as hath in part beene prooued Further we say that whereas two thinges are to be respected in ordination of Bishops Ministers of Gods word viz. the rite of ordination the substance of the function whereto they are ordeyned in the popish Church our aduersaries haue neither of these two lawfull First they haue no impositioÌ„ of hands by Bishops For they haue no lawful Bishops allow the impositioÌ„ of hands of Abbots Further their Bishops are no successors of the Apostles but the popes creatures that is rather a temporal prince then a Bishop The Monks and Fryars are rather called to doe pennance then to preach wheÌ„ they are shorne Secondly their Priests are not called to preach and baptise which was the forme and substance of the mission of the Apostles and their successors but to sacrifice Christes body and blood vnder the accidents of breade and wine for quicke and dead which forme and function neither Kellison nor all the rabble of Romish Priests and Fryars shall euer prooue to bee auncient lawful or authenticall Against our Bishops Priests and Deacons no such matter can be excepted For first it caÌ„not be denyed but that our Bishops were lawfully ordeined by imposition of handes of other lawfull Bishops The Ordination of Bishop Cranmer other Bishops then liuing the Papistes themselues cannot deny to be lawfull But from them other Bishops folowing receiued the rite of consecration Bishop Parker was consecrated by the imposition of handes of Bishop Barloe Bishop Couerdale Bishop Scory and two Suffragans mentioned in the Acte of consecration yet to be seene which not onely had succession from such Bishops as our aduersaries account lawfull but in deede were lawfull Bishops Our bretherne in Germany and Zuizzerland had imposition of handes from Luther Zuinglius Oecolampadius Bucer and others in France from Farel in Scotland from Knox and others whome the Papistes cannot deny to haue bene lawfully ordeined Priests at the least if their owne formes were lawfull And from these men their successors al other Pastors Ministers of the Church haue receiued the rite of impositioÌ„ of handes or ordination to the Ministery Neither is it materiall that the first preachers of the Gpspel in these Countries were not Bishops and so called as it was in England For suppose no Bishop would haue renouÌ„ced the heresyes of Popery nor haue taught sincerely should not inferiour ministers teach truth and ordeine other teachers after them Furthermore they wanted nothing of true Bishops but the name and tytle Finally the rite and imposition of handes by such as are called Bishops is not so necessary but that in a defection of Bishops of a nation and in case of other extreme necessitye Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers which is prooued first for that generally the Presbytery or Ministery of the Church hath right to impose handes and next for that the Keyes are called Claues Ecclesiae and not Claues Episcoporum and lastly for that necessitie admitteth not the obseruance of all ceremonyes As for example admit a multitude of Christians should goe into the Indiaes without ministers it is not to be supposed but they haue power to appoint Ministers among them selues in this case of necessitye Secondly it is certaine that the Bishops and Ministers of reformed Churches haue bene sent to preach and so administer the Sacraments by such as had authoritye in the Church and that they haue executed their function accordingly Why then
of Iude. But his writings doe refute these slaunders and nothing doth K. bring to iustifie them Lastly he sayth Caluin and Luther will haue the bare letter or joyned with their voluntary exposition to be Iudge of controuersies matters vtterly vntrue and improbable For neither doe we admitte the letter without the sence nor doe we allow voluntary or priuate expositions Pag. 46. he falsifyeth the testimony of Scriptures where he sayth Her selfe confesseth her owne obscurity For S. Peter 2. Epist 3. doth not say that the Scriptures are obscure as this K. pretendeth but only that certaine thinges in S. Pauls Epistles are difficult And psal 119. the Prophet compareth Gods word to a Lanterne and to light Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum sayth he lumen semitis meis If any obscuritie and difficultie be attributed to Scriptures by Fathers it is only in such poyntes as are not necessary to saluation Finally he reciteth the words of Luther concerning the plainnesse of Scriptures partially and obiecteth vnto vs the testimony of Osiander about the differences concerning mans iustification by Christ But neither is Luther to be blamed if he reprooue those that call Scriptures obscure nor is any credite to be giuen to Bellarmine citing Osiander nor to Osiander where he writeth against those that differ from him in the Article of mans iustification Long may he declayme against Luther and Osiander and others But nothing doth his reasoning or rather rayling against reading of Scriptures effect For who will not rather folowe the exhortation of Chrysostome exhorting lay-men to get them Bibles and to read Scriptures then regarde the babling of this Popish parasite that calleth readers of scriptures Biblists and sayth we holde that to be the true meaning of Scriptures which euery ones priuate spirit imagineth In the third chapter of his first book he disputeth against those which make their owne priuate Spirit supreme iudge in earth of the interpretation of Scripture The which as it lanceth the Pope deepely whose priuate and satanical spirit is the supreame iudge whome all Papists are bound to follow so it toucheth not vs at all For albeit wee refuse the Pope and his adherents for iudges yet we relye not vpon our owne priuate spirit in expounding