❧ The Examination and Confutation OF A certain scurrilous treatise entitled, The Survey of the new Religion, Published by Matthew Kellison, in disgrace of true religion professed in the Church of England.  Matth. 5. 
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all evil of you falsely for my name's sake.  Psal. 59 
In the evening they shall go to and fro, & bark like dogs, and go about the City. They shall run here and there for meat: and surely they shall not be satisfied, though they tarry all night.  
LONDON Printed by E. Allde for Richard Serger and Edmund Weaver, & are to be sold at the great north door of S. Paul's Church. 1606.   

TO THE HONOURABLE Sir Thomas Fleming Knight, Lord chief Baron of his Majesty's Court of the Exchequer.  
I Do here present your Lordship with a small Treatise. Small, I say, in respect of my labours (for what should I need to labour in answering so frivolous & trivial matters) and not great in respect of the volume, for that few words might serve to clear all doubts, that stand upon our adversaries bare words. Yet I hope, it shall not be esteemed either untimely or unprofitable, if we regard the argument. For it containeth a necessary defence of our Christian faith, and of the professors thereof against the wicked calumniations of a railing masspriest called Kellison, and a sober answer to his virulent, and per case vinolent invectives, by him entitled a Survey of the new Religion.  
The reasons that moved me to direct this discourse to your Lordship are divers. First your deep judgement and skill in matters of this nature. Next your piety and zeal for the cause of Religion. Thirdly your place in this Christian Commonwealth. And lastly those honourable favours, which it hath pleased your lordship to show to me in particular, and to God's Ministers in general. For if the same were approved by a man of such authority and judgement, I doubted not, but it would receive grace the rather in the common estimation of others. And being published in defence of piety and Religion, I presumed it would receive good entertainment at the hands of every man studious of truth and piety. Furthermore if any false companion should take upon him, either to give out false particulars of his majesties lands, or to make a survey of them without warrant, or judgement, it belongeth to your place in this state, to revew and control his indiscretion, and to punish his presumption. Much more therefore behoveth it you, considering your function & eminent place in this Christian state, to concur with us in censuring this mad Surveyor of Religion & controlling his indiscreet & ranging discourse having in so many particulars wronged the King of Kings, and his eternal truth.  
What the end was of this his Survey we may easily conjecture. As the Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees by railing against Christ and his Apostles sought to draw the people's affection from them, and to allure them to like their errors; so this Priest of Baal by his slanderous imputations laid upon Christian Religion, and the professors thereof seeketh to disturne men from the love of truth, and to draw them to Popish errors. It may be also, that seeking to defame others, he thought to qualify the enormities of his own consorts, and their wicked heresies. The Donatists, as Optatus in lib. 1. adverse. Parmen. testifieth, went about to defame other men's lives, that they might cause their own faults to be passed in silence.  crimina in silentium mitterent sua, vitam infamare conati sunt alienam.  
What substance is in this worthless work it appeareth plainly by his tedious preambles, idle discourses, false collections, weak conclusions, forged allegations, & his other fooleries too common in every Chapter. The whole volume of his sycophantical Survey is nothing else, but a composition of divers old ends of childish declamations, mingled with a decoction of stolen calumniations against particular men many times, and in divers Books rejected by us, and now again brought forth by him, thereby to empoison his credulous followers, if they happen to taste so unpleasant a potion. This Book he had little reason to call a Survey of Religion. For therein he neither observeth rules of Religion, nor of common civility. It might rather have been titled a surfeit of a mad mass-priests malice, degorged out of a corrupt stomach fraught with undigested humours of Popish calumniations & Heresies. Quod descriptionis dedecus? saith Hierome Lib. 1. contr. jovinian. That is, what a shameful Survey is this? But better may we apply these words to this Survey. For it is both shameful, and harmful, and seemeth to savour rather of a madman's malice, then of a Doctor's learning and sobriety. As Epiphanius saith of Photinus haeres. 71. Verba maledicentiae neutiquam consistere valentia evomuit. He hath degorged against us many railing terms, but they have neither ground, nor coherence.  
I need not insist long to tell your Lordship, what manner of man this Kellison is. Let his Book and our answer speak. He calleth himself a Doctor. But as Hierome epist. 61. speaking of a certain Bishop doubteth whether ludio an episcopus loquitur, so I may doubt of this Doctor, whether he was an Italian mountebank, or a Doctor of Douai. Some say it is not long since this great Doctor was my Lord Vauxes Butler. And the rather I believe it, for that he hath set us a broach a Butt of his own errors, lies, and fooleries. His friends suppose, that as his heart is become Spanish, so he hath better grace in drawing of Spanish wine then in talking of Religion.  
Little did either the man, or his matter deserve answer. But yet for the instruction of the simple, and confirmation of the weak, I have bestowed some labour in examining the particulars of this Survey. Weak men, and such as have no strength often are overthrown by weak adversaries. In pugna pug●lum et gladiatorum saith Tertullian lib. de praescrip. adverse. haeret. plerunque non quia fortis est vincit quis, aut quia non potest vinci, sed quoniam ille qui victus est, nullis viribus fuit.  
If by our labours either the weak be confirmed, or the strong emboldened, and stirred up to contend more resolutely for the truth; they are in part to ascribe the same to your Lordship, by whose protection I have the more firmly withstood the malice of such, as went about to stop the course of my studies, & to whose Patronage I consecrate this my brief censure of a malicious adversaries survey. It should have come forth long since, if either my troubles had given me leisure, or my means ability, to publish it. But I thank God, that the same encumbrances do not hinder it still.  
Vouchsafe therefore, my good Lord, to accept of this small discourse, as a memorial of my dutiful affection towards your Lordship, and a testimonial of my grateful acceptance of your love and favour towards me. And as you have always professed the true Christian and Apostolic faith, and detested all errors and abominations of Popery; so still endeavour zealously to maintain the same truth against all the calumniations & treacherous practices of all such, as audaciously and impudently oppugn the faith and seek to draw men into errors God will honour those that seek his honour unfeignedly, and such as carry themselves as lukewarm, shall be cast out of his mouth, and deemed unworthy to rest in his holy Mountain. Thus relying upon your favour, I commend this Treatise to your Lordship, and your Lordship to the Almighties protection, beseeching him to bless you and yours in this life, and in the life to come to give you a crown of glory promised to all those that shall persever to the end, and manfully and seriously contend for the maintenance of truth, and the setting forth of God's Glory.  
Your Lordships in all dutiful affection Matthew Sutcliffe.   

The Contents of the Book.  
THe Preface to the Reader, wherein Kellison's two Epistles or preambles are censured, and divers points noted in the title and front of his Book.  
Chapter 1. 
Kellison's fond conceit & error, concerning the foundations of our religion, is noted, and divers errors of his first book refuted.  Chap. 2. 
The foundations of Popish religion discovered to be most weak and foolish.  Chap. 3. 
The motives to Popish religion mentioned by Kellison compared with the motives of true religion. Therein also the true motives to Popery are expressed.  Chap. 4. 
Of the marks and properties of heretics.  Chap. 5. 
An answer to kellison's calumniations against the doctrine professed in the Church of England concerning Christ his person, and his two natures.  Chap. 6. 
A collection of certain absurd & blasphemous assertions of the Papists concerning Christ his incarnation, person, natures and offices.  Chap. 7. 
An answer to kellison's calumniations, charging us, either to have no religion at all, or a graceless religion.  Chap 8. 
The Surveyors calumniations against our doctrine, concerning God, refuted.  Chap. 9 
That our doctrine giveth due obedience and respect both to Princes, and to their laws.  Chap. 10. 
That our doctrine leadeth men to virtue, & deterreth them from vices.  Chap. 11 
A rejection of Kellison's slanderous accusations, imputing in his 8. book, Atheism, & contempt of religion to the professors of true religion in the Church of England.    

THE PREFACE TO THE READER: Containing a brief Censure upon the Title and the front of kellison's Survey, and his two liminare Epistles and Praeambles.  
THe Devil, as we read job 1. is said To compass the World, and to walk through it, and experience teacheth us, that he is a very busy & curious Surveyor. We are not therefore to think it strange, if his children do imitate their father, and prove great compassers of the world, and contrivers of plots and surveys, to bring men within the circle of their own errors. Among the rest, one Kellison a copper kettle Masse-preist, hath showed himself a great compasser of sea and land, to win proselytes to the Synagogue of Antichrist, and a busy and captious surveyor to espy motes in our Christian faith: & for this end hath set out a large volume, called The Survey of the new Religion.  
But first we say to him, as Christ said to a man of his quality. Hypocrita, primum eijce trabem etc. Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou shalt more easily see to take a mote out thy brother's eye. So we pray him to discharge his Romish religion of the just imputation of novelty, & then he may with more reason tax others for maintaining new religion. As for our Religion, it is unjustly and absurdly termed new. For as Ignatius said in his Epistle to the Philippians, Christ is our antiquity. And in religion that is most ancient, that is from the Apostles, as Tertullian doth signify. If then our Religion be from Christ, and is grounded upon the holy Scriptures, and not upon late Decretales, and the opinions of Popes, Schoolmen and Canonists: how is the same reputed new? doth not Kellison remember, that the somme of our whole desire is, that Popish novelties, and the late Tridentine doctrine being abolished, we may return to the ancient, Catholic and Apostolic faith?  
Absurdly also he & his consorts repute the Romish modern religion to be ancient, seeing the same, as it differeth from the religion professed in the Church of England, is nothing but an hochpot of heresies, and erroneous & corrupt doctrine, either derived from late Schoolmen, or first established by the late Conventicles of Trent, Florence, Constance, and Lateran, or by little and little confirmed by corrupt custom. The Popish Mass (as it now standeth) is but a late patchery. In the old ordinal of Rome it appeareth, that neither private Masses, nor half Communions, nor Transubstantiation, nor the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood contained under the accidents of bread and wine, for quick and dead, nor the adoration of the Sacrament with latria, nor prayers to Saints, and for the dead, were in use in ancient time. The Fathers do no where teach, that brute beasts receiving a consecrated host, eat Christ's flesh, or that Christ's flesh is received down into men's bellies: nay they teach quite contrary. The Bishops of Rome for many years used not the temporal sword; Neither was the Pope Lord of Rome until the time of Boniface the 9 Gregory the first condemned both the universal authority of one Bishop over the rest, and the adoration of Images. Never was it imagined before the time of the Conventicle of Trent, that every pield masspriest, as oft as he said Mass wrought three miracles. The necessity of auricular confession, was first decreed by Innocent the third. The number of 7. Sacraments albeit before talked of idly by Schoolmen, was not by any public authority received before the Conventicle of Florence. Finally, it is easy to show, that the Pope's doctrine concerning Indulgences, Purgatory, the worship of Saints, and Images, extreme unction, and other points of religion in controversy betwixt the Papists and us, is lately brought in, and more new than that religion which we profess, & which by Kellison is lewdly and falsely called new.  
Many wonder also, why he should call his Treatise A Survey of the new Religion: seeing the points which he handleth, are neither matters of religion, nor professed by us, nor proved against them, upon whom they are fathered by Cochleus, Staphylus, Genebrard, Bolsec, Stapleton, Sanders, and such like lying parasites.  
He professeth himself a Doctor, but his Discourse declareth him to be in the number of those of whom the Apostle speaketh 1. Tim. 1. Which would be Doctors of the Law, and yet understand not whereof they speak, nor whereof they affirm. If he have no more knowledge, than he hath showed in this Survey, he is a Doctor and professor of Divinity of a low price. Little certes doth he understand, what that profession meaneth, that could not distinguish his own, & his fellows calumniations from the grounds and articles of our religion. And evil doth he deserve the title of a Doctor, & professor of divinity, which so often speaketh against Scriptures: and lib. 1. cap. 2. calleth the proofs grounded upon them bare: and rather deriveth his divinity out of the sinks of Schoolmen, and corrupt puddles of Philosophers, than out of holy Scriptures. Lib. 1. cap. 3. he calleth the working of God's spirit a fancy. Lib. 7. cap. 7. he blusheth not to write, that justification by faith in Christ without works, is a doctrine opening a gap to all sins. Against Christ's Priesthood, this priest of Baal talketh profanely, as if the same were imperfect without the addition of Romish mass-priests. And with Christ's Sacrifice he compareth, nay he equalleth the sacrifice of the Mass. Of Christian liberty he discourseth freely, but very fond, and falsely denying, that the same consisteth any whit in the deliverance of men's consciences from the curse of the law, from the yoke of jewish ceremonies, and human traditions. Against the assurance, that Christians have of God's favour, and of their own salvation, he runneth out and reveleth, as if it were a dangerous point of doctrine, and a cause of divers inconveniences: all which do argue, that he is but a kettle-doctor of divinity, and a professor like to those, of whom the Apostle speaking Rom. 1. saith, When they professed themselves wise, they became fools.  
In matters in Religion and Divinity, he tumbleth himself, as the old Proverb saith, Tanquam Asinus in unguento, that is, as an Ass smeared with a costly ointment. For although the profession of divinity be honourable; yet it fitteth this Beeredrawer or Tapster, that calleth himself a Doctor and professor of Divinity, no better, than it fitteth an Ass to be perfumed with Musk and Civet.  
For his devise he chooseth these two Sentences, Do men gather Grapes of thorns, or Figs of thistles? &, They shall prosper no further, For their folly shallbe made manifest to all. The first being taken out of Mat. 7. & the second out of 2. Tim. 3. & both serving us to conclude against him & his consorts, whose discourses are rather like bundles of thorns, & thistles, then like Grapes & Figs. It seemeth when he framed them, he shook his lips like an Ass cropping of thistles. From a man of such a distempered humour we are not to look for better fruits. And certes no marvel, if such lying and railing courses prosper not. Mendacia non diu fallunt saith Cyprian lib. 1. epist. 3. That is, lies do not long deceive, neither doth darkness continue, when the day beginneth to appear. Now their lying and cogging, & all their fooleries are daily more and more made manifest. Euripides in Andromacha speaking of the Spartans', calleth them Kings of lies and sowers of mischief. And Athanasius ad Constantium speaking of the Arians: Miror (saith he) eos sine ulla abominatione aut horrore mendacij ita falsa etc. potuisse dicere. I wonder how without horror and abomination of the fact, they could devise things so false! But with far better reason we may say this of Kellison & other our adversaries, who in lying and equivocating, pass both Spartans' and Africans, and lay plots of mischief never heard of in any age before. They make no Conscience what they swear. We may not therefore think it strange, if he speak any thing sounding to our disgrace most falsely. As Tertullian lib. contra Hermog. saith of that heretic, so we may say of Kellison. Loquacitatem faecundiam existimat etc. He thinketh babbling to be eloquence, and impudency to be constancy. And these are the fruits and effects of kellison's labours.  
It resteth them, having spoken of the Title & front of his work, that we do our endeavour to make this man's folly appear most manifestly in the rest of his Survey, & that we prescribe some treacle to such as otherwise might percase taste of his poisoned discourses. But before we pass any further, we are first to examine his two praeambular Epistles; whereof the first is directed to the King, the second to every other Reader.  
Unto Kings, men of discretion use not to present trifles, or else matters not pleasing their humours, or not sorting with their royal Majesty's excellency, endeavouring as much as in them lieth, to make their gifts correspond with their greatness. But Kellison respected all this nothing. For albeit this Survey be a most idle devise, and most unworthy to be presented to so wise, learned, pious and famous a King, as containing nothing else but a farthel of lies, calumniations, and fooleries, and certain odd fragments of old declamations evaporated with age: Yet no inferior person could satisfy him, than our King; such was his arrogancy and impudency. Nay albeit he plainly perceived incongruity, yet could he not forbear to press into the King's presence, and there to offer up a sacrifice of his Survey, a fit offering for Vulcan, then for any man of note or dignity.  
He supposeth, that therein he hath committed only three incivilities. But if he would have spoken plainly, he should have named them three gross absurdities, as indeed they are. For first, what is, or can be devised more absurd, then for a bald idolatrous masspriest, to presume to present himself before a religious and Christian King, enemy to all Idolaters, and Priests of Ball? for a sworn slave of King-killing Popes, and a teacher and a maintainer of their wicked & disloyal doctrine, to presume to appear before a King, whose life, he & his consorts have sougnt to take away, and whose Royal authority and Honour, all Papists do impair, and whose Crown all mass-priests seek to deliver into the Pope's hands? For a fugitive and an enemy to his Prince & Country, boldly to speak to so mighty a King, and so kind a Father to his Country and subjects? Secondly, might such an idolatrous Saltpeter-priest and a fugitive Traitor be pardoned for his arrogant and presumptuous boldness, daring to come into a Prince's presence, that is so hardly pressed with the great weight & multitude of the affairs of state, as himself confesseth? yet modesty might have taught him, if any spark of modesty had been in him, & we may not forbear to tell him, that it is too great rudeness, for fugitives to thrust in among the Peers of the Realm, and for base companions to appear without commission among the Ambassadors of great Princes, as he hath done. thirdly if needs he would press into the King's presence, and like a Kettle-maker stand among great men with his present, than he should have thought upon some thing, that might be more grateful, than this scurrilous Libel, containing nothing but calumniations, invectives, and declamations against that Religion, which both the King and his people professeth, & shall always be justified to be most true and Apostolic, against him and all his partakers. At the least, if he had nothing to offer, that might please so great a Prince, yet should he have forborn to offer that, which both to him and all true Christians cannot choose, but be most ungrateful and odious.  
