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
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
his fellowes calumniations from the grounds and articles of our religion And euill doth he deserue the title of a Doctor professor of diuinitie which so often speaketh against Scriptures and lib. 1. cap. 2. calleth the proofes grounded vpon them bare and rather deriueth his diuinitie out of the sinkes of School-men and corrupt puddles of Philosophers then out of holy Scriptures Lib. 1. cap. 3. he calleth the working of Gods spirit a fancy Lib. 7. cap. 7. he blusheth not to write that justification by fayth in Christ without workes is a doctrine opening a gappe to all sinnes Against Christs Priesthood this priest of Baal talketh prophanely as if the same were imperfect without the addition of Romish Masse-priestes And with Christs Sacrifice he compareth nay he equalleth the sacrifice of the Masse Of Christian libertie he discourseth freely but very fondly and falsely denying that the same consisteth any whit in the deliuerance of mens consciences from the cursse of the law from the yoke of Iewish ceremonyes and humane traditions Against the assurance that Christians haue of Gods fauour and of their owne saluation he runneth out and reuelleth as if it were a dangerous poynt of doctrine and a cause of diuers inconueniences all which doe argue that he is but a kettle-doctor of diuinitie and a professor like to those of whome the Apostle speaking Rom. 1. sayth When they professed them-selues wise they became fooles In matters in Religion and Diuinitie he tumbleth him-selfe as the olde Prouerb sayth Tanquam Asinus in vnguento that is as an Asse smeared with a costly oyntment For although the profession of diuinitie be honorable yet it fitteth this Beeredrawer or Tapster that calleth him-selfe a Doctor and professor of Diuinitie no better then it fitteth an Asse to be perfumed with Muske and Ciuet. For his deuise he chuseth these two Sētences Doe men gather Grapes of thornes or Figs of thistles They shal prosper no further For their folly shal be made manifest to all The first being takē out of Mat. 7. the secōd out of 2. Tim. 3. both seruing vs to cōclude against him his consortes whose discourses are rather like bundles of thornes thistles then like Grapes Figges It seemeth when he framed them he shooke his lippes like an Asse cropping of thistles From a man of such a distemperd humour we are not to looke for better frutes And certes no maruel if such lying and rayling courses prosper not Mendacia non diu fallunt sayth Cyprian lib. 1. epist 3. That is Lyes doe not long deceiue neyther doth darknesse continue when the day beginneth to appeare Now their lying and cogging all their fooleryes are daily more and more made manifest Euripides in Andromacha speaking of the Spartans calleth them Kings of lyes and sowers of mischiefe And Athanasius ad Constantium speaking of the Arians Miror sayth he eos sine vlla abominatione aut horrore mendacij ita falsa c. potuisse dicere I wonder how without horror and abhomination of the fact they could deuise thinges so false But with far better reason we may say this of Kellison other our aduersaryes who in lying and aequiuocating passe both Spartans and Africans and lay plots of mischiefe neuer heard of in anye age before They make no Conscience what they sweare We may not therefore thinke it strange if he speake any thing sounding to our disgrace most falsely As Tertullian lib. contra Hermog sayth of that heretike so we may say of Kellison Loquacitatem faecundiam existimat c. He thinketh babling to be eloquence and impudencye to be constancye And these are the frutes and effectes of Kellisons labours It resteth thē hauing spokē of the Tytle front of his worke that wee doe our endeauour to make this mans folly appeare most manifestly in the rest of his Suruey that wee prescribe some Triacle to such as otherwise might percase taste of his poysoned discourses But before we passe any further wee are first to examine his two praeambular Epistles wherof the first is directed to the King the second to euery other Reader Vnto Kings men of discretion vse not to present trifles or else matters not pleasing their humours or not sorting with their royall Majesties excellencie endeuouring as much as in them lyeth to make their giftes correspond with their greatnesse But Kellison respected all this nothing For albeit this Suruey be a most idle deuise and most vnworthy to be presented to so wise learned pious and famous a King as conteining nothing else but a fardle of lyes calumniations and fooleryes and certaine odde fragments of olde declamations euaporated with age Yet no inferiour person could satisfie him then our King such was his arrogancye and impudencie Nay albeit he plainly perceiued incongruitie yet could he not forbeare to prease into the Kings presence and there to offer vp a sacrifice of his Suruey a fitter offring for Vulcan then for any man of note or dignitye He supposeth that therein he hath committed only three inciuilities But if he would haue spoken plainly hee should haue named them three grosse absurdities as indeed they are For first what is or can be deuised more absurd then for a bald idolatrous Masse-priest to presume to present himselfe before a religious and Christian King enimie to all Idolaters and Priests of Ball for a sworne slaue of King-killing Popes and a teacher and a maintainer of their wicked disloyall doctrine to presume to appeare before a King whose life he his consorts haue sougnt to take away and whose Royall authoritie and Honour all Papists doe empaire and whose Crowne all Masse-priestes seeke to deliuer into the Popes hands For a fugitiue and an enimie to his Prince Country boldly to speak to so mightie a King and so kinde a Father to his Country and subjects Secondly might such an idolatrous Saltpeter-priest and a fugitiue Traytor be pardoned for his arrogant and presumptuous boldnesse daring to come into a Princes presence that is so hardly pressed with the great weight multitude of the affayres of state as himselfe confesseth yet modestie might haue taught him if any sparke of modesty had been in him we may not forbeare to tell him that it is too great rudenesse for fugitiues to thrust in among the Peeres of the Realme and for base cōpanions to appeare without cōmission among the Ambassadours of great Princes as he hath done Thirdlie if needs he would presse into the Kings presence and like a Kettle-maker stand among great men with his present then hee should haue thought vpon some thing that might be more gratefull then this scurrilous Libel containing nothing but calumniations inuectiues and declamations against that Religion which both the King and his people professeth shall alwayes be justified to be most true and Apostolike against him and all his partakers At the least if he had nothing to offer that might please so great a
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
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