scriptures but vpon the spirit of God that eyther speaketh plainely or expoundeth himselfe in some other place and for atteining the right vnderstanding of Scriptures vse the hope of tonges the exposition of fathers and all learned men the discourse of histories and all other good meanes Neither did Luther thinke or proceede otherwise Why then doth noth this superlunaticall Surueyor declare who they bee that doe attribute the publike and iudiciall interpretation of Scriptures to euery mans priuate spirit and in what place why doth he forge to himselfe an absurde opinion held by none that I knowe saue the Papists who in matters controuersed hold the Popes priuate definition for a supreme resolution would hee therein shew his triumphant eloquence if this were his purpose let vs see I beseech you what he performeth First he saith selfe loue is a good as guilding and then talketh of the goodmans Cowe Pans pipe Appolloes harpe painting of womens faces Hens and Chickens and such like fooleries But his horrible eloquence declareth him to bee the Chicken of a Buzzard and a blinde Harper that cannot discerne betweene selfe loue priuate spirits His reader also may see that hee hath as much skill in painting of faces as in expounding of scriptures And yet all his Cow eloquence wil not serue to couer the deformities of the painted whore of Babilon of whome hee is a deuoute seruant and vppon whome he bestoweth much complextion to no purpose Luther regardeth it not albeit some of the Fathers should speake against a point of faith neither would hee submitte his Doctrine to be iudged by the Romish antichristian prelates But that sheweth not that he preferred himselfe before any but rather that hee preferred the Scriptures and articles of Christian faith before all And to them he exhorteth all to submitte themselues ascribing nothing to his owne opinion But what if Luther shold haue spoken out of square what is that to the new Religion he speaketh off doth our religion depend vpō euery word of Luther certes no more then the faith of the Church of Rome vpon the idle discourses of Kellisons Suruey As for Caluin hee referreth nothing to his owne spirrit but to the rule of Gods word to which he submitteth his interpretations as well of these wordes hoc est corpus meum as of other places of Scriptures else where interpreted by him Finally we neither reiect Fathers nor Councels nor godlye pastors The skip-iacke surueyor therefore that calleth Luther and Caluin Skip-iacks and like a skip-iack running from matter to matter makes so long a declamation against selfe loue and ouer-weening a mans selfe did herein seeme to loue himselfe but too much and much to offend in ouer-weening and surcuydrie that pleased himselfe in this Chapter that is so farre from the purpose so false in respect of vs and so contrarie to himselfe and his owne cause His fourth Chapter he beginneth as his manner is with a pedanticall declamation against Parricides shewing how strangely they were punished being sowed into a sacke with a Cocke a Viper an Ape and a Dogge But to what purpose is all this doth he thinke that it is no lesse then the crime of Parricide to reiect some Fathers why then the Pope and his agents by the confession of this K. are all parricides and for their dogged and viperous apish and cockish natures deserue to be sewed in sackes as Vrbane the sixt did deale with certaine Cardinals with the beastes of like nature to be throwne into the sea As for vs wee reiect no Fathers that consent one with another and with holy scriptures in matters of faith but rather the bastardlye writinges of falsaries and of such as take vppon them the names of Fathers or else such as hold singular opinions or varie from the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles of Christ Luther had no reason in matter of the Sacrifice of the Masse to disclaime the fathers which all with one voice as I haue iustified against Bellarmine make against the carnall sacrifice of the Popish Masse for quicke and dead But if hee or Caluin or any other speake against Fathers it is not against all nor against the Bookes which are certainely knowne to bee theirs but against counterfet fellowes and some particuler opinions If Caluin should call the men of Trent Hogges and Asses he did them a speciall fauour For they shewed themselues to bée worse being open enemies of the Christian faith and moste obstinate oppugners of the truth But they are none of our Fathers nor of the Fathers of the Church Nor is the synagogue of Rome maintaining the abuses which we refuse our Mother but the Mother of fornications or as Petrarch calleth her the
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
also prooued for that Christ was baptized by Iohn and for that the Apostles were baptized with no other baptisme Neither dooth the example Act. 19. prooue it to bee different For eyther they were not well baptized that were baptized into Iohns baptisme or they were not rebaptized but onely had imposition of handes and the baptisme of Gods spirit True it is that caluin denyeth womē power to baptize so wold that aduersaries also if they did not corrupt al good orders But that addeth to the dignitie of the sacramēt He saith further that some that are not baptized may be saued And so the aduersaries graūt also especiallye when eyther Martyrdome supplyeth baptisme or a man seeketh baptisme and cannot haue it in time That the Children of the reprobate are not to be baptised or that the Children of the faithfull neede not to bee baptized Caluin neuer sayd nor thought Neither dooth hee say that wee receiue bare signes in the Lords supper but the communion of the body and blood of Christ If then this surueyor would haue set downe these learned mens wordes