Beside these absurdities, our surveyor hath run into divers gross errors. For first he compareth the King to an Idol, where he maketh him like a Neptune Lord of the Ocean Sea. So he is not only a worshipper of Idols, but also would gladly make an Idol of the King. Secondly, in setting forth the King's praises, he speaketh contraries, now representing his majesty sitting in a Throne of terror: and not long after calling him the mildest Prince in Europe. But what is more contrary, than terror and mildness? and what Sect in savage cruelty can be compared to Papists, that of late have attempted by fire and Gunpowder to destroy him, whom they confess to beethe mildest Prince in Europe? Thirdly, he taketh from the King all authority in Ecclesiastical causes, which he reserveth to his holy Father, and his dependents: and although in terms he do not abridge the King's right in his Temporalities; yet every one knoweth, that Papists make Kings the Pope's subjects, and give to the Pope power to censure and depose Kings: which none can maintain, but such as are disloyal to Princes, and slaves to Popes. Fourthly, most cunningly he doth insinuate, that Kings and Princes are beholding to Priests for their Kingdoms; because they receive of them (as he saith) their consecration, Crowns and Sceptres. So this prating masspriest doth not only treacherously subject Kings to the Pope's sword and censures, but also absurdly tieth their right and inheritance to the Crown, to the rite of consecration. Finally, not content to debase the King's Royal state, and to diminish his right, he compareth himself in his Priesthood most proudly to Christ himself, and his holy Apostles. But none but the disciples of Antichrist make themselves in priesthood comparable to Christ, nor do any but false Apostles make the Apostles sacrificers, and equal themselves to the Apostles.  
Now these errors he acknowledged not, nor can excuse. His incivility he would gladly excuse and defend. But his defence is worse, than the offence itself. For the first (saith he) Adrian the Emperor will excuse me, who commended unto Minutius his proconsul of Asia, as a thing of importance: Ne nomen condemnaretur sed crimen. He maketh also along discourse, relating unto us, how wrongfully Christians were hated for the name. But what affinity is there between the names of Christians, and the names of sacrificing mass-priests? Again, how can the cyclopical priests of Baal pretend to be successors either of the Apostles, or of ancient Bishops? Did ever any ancient Bishop or other Doctor of the Church say, that the priest did swallow down Christ's body whole into his belly? again, if that which is offered be consumed, as the Papists themselves teach; How can this priest K. defend, that he offereth up Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine, unless like the jews, he murder Christ, or at the least devour him? Furthermore, Adrian in his Epistle to Minutius Fundanus hath not these words, ne nomen condemnaretur, sed crimen. as it is evident by the words of this Epistle reported by justine Martyr in his second Apology. Finally we do not oppugn mass-priests for the name of priests, as this dreaming survey or imagineth, but for because being made priests beyond the Seas, they are always ready at their creators the Pope's command, to attempt against Princes, to trouble his state, to raise sedition, as the late attempts of Watson & Clarke, of Percy and his mates, set on by Priests and jesuits to blow up the whole Parliament, and to make a general massacre, and Rebellion, do plainly declare.  
For the second he telleth us, that he is come from the great Monarch of heaven to salute the King; and that he is God's Legate, and therefore not to be denied audience, when the Ambassadors of the Kings of the earth are heard with so favourable a countenance. But if he come from the Monarch of heaven, why doth he not show forth his warrant, and prove his heavenly & angelical mission? If he be Gods true Legate, why doth he hide his false face? If he will be respected as earthly Ambassadors, then must he show forth a Commission, as earthly Ambassadors do. Otherwise he will be taken for the Legate of Satan, set on by the Pope to write heretical discourses and scurrilous Libels, to infect the people's minds with a distaste of truth, and with superstitious, heretical and disloyal humours, & not God's Ambassador sent to the King, to declare his will. God certes never gave any man commission to persuade the Pope's tyrannical authority, the sacrifice of the Mass for quick & dead, the 7. sacraments, the worship of Saints and Images after the Romish fashion, and such like doctrines. Further he addeth That the lowest Subject may cry, Vive le Roy. But what maketh that for him, that held himself for no subject of our late Queen being excommunicate by the Pope, & thinketh it not lawful to subject himself to the King, that now is, if the Pope should take Arms against him, and excommunicate him? Furthermore such as he is, are rather to be reputed tall and stout Traitors, then low or lowly subjects, crying not vive le Roy, with any true heart, but as judas cried, all hail to Christ, when he betrayed him: or as Squire, that was sent by the jesuite Walpoole to empoison the late Queen, cried God save the Queen, when he put poison on the Pommel of her Saddle. If then the Pope shall once begin to display his Banner and thunder out his excommunications against the King; then we are not to doubt, but as now Kellison crieth, God save the King, so than he would cry, down with him, down with him, and with all that follow him, and take part with him. For such as meant to blow him up with Powder not being excommunicate, would not I think, spare him being made subject to the Pope's thundering censures.  
For the third, he answereth first, that it doth agrandise a kings greatness, to accept of little presents. And next, that he offereth himself as his majesties faithful servant. Lastly he standeth on stilts of high terms, and telleth us, that he offereth the worship of God, the salvation and safety of the King and his subjects, and the peace of his people. But neither is his Book a little present being a large farthel of waste paper, nor can so big a lubber pass for a small gift: although in truth both be of so low a price, that he might much be ashamed to make offer of either to so judicious a Prince, but that he wanteth both shame & judgement. Beside that, it may be a question how he can give himself to the King, that hath already given himself body and soul to the Pope, whose mark he carrieth on his shaven Crown. A faithful Servant, certes, he cannot be to the King, seeing no man can serve two Masters. Percy promised as much as he. Yet sought he the destruction of the King & State, being persuaded thereto by jesuits, and led into treason by the rules of Popish Religion. As for the Mass and Doctrines of Popery, which he bringeth with him, they lead to destruction, and not to salvation; they teach idolatry, and not God's true worship; error and Heresy, and not true Faith. The Pope's obedience is a yoke in supportable. His laws are snares, of men's consciences. His Priests and Friars are the Locusts come out of the bothomlesse pit of Hell. His Religion is neither Catholic nor ancient, but rather a mixture of new and old Heresies. Neither can the King look either for safety or peace so long as he suffereth a generation of viperous Priests and Friars depending on an Archpriest to live within the bowels of the State, and a pack of Papists to uphold the authority of his opposites under colour of Religion. Take away the Gun powder Papists, & such as had rather serve Antichrist, than Christ, to bow their knees to Baalim then to worship God, and then you remove the hopes of our enemies, that seek to disturb our peace, & the firebrands of troubles, that are the likeliest means to set all on a flame.  
To such as demand why he dedicated this great bale of blotting paper to the King, he giveth this answer, that he cannot want an answer, because he cannot want a reason. And no doubt, but he imagined, that therein he did pindarize, and speak very eloquently. Yet many want answers, that have far more reason and honesty than he, & divers want no ready answers, that proceed without reason. Whatsoever he pretendeth, little reason had he to offer this bundl e of papers to the King. For albeit learned men present their Books to Kings, supposing nothing to be well begun, unless after God the King favour it, as Vegetius affirmeth: yet this is nothing to this rude piece of work, that is so fraught with calumniations and idle discourses, that neither God nor man can well seem to favour it. Further although the King delight in Books, and hath set forth divers rare monuments of his rare wit and learning: yet doth he not take pleasure in such scurrilous surveys. Nor may we think, that a man of such judgement and learning can like or allow such base stuff. Thirdly we confess that the King is indeed, the protector of Religion, the Champion of the Church, and defender of the Faith. But little doth this avail kellison's cause, who pleadeth rather for idolatry and superstition, than Religion; for the synagogue of antichrist, rather than for Christ's Church; for the errors and abuses of Popery, rather than for the faith of Christ. Fourthly it is not to be doubted, but that all the Kings true friends did triumph and make Bonfires at the King's happy entrance into the Kingdom, and at his Coronation. But that showeth that the jesuits, mass-priests and their adherents are not the King's true Friends. For they triumph but a little at the King's prosperity, and many of them of late have sought instead of Bonfires, which this K. calleth Feux de joy, to set the City upon a fire, & to blow up the Parliament house and places adjoining with Gunpowder. Other their consorts are more desirous to burn the bones & bodies of God's saints, then to make bonfires, when they understand of the kings prosperous success. Fiftly, we acknowledge that God by his providence hath reserved the King for the Crown of England, & quietly possessed him of his Crown. But we know also that the Papists have of late sought to deprive him of his liberty, life, and Crown. And Parsons and the jesuits of long time have oppugned the King's Title, both of them resisting not only the King's right, but also God's providence. Finally if for all these favours God expect at his majesties hands, that he employ himself in some honourable service for the Catholic Church, and Christ's true faith, and for the deliverance of his Realms from Egyptian captivity, and the restoring of his subjects to the Catholic faith, as Kellison desireth; then is he to take a resolute course for the removing of all idolatrous mass-priests, which seduce his Subjects, and turn them from the Catholic faith & their allegiance, to embrace human traditions and the decretaline Doctrine of the Pope, and to prefer the Pope before their King. Then is he further to overthrow the groves of the jdolatrous Priests, and to provide that his Realms be not again entangled with a yoke of bondage, & overwhelmed with ignorance, & Egyptian darkness. Lastly he is to see, that Heresies and false Doctrines be not received under the colour of Romish Religion.  
Most grossly therefore hath this Romish Legate failed in the proofs of his presumptuous attempt, in presenting his worthless and trifling discourses to the King. But having once passed the limits of modesty, he passeth himself in impudence, afterward adventuring to prefer a suit to the King for liberty to Papists, and for toleration of Popish Religion. A matter, that with modesty cannot be mentioned to so pious a King, and by rules of Religion and state may not be granted: For it is impious, Idolatrous, and heretical. And therefore may not be admitted of christians. It is factious, rebellious & derogatory both to the prerogative of Princes, & liberty of Subjects. And therefore not to be endured in any well governed state. Finally themselves admit no Religion contrary to their own false grounds, if they can do withal. Why do they then require that of others, that they yield not to others themselves? if he deny any point of these, he shall find them justified in divers answers framed to the importune supplications of Papists, and we shall always be ready to prove the same again, as oft as the matter shall come in question.  
But had he reason to come to the King, yet he hath no reason to rail on the King's predecessor Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, as he doth, charging her first with raising a storm of persecution, and next with the ruin of the Catholtke faith. Nay most falsely he chargeth a most clement and merciful Queen with persecution, and a Christian Prince of singular piety, with hatred of Catholic Religion. Most falsely I say, for all her acts, and laws do argue an excellent moderation in her proceed, against such as most violently prosecuted her: and so far was she urged to do that she did, that the secular Priests not only excuse her for proceeding against Papists, but also to their uttermost defend her. Furthermore no christian Prince in our time showed more zeal in the defence of true Catholic Religion, than she. True it is, that she favoured not Popish errors. But nothing is more different than Popery and Catholic Religion. Neither shall this K. ever prove the contrary.  
Having ended his idle discourse concerning the dedication of his book, he maketh bold to begin his suit for a toleration of Popery. But his proceeding is sottish & intolerable. He cometh to the King as he saith, armed with hope, & constrained by necessity in the name of the King's Catholic subjects, in the name of the Catholic Church, in the name of all Catholic Princes, and of all the Christian world, nay in the name of the great King of heaven and earth. But as the common Proverb is, The hills travail, and out cometh a ridiculous Mouse. For first what hope can this armed fellow pretend, to obtain favourable audience either of the King, or State, that not only raileth on true religion, and the King's true subjects, but also pleadeth for such, as of late sought to destroy both the King and State? Again how can he and his consorts talk of coming armed with hope, when Catesby and his followers came armed with iron, to cut the King's throat, and to take away our lives: and when his arms are not hope, nor arguments, but bitter invectives, darts of slander, and malicious fictions? Thirdly, no man is compelled by necessity to play the Vice, and that without all colour or vizor of modesty. For what is more Vicelike, then for such a piled companion, to pretend the name of all the Christian world, and all Catholic Princes, being not able to show commission, either from any Prince, or any part of the Christian world? fourthly, not only all the Catholic Church, but also all Catholic Princes do disavow this presumptuous fellows pretended Commission, renouncing his impious doctrine concerning the faith and Sacraments, his treacherous opinions concerning the Pope's usurped authority in deposing and killing Christian King's, his wicked defence of the worship of Saints and Angels, and all his idle declamations, lewd lies, heathenish impostures, & false doctrines & heresies. Fiftly, the Papists of England (for the most part) do evil deserve the name of subjects. But were they ranked among subjects, yet are they not to be ranked among Catholics, seeing they receive the errors of the modern Synagogue of Rome, & err in the faith. howsoever they think of themselves, they have no reason to allow their piled Proctors pleading for others, who putteth them among thieves and murderers: and concludeth; that Papists are to have a toleration of their opinions, because thieves and murderers are now pardoned. We say his conclusion is weak and simple: For faults once committed, are more easily pardoned, than a licence granted to commit faults ever hereafter. Further, offences against our brethren, are more easily remitted, than offences, that are directly committed against God. Sixtly, if Princes that live under the Pope, and are his vassals, would prefer any suit to the King, they would commend it to wiser Agents, and not to such a bald companion. Seventhly, it is a gross conceit of a raw divine, to think, that the Christian world ever believed in the Pope's triple Crown, or guard of Swissers, or embraced the doctrine of the Conventicle of Trent and Schoolmen concerning Traditions, Sacraments, Purgatory, Indulgences, worship of Saints and Angels, and such like points of Popish saith. Finally, if this counterfeit Legate do not show his Commission under Seal, and plainly prove the Pope's Decretales, the doctrine of the Conventicle of Trent & Schoolmen, the Pope's two sword and all the trash of Popery; he is to be rejected as a frantic forger of new Commissions, and disavowed by his clients, as a foolish and simple pleader.  
His reasons for toleration of Popery, are either grounded upon false positions, or else want form of good conclusions. That which he saith of the kings Predecessors, that with Crown, Sceptre and Sword, they maintained the modern doctrine, of the Romish Church, is utterly false. For they never believed, that the Pope had power to take away their Crowns, or that Christians (like Cannibals) did eat Christ's flesh with their teeth, and swallow it down into their bellies, or other modern Romish errors, heresies and impieties. But did any ancient Princes maintain errors, that bindeth not their posterity to continue therein. We are not to follow the steps of our parents, where themselves tread awry. Constantine left the Paganism of his ancestors. The ancient Kings of Spain were Arians, yet do the later Kings of Spain detest Arianisme. False it is also that the people of Scotland in time past were of the same faith, which this Kellison teacheth at Douai. It may be they built Abbeys, worshipped Saints, & used some popish ceremonies more then christian religion required. But K. must prove, that they believed the doctrine of the Conventicle of Trent, & all the Popes decretales, & offended in idolatry, as grossly and obstinately, as the Papists do now, or else he trifleth out time in vain. Thirdly he speaketh not only falsely but also absurdly, where he promiseth honour to such Princes, as embrace Popery. For what can be more dishonourable, then for Kings to become vassals, to lose half their Subjects, half their authority, half their revenues? doth Kellison suppose it honourable for Kings to be controlled, deposed, killed? or can any free English man endure to be subject to Italians and strangers? Fourthly, vainly doth this declaimer promise felicity to the Realm, declining to popery. There can be no greater bondage, nor misery for men's souls, then to be entangled with popish laws, traditions and censures. Base it is to endure the mass-priests extortions and pillages, grievous to see the land devoured by Caterpillars. Fiftly we confess, it is honourable to conquer Heresy; but this honour belongeth not to Princes blinded with popery: which is nothing else but a mass or compendium of divers heresies. Contrariwise if mass-priests were rooted out, and Gods true Religion in every quarter sincerely received; then should we neither fear the wrath of God threatened against jdolaters and contemners of Religion, nor the enmity & opposition of men having no means to hurt us, but by the practices & mutinies of Papists. Sixtly, neither is the Religion professed in England new, nor is popery old. And therein I will join issue with this Surveyor, if he dare maintain the contrary. He braggeth much, but the surfeit of popery hath distempered his wits. seven it was honourable, we confess, for Constantine to restore Christian Religion. But what maketh this for popery, which was not in the world in the days of Constantine, nor many ages after? Furthermore when Kellison shall be at any leisure, and not troubled with his Gunpowder plots of high treason, than we will show and prove to his teeth, that popery is a corruption of faith, & a declination from Christian Religion to errors & heresies. Finally, to secure the King's life, and the peace of the State, this wise Orator offereth oaths. But Christian people are too well acquainted with the practices of Papists to trust them either upon oaths, bands, or pledges. Of late while they were most forward to offer oaths, and all security that could be devised, than Percy and his mates were sitting powder under the Parliament house, and laying a plot for a general massacre of all true Christians, and for a Rebellion of all discontented Persons, and Papists. Further they teach that oaths are not to be performed to Heretics, & easily doth the Pope dispense with them. Who then is so patiented as to endure this simple fellows foolish prating? these cut-throat Priests will murder honest men, & their souls shall sue them for perjury! is not this (trow you) a goodly device?  
Whether he speak for his own cause, or against us, his idle talk is not much to be regarded, that either affirmeth matters nakedly upon his own bare word, or bringeth no better witness than Nicol Borne, Genebrard, Baronius, Thomas Aquinas, & such like, or allegeth Scriptures impertinently and falsely, or else belieth his adversaries shamefully. Against Caluin he bringeth a place out of his Institutions, as if he taught, that by religion men might disobey Princes laws: a matter neither taught, nor ever thought upon by him. To what end then bringeth he allegations out of Scriptures and Fathers, to disprove this rebellious position? would he have all the world to see, that Papists disobeying Princes upon the Popes warrant repugn both to Scriptures and Fathers?  
His skill in Divinity we may easily conjecture not to be singular. For first he preferreth the will of man in his conversion, before God's grace. Religion saith he, is not transfused with flesh and blood, but infused by God, with consent of our will, and operation of grace. Secondly, he maketh man's blood an oblation for sin, and a mediation of others conversion. Thirdly, he assigneth Aureolam martyrum, that is, a degree above the common glory of God's Saints, as a reward due to Martyrs for their passion. Fourthly, he saith Many Virgins have lived in the flesh like Angels. But to say that man can live without sin, is P●●gianisme. Lastly, his grounds are out of Tho. Aquinas, and the Schoolmen. Is it then like that his Babylonian building will long stand?  
His notable simplicity is every where apparent. For seeking king the King's favour, he raileth on Religion professed by the King. Pleading for the Pope, he overthroweth the authority of the Pope. For if the authority of Kings be from God, then cannot Popes discharge subjects from their duty and obedience to Princes. Showing himself unable to write or to dispute, yet most simply he challengeth us all into the field, offering to dispute with us. Lastly, wanting other means, he maketh the King a petitioner unto himself.  
His honesty cannot be great, that raileth against the dead, flattereth such as are able to favour him, belieth both the living and dead. By Pope's saith he always Countries have been converted. Yet for many years have they given over preaching, and lately have suffered the Turkish religion to eniambe & get ground upon Christians. He saith further, That our Church began but yesterday, that our teachers want authority, that our doctrine hath the marks of heresy, that we pull at Christ's divinity, make him no redeemer, spiritual Physician, lawgiver, Priest, nor judge, but make him ignorant, desperate and damned. He chargeth us further that we have neither Priest, Sacrifice, Sacrament, nor Prayer: matters impudently and without all colour of truth avouched, as shall plainly appear by our answer. If, when he cometh to dispute, he bring no more truth, Children will ●isse him out of Schools for an impudent and lying companion.  
These being the principal points and whole somme of this rude Orators pleading before his Majesty, wherein no doubt he hath made the fairest show he could of such base wares; We may easily imagine, that his speech to the common reader is more rude, harsh, and disjointed. In the beginning of his epistle, he runneth out like a wild discourser, into a long senseless, and unreasonable speech concerning inanimate & unreasonable creatures. But it must needs be a dull, dead, and unreasonable cause, that hath such dead & unreasonable advocates to plead for it. He turneth the Sun into a Cock, & a Candle, and birds into Carpenters, & brute beasts into hearbists. But whereto tendeth this brutish discourse, void both of the light of the Sun, and of the light of reason? doth he place his consorts among feathered fools, or else among brute beasts? from senseless creatures (in which rank we may place a good part of this Surveyor and his consorts) he leapeth to brute beasts, and from brute beasts to man. And yet nothing he writeth, that may beseem a sensible creature, much less a reasonable and discreet man. The end and mark of all his wild vagary is this, to show, that because God hath given us a will wholly bend to good, and an understanding naturally inclined to truth, & averted from all untruths, he hath therefore made an exact Survey of the new Religion, as he saith. But first these things hang no better together than if he should say he would to Rome, because Tottenham is four miles from London, and Douai is turned Spanish. For man may have an understanding and will, and yet frame no such false surveys. Nay if this surveyor had either had any understanding, or good purpose, he would never have employed his labour in such a lewd piece of service. Further neither doth man's will desire any good thing tending to eternal life, or understand any such thing, so long as he is unregenerate by God's grace. The words of the Apostle are clear. There dwelleth no go●d thing in my flesh. And again, the natural man understandeth not the things that are of God. Thirdly, if man's will & understanding had been so inclined, as he pretendeth; then would Kellison never have lived under the yoke of Popery, nor believed the absurdities of popish Religion: of which we shall speak God willing, particularly hereafter. Fourthly so far is his survey from exactness, as a surfeit of foolery from sound understanding and reason. Finally, nothing shall this K. be able to allege in our Religion, that abhorreth either from reason, or rule of good understanding. The mission and calling of our Bishops and Ministers shall be justified against all the barking of mass-priests and jesuits. The marks of Heretics shall be wiped from ourselves, & deeply imprinted upon our adversaries. Our Doctrine shall be cleared from the unjust imputations of our adversaries, and every indifferent man satisfied, that we neither empayre Christ's honour, nor deny his priesthood. But contrariwise the Papists communicate Christ's honour to creatures, & his preesthood to mass-priests. We shall also prove by plain evidence, that we uphold the authority of Princes and their laws, which the Papists overthowe and despise. We doubt not further to demonstrate, that none of us ever taught, that God is author of sin, or cruel, or tyrannical in his proceed. Finally, we should be much ashamed, if vices and all impieties were not better censured and punished in England, then in Italy, Spain, and other popish Countries.  
These matters which Kellison vaunteth, that he will make good against us, have been not only formerly objected unto us by William Raynoldes and D. Gifford in their railing volume entitled Caluino-turcismus, but also answered by us in a Treatise called Turco Papismus. And that so sufficiently, that D. Gifford resteth either satisfied, or silent. If then this new surveyor would needs renew their slanders and vain objections, he should for his credit sake have done well, either to have replied to our answer, or to have held his peace, as his betters have done. Again if he had been so wise and circumspect, as he pretendeth to be; he would have been well advised before he entered this course, lest he might give us occasion to rip up the deformities, fooleries, absurdities, Heresies, impieties and other abuses of Popery, of which I doubt not, but his best friends, when they are laid open, will be much ashamed. Himself being but a new upstart Doctor, & lately crept out of my Lord Vauxes Buttery, will be much puzzled to make any probable defence for them.  
Thus much may serve for answer to the front of his Survey and his two liminare Epistles. For the rest, I shall not need to say much in this place. Only this, I thought good to signify unto thee, good Reader, that thou look not for any curious or long answer hereafter: to wit, that the whole volume is nothing but a new pack of old calumniations and lies. The form of his discourse is trifling, the Subject railing. Such declamations, it should seem he was wont in the time of his butlerage to make over a can of Beer. His proofs are fancies and bare conceits. His witnesses, fellows of a low price. His conclusions weak collections. It may be, either need and hunger, or else hope and promise of reward made him so talkative. How be it lest he might grow proud of his own prowess, I have undertaken to shape him a short answer. In the mean while, concerning his objections and proofs, this he may learn of me for his instruction. First that it is a foolish thing for a man to object that to others, whereof they are clear, and he most guilty: and to survey other men's estates, when his own can abide no survey. Secondly that the bosom and domestical 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, deserveth most credit, that hath no causes of fiction. Be not then moved with the largeness of kellison's volume, nor with his manifold leasings. Common barators are wont to put in longest bills, when they have least matter: and shallow waters make most noise. To such lewd and long lies, this our short answer will be more than sufficient. Vouchsafe therefore to compare both our discourses together, and to read them with indifferency. And so thou shalt soon discover the vanity of his accusations, and give sentence for our innocency.   

THE EXAMINATION and Confutation of Kellison's scurrilous Survey of the new Religion, as he termeth it.  

Chap, 1. Kellison's fond conceit and error, concerning the foundations of our Religion.  
IF it be the part of a wise builder to lay a firm foundation, as our Saviour Christ Math. 7. teacheth, and common experience proveth most evidently unto us; then we may well collect, that Kellison our adversary, in his Survey, hath showed himself neither wise builder, nor wise man, who in his first book going about to build the tour of his Romish Babel doth wholly mistake his foundations, laying the frame of his work either upon the Pope, whom he supposeth to be a visible judge of all controversies, or upon the mission and preaching of Romish Mass priests. Furthermore, talking of our Religion, he doth grossly err in the foundations of it, supposing that it relieth, first upon the authority of our Preachers, then upon their allegations out of Scriptures, thirdly upon men's private spirits, four upon credible or probable testimonies, and lastly upon some visible judge: matters (certes) rather devised by himself, then taught by us. The visible judge, and authority of Priests, is laid as a foundation of faith by Stapleton in his book of doctrinal principles. That which he talketh of private spirits, and the allegation of Scriptures out of men's own humours, is an imputation of Papists laid upon us and that most unjustly. For we build the Church upon the Prophets and Apostles. jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, as the Apostle teacheth us Ephes. 2. And the Scriptures we receive, not as they are interpreted by the Massepriests, or any man's humorous fancy, but as they proceed from the spirit of God by the ministry of his Prophets and Apostles.  
Wherefore mistaking the foundation of the work, we may well imagine, that his discourse, that is a work raised either without foundation, or beside the foundation, is most vain, idle, and absurd. The first Chapter of his first book, he beginneth with a long declamatory narration, proving, that no man is to intrude himself into the function of the ministry of the Church without mission. But what is that to the foundation of religion, which is the subject which he promised to handle? Doth he suppose, that the principal foundation of his Massing religion is laid upon the preaching, or rather not preaching & mission of polshorne priests sent out by the Pope to say Mass for quick and dead? if he do, then like as his gunpowder consorts went about of late to blow up the King and Sat, so doth he go about to blow up the Pope's Chair together with all his Cardinals, Friars, Monks, and mass-priests.  
For, first the Pope shall never be able to prove his mission. Ephes. 4. we read, that Christ gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Teachers. But the Pope is none of all these. His state is too great to be contained within this small and weak number. Further he is no successor of Peter. For he rather killeth, than feedeth Christ's sheep. Thirdly he rather meddleth with sword, than Keys; and if he handleth the Keys of the Church, yet can he show no Commission for it. Fourthly he is absurd, if he claim the right of a Bishop. For he doth not the work of a Bishop. Lastly the Apostles Successors, and Preachers sent from God proceed according to their Commission and Instructions received from God. But the Pope proceedeth according to his own Decretales and the rules of his own Chancery. Out then must he go, and all that pretend to come from him as mere intruders, if we follow 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 ancient Bishops of that City so gallant fellows, as these new Cardinals are. They neither preach nor baptize as Cardinals. And therefore cannot pretend right of succession, either from the Apostles, or from ancient Bishops or Priests. In the holy Scriptures, albeit some allege the words Cardines terrae, there is no mention of them. finally the Fathers knew them not. If then the Pope's decretales warrant them not; these Cardines terrae, or rather terren and carnal Cardinals, may go in ultimos fines terrae, that is into the utmost ends of the earth to seek for their mission.  
The Monks and Friars are no where mentioned in Scripture, unless it be Apocalyps. 9 Where we find, that Locusts 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 Gospel. They succeed not Pastors and Teachers. For their profession is poverty, chastity and obedience to monkish rules, and not to teach or administer Sacraments. Hierome and all antiquity put monks after Priests, and range them in another order. Friars entered but lately into the Church under the conduct of Dominicke and Francis. Their authority is wholly from the Pope: and other commission can they show none. mass-priests are not sent to preach and administer the Sacraments, but to sacrifice Christ's body and blood under the accidents of bread and wine, for quick and dead, as appeareth in the formal words of their ordination. But such a mission is no where found in Scripture. For our Saviour instituting the Sacrament of the Eucharist said, accipite, edite, bibite. That is, take, eat, drink, and not, sacrificate pro vivis et defunctis, that is, Sacrifice for quick & dead. True it is, that he saith, hoc facite that is, do this. But hoc facere doth no where either in Scripture or profane Authors signify sacrifice this. Virgil is alleged, where one saith cum faciam vitula. But if they bring no better proofs, the mass-priests will prove themselves as wise as Calves. For it is one thing to say, facere vitula, and facere hoc. Beside that, Virgil yet was never esteemed a good interpreter of Christ's words. To omit Scriptures, this sacrificing Preesthood of the Romanistes, hath no proof out of Fathers. For no where in any authentical writing of theirs is any mention made of such an ordination. Nay it is apparent, that the same was first talked of by idle Schoolmen, and authorized after a sort by the conventicle of Florence under Eugenius the fourth. Finally, neither do Scriptures, nor Father's mention any such real, carnal, and corporal sacrifice of Christ's body and blood made in the Eucharist under the accidents of bread and wine for the sins of the quick and dead, as I have fully demonstrated in my Books the m●ssa against Bellarmine. Nay, the Canon itself doth signify, 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 will not say, that the people offereth up Christ's body. Further the masspriest prayeth that God would be pleased to accept the sacrifice: but it is absurd to make a masspriest mediator for Christ's body and blood. If then they be false Prophets, thieves, & Robbers, that come without mission or sufficient warrant; then are the Popes of Rome, Cardinals, Monks, Friars and mass-priests false Prophets, thieves, and Robbers. And that may in part also be proved, by the confession of our adversary. For if, (as he saith) all are to be reputed such, that can neither show ordinary calling from the Apostles, nor extraordinary from the spirit of God; then are they to be shunned as false Prophets and false teachers, and punished severely, not only as men lately besmired with Gunpowder, but also as false thieves & Robbers. For extraordinary calling they pretend none, & ordinary calling authorized by God's word, they have none, as hath in part been proved. Further we say, that whereas two things are to be respected in ordination of Bishops & Ministers of God's word, viz. the rite of ordination, & the substance of the function, whereto they are ordained; in the popish Church, our adversaries have neither of these two lawful. First they have no imposition of hands by Bishops. For they have no lawful Bishops, & allow the imposition of hands of Abbots. Further their Bishops are no successors of the Apostles, but the pope's creatures, that is rather a temporal prince, than a Bishop. The Monks and Friars are rather called to do penance then to preach, when they are shorn. Secondly their Priests are not called to preach and baptize, which was the form and substance of the mission of the Apostles and their successors, but to sacrifice Christ's body and blood under the accidents of bread and wine for quick and dead: which form and function, neither Kellison, nor all the rabble of Romish Priests and Friars, shall ever prove to be ancient, lawful, or authentical.  
Against our Bishops, Priests and Deacons, no such matter can be excepted. For first it cannot be denied but that our Bishops were lawfully ordained by imposition of hands of other lawful Bishops. The Ordination of Bishop Cranmer & other Bishops then living, the Papists themselves cannot deny to be lawful. But from them other Bishops following received the rite of consecration. Bishop Parker was consecrated by the imposition of hands of Bishop Barloe, Bishop Coverdale, Bishop Scory, and two Suffragans, mentioned in the Act of consecration yet to be seen: which not only had succession from such Bishops as our adversaries account lawful, but in deed were lawful Bishops. Our brethren in Germany and Zuizzerland had imposition of hands from Luther, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, Bucer and others: in France from Farel, in Scotland from Knox and others, whom the Papists cannot deny to have been lawfully ordained Priests, at the least if their own forms were lawful. And from these men & their successors, all other Pastors & Ministers of the Church, have received the rite of imposition of hands, or ordination to the Ministry. Neither is it material, 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 have renounced the heresies of Popery, nor have taught sincerely: should not inferior ministers teach truth, and ordain other teachers after them? Furthermore, they wanted nothing of true Bishops, but the name and title. Finally the rite and imposition of hands 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 necessity, Ministers may lawfully be ordained by other Ministers: which is proved first, for that generally the Presbytery or Ministry of the Church hath right to impose hands, and next for that the Keys are called Claves Ecclesiae, and not Claves Episcoporum: and lastly for that necessity admitteth not the observance of all ceremonies. As for example, admit a multitude of Christians should go into the Indias without ministers, it is not to be supposed, but they have power to appoint Ministers among themselves in this case of necessity.  
Secondly it is certain, that the Bishops and Ministers of reformed Churches have been sent to preach and so administer the Sacraments, by such as had authority in the Church, and that they have executed their function accordingly. Why then should any deny them to be truly the Apostles successors?  
Finally, the defection of ordinary Priests in the Romish Church being extraordinary, we may not imagine, that all ordinary rites and forms were to be observed in the vocation of such, as by the instinct of God's holy spirit were stirred up extraordinarily to restore the decayed parts and ruins of God's Temple.  
But saith Kellison pag. 9 If their Preachers be sent by an ordinary mission, let them show their succession. And here he allegeth Tertullians' words lib. de prescript. adverse. 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. Again, he urgeth us, if any thing were extraordinary in those, which first reform the Church, to prove their mission by miracles; and runneth into a long discourse of the visibility of the Church, of miracles and prophecies. To which we answer first, that if the succession of Bishops were the only proof of an ordinary mission, the Papists themselves were in bad terms having no proofs of their succession of pope's so much bragged of, but the testimony of Anastasius, Platina, Naucler, Sabellicus, Onuphrius, Genebrard, Baronius & such like hungry parasites of the Pope jarring and contending one against another like mastye Curs about a bone. Secondly the Greeks', Antiochians and Egyptians, pretend to this day succession of Bishops, and yet are grossly fallen from the faith, & want true Bishops. Thirdly, Tertullian & S. Augustine speak of succession of Bishops, but neither of them denieth them to be Bishops or pastors, that are not ordained by a Bishop, who was not ordered with all solennities. Fourthly, we show such a succession of Bishops, as the Papists themselves cannot control, deriving them concerning order & external forms from Bishops allowed by our adversaries, and concerning succession of Doctrine from the Apostles, Fathers and ancient Bishops of the primitive Church. Fiftly the question concerning the visibility of the Church is divers from that, which concerneth succession. For I hope K. will not say, that he ever saw the succession of Romish Bishops, or that any Apostle saw his successors. Lastly we allege that the old Prophets were sent extraordinarily, and yet wrought no miracles. divers apostolical men likewise have been raised up by God at divers times, and yet we read not, that either all of them prophesied, or wrought miracles.  
This being our answer, of which Kellison could not be ignorant, but that he is either ignorant of matters in question, or else void of honesty and good dealing; what is it, I pray you, that he is able to allege against the vocation and mission of God's 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 lawful successors, but that at the length the church failed, and the Pastors with it. But while he talketh of mission he lieth shamefully and without all commission. For first we distinguish both Bishops and ordinary pastors from Apostles. So doth the Apostle also, Ephe. 4. Secondly we deny, that Christ's Church ever hath failed. Thirdly we teach, that the Apostles have always had some successors, albeit neither in one place, nor without all interruption. If then he have not failed in true dealing, let him set down the author's names, that have affirmed this which he reporteth, and relate their words sincerely.  
age. 13. he addeth, that Luther disobeyed the Pope and the Church, and devised a new Religion to cloak his villainy. But first the Pope and the Church are evil yoked together. For Christ's sheep hear not the voice of strangers. Secondly these words of villainy come out of his shop of malice. Lastly never shall this K. prove that Luther devised any new Religion. For he only impugned late errors, and sought to bring Christians back to the ancient Catholic faith.  
Thirdly he shapeth an other answer for us Page. 14. & maketh us to say, that we had predecessors, but they were invisible. But this abuse with he offereth us, is too gross & palpable for neither do we make our predecessors invisible. Nor do we deny, that the ancient fathers & holy Bishops of old time, as they taught the Catholic and apostolic faith, and no more, were out predecessors.  
Fourthly he telleth us, that such as pretend extraordinary sending run unsent. But he taketh upon him too too arrogantly to limit God's power, and seemeth plainly to contradict God's word. S. Paul Ephes. 4, mentioneth Evangelists without limitation either of times or places, and Saint john Apocaly. 11 foreshoweth, that God will give power to his two witnesses preaching against the Kingdom of Antichrist, and the abuses of their times. Neither doth either Optatus or Cyprian, or the Apostle speak any word against us herein. Optatus L●b. 2. contra parmen. speaketh of some intruding donatists: & Cyprian, of certain presumptuous Novatians, which as the Archpriests & jesuits and mass-priests do in England, thrust themselves into the ministery in afric without warrant. The Apostle Eph. 4. leaveth out the Pope & therefore overthroweth our adversaries cause. But he saith not one word, why Pastors and teachers may not sometime either he sent extraordinarily, or furnished with extraordinary power. Finally albeit the Church be built upon a Rock, yet particular Churches & Cities may fall into errors, and hardly can be reform without some extraordinary helps.  
Fiftly he affirmeth Page. 19 that extraordinary mission is always to be proved by extraordinary signs and tokens of Prophecies or miracles. And to this purpose he feigneth that both Luther and Caluin endeavoured to prophecy and to work miracles. But the first is disproved by the examples of the prophets and Apostles. For neither do we read, that all the prophets wrought miracles, nor that all the Apostles prophesied. Furthermore the Godly Martyrs of old time, and the ancient Bishops were often endued with extraordinary graces: yet did they not all work wonders and prophecy. The second is disproved both by our Doctrine and practice. For neither do we now practise miracles, or stand upon prophecies, nor do we teach, that the Doctrine of truth is to be confirmed with miracles or prophecies. To convince us, this K. produceth the testimony of Cochleus, Surius, Staphylus, Genebrard, Fontanus, Bolsec, and such like fellows. But their testimonies are not worth a Nutshell, being hired to speak shame of the pope's adversaries. He is very light of belief, that giveth credit to the words either of enemies, or hired parasites.  
Finally he concludeth Page. 28. that we have no assurance of our Religion by the authority of our Preachers, being able to say no more than false Apostles for proof of their authority. He doubteth not also to affirm, that both Brownists, and those of the family of Love, may as well allege Scriptures, and pretend to be sent of God, as Caluin and Luther. But first he showeth himself a simple Doctor of Divinity, that teacheth, that the authority of preachers is a sufficient assurance for Christians to build their Religion and faith upon. As for us we believe them no further, than they tread in the steps, and continue in the Doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets of God. Secondly it is not sufficient to allege or pretend Scriptures, but they must be truly alleged. Neither is the private fancy of every capriecious head to be equalled with the determinations of grave men, and well experimented in Scriptures. lastly, there is no comparison between learned men called and allowed by the Church, & fantastical fellows, that rashly presume to leap into the ministerial function without either 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 he like a bad and bare fellow calleth bare) set the gate open to all Heretics and Heresies. Thus our adversaries advancing the Pope's decretales, and the uncertain tradisions of the Romish Church, detest the holy Scriptures, and open their mouths against God. But we are rather to believe Christ and his Apostles, than such blasphemous gapers and speakers against holy Scriptures. The Apostle Ephes. 2. saith the faithful are built upon 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 reprove, and able to make the man of God perfect. But neither may the ground of faith be termed a gate set open to Heresies, nor is the sword of the spirit a means to breed errors. Further how can the same be a gate set open to heretics being able to make the man of God perfect? certes if the allegation of Scriptures were a way to error, our Saviour Christ would never have sent his hearers to search scriptures. Neither would the ancient Fathers have termed Scriptures a canon of faith, if they had been any gate set open to Heresies. Irenaeus in his third book against Heresies, saith the Apostles first preached the Gospel, and afterwards delivered the same to us in Scriptures, that it might be a foundation & pillar of our faith. He showeth also, that it is the property of Heretics, when they are convinced by Scriptures, to accuse the Scriptures, and to speak evil of them. Origen in Math. tract. 25. showeth, that Scriptures are to be brought for proof of all Doctrines. Neither need we to doubt, but that of themselves, they are very sufficient. Our Saviour Math. 4. by Scriptures only overcame the Devil. Neither did the ancient Fathers by other weapons prevail against Heretics. In general counsels of old time not the Pope's decretales, but the holy Scriptures were laid before the fathers. Lastly if the word of God cannot be received, it is far more unlike, that Heretics will respect the traditions or writings of men. Neither is it material, that Heretics cavil against Scriptures, and detort them to contrary senses. For such cavils and depravations may easily be refuted by scriptures, and to such abuses the writings of men are much more subject, then holy scriptures.  
But saith Kellison, The Devil hath always 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 heretics alleging Scriptures. But first most false it is, that the devil always affecteth to allege Scriptures. Nay he allegeth traditions, customs and human devices more often then Scriptures. False it is also, that heretics more often allege Scriptures, than the testimony of traditions, Fathers & other reasons. But suppose that heretics should often allege Scriptures; yet we are not to refuse that, which by others is abused. Neither do wise men refuse meat, because gluttons do thereby surfeit, or forbear to drink, for that drunkards abuse wine to excess. If then Kellison will needs follow heretics in calumniating scriptures, and not forbear (as the devil did) to abuse Scriptures to contrary sense, then must he give Christians leave to follow Christ and his Apostles in alleging Scriptures, and not presume to condemn those, which prefer Scriptures before traditions, & God's word before the Pope's decretales.  
Pag. 33. and 34. He runneth out into a large field concerning the possession of Scriptures, which (as he saith) belongeth to Catholics, & not to heretics. But what may this make for Papists? whom by many reasons we have in our Challenge convinced to be heretics, and not Catholics? Furthermore, the question, which he proposeth here, concerneth the sufficiency and authority, and not the possession of Scriptures. But this is this Surveyors pleasure to abandon matters in Controversy, and to trifle about needless questions.  
Afterward he showeth, why heretics allege Scriptures, and mentioneth the decrees & writings of the Pope & the Church. He endeavoureth also to prove, that Scripture is not easily to be understood. Matters much stood upon by him, but yet very impetinent in this place, where the question is about allegation of Scriptures, as an Argument of itself only sufficient. Furthermore, what if heretics deprave and wrest Scriptures, shall not true Catholics rely upon them? Thirdly the Pope's bulls and blundering decretales are not of such quality, that they ought to be compared to Scriptures: or mentioned, where they are in place. Lastly, Scriptures in matters necessary to salvation, are plain and easy. But what if some places were difficult? should we therefore abstain to allege Scriptures? nay rather we ought diligently to study them, that by understanding of them we may resolve our difficulties. Tertullian alleged by him pag. 37. doth not refuse flatly to dispute with heretics by Scripture, or count such disputation's lip labour, as this impudent companion falsely affirmeth. For his common course was to convince heretics by Scriptures. But if he thought it fruitless, at any time to allege Scriptures, it was against such only as denied the Scriptures.  
Of holy Scriptures the profane fellow speaketh, if not blasphemously, yet basely and contemptibly. pag. 35. he compareth them to colours used by foul women, and to sweet odours used by sluttes. pag. 39 he calleth them bare, and compareth them to a nose of wax, and alloweth the saying of one, that compared them to Aesop's Fables, especially understanding the bare letter of Scriptures. Finally, he shameth not pag. 41. to say, that the word of God with a false meaning is the word of the devil. Matters deserving rather corporal punishment, then verbal censures. We may not therefore marvel, if he rail at Luther & Caluin belying them without all shame or conscience. First he saith Luther dissaloweth S. james his Epistle. He only maketh it inferior to other Canonical Scriptures, as not esteemed to be his. Secondly he chargeth Caluin and Luther with Misconstruing S. Paul's Epistles. He should rather prove it then falsely affirm it. Thirdly he saith Luther doth discanon job, jest at Ecclesiastes, and contemn all the Gospels, but S. john's, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of jude. But his writings do refute these slanders, and nothing doth K. bring to justify them. Lastly he saith Caluin and Luther will have the bare letter, or joined with their voluntary exposition to be judge of controversies: matters utterly untrue and improbable. For neither do we admit the letter without the sense, nor do we allow voluntary or private expositions.  
Pag. 46. he falsifieth the testimony of Scriptures, where he saith Herself confesseth her own obscurity. For S. Peter 2. Epist. 3. doth not say that the Scriptures are obscure, as this K. pretendeth: but only that certain things in S. Paul's Epistles are difficult. And psal. 119. the Prophet compareth God's word to a Lantern, and to light. Lucerna pedibus meis verbum tuum saith he, & lumen semitis meis. If any obscurity and difficulty be attributed to Scriptures by Fathers, it is only in such points, as are not necessary to salvation.  
Finally, he reciteth the words of Luther concerning the plainness of Scriptures partially, and objecteth unto us the testimony of Osiander about the differences concerning man's justification by Christ. But neither is Luther to be blamed, if he reprove those, that call Scriptures obscure: nor is any credit to be given to Bellarmine citing Osiander, nor to Osiander, where he writeth against those that differ from him in the Article of man's justification. Long may he declaim against Luther and Osiander and others. But nothing doth his reasoning or rather railing against reading of Scriptures effect. For who will not rather follow the exhortation of Chrysostome exhorting laymen to get them Bibles, and to read Scriptures, then regard the babbling of this Popish parasite, that calleth readers of scriptures Biblists, and saith we hold, that to be the true meaning of Scriptures, which every ones private spirit imagineth?  
In the third chapter of his first book, he disputeth against those which make their own private Spirit supreme judge in earth of the interpretation of Scripture. The which as it lanceth the Pope deeply, whose private and satanical spirit is the supreme judge, whom all Papists are bound to follow; so it toucheth not us at all. For albeit we refuse the Pope and his adherents for judges; yet we rely not upon our own private spirit in expounding scriptures but upon the spirit of God, that either speaketh plainly, or expoundeth himself in some other place, and for attaining the right understanding of Scriptures, use the hope of tongues, the exposition of fathers and all learned men, the discourse of histories, and all other good means. Neither did Luther think, or proceed otherwise. Why then doth noth this superlunatical Surveyor declare, who they be, that do attribute the public and judicial interpretation of Scriptures to every man's private spirit, and in what place? why doth he forge to himself an absurd opinion held by none, that I know, save the Papists, who in matters controversed hold the Pope's private definition, for a supreme resolution? would he therein show his triumphant eloquence? if this were his purpose; let us see, I beseech you, what he performeth.  
First he saith self love is a good, as guilding, and then talketh of the goodman's Cow, Pan's pipe, Apollo's harp, painting of women's faces, Hens and Chickens, and such like fooleries. But his horrible eloquence declareth him to be the Chicken of a Buzzard, and a blind Harper, that cannot discern between self love, & private spirits. His reader also may see, that he hath as much skill in painting of faces, as in expounding of scriptures. And yet all his Cow eloquence will not serve to cover the deformities of the painted whore of Babylon, of whom he is a devout servant, and upon whom he bestoweth much complextion to no purpose.  
Luther regardeth it not, albeit some of the Fathers should speak against a point of faith: neither would he submit his Doctrine to be judged by the Romish antichristian prelate's. But that showeth not, that he preferred himself before any, but rather that he preferred the Scriptures and articles of Christian faith before all. And to them he exhorteth all to submit themselves, ascribing nothing to his own opinion. But what if Luther should have spoken out of square? what is that to the new Religion, he speaketh off? doth our religion depend upon every word of Luther? certes no more, than the faith of the Church of Rome upon the idle discourses of kellison's Survey. As for Caluin he referreth nothing to his own spirit, but to the rule of God's word, to which he submitteth his interpretations, as well of these words, hoc est corpus meum, as of other places of Scriptures else where interpreted by him.  
Finally, we neither reject Fathers, nor Counsels, nor godly pastors. The skip-iacke surveyor therefore, that calleth Luther and Caluin Skip-iacks, and like a skipjack running from matter to matter, makes so long a declamation against self love, and overweening a man's self, did herein seem to love himself, but too much, and much to offend in overweening and surcuydrie, that pleased himself in this Chapter, that is so far from the purpose, so false in respect of us, and so contrary to himself, and his own cause.  
His fourth Chapter he beginneth, as his manner is, with a pedantical declamation against Parricides, showing how strangely they were punished, being sowed into a sack with a Cock, a Viper, an Ape, and a Dog. But to what purpose is all this? doth he think, that it is no less, than the crime of Parricide, to reject 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, deserve to be sewed in sacks, as Urban the sixth did deal with certain Cardinals, & with the beasts of like nature to be thrown into the sea. As for us we reject no Fathers, that consent one with another, and with holy scriptures in matters of faith, but rather the bastardly writings of falsaries, and of such as take upon them the names of Fathers, or else such, as hold singular opinions, or vary from the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles of Christ.  
Luther had no reason in matter of the Sacrifice of the Mass to disclaim the fathers, which all with one voice, as I have justified against Bellarmine, make against the carnal sacrifice of the Popish Mass for quick and dead. But if he or Caluin, or any other speak against Fathers, it is not against all, nor against the Books, which are certainly known to be theirs, but against counterfeit fellows, and some particular opinions.  
If Caluin should call the men of Trent, Hogs and Asses, he did them a special favour. For they showed themselves to be worse, being open enemies of the Christian faith, and most 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 great 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 far worse. Furthermore, we do not believe, that so wise a man as Gregory the first is reputed, would write so foolish Books, as the dialogues, that go under his name, and are so full of old wives tales, and fabulous toys.  
But should Luther, Caluin, or others overlash in speaking of Fathers; yet to do this K. favour, I am content to join with him upon this issue, that the Fathers of the Church in their authentical writings in the greatest controversies betwixt us and the Papists are for us and against them. And of this he could not be ignorant, but that he is only a School pedant, and an ignorant broacher of new opinions, and not versed in the writings of the Fathers. Against us he allegeth the most reverend & learned Father Toby Matthew most worthy Bishop of Durham: but he doth offer him singular wrong, as that reverend Bishop will always testify. Afterward he bringeth in Genebrard a professed enemy, whose deposition is no more worth, then if this ketler should out of his malice speak it. Luther's scruples grew not upon doubt of the Father's doctrine, but of the long approbation of the Mass, and other abuses. In free-will for substance of doctrine we doubt not of the Father's favour against the Papists.  
Finally he saith, The Fathers have the infallible assistance of God's holy spirit in exposition of Scriptures, and that those which reject them, reject also the counsels of the Church, and the authority of Pastors, by which the Church is directed: And finally open a gate to all Heresies. But here are many absurdities hoodled together without truth or order. For First he supposeth most falsely, that all the Fathers are rejected by us. Secondly he confirmeth the exposition of Fathers to be equal to the determination of the Pope, which neither his holy Father, nor his own consorts will grant. Thirdly not every one that rejecteth Fathers in some things, doth therefore reject counsels or all the pastors of the Church. Finally albeit divers late Counsels were rejected, and the testimonies of fathers not admitted without choice; yet the definitions of Counsels, which are apparently deduced out of Scriptures, and the Father's authentical expositions, consonant to the rule of faith might be approved by those, which have authority in the Church, which every private man is to follow, unless by some equal, or greater authority that resolution be reversed. But if kellison's Doctrine were confessed; then might the Pope go shake his ears. For what should we need to go to him, if the Fathers have Gods holy spirit infallibly assisting them in the exposition of Scriptures? again if denying of the authority of Fathers were the opening of a gap to all Heresies, them did the Pope's open gaps to all Heresies, who in their decretaline expositions of hoc est corpus meum, & feed my Sheep, and drink ye all of this, and infinite such like texts of scriptures decline quite from the common interpretation of Fathers, and nothing regard their authority.  
The fift Chapter is partly a Scholastical exercise concerning the motives, that may induce men to believe the Christian faith, and partly an invective against us, for that we admit not the rinegued mass-priests sent us hither by the Pope, & their counterfeit miracles. And thereupon he would conclude, that we want those probable means to induce reasonable men to be of our religion, which the Papists have. But first his dispute concerning probable motives to the faith, is nothing else, but a vain discourse of his own foolish motions, disjointed opinions, and improbable fancies. For not only the Pagans of old time, but also the Turks now may better allege antiquity, consent, authority of mission, the subduing of the world to their religion, miracles and such like motives, than the Papists, seeing Popery is nothing else, but a corruption of Christian religion, that is neither so ancient, as Arianisme, nor so largely spread abroad as Paganism and turcism. Neither are the Papists for learning comparable to the ancient Philosophers. Secondly whatsoever this K. speaketh of mission, it maketh against the mass-priests, that come both without authority, and without any message delivered by Christ, or his Apostles unto them. For never shall he prove the Pope's usurped authority, though he should live to the worlds end, nor that mass-priests are to sacifice for quick and dead, and to cut the throat of Princes, which be the principal points of their mission. Thirdly we offer to prove, that we have not only those probable motives, which he speaketh of, as miracles, consent, antiquity, and such like, to induce men to like of our religion; but also the word of God, the testimony of the ancient apostolic Church, and many sure grounds, which our adversaries want. Neither needed this K. to brag much of Bellarmine or Suarez, seeing their positions stand refuted without answer, but that he which can say little himself, must needs rely on others. Fourthly nothing hath this babbler to object either against the authority of our teachers, or their doctrine; which is not more unsavoury, than Coleworts twice or thrice sodden. Where he calleth Boy mass-priests old teachers, and their doctrine also old, and our teachers and doctrine new; he like a poor disputer beggeth that, which he cannot by argument effect or convince, and like a foolish pleader, talketh of matters prejudicial to himself. Nay, when he shall come to trial, he shall find, that the Fathers in all points of faith are for us, and not for the Pope, whose triple-Crowneship, and decretaline doctrine they never knew. Fiftly where he (like a cur) barketh at the memory of the renowned Father Bishop jewel, and snarleth at the most famous learned man the Lord of Plessis Marlj, as if they had corrupted and misalleged Scriptures and Fathers, and by untruths and weak proofs abused they readers; the first is justified by master whitaker's against all the barkings of his malicious enemies: the second hath verified his allegations against all his accusers, by the original words of the authors by him alleged, in a late edition of his book, & both these verifications stand without reply. But if we should go about to collect all the lies, slanders, impostures, corruptions, 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 far from the purpose, as Kellison is far from learning and honesty. For here he should reason against the grounds of our Religion. But grounds are one thing, and motives another: those being certain, these probable, and oftentimes not concludent. But were he not a beetleheaded Surveyor, as he is a polshorne sacrificer of Baal; he would have forborn to touch this point of motives. For what motive can any man have to believe, that an unlearned, bougerly, blind and wicked Pope is supreme judge of Religion, that an obscure and infamous Italian hath power to depose the King of England; that Christians are not to believe the articles of our christian faith, nor Scriptures, unless they receive them from the Pope's chair; that Ecclesiastical traditions, of which the authors and defenders are not yet resolved, are equal to holy Scriptures, that the old latin vulgar translation of the Bible is authentical, and the original text not, or that Dogs do sometime eat Christ's body, or that Christ's body and blood is sacrificed in the Mass, although the same at the same instant be in heaven, and is not consumed, as is the manner of sacrifices; and infinite such absurdities?  
In the end of the first Chapter he citeth divers slanderous reports of Luther and Caluin, and talketh Idly of the good life of Papists, or rather excuseth their lewd life notorious to the world. He doth also allege the number, antiquity, miracles, and other qualities of such as taught his religion. Afterward he runneth back to talk of the succession of Popes. Finally by a tale out of josephus of the jews and Samaritans' Temple he doubteth not, but he should win the victory, if he were to plead against us. But if he plead no more wisely, than he doth in this place; his auditory should have good reason to hiss him from the bar. For first his slanderous reports against Luther and Caluin are matters devised by Cochleus, Staphilus, Bolsecus, and other popish parasites hired of purpose to devise slanders against them: of which Bolsecus in public synod revoked his malicious libel. But the matters we object to the Popes, and their adherents, are matters recorded in public acts & authentical histories, the authors whereof were men favouring popery. Secondly this Lobster-faced fellow would blush to talk of the lives of the Italians and other the pope's adherents, but that he knoweth their lewd acts are concealed from the people of England by the remoteness and distance of their Country. And yet all that know Italy, and the nations subject to the Pope, will say, he hath no reason to stand much upon their piety or honesty. Thirdly never shall he show, either that the modern Popes are the successors of the first Bishops of Rome, or that the Popish Bishops, that are now the marked slaves of Antichrist, are the true successors of Austen the Monk and his fellows. Nay the Doctrine that we profess, being taught by them, and the decretaline doctrine that we refuse, being unknown to them, it must needs follow, that not the popish Wolves, but our Bishops are their successors, Finally the tale out of josephus doth little fit this K. purpose. For neither hath the modern Church of Rome any affinity with the temple of the jews, nor can this K. do any such feats as he imagineth.  
Was not then this surveyor both idle, and unadvised, that runneth through so many impertinent matters to his particular purpose, and so adverse to his general cause?  
The last Chapter of his first book is yet more extravagant, than all the rest. For therein he speaketh not one word of the grounds of our Religion, which are the things which he propounded for the subject of his discourse; but of the Pope, whom we take to be the head of Antichristes Kingdom, and to be so rightly called, although he would gladly prove him to be the supreme judge in matters of Religion. And his reason is, for that every Kingdom hath his King, every Dukedom a Duke, every City a Major or Bailiff, every Army a general, every village almost hath a Constable, etc. he proveth the same also by God's 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 ever called the Vicars of Christ, and successors of S. Peter. And in the end having run himself out of breath, he concludeth, that we have no judge in matters of Religion, and so open a gap to all Heresies. But if he come into his Country and reason no better, the Constable of the parish where he landeth, if he be a man of any understanding, may do well to set him by the heels. For First he reasoneth absurdly from politic bodies to Christ's mystical body. Secondly if any argument might be drawn from thence; yet would this similitude overthrow the Pope's monarchy. For albeit, every Kingdom, Army, City and Village hath his governor; yet it were absurd to make one King over all the world, one commander over all armies, one grand Mayor or Constable over all the Majors and Constables of the world. Thirdly, neither was there one supreme judge of matters of Religion before the law, under the law, or in the time of the Gospel, as I have at large proved against Bellarmine in my Books De pontifice. Rom. (which are to hot for such a tender fingered Surveyor to handle) nor are we now to conform ourselves to the law, but to Christ's institution. Fourthly, for one thousand years after Christ, shall not this ranging fellow prove, that the Bishops of Rome were called Christ's Vicars. The title of Peter's successors is common to all true teachers succeeding Peter, and importeth no general command over the whole Church. fifthly, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch Lib. 2. Autolicum is grossly belied. So like wise is Chrysostome homil. 34. in epist. 1. ad Corinth. Finally, he wrongeth us, where he saith we have no judge of matters of Religion. For the only supreme judge that determineth infallibly is God speaking in Scriptures. If any variety be about his determination, the supreme judge of all the church upon earth is a lawful general council proceeding according to God's word. In the mean while every nation is to stand to the definition of a national council. And to this judge do we submit ourselves. As for the Papists they submit themselves to a blind Pope, that sometime believeth not, and seldom understandeth the Articles of the Christian faith. Kellison therefore, that dreameth of such a fellows infallible judgement, hath little reason to talk against the proceeding used in the Church of England, for deciding of matters of Religion. Further he hath need to beware, that the Constable of one parish or other, take him not within the sphere of his activity, lest he place him in the supreme hole of the Stocks, for his supreme idiotism in matters of judgement concerning religion.   

Chap. 2. The foundations of Popish religion discovered to be most weak and foolish.  
THus we have seen how much this K. hath mistaken the grounds of our religion, and how little he hath to say against them. Let us therefore now consider his supposed grounds, and the common foundations of the popish religion, and what Christians are to think 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 that no man is to hang his salvation on these new Ministers. Which argueth first, that he supposeth the mission of the Pope and his sha●●● mass-priests to be a principal ground of religion, and next, 〈◊〉 ●he papists are to hang their salvation upon them. But this 〈…〉 nely a mere foolery, and most gross impiety, but also an open way to all superstition and Heresy. The same ground is also overthrown by kellison's own positions. Mere foolery it is to build our faith upon a blind ignorant and wicked Pope. Neither can we esteem it other than impiety to add a foundation to that, which is already laid, which is Christ jesus, and to believe the Pope's determinations, as the word of God.  
Furthermore, this being granted, then will it follow, the Pope teaching Heresy, that all Papists are to follow him, and that when he goeth to hell for teaching errors, according to the Chapter si papa. dist. 40. that Kellison and his consorts are to go after him. Kellison supposeth, that he cannot err. But this showeth, that his faith is built upon supposals, yea such supposals as by evident demonstrations are declared to be false.  
Finally this ground of the mission of the Popes, and their adherent mass-priests is overthrown by Kellison his own discourse. For if the Popes be not S. Peter's or the first Bishops of Rome's successors; then are they, as Kellison saith, intruders and false Prophets, nay thieves and Robbers.  
But Saint Peter's successors they cannot be, having First no vocation to be Apostles. Secondly, taking on them an Office that S. Peter never had, to wit, to manage both the swords, to dispose of kingdoms, to cut christian men's throats, that will not receive their mark, and leaving S. Peter's office in feeding Christ's sheep.  
Neither are they the lawful successors of the first Bishops. For first they are no Bishops, as neither having lawful election by the people and Clergy, but only by certain new upstart electors called Cardinals, nor preaching or doing the work of a Bishop. Secondly, they have devised a new Doctrine and faith, divers from that, which the first bishops of Rome taught, as their decretales show. Thirdly, they have taken upon them an universal power both in temporal and ecclesiastical matters, which the Christian Bishops of Rome in times passed never had nor challenged.  
The mass-priests consequently being authorized by the Pope cannot pretend any lawful calling or mission. But were they clear of this exception, yet can they not justify their mission. For first they are called ad sacrificandum pro vivis et defunctis, that is to sacrifice for quick and dead. But of such a calling there is neither ground nor memorial in the holy scriptures, or ancient fathers. Secondly, they teach not the Doctrine of the Apostles and their successors, but of the Pope's decretales, and of the Schools Sophisters. Lastly, they are the market slaves of Antichrist having their crowns shaven, and their hands anointed with his oil, and with him they fight against the Saints of God. Of their abominable villainies, I will say nothing at this time, although I have just occasion being provoked thereto by the unjust slanders of this greasy masspriest against master Luther and Master john Caluin of reverend memory. That part of my defence shall be reserved to a greater volume.  
Secondly, this K. excludeth scriptures from being a foundation of religion. Wherein he hath great reason if we respect the doctrine of Papists. For how can they admit scriptures for a foundation, that rail against them, fly from them, and cannot stand, if their authority were most eminent, and to be preferred before all humane devices? but this showeth, the Kellison is a better Mason to build Babel, and the synagogue of satan, which is upholden with human traditions and the Pope's sword, then the Church of God, which is built upon the Prophets and Apostles, jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.  
His third foundation, as it seemeth, is laid upon Counsels and Fathers. For of them he talketh much Lib. 1. C. 4. but neither doth he name what Counsels, nor what Fathers, nor what writings of Fathers he meaneth: matters of very important consideration. For foundations must be certain. But among the counsels acts, and writings of Fathers, there are many things never established by counsels, nor taught by Fathers. Furthermore the Fathers themselves will not have their writings taken for canonical, or authentical scriptures, as may be proved by infinite testimonies. But I will here only allege one or two. Quamuis sanctus sit aliquis post apostolos saith Hierome in Psal. 86. quamuis disertus sit, non habet authoritatem. He saith plainly, that no Father after the Apostles time hath authority. The same Father showeth, that only Scriptures are the foundation of the Church: and Augustine lib. 2. Contr. Crescon. c. 31. hath these words: literas Cypriani, non ut canonicat habeo. The like he saith epist. 19 ad. Hieronymum, and epist. 48. showing that there is great difference betwixt scriptures, and the writings of Fathers. Finally divers Heretics have pretended counsels and Fathers.  
His last and most authentical foundation is the supreme judgement of the Pope. But that showeth, that popish religion is rather from man, than God, and that the Papists are rather the synagogue of Antichrist, relying upon his decretales, than the church of God, that is built upon also plainly declare, that there is no certainty in popish Religion, standing upon the humour of a man, whose opinions are repugnant to other pope's, and whose mind may change, and cause him to utter contrary Doctrines. Thirdly, it showeth, that Popish Religion is absurd, being grounded upon the opinions and sentences of ignorant & impious men. Finally, grant this, & then the Papists, if the Pope deny Christ, must all go to hell with him.  
Likewise Stapleton handling of purpose this argument in the preface of his book of Doctrinal principles, delivereth unto us these seven principles and foundations of faith, First the Catholic and Apostolic Church, Secondly, the power of the same church in teaching and judging matters of faith infallibly, thirdly, the persons, in whom this power doth reside. Fourthly, the means by which they proceed in teaching & judging. Fiftly, the chief heads, about which that power is conversant. Sixtly, authority to interpret Scriptures infallibly: and lastly, power to deliver Doctrines not contained in Scriptures. But if he had been bound in statute staple, I do not think he could have spoken more absurdly, or impiously, & falsely. For First if he talk of principles demonstrative of the christian faith, then should he not have talked of single words, and terms, as he doth, but of propositions or Scriptures containing the primary propositions of the Christian faith. Secondly if the rude fellow had but had one grain of piety, he would not have left out the holy Scriptures out of the number of christian principles. Thirdly, the Church, to speak properly, is built upon a foundation, and is not the foundation of the Church, unless he will have 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 whom the same consisteth, from the Church. Fiftly, what more ridiculous, then to call a form of proceeding, a principle of Christian Doctrine? Sixtly, all Articles of the faith may be called heads, but it is mere foppery to think that Christian Religion hath as many foundations, as several Articles. Finally it is most absurd to believe, that either the Pope, or the Church of Rome doth interpret scriptures infallibly, or hath the power to add 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 Pope's determinations and decretales, and the sayings of the fathers and Counsels allowed by the Pope are the foundations of faith, then doth he endeavour to build Babylon, & not Jerusalem, fantastical devices, and monstrous chimeras, and not the true faith; the kingdom of Antichrist, and not Christ's church. Nay if these were foundations of faith; then would it follow First, that the foundation of the Romish faith is not yet fully laid. For as yet all their decretales, and determinations are not fully published. Secondly we should not know where to find this faith, these traditions, and interpretations and opinions of Fathers, all of them being not yet resolved. Thirdly, the Romish faith should be a mere human devise standing upon human fancies. Finally it should be contrary to itself, and to scriptures: for such are the Romish traditions and interpretations and allegations of fathers.  
Canus in his Book de Locis Theologicis, layeth down ten grounds, from whence all arguments in controversies of Divinity in his opinion are derived. The first is holy Scripture, The 2. tradition, The 3. is the authority of the Catholic church The 4. is the authority of general counsels. The 5. is the authority of the Church of Rome. The 6. is the authority of the holy Fathers. The 7. is the authority of Schoolmen & Canonists. The 8. is natural reason. The 9 is the authority of Philosophers, and civil lawyers. The last is the authority of human histories. But first it is no small wrong to join with holy scriptures, not only the writing of Fathers, but also the writings of Schoolmen, canonists, and profane writers. Secondly, it is the overthrow of faith, to found the same upon uncertain and unknown traditions. Thirdly, it appeareth hereby, that the faith of Papists for the most part is an human opinion being grounded upon men, nay upon human reason. Finally, his grounds are not only changeable for the most part, but also contrary one to another. That is proved, not only by the mutability of the decrees of counsels, & Doctrine of counsels, school-divines, Canonists, and profane authors, but also by traditions themselves, of which divers are abrogated and ceased. This may be demonstrated by traditions, by testimonies of Fathers, acts of Counsels, the doctrine of Thomistes and Scotistes, Canonists, civil Lawyers, and profane writers. For not only profane writers have showed themselves ignorant of matters of faith, but both Schoolmen and fathers have held contrary opinions, as shall be proved when need is by divers 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 Zion: unto the pope. There also he avoucheth the Sea of Rome to be the foundation of the Faith. Likewise in the end of his preface de verbo dei, he seemeth to hold that the sense of Scriptures is to be fetched from the Popes See, and senseless decretales. Lastly the same man doth as confidently allege the Pope decretales, as Saint Paul's Epistles.  
Gelasius in the Chapter Sancta. dist. 15. ordaineth, that the Histories of Martyrs and their sufferings are to be received. And commonly the Romish Church doth prove her traditions partly out of such legends, and partly out of their missals, porteses, and other ritual Books.  
Kellison therefore, when he looketh upon the ruinous foundations of the Romish faith, hath little reason to talk 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 do teach us. But the Papists, as may appear by that, which I have alleged, do one differ from another.  
Canus doth not once mention the Pope among his theological places: which to Stapleton and Bellarmine is the principal foundation of the work. Contrariwise Stapleton leaveth Scriptures out of his reckoning of principles of faith, which Canus confesseth to be a most  foundation of faith. Canus again numbereth divers foundations, and places theological, which others do not once mention.  
Secondly albeit we do not build our faith principally, either upon the acts of counsels, or testimonies of Fathers, further than they build their Doctrine upon holy Scriptures, yet in the interpretation of Scriptures we do not neglect the authority of counsels and Fathers. But the Papists, albeit they seem to found their faith upon the authority of counsels, and Fathers, yet regard them not one straw, if it be the pope's pleasure to determine contrary unto them.  
Thirdly, our faith is built upon the rock Christ jesus, but the faith of the Romanists is built upon the straw and stubble of popish traditions & determinations, and as they say; upon the Pope, who to them is the supreme judge, and pole-star of faith shining out of his papal Chair.  
Fourthly our faith is the Christian faith, being built only upon the word of God. Theirs is a decretaline, & an human faith, being built upon the Pope's decretales, and human inventions.  
Fiftly, our grounds are immoovable, and agree well one with an other. But their grounds are mutable, and contrary one to another.  
Sixtly, they cannot deny our grounds, unless they will blaspheme against holy Scriptures. But upon their own grounds they are not yet well agreed. We do generally refuse them, and antiquity was ignorant of them.  
Seventhly, our grounds are safe and sure. But he that followeth the Pope, or believeth all that is written in the breviaries and Missals, cannot assure him self, that he is in the right.  
Finally, it is a thing most ridiculous to believe, that whatsoever an unlearned Pope, or a man void of religion determineth in matters of faith, is to be holden as a matter and firm Article of faith. For as well may a blind man judge of colours, as a blind and irreligious Pope of matters of religion. But we are assured, that the Prophets and Apostles have truly declared unto us the whole counsel of God.  
Open your eyes therefore dear Christians, and suffer not yourselves to be abused by the impostures of mass-priests. You see they are not resolved in the foundations of faith. And do you think that these men intend the edification of God's Church, who ●rre in the main principles and foundations of faith, and cannot stand, unless the Pope, who hath manifestly declared himself an enemy of religion, may sit judge in his own cause?   

Chap. 3. kellison's Motives to Popish religion compared with the Motives, that may induce men to embrace true Christian religion. Therein also the true motives to Popery are touched.  
KEllison in his first Book and fift Chapter, talketh of Motives to Christian religion: but so coldly and barely, as if his cause wanted life and motion. First, he telleth us pag. 106. that our Saviour Christ proved his Mission by prophecies and miracles. Among other miracles he talketh of the strange conquest, which the Apostles made of Idolatry. Secondly, he saith we want reason and authority to persuade men to our religion, being not comparable either to ancient Fathers, or to Bellarmine, Suarez, and such fellows, in wit, or learning, or good life, or antiquity, or number, or dignity. Thirdly, he talketh of consent & succession. But First the example of our Saviour Christ, & the conquest made by Christ's Apostles over idolatry maketh against the idolatrous papists. For neither can the Pope prove his universal Monarchy by Prophets, or by miracles; nor hath any Christian man reason to adhere to papists, that want confirmation of their Popes, and mass-priests Mission, and yet bring into their Churches heathenish idolatry, and much false and erroneous doctrine, and namely concerning the 7. Sacraments, the sacrifice of Christ's body and blood in the Mass for quick & dead, Popish purgatory, and teaching that man by power of free will is able to work his own salvation, that we are to make vows and confessions to Saints, & to offer sacrifice in honour of them, that we are to satisfy for sins (whose guilt is remitted) in Purgatory, that the Pope hath power to deliver souls out of Purgatory by his Indulgences, that his Chair is the foundation of the church and such like doctrines of devils.  
Secondly, the ancient Fathers are wholly against the papists in these points. As for the Popes of Rome and their parasites Bellarmine, Suarez, and the rest, they are not such, as are to be bragged upon, either for learning, wit, good life, or any virtue.  
Thirdly, neither are the papists comparable in number to the Turks & Pa●ans, nor have they either true succession, or consent, or antiquity, that maketh for them. Nay if the papists would stand to these motives; they were clearly gone. For neither have they prophesies or miracles for them, Nor can the Pope, or the mass-priests prove their mission by miracles, nor doth antiquity make for them. As for good life, this K. may be much ashamed to speak of it, the filthiness of Popes, Cardinals, mass-priests, Monks, nuns and Friars, being so notorious to the world, and recorded in so many stories and acts of Counsels.  
What then is the reason, that so many adhere to papists, and what are the motives, that induce so many to like their religion? Forsooth first Fire and Sword. For they kill all, that will not receive the Pope's mark, or that once mutter against their idolatrous religion.  
Secondly, secret and treacherous practices against all that shall once dare to profess the truth. mass-priests brew treason and rebellion, jesuits set on assassinors. The Pope hath his Agents with all Princes. Neither doth he, or his Agents omit any occasion to stir up Princes to make war against them that profess the truth, and to persecute them to death.  
Thirdly, excommunicating, and killing, and poisoning of Kings opposite to the Pope's tyranny. By the Pope's practice K. Henry the 8. and Queen Elizabeth were often in danger here in England. By the treachery of the Leaguers King Henry the 3. was slain, and Henry the 4. wounded and brought to great extremity in France. Henry of Lucemburgh was poisoned by a Dominican Friar. Frederic the 2. was empoisoned, and in the end murdered, as Matthew Paris doth signify: and this no doubt by the Pope's practice.  
The 5. of November anno 1605. a train of gunpowder was laid by certain Papists under the upper house of Parliament, purposing to destroy the King, the Queen, the Prince, the nobles and commons there assembled; and by their destruction to replant popery in England The treason discovered, they broke forth into open rebellion.  
Fourthly, slanderous Libels; as the invectives of Alan and Parsons against Queen Elizabeth and the State: of Saunders against Her, and her Parents and Counsel: of the Leaguers and jesuits against King Henry the 3. and 4. of France, and the railing discourses written against Luther, Zuinglius, Caluin, Beza, Knox, and all godly men declare.  
Fiftly their impudent lies and fables in setting forth their own Religion, and discommending the truth, and such as either now, or in time passed professed it, as the fabulous tales of jacobus de voragine, Surius, Baronius, and divers writers of popish Histories will testify.  
Sixtly, their publishing of counterfeit books, under the names of Fathers, and the corrupting of Fathers by their expurgatory indices.  
7. Their impudent falsification of ancient Fathers, and other writers, as may be proved out of the allegations of Bellarmine, Stapleton, and other popish Proctors.  
8. Their false imputations laid upon others, and their impudent denials of things done by themselves.  
9 The diligent suppressing of the Books of holy Scripture, and all Books written in vulgar tongues, concerning matters of religion.  
10. The prohibiting of Christians to dispute reason, or question of matters of faith.  
11. The ignorance & blindness of christians, that know nothing, but only such matters, as the false Friars and mass-priests tell them.  
12 The impudent clamours & railings of this generation in Pulpits, lying and slandering all, that profess the Gospel sincerely.  
13. The rigour of auricular confession, by means whereof the Popish faction understandeth all men's secrets.  
14. The bloody cruelty of the pope's agentes, executioners and inquisitors.  
Finally, the rewards and praises that are given to those that travail either by writing, or practise to maintain the Pope's cause. Without these motives all the motives mentioned by Kellison were to no purpose.  
As for us we have two principal motives to hold us in the truth, which would also move others to draw unto us, if they knew them. The first is the truth and justice of our cause. The next is the impieties, blasphemies, abominations, fooleries, absurdities, injustice of Popery. For the truth of our Religion we● offer to bring Scriptures, counsels, Fathers, antiquity consent, true succession, law, reason and all other proofs required in the justification of Religion.  
The reasons to deter men from Popery, we shall God willing deduce at large in a particular discourse. Thus much may serve to requite kellison's discourse of motives to Religion for the present.   

Chap. 4. Of the marks and properties of Heretics.  
THe name and nature of Heresy being so odious, it is not to be marveled, if the Patrons thereof disguise themselves in their terms, names, and titles. The Valentinians, as Tertullian in his Book against them testifieth, did colour their most vain and filthy devices, with holy names, titles and arguments of true religion. Sanctis nominibus & titulis & argumentis verae religionis vanissimà atque turpissima figmenta configurantes. So likewise do Papists under colour of Catholic religion present to their followers their heretical Doctrine concerning the being of Christ's body in many places, transubstantiation, the carnal eating of Christ's flesh with the mouth, the devouring of Christ's body by brute beasts, and the merits of congruity. Under the title of God's true worship they commend the service of the blessed Virgin, the adoration of Angels, of Saints, and of their images; under the name of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving they shadow the abominable idol● of the Mass: and under the name of succession, the grievous yoke of the Pope's Tyranny. But as Wolves muffled in sheeps clothing are discerned by their Wolvish qualities; so Heretics are discovered by certain marks and heretical properties. The which if Kellison would or durst have set down truly; then would it have appeared, that Papists, and not we, are Heretics For first Heretics are they, that teach new Doctrine in the Church. Haerest deputatur saith Tertullian Lib. de prescript. quod postea inducitur. But such is the decretaline and Trent doctrine of traditions, justification, Sacraments, purgatory, indulgences, worship of images, Angels and Saints.  
Secondly, they fly the light of Scriptures and speak evil of them. Therefore Tertullian calleth them lucifugas scripturarum, and jerenaeus Lib. 3. adverse. haeres. c. 2. saith, when they are convinced by Scriptures, they fall to accuse Scriptures, as if they stood not well or wanted authority, or were to be wrested to divers senses, or else as if truth could not be sound by those, that are ignorant of tradition. Cum ex scripturis arguuntur, in accusationem convertuntur ipsarum scripturarum, quasi non recte habeant neque sint ex authoritate, & quia variè sint dictae, & quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab h●●, qui nesciant traditionem. And do not the Papists fly the light of Scriptures, forbidding them to be read publicly in vulgar tongues, and punishing such as have Scriptures translated into their mother tongue without licence? do they not also say, that Scriptures are like a nose of wax, or as Kellison saith waxy, and that they depend upon the Church, and that the truth cannot sufficiently be known without tradition?  
Thirdly, Heretics teach otherwise then the Apostles did. Therefore the Apostle. 1. Tim. 1. gave order to Timothy, that he should charge some, that they should not teach otherwise. unde extranei & inimici apostolis haeretici saith Tertullian de prescript. adu. haeret. nisi ex diversitate doctrinae, quam unusquisque de suo arbitrio adversus Apostolos, aut protulit, aut recepit? Whence are Heretics strangers and enemies to the Apostles, but by reason of the diversity of Doctrine, which every one of his own head either devised, or received contrary to the Apostles? This quality is also incident to the Papists, that not only teach otherwise, then did the Apostles, but have also added to the Apostles doctrine all that trash, which we desire to be scoured away, as being contrary to the apostolic form of doctrine.  
Fourthly Heretics stand much upon false miracles and prophecies, as the examples both of montanists, and Severians do show. There were also certain Heretics called mirabiliarij, confirming all their Doctrines with miracles. Tertullian de praescrip. adverse. haeret. showeth that Heretics shall commend the authority of their teachers, in raising the dead, curing the weak, and fore-prophecying things to come. adijcient multa de authoritate cuiusque doctoris haeretici, illos maxima doctrinae suae confirmasse, mortuos suscitasse, debiles reformasse, futura significasse. In which points the Papists do follow them at the heels, bragging of the miracles of Dominic, Francis, Ignatius, Xaverius and other their Romish Saints, and making miracles & prophecies, marks of their Church, and motives to induce men to like of their Religion.  
Fiftly, Heretics commonly stand upon traditions, as we may read in Irenaeus. Lib. 3. c. 2. And because Christ said, he had many things to say to the Apostles, which they could not then bear; imagine, that their devices were contained in these concealed Doctrines. Omnes etiam insipientissimi haeretici qui se Christianos vocari volunt, audacias figmentorum suorum, quas maxime exhorret sensus humanus, saith Augustin tract. 97. in joan. bac occasione evangelicae sententiae colorare conantur, ubi dominus ait, adhuc multa habeo vobis dicere, sed non potestis portare modò. The same humour is likewise in the Papists, and divers of them use these words of our Saviour, to that purpose, albeit S. Augustine calleth them therefore most foolish Heretics.  
Sixtly, our Saviour Christ showeth, that false Prophets shall come unto us in the habit and clothes of Sheep, but are inwardly ravening Wolves. The same we find partly verified in the Arians, and Donatists, but most expressly in the Papists. For albeit they will be called Catholics and Christ's sheep; yet they devour true Catholics, like Wolves, and massacre all, that once dare open their mouths against their idolatries, and heretical imaginations. Their inquisitors tribunals are full of blood of innocents, and their garments are red with blood, and carry evident marks of their cruelty. In France they have massacred old and young, men and women, and spared none, that came in their way, far passing in cruelty, both the Donatists and Arians.  
7. To defend their perverse & erroneous Doctrine, Heretics are wont to detruncate, and by false expositions, to pervert holy scriptures, Tertullian de prescript. saith of martion, that to fit his purpose, he cut the Scriptures at his pleasure: ad materiam suam caedem scripturarum confecit. Hierome in epist. ad Galat. c. 5. saith, he may be called an Heretic, that understandeth the Scriptures otherwise, than the sense of the holy Ghost requireth, albeit he be not yet departed out of the Church. So likewise the Papists abuse the holy Scriptures most shamefully in their allegations, cutting them, and forcing them contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost. The old Latin translation of the Bible cutteth off and addeth to the original text and yet will they needs have it authentical. These words of Isay ecce ponam in fundamentis Sion lapidem, etc. in praefat. in lib. de pontiff. Rom. Bellarmine most impudently detorteth to the Pope. Likewise do the Papists abuse these words Hierem. 1. ecce constitui te hody super gentes, to prove, that the Pope is made head of nations. These words bibite ex hoc omnes: they construe, as if none of the communicants, but the priest, were to drink of the chalice.  
8. Heretics conceal divers of their false & lewd Doctrines Iraeneus lib. 1. c. 23. saith that they hold, that they are not to deliver publicly their mysteries, but in silence to contain them in secret. Non oportere saith he, omnia ipsorum mysteria effari, sed in abscondito continere per silentium. Tertullian also saith, they hide their mysteries in secret, ne margaritam porcis, & sanctum canibus iactarent: that is, lest they should cast Pearls to swine, and holy things to Dogs. So likewise the Papists pronounce their Canon in secret, and will not, that lay men shall dispute of matters of faith, and think it is not fit, that holy Scriptures in vulgar tongues should be read either publicly or of all Christians, without restraint. Some also add the same reasons which Heretics abusing Christ's words, do bring, viz. least pearls should be given to Swine, and holy things to Dogs.  
9 Clement of Alexandria Lib. 7. Strom. telleth us, that Heretics being convinced do oftentimes deny their Doctrine. So likewise Papists openly refuse to profess that the pope hath power to command the Subjects, to cut their kings throats, and will not grant that images are to be worshipped with divine worship. Yet to their followers in secret they doubt not to propound these points without scruple of conscience.  
10. Heretics denying their faith to God, seldom keep faith to men, as the example of the Pricillianists doth plainly declare. Herein therefore the papists do plainly show, whom they follow, teaching that faith is not to be kept with Heretics, and dispensing with oaths most easily. The Rhemists in their annotations upon the 23. of the Acts, do expressly teach their followers, to break their oaths, and to run into wilful perjury.  
11. The lives of Heretics are very lewd & lose, libera sunt illis omnia et soluta, saith Tertullian de praescr. Theodoret lib. 1. haeret. fab. in praefat. saith their obscenity is such, that the Stage Players would be ashamed to speak or hear it. And what he saith not, we may imagine by the pope's of Rome, whose abominable beastliness modest ears refuse to hear. publicly they maintain Stews, and nothing among mass-priests and Friars is more common, than unnatural lust The Pope and his laws they fear; of Scriptures they speak unreverently; God they fear not.  
12, They far excel all men in pride, and will not have their doings or doctrines examined. Herein they resemble Mahomet who would not have any question made of his law. But the pope excelleth both Mahometans, and all other Heretics. He will be honoured as God. If he should draw innumerable souls with him to hell, yet will he not be taxed for it, as appeareth by the Chapt. Si papa. dist. 40. His determinations, as his followers hold, are in fallible.  
Finally, by our adversaries discourse and by their own confession, they may also plainly be convinced to be Heretics. For first it is the property of Heretics saith he, Lib. 2. cap. 1. To go out of the Church, & to departed from the faith. He might also have added, teaching Doctrines of Devils, and forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from certain meats, and then the matter would have been very clear. For most wickedly they disgrace marriage in the Chap. proposuisti. dist. 82. As if married folks lived after the flesh, & could not please God, and forbidden their priests, Friars and irreligious orders to marry. They do also restrain their Monks from eating flesh, & forbid laymen to eat it upon certain days. But albeit, he hath concealed these words from us, yet hath he said sufficient. For teaching a new faith never known to the Apostles, nor taught by them, the Papists are clearly gone from the faith: and having received a new head of their Church, and new foundations of their Doctrine, and strange forms of sacraments, they are closely departed out of the Catholic church, & embrace the particular faith of the Pope. Neither can this their departing be denied or concealed, for as Arius by denying of Christ's divinity and equality with the Father, and Nestorius for making two persons of Christ, and other Heretics for teaching singular points of Doctrine contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles were said to departed out of the Church, and so to abandon the society of the faithful, although they might pretend succession, and still claimed the title of the Church, and of Catholics; so the papists, if they teach any new Article of faith, not taught by the Apostles and ancient Church, they are departed out of the Apostolic and Catholic church.  
Secondly he saith, that later standing and novelty is a mark of Heretics. And this he goeth about to prove by Scriptures, and Fathers. But he might well have spared his labour, for we do not deny it. Nay upon this ground we profess, that we are able manifestly to demonstrate the Papists to be Heretics. For such a society as the Pope and his adherents are, was never seen for a long time after the Apostles. If Kellison say contrary; let him leave his pedantery, & show his triple-crowned Pope with two swords treading upon Prince's necks and cutting their throats and ruling the world, his purple Cardinals, his shaven mass-priests, his monks, nuns and Friars, and their retinue to have continued since the Apostles times. Furthermore the doctrine of the carnal eating of Christ's flesh, of transubstantiation, of the subsistence of accidents in the eucharist without their substances, of the communion under one kind, of the pope's universal headship, of purgatory, of indulgences, and other points decreed in late conventicles, would be showed and proved.  
If Kellison can derive these Doctrines from the Apostles, his holy Father will give him his blessing: if not, by his own confession his own consorts are to be anathematized as Heretics, and the Pope for the head of them.  
In his third Chapt. of his second book, he saith, that particular names taken from Sect-maisters are notes of Heretics, which is also a third argument to prove him, & his consorts Heretics, being all called of their grand sect master the Pope papists, & some of Benedict being termed Benedictines, others of Francis and Dominicke, Franciscans, and Dominicans, and of Ignatius Ignatians, and some of Thomas and Scotus, Thomistes and Scotistes. Nay leaving the common name of Christians and catholics, they will be called Catholic Romans. Against them therefore the word● of Hierome contr. Lucifer. may aptly be turned, out of which we may conclude, that they are not the Church of Christ, but the Synagogue of Antichrist. Neither doth justine speak any thing against the Valentinians and Marcionistes, or Cyprian against the Novatians, concerning the imposition of their names, but the same may be applied against the Papists.  
In his fourth chapter he maketh it a property of Heretics to renew old Heresies. Which although it be not incident to all Heretics; yet it is a very eminent quality in the papists. For from the Simonians they have borrowed their practice of buying and selling ecclesiastical matters, and the use of Concubines; from the Carpocratians they have taken the worship of images; from the Collyridians the saying of Mass, or offering their wafer Cakes in honour of our Lady; from the Marcionistes the baptism of Christians by women, and their limbus patrum; from the Valentinians & Manicheies their opinion of the being of Christ's body in the Sacrament without solidity; from the Pelagians the denial of original sin in the blessed virgin, the perfection of justice, and impeccabilitie of Christians. Finally they have derived divers other branches of old condemned Heresies from other Heretics, as at large I have showed in my late challenge.  
His fift mark of an Heretic is want of succession. A simple mark, if we do well consider it. For neither in the beginning of the world, nor in the time of Aaron, was there any succession of known priests in the world. Likewise neither our Saviour Christ, nor Peter did succeed the priests of the Law. For Christ was a priest after the order of Melchisedech, and Peter was by Christ designed an Apostle, having none to go before him. But to confess succession to be a mark of the Church, and want of succession a mark of an Heretic; yet would this one property of Heretics much blemish the Romish See. For neither are the Pope's Bishops, or Peter's successors, nor can the Papists derive their Doctrine of the pope's universal power, of his two swords, of his espousals with the church, of his indulgences, of the carnal eating & champing Christ's flesh with the teeth, of Transubstantiation, of the Communion under one kind, of adoring the Sacrament and the Cross with divine worship, of making vows, confessions and prayers, to Saints, and such like points of decretaline Doctrine from the Apostles, or any Apostolic men, which, as Tertullian showeth, is a necessary point in succession. Ego saith he, sum Heres Apostolorum, sicut caverunt testamento suo, sicut fidei commiserunt, sicut adiuraverunt, ita teneo. As if he should say, none can be the Apostles heirs, but such as keep the doctrine contained in their testament. The same father in the same place excludeth heretics, as strangers & enemies holding a contrary doctrine to the Apostles. Furthermore the pole-shorne mass-priests sacrificing Christ's body and blood really in the Mass for quick and dead, and divers purposes cannot derive their pedigree either from the Apostles, or from the Priests and ancient Doctors of the church. Finally this form of government and Doctrine, which is now in the Church of Rome, cannot be confirmed by any succession of Bishops and Priests. Nay that rotten succession of Popes, whereupon the cause of Papists, doth hang as upon a third of a Spiderweb, hath no other ground and certainty, than the testimony of Anastasius the Pope's blind bibliothecary, Martin Polonus, Platina, Sanders, Genebrard, Illesca and such like base fellows which no Christian, I trow, will admit for the Basis, and foundation of his faith.  
His sixth mark of heretics is dissension in Doctrine. and this he proveth in a long and tedious discourse. But with this mark he brandeth his own consorts for Heretics. For they descent, not only from the ancient Fathers. But one from another most manifestly. That is apparent, by divers treatises written of controversies. This is proved by the differences of Thomistes and Scotistes, and of all Schoolmen one from an other. Neither do they differ in small matters, but in the highest points of Religion, as namely whether the holy Ghost proceed more principally from the Father, than the Son, about the divine notions, about the atributes of God, about Meritum Congrui, about the cause of predestination, about the thing designed by the word hoc in these words, hoc est corpus meum, about the conception of the blessed Virgin, and all matters of divinity: as the treatises of Schoolmen do plainly show.  
Bellarmine also doth in most controversies no less earnestly dispute against his own consorts, then against us. Neither is it material that all of them profess themselves willing to abide the Pope's determination. For until he determine somewhat, their contentions are endless. And albeit they then cease to contend, yet their differences in opinions appear nevertheless.  
The seventh chapter of his second Book, discou●seth of a seventh mark of Heretics, and therein he endeavoureth to prove all to be Heretics, that follow a particular sect. Now who seethe not, that this toucheth the Papists in general, that restraining themselves within the Romish Church follow the Pope's sect. And are bound by their Doctrine to follow him, although he lead them with him to the pit of hell. The Monks also and Friars, follow the heads and rules of their several sects, without looking whither they lead them.  
The eight mark of an Heretic saith he, is to be condemned by the church, or else as he saith afterward, by general Counsels. which doth no less touch his holy Father, than the rest. For contrary to the form of the Nicene council. c. 4, He giveth liberty to Abbots to consecrate Bishops, and contrary to the 5. Cannon absolveth those, that are excommunicated by other Bishop's Contrary to the 6. Canon he invadeth the dioceses of other patriarchs contrary to another order he separateth Priests from their wives. With Eutyches condemned in the council of Chalcedon he believeth, the Christ hath a body, neither  nor palpable, nor like to ours. For such is that body which he supposeth to be in the Sacrament. Likewise all the old Heresies, which he holdeth, are condemned by the whole Church. Lastly all true Christians, do inwardly abhor Popish impieties, idolatries, and Heresies.  
Finally the Papists generally in the Chapt. ad abolendam. de haeret. condemn them for Heretics, that teach contrary to the Doctrine of Christ's Church, concerning the Sacraments. But this doth notoriously touch themselves. For where the Scriptures mention only baptism, and the lords supper, as seals of God's grace, they increase the number of Sacraments, and make seven Where Christ said, take and eat, they say, offer, heave, hang up, and carry about. Where Christ ordained, that all communicating one kind should also receive the other, they sacrilegiously deprive the people of the cup. finally they teach, that Christians are justified by confirmation and extreme unction, and that all their Sacraments have like effects.  
Thus we see, he hath marked his own consorts with the marks of Heretics. But he shall never be able to fasten his marks upon us. In the beginning of his second Book, he talketh after his declamatory manner of the devils disguising himself in the habit of a young gallant (like percase to the young jebusites and mass-priests, that going about to seduce simple souls attire themselves like gallants) or of a Friar. He assureth also his disciples, that he is descried either by his staring eyes, or stinking savour, or horned head, or forked feet, or base voice. But first we would gladly know of him, why the devil should rather speak in a base, then in a mean voice, and next how he cometh so well acquainted with him, that he knoweth his whole description from his horns to his cloven feet. And lastly how it happened that speaking of the Devil in the first part of the period, he forgot himself in the second, & speaketh of some member of the Devil, and of an Heretic? what? are Heretics discerned by their staring eyes, and forked feet, and such like parts? he telleth us also of the pecking of Birds, and the counterfeiting of alchemissts, gravers and Heretics, putting gravers of idolatrous images near to Heretics, as they do well deserve. But what is that to us? if heretics be such, as counterfeit religion, and yet are gone out of the Church, then concerneth it us nothing. For with our mouth we profess, and with our heart we believe all the Christian and Apostolic faith, and descent not from the Apostolic church in any one article of faith professed publicly for a thousand years after Christ. Nay we do only relinquish the Papists, as Christians in old time left the Arians and Donatists and as some now leave the Mahometans, wherein they have forsaken Christ and his truth. Either then must this K. show, that as former heretics have done, we broach some doctrine contrary to the ancient faith, or else he talketh idelye of going out of the Church. Master Luther he left the Papists having once followed their opinions, but not in any point of faith, but rather where they taught contrary to the faith.  
Secondly never shall he prove, either that the professors of our Religion are of a later standing, than the modern Papists, or that our religion embraceth novelties. For Luther is not our founder, nor any of late time, but the Apostles of Christ jesus, whose doctrine left in deposte to the church we embrace, detesting all profane novelties of Papists. Neither do we bring in any new faith, but reject the popish later Heresies, and corruptions, though to some they seem old. But saith Kellison, the faith hath never increased in substance, but only in explication, as if their Doctrine of traditions, of Romish interpretations, of the latin vulgar translation, of the 7. sacraments, of justification by orders and extreme unction, of transubstantiation, of the carnal eating & champing with the teeth of Christ's flesh, of the sacrifice of Christ's body & blood in the Mass, under the accidents of bread & wine, for quick and dead, and the Pope's universal Monarchy were matters of no substance; or else, as if the substance of these Articles had been ever believed in the Church. This he would insinuate, but the novelty of them is so apparent, that his consorts are much puzzled, when they come to search them in ancient writers.  
Thirdly we neither call ourselves Lutherians, calvinists, Zwinglians, nor any such particular names. Neither is it material, that the Papists do call us in scorn by these names. For who doth credit the malicious terms of enemies? nay in this point we are more clear than the papists, that call themselves, some Franciscans, some Dominicans, some by other names; which we do not.  
Fourthly we renounce all old Heresies condemned by ancient Counsels, and pronounce Florinus, that held God to be the author of sin, Anathema. The like we say of Eunomius, Pelagius, and their consorts. Neither was Caluin of other opinion, but that his malicious enemies do falsely impute unto him, that he should teach, that God is the author of sin. We do not say with jovinian, that all sins are equal, nor deny to the bodies of Christians decent burial. Nor did Hierome writing against Vigilantius allow prayers to Saints departed, or the merits of Monkery, or teach as the Papists do, of vigils or lights set up in churches at noon time. But suppose he should hold opinions contrary to the truth; yet are not his words a rule of Heresy. The second synod at Nice allowed a certain reverence done to images, but nothing so much as the Papists now give to them. But whatsoever that synod decreed in that point, the same was reproved in a synod at Frank-ford, and never generally received either in the East or West Churches. Aerius was reputed an Heretic for Arianisme, and not for finding fault with superstitious oblations for the dead. Whatsoever his opinion was it toucheth us nothing, that do allow the orders of the Church established among us. Finally we anathematize the Heresies of the Simonians Menandrians, and others (whom he ridiculously surmiseth to have been condemned for denying the real presence) of the Messalians and Caians, (whom he imagineth to have been accounted Heretics for denying the sacraments to contain grace, as the Papists hold it) of the Novatians, that denied repentance to public sinners, of the Gnostikes, Manichees, and Encratites (whom he ignorantly surmiseth to have been condemned for denying marriage to be a Sacrament) of helvidius, Rhetorius and all other ancient condemned Heretics. If then this Heretic will object Heresies to us, he must both set down the words of the Heresy condemned by the Catholic Church, and prove, that we hold such an Heresy.  
Fiftly, we want no proof of our Religion, which may be drawn from true succession. For we do not only communicate in matters of faith with the Apostles, but also with the ancient Bishops of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome almost for a thousand years. We succeed also to the Bishops of England before Bishop Cranmer in all things, which they taught well, and according to the Catholic faith. But could we show 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 provocabuntur ab illis ecclesiis saith Tertullian de prescript. adverse. haeret. quae licet nullum ex apostolis, vel apostolicis authorem suum proferant, ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conspirantes non minus apostolicae deputantur pro consanguinitate doctrinae. He telleth us plainly, that they are Apostolic Churches that teach the same Doctrine, albeit they were not founded by the Apostles or Apostolic men, nor had any succession of Bishops. Likewise he showeth, that they are the Apostles heirs, that hold that faith, which is contained in their Testament. Seeing then we do only publish Apostolical Doctrine, and purge away Popish errors; our Churches are most truly Apostolical. But saith 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 failed, and that the Synagogue of the Devil possessed the world many years. He telleth also how Luther in his preface before the disputation of Lipsia, vaunted, that he had first published Christ. But first this is a common abuse of Heretics, to call Scriptures bare. Secondly false do clearly disperse this cloud of slander. But his foolish attempt may give cause to us, to touch both him and his consorts, for their manifold and blasphemous impieties. In the beginning of his third Book he saith, that as the Stoics commend Zeno, the Platonics Plato, the Peripatetics Aristotle, the Epicureans Epicure, the Atheists Diagoras, so Christians should speak honourably of Christ. But if he had not been of the sect of Diagoras, and a profane Atheist; he would have blushed to have compared Christ to Diagoras, and Epicurus, two profane and impious men; and Christians to Atheists, and Epicureans and profane followers of Philosophers. He would also have forborn to have concluded, that christians are to honour Christ, as Atheists honour Diagoras. But to refer the examination of the impious Doctrine of this Atheist and his consorts to his proper place, what hath he to object against us and our Doctrine of Christ's person, or nature?  
First he telleth us, how Michael servetus was a brother of our Religion, and denied that God the Son was true God, or coaequal to his Father. But whatsoever his blasphemies were, he learned them among the Papists, where he was brought up, and not among us, where he was punished for his blasphemies. Secondly he seemeth to be rather a brother of the Papists, among whom he learned his impieties, and with whom he defended the adoration of Angels, then of kindred to us. Thirdly this ignorant Surveyor attributeth the heresy of the Arians unto servetus, where he did wholly deny the Trinity, calling all that believe the holy Trinity, atheists; as may appear in the proceed against him.  
Next he saith, that Luther in his book against Latomus affirmed, that he could not abide this word, homoousion. A matter most false and slanderous. His words are conditional. Quod si odit anima mea vocem homoousion, saith he, et nolim ea uti, non ero haereticus, quis enim me coget uti, modo rem teneam, quae in concilio per scripturas definita est? so it appeareth he held the thing, and that not words, but matters, in his conceit, made Heretics.  
Thirdly he telleth, how Luther in commentar. in C. 1. Genes. called the Son of God, the instrument of God, by which he created the world. But like an honest Surveyor, he confesseth that he hath not seen those commentaries. and perhaps he would not see them. For if he had, he might have seen himself convinced to be a lying companion. Now he showeth himself only to be a light fellow, that believeth fables upon hear say. In his commentaries upon that book now no such matter is to be found.  
Fourthly he chargeth Luther with leaving out these words in the Litany sancta trinitas, unus deus, miserere nobis: & the word deus out of this sentence, deus fortis, and out of the first of john, the fift Chapter, this sentence, there are three which give witness in heaven, the father, the word, & the holy Ghost, & these three are one. But first the reason, why he left out the words mentioned in the Litany was not for mislik of the word Trinity, but for that the dutch word dreifaltigheit did signify rather triplicity, than Trinity. secondly it is not like, that Luther did omit either the word Deus, or the sentence in S. john's epistle, concerning the Trinity, because we find not that objected unto him by his most curious adversaries. But what if by negligence, or fault of the Copy these words had been omitted, what is that to us, that do not omit them? hath the surveyor forgot, that he promiseth a survey of our Religion?  
Fiftly, he chargeth Luther with saying, that as Eutyches said, so it may well be said, that the divinity of Christ suffered. But this slander is refuted not only by Luther's book de concilijs, but also by Bellarmine's preface in his dispute de Christo. He only saith, that he disputed with Nestorians which contended that the divinity of Christ could not suffer. But he doth not say that Christ's divine nature could suffer, as Eutyches did, and as this K. would have us to surmise.  
Page 247. He imputeth unto Melancthon, that he should say both in his book of common places, and in his book against Stankarus, that the Son of God according to his divinity prayed to his Father for his kingdom, glory, and inheritance, and that the divine nature of the Son was obedient to his Father in his passion. And the like saying saith K. hath Beza, yea, and Caluin also. But if either of them had said any thing, whereupon this accuser might ground his slander; he would not have spared to have set down their words at full. Melancthon hath not these words according to his divinity. But what if he should speak improperly, should he not have leave to interpret himself? Again suppose there were an error in his words, must we satisfy for his fault? Lastly who knoweth not, that the Fathers sometime by the divinity and humanity of Christ singly understand his person?  
Afterward Page. 248. he inveigheth against the ubiquitaries who affirm as he saith, that the divine attributes are really communicated unto Christ's human nature. But herein he showeth great simplicity. For this toucheth the Papists that will have Christ's body to be both in heaven and earth, and upon every altar at one time: which being granted the Vbiquetaries' omnipresence doth follow necessarily, seeing a body cannot be in two remote places, but it must be in the midst. Secondly, they will have this communication to be per communicationem idiomatum, so that it appeareth, their meaning is, that after a manner of speech these divine attributes are communicated to Christ's human nature. finally of the opinion of the real presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament taught by Papists, this error of the ubiquitaries, whether in speech or Doctrine proceeded: and therefore it toucheth our adversaries very near, and us nothing at all.  
In the same place he chargeth Caluin for teaching, that the name of God is attributed to the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that he denieth Christ to be God of God. He saith also that Whitaker herein subscribeth unto him, and lastly that Caluin and jewel and divers other affirm, that Christ according to his Divinity was Priest and mediator. But first both Bellarmine and this brabbler doth calumniously report calvin's words. For writing against Valentinus Gentilis he saith not, that the father as God hath any pre-eminence, but as he is the first person in the Trinity, and as the Son is begotten of the Father. Secondly he denieth not, that Christ is God of God, but only saith, that the phrase is hard, and meaneth, that we are to understand the words personally thus, Christ which is God is of the Father, which is God, & not as if there were two Gods the one proceeding from the other. Thirdly Master whitaker's words being set down would clear him. For his meaning is, that the divine essence doth neither engender, nor is engendered, those being properties of the persons. Finally both Master Caluin, and the reverend Father Bishop jewel, and other our Divines do teach aright, that the office of Christ's mediation and Préesthood belongeth not to either nature, singly considered in itself, but to the person, that is God and man. But the adversaries that will have Christ as God to act nothing, but ascribe the whole office of Christ's Preesthood to the human nature, do divide the person, and not only the two natures, approaching nearer to Nestorius, than our teachers to error.  
Finally he allegeth the testimony of Egidius Hunnius against Caluin, as if in exposition of scriptures he did judaizare, or favour the jews. But neither is the testimony of a sworn enemy to be much regarded, nor hath any man that felicity in expounding Scriptures, that he faileth in nothing.  
In the second chap. he chargeth us, that we make Christ an absurd redeemer, these are the words of this absurd surveyor. And why so, I pray you? forsooth because we hope only to be justified by Christ's justice. But this doth not touch us only, but the holy prophets, & apostles also. God by his prpophet Isay. c. 53. saith that his just servant shall justify many by his knowledge, & shall bear their sins. The Apostle. 1. Cor. 1. teacheth us, that he is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification & redemption. To make his matter good page. 257. he maketh us to say, that there is no justice but Christ's justice, nor good works but Christ's works, nor merit but his merit, nor satisfaction but his satisfaction. But these are his own sottish ideotismes, and not our words. For we do not deny that there is a certain imperfect justice in man sanctified by God's holy spirit, and that such do good works pleasing unto God. We confess also, that man by sin doth merit death, albeit his works be not so perfect, that they can deserve eternal life. Finally we know, that the Fathers sometime account the obedience of the law to be a satisfaction, and so call the performance of penalties enjoined by the Church. But did we attribute all the honour of our justification and salvation unto Christ our Saviour; yet this is neither absurdity, nor dishonour to him. But this absurd and kettle Divine doth dishonour and blaspheme Christ joining the words, absurd and redeemer together. He doth also contradict the Scriptures, where he saith, that Christ with one word, or tear, or drop of blood might have redeemed us. And therein he passeth the impudence of his holy Father Clement the sixth in the chap. unigenit. extr. de poenit. & remiss. for he saith, one drop of blood would have sufficed. But this dropping & dreary dunce addeth a tear or a word. How contrary they are to scriptures, these testimonies declare Isay. 53. therefore shall he divide the spoils of the strong, because he hath given his soul to death. Mat. 20. We read, that he came to give his life a ransom for many, and Luc. 24. that so Christ must suffer. and 1. cor. 15. that Christ died for us according to the Scriptures. Gal. 3, We learn, that to deliver us from the curse of the law he was made accursed, and Hebr. 2. that it was fitting, that the author of our salvation should by suffering be consummated. & Heb. 9 that his testament could not be fulfilled without the death of the testator. Absurdly also he talketh of a storm raised in heaven for the Son of God, when Lucifer would be like the highest. For it is ridiculous to think of any stir or storm raised in Heaven, where there is, and always was such quiet and content; or to suppose that Lucifer contended with the Son of God. He might do well to tell us what Devil told him this. For in holy Scriptures no such thing is found. Finally describing the blessed state of man in Paradise, and of his misery being thrown out of Paradise, unawares he overthroweth with his boisterous eloquence two bulwarks of Popery, to wit free-will and Purgatory. For if every sinner be a slave to his flesh, and a captive to the Devil, and a slave to sin, and the Devil, as he saith; then hath he not free-will. For to be free, and bound at one time implieth contradiction. Again, if the devil hold sinners in hell perpetually, as page. 254. he confesseth, than there is no redemption out of Purgatory, which as Papists teach, is in hell.  
Pag. 258. he chargeth us farther, that we teach, that good works are not necessary, and thence infer, that no Laws either human or divine can bind us in conscience. And lastly he saith that we hold that no sins, nor evil works can hurt us, because Christ's justice being ours, no sin can make us sinners. And so he runneth on in a course of wild eloquence, like a Colt that hath broken his halter. But as Hierome saith in his Book against Vigilantius, stultum est fingere materiam, cui rhetorica declamatione respondeatur. It is a foolish and dizardly thing, to feign matters, & then in a rhetorical surveying declamation to answer. In his fictions certes this man seemeth neither to have reason, nor conscience. For first albeit we say, that we are not justified by works; yet we teach, that as many as are justified by faith in Christ, are also sanctified by his grace, and that works are necessary effects of our justification. Secondly we directly affirm, that God's Laws do bind in conscience, and man's Laws as far as they command for God's Law, albeit through Christ jesus we are delivered from the curse of the law, being justified by faith, and walking no more after the flesh, but after the spirit. Thirdly we believe, that all sins and evil works do hurt those, that do them. Although we also believe, that he who is borne of God, and justified by faith, sinneth not unto death. Finally most falsely he maketh us to teach first, that Christ hath redeemed us, because no sin can hurt us; and next, that we are delivered from the Law, because no Law can bind us; and thirdly, that we are delivered from the Devil and Hell, because howsoever we live, they cannot hurt us. Nay we pronounce him anathema, that shall hold, that either sin cannot hurt, or that the Law bindeth not, or that howsoever Christians live, they cannot be damned to Hell. And thus much may serve to clear us from this barking curs slanders.  
But Popish Doctrine concerning our redemption is not so easily defended. For Papists believe, that the Pope by his indulgences can redeem souls from Hell. They teach also, that every man is to satisfy for his sins committed after Baptism. But then Christ is but half a redeemer. Neither do they stick to say, that the son of God assuming the nature of Thomas Aquinas, or some other might have redeemed the world: which is contrary to all the promises made to the Father's concerning the Messias to come of the seed of Abraham. Kellison pag. 261. saith, that Christ's Passion was not our formal justification, nor satisfaction (he should have said Christ's Passion, obedience, and justice, if he would formally have crossed our Doctrine) but only the meritorious cause, of our redemption and salvation, which deserveth for us at God's hands grace, by which together with our cooperation we may be saved & redeemed. But if Christ be not our formal justice, them his justice was not made our justice: which contradicteth the Apostle 1. Cor. 1. If he did not formally satisfy for us, than he died almost in vain, and we are to satisfy for ourselves. If he be only the meritorious cause of our redemption and salvation, then hath not Christ saved or redeemed us, but we are to save and redeem ourselves, as well as we can. If by grace together with our cooperation we are saved and redeemed, as this K. saith; then we are formally saved and redeemed without Christ, which only cometh in as a meritorious cause. Beside that, if grace here be nothing but charity, or a habit not distinct from Charity, as Schoolmen teach; then our own works properly save us, and not Christ's Passion. Finally if Christ's redemption of us from sin, be nothing else, but a deserving of grace, by which we dispose ourselves to justification, & if he hath freed us from the tyranny of the Devil and captivity of Hell, because he hath procured us grace, by which we may resist maugre all the force of Hell, and hath satisfied for our sins, to obtain us grace, that we may satisfy for all our sins, as this wicked blasphemer teacheth pag. 262. Then is man the principal cause of his own justification, and good works should go before justification, and Christ should not deserve to be called our redeemer, or saviour, but a grace giver, that men might free and redeem themselves. And lastly not Christ should satisfy for us, but we should satisfy for ourselves: All which points are not only contrary to Scriptures and absurd, but utterly overthrow the work of Christ's satisfaction and ransom paid for us.  
In the third Chapter of his third Book he goeth on railing against us, & crieth out with open mouth, that we make Christ no redeemer at all, and his reason is, for that we teach, that even righteous men are sinners, and that our sins are covered by the imputation of Christ his satisfaction and righteousness. But his Collection is so foolish, that if there were a whole covent of Fools in place, he might well prove Abbot. For Saint john saith, that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And the Apostle Rom. 4. out of the Prophet saith, blessed are they, whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. And yet Kellison will not say, but that these holy Apostles acknowledged Christ to be their redeemer. Our Saviour also taught the Apostles to pray for the forgiveness of their trespasses. Finally to say, that a Christian can live without sin, is plain Pelagianisme. Hierome dialog. 1. advers. Pelagianos' setteth down these two propositions, for the ground of Pelagianisme, that a man may be without sin, if he will, and that God's commandments are easy. Saint Augustine likewise Lib. de haeres. c. 88 reckoneth this assertion among the heads of Pelagius his heresy, that the life of justmen in this world hath no sin at all. Neither is kellison's exception of any moment For it followeth not, if Christ make not men clear without sin, that Adam is more potent than Christ, because all his posterity were made sinners. For by the same reason it may be said, that as all men were made sinners by Adam; so all should be made righteous by Christ. Furthermore the power of Christ's grace exceedeth Adam's transgression in this, that Christ delivered man of his mere grace. But Adam's posterity by his transgression incurred the penalty thereof deservedly. The Apostle showeth, that Christ's grace exceeded Adam's transgression. For Christ pardoned many offences, but death came by one man's offence.  
He doth also charge us, that we affirm, that notwithstanding Christ's grace, we cannot resist any temptation of the flesh, or the Devil, that we cannot fulfil the Law (in any sort) that we cannot do any good work, but must needs sin in all our actions. But if he cannot prove, that we do so teach; then I think he cannot deny, but that he hath sinned in this action. Let him therefore name them, that so teach, and prove it out of their words if he can. Or else it will appear, that we teach nothing but that which standeth with truth, and with the honour of Christ in achieving our redemption.  
But our adversaries will not so easily acquit themselves of teaching lewdly, concerning the article of our redemption through Christ. For first Kellison teacheth, pag. 261. as before is noted, that Christ is only the meritorious cause of our redemption. which is as much as if he should ascribe the principal and formal cause to ourselves. Secondly he saith, that Christ gave us grace, by which together with our cooperation we may be saved and redeemed. Which being granted, it followeth, that Christ redeemed us not, but only procured us grace, whereby we might redeem ourselves. Thirdly both he and his consorts teach, that every man ought to satisfy for his sins committed after Baptism. But if a man do satisfy for his sins, then is he his own redeemer. Fourthly the Papists hope by the merits of Saints, to be saved and redeemed. But as he, that serveth many Gods, serveth no God truly; so he that hath many redeemers hath no true redeemer. fifthly they believe, that the Pope by his indulgences can redeem souls out of purgatory. Which showeth, that Christ's redemption is unsufficient. finally in the canon of the Mass they profess, that they offer pro redemptione animarum suarum: as if the Priest with the sacrifice of the Mass, could redeem souls.  
By the very same argument also, Lib. 3. c. 4. he endeavoureth to prove, that we make Christ no spiritual Physician. As if Christ did not cure our diseases, when he covereth them, and imputeth his justice unto us, and sanctifieth us by the holy Ghost. But if his argument were concludent, then must he himself also affirm, that Christ is no spiritual Physician. For he will not deny, I trow, that Christ doth cover our sins, and that no man in this life is so perfectly cured, but that he committeth divers sins. To say otherwise is flat pelagianism. Furthermore he is a good Physician that taketh away the pain of the disease, albeit he cannot for the weakness of the patiented cure the relics thereof altogether. And Isay, c. 53. saith we are healed by the wounds of Christ. Yet no man will say, that in this frailty we are so cured, that we sin not. Finally, there is a great disproportion and dissimilitude betwixt the diseases of the body and the soul. The pains of the soul diseases follow after this life, the pains of bodily sicknesses come together with the disease. For the soul diseases God punisheth; for bodily diseases the Physician pitieth the patiented. The soul diseases consist in disobedience, and actions, which being once done, cannot be undone. But diseases of the body consist in distemper, or other evil quality, which may be removed. Although then the diseases of the body may be removed; yet the diseases of the soul cannot be perfectly cured, so long as we live in this world. Nay albeit this K. take Christ for his Physician; yet he will not say, that he is cured of all ignorance, malice, defects and infirmities. Most ridiculous therefore is his discourse of the diseases of the soul, and of his resine and emplasters of 7. Sacraments, and of his burning in purgatory, and other his Schoole-trickes and foolery, and more like to make his reader sick with the surfeit of his survey, than otherwise.  
The fift Chapter of his third Book, containeth a fragment of some Schoole-lecture concerning the honour due to lawgivers. But while he would seem to honour Christ, with the title of a Lawgiver, he doth much dishonour him comparing him to Moses, nay, to Lycurgus, Solon, Romulus, Plato, Trismegistus, and I know not who. Against us all his bablement maketh nothing. For albeit we do not confound the law, and the gospel, nor make Christ a lawgiver like to Moses, or an exactor of the penalties of laws, as do the Papists; yet we do not deny, that he may be termed, and is after a sort a Lawgiver. Neither doth either Luther or Caluin, deny this absolutely, as this K. affirmeth. Hardly therefore will he be able to charge us with any fault in this behalf, unless he will falsify our words, as he doth Caluins. lib. 3. Instit. c. 19 10. making him to conclude, that Christians are exempted from all laws: where he hath no such words and only speaketh of ceremonies, that may be observed and omitted. But the Papists, albeit they make Christ a Lawgiver, and make that a part of his honour; yet they give the same power to the Pope, c. translato. de constitutionibus: showing themselves to be subjects of an other Kingdom, then that of Christ jesus.  
In the sixth Chapter he raileth not only at man, but at God, calling him absolutely an angry God, and supposing, that his wrath is no way to be appeased, but by the mass-priests sacrifices. Further he saith, that Christ offered two sacrifices, the one at his last supper, the other upon the Cross, and that he hath many vicegerents. But that is contrary to the words of the Apostle. Heb. 9 who saith, that Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many. This is derogatory to the honour of Christ, that is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, and cannot well stand with the Pope's general vicarship, or the office of mass-priests his supposed vicegerents. Against us his vain brablementes effect nothing, seeing Christ is a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, in regard, that he succeed none, nor hath any successors or vicegerents in this sacrifice, that he offered once upon the Cross. Furthermore this priesthood of Christ after the order of Melchisedech we maintain, the Papists overthrow, as at full I have declared in my third book de missa against Bellarmine, where also the absurdities and contradictions of the mass-priests are particularly deciphered.  
In the seventh Chapter of his third book most wickedly he would make the world believe, that we deny Christ to be judge of quick and dead. And his reason is, for that Caluin saith, that Christ shall not condemn a faithful man. As if it were not the part of a judge, as well to acquit, as to condemn. Further if this argument were concludent; then should Kellison deny Christ to be judge of quick and dead. For I hope he will not say, that Christ will at the last day condemn faithful men. He addeth also, that we deny to Christ, two offices of a judge, to wit, remuneration, and discussion, because we teach, that man in this corruption of his nature cannot merit heaven by his works, and that no sin is in his own proper nature venial. But neither is this argument better than the former. For although men's works deserve not the favour and reward, that shall be showed them; yet no man will deny, that God almighty that judgeth of their actions, may reward them. And albeit no sin is venial in his proper nature, if we respect the rigour of the law; yet there is great difference betwixt sin and sin, and the judge is not only to judge of the quality of sins, but also to examine and discuss, whether the party have sinned or not. Much idle talk also doth he spend about Christ's two advents, as he calleth them, and about jewish fancies concerning the Son of joseph, that, as they dreamt, was to be slain in the battle of Gog and Magog, and of the dispatch of the judgement in a trice, and of the pronouncing of the sentence in an audible voice. But because these Schoolboys fancies belong not to this argument, I will refer them to be censured by his own fantastical disciples. In the mean while I would pray this surveyor either to prove them more demonstratively, or to affirm them more modestly.  
The 8. chapter containeth a pack of calumniations against us for teaching, that Christians are justified by faith apprehending Christ's justice, that is imputed unto us. And hereof he concludeth, that all men are not only equally just, and perfect, as the Beguardes said, but also as just as Christ himself. But his inference is foolish & absurd. For although by Christ's satisfaction and merits we are all justified, and acquitted; yet there is an imperfect justice in all the faithful, in some more, in some less, and no way comparable to Christ's justice. As for the perfection of Beguardes and Beguines, it proceeded from the opinion of Monkish perfection, and therefore much rather deserveth to be imputed to Papists, then to us. Papists also say, that a man may perform the law perfectly, and that no man is saved, but he that observeth the law. But of the first we may conclude, that their justice is equal to the justice of Christ, who performed the law perfectly, and that all they, that are saved by the law are equal in justice: matters somewhat strange and absurd, yet following necessarily of our adversaries Doctrine.  
In the ninth chapter he goeth about to prove, that we bring the new Testament, and Christian religion into question. But of all this great slander, he hath no other ground, than this small and simple collection, that therefore we do so, because we teach, that Christ as man, knew not the day of judgement, and that he increased in wisdom. But therein we teach nothing but that which both the Scriptures affirm, and ancient Fathers believed. Christ speaking of the last day Marc. 13. no man knoweth saith he, no not the Son, Nazianzen also Lib. 2. de filio: novit ut deus saith he, ut homo se dicit ignorare. The same is proved by the testimony of Cyril. Luke. chap. 2. saith, that jesus increased in wisdom, & stature, & in favour with God & men. And hereupon Ambrose writeth, that Christ according to the flesh was