truelye then should hee haue had no reason to charge them with taking away the Sacraments or derogating from them But the Papistes while they depend wholy vpō the préests intention and chop and change wordes in the holy institution and take away not onely the substance of bread and wine but also the Cup from the communicantes doe indeede depriue Christians of the Sacraments Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 66. saith that baptisme may bee administred in lixinio that is in lye and Albertus in Brodio that is in pottage Dionysius Carth. in 4. sent dist 3. q. 2. saith that our Ladies name may be added to the name of the Trinity and yet all remaine good Potest in inuocatione beatae mariae fieri baptismus cum inuocatione Trinitatis Finally they teach that Dogs Hogs may eate the Sacramēt of the Eucharist vse to baptise belles These are the men therefore that abuse the Sacraments and depriue Christians of them not Luther or Caluin His sixt and last bolt is directed against the Liturgie and prayers of the Church But as in other places so heere also the man shooteth at rouers ranging vp and downe in an idle and tedious discourse concerning the excellency of prayer which no man calleth in question But that which in the title of his Chapter hee proposeth to himselfe hee forgetteth and cannot prooue viz. that eyther wee haue no prayer or else disorders in prayer Hee is not ashamed to affirme that wee haue no prayers at al on working daies But that is confuted both by common experience and the publike orders of the Church On Holy daies hee saith we spend our time in yelling out Geneua Psalmes So the Deuill teacheth him to yell out blasphemyes against the prayses of God in Psalmes translated out of holy Scriptures And why thinke you forsooth because wee admit not the filthie idolatrous prayers of the Masse and breuiaries and for that also wee pray in tongues vnderstood and with our spirit and vnderstanding and for that we vse not their Baals songs But when Christians consider how Papistes pray like Parrats not vnderstanding what they say and sing their monkish Hymmes call vpon they knowe not whome and send vp their prayers before stockes and stones they haue no occasion eyther to mislike our Prayers or Psalmes or to allow their owne Neither is it materiall that wee beleeue not that Prayers merit heauen or satisfye for our sinnes or that man naturally hath liberum arbitrium both in knowing and dooing thinges pleasing to God For albeit they merit not yet they both obtaine thinges necessarie and remooue thinges hurtfull Againe albeit wee cannot satisfye for our sinnes by prayers yet by them we obtaine remission of sinnes for which our Sauiour hath sufficiently satisfyed Finally albeit the natural man by freewil and nature dooth neither vnderstand the thinges of God nor pursue after thinges pleasing to God yet directed by Gods holy spirit by prayers wee obtaine Gods grace that both enlightneth our vnderstanding and helpeth our weakenes So in all these cases prayer is profitable Furthermore albeit wee teach that man is iustified by faith and that euerie true Christian led by Gods spirit is to assure him selfe of Gods fauour yet are wee not to neglect the meanes nor to contemne Prayers which are exercises of our faith and helpe to confirme vs and are meanes to obtaine thinges necessarie for vs. The Surueyor therefore that concludeth against the meanes because wee assure our selues of the end promised vnto vs through Christ Iesus is but an ideot disputer For albeit wee hope to attaine to the end yet wee doe not deny ordinarie meanes Chap. 8. The Surueyors calumniations against our Doctrine concerning God refuted AS it is a heynous Heresie to make God the author of sinne and condemned in Florinus and Blastus so it is a heynous calumniation to charge innocent christians with so heynous a crime as to hold God to bee the author of sinne All this notwithstanding Kellison a Surueyor as hee calleth himselfe but not for Christ but for Antichrist will needes affirme that wee make God the author of sinne and wickednes But what if we teach contrarie will it not appeare that the author of sinne was author also of this shamelesse and sinfull slaunder well then let vs see what is publikelye professed by the reformed churches In the confession of the French Church we reade that God is not the author of euill and that he is cleare of all blame for thinges done euill The Heluetian Churches condemne Florinus and Blastus for maintaining the contrarie Doctrine Damnanus say they Florinum Blastum omnes qui deum faciunt authorem peccati The same also wee doe both in our writinges and Sermons publikely teach and professe Neither can this K. alleadge either sentence or word to the contrarie But saith he lib. 5. c. 1. Caluin and his followers auouch that God immediatelye and directlye is the author of wickednes and Melancthō in Rom. c. 8. auoucheth that Dauids adultery Iudas treachery were as much the work of God as S. Paules vocation He saith also that Beza diuers others haue like sayings But first wee are vniustly charged with euery priuate mans opinions neither will our aduersaries thinke it reason in their owne case to bee so vsed Secondlye Caluin is much wronged by this foule mouthed curre For he is so farre from saying that God is the author of all wickednesse that expressely lib. 1. instit c. 18. he teacheth that God is author of no wickednesse Falsely also dooth he charge Caluin to say that God not onely foreseeth mans sinnes but hath created him of determinate purpose to that end Hee saith onely that God dooth not onely permit men to doe what they will but dooth gouerne their actions and direct them to such endes as he appointeth not that he willeth or acteth their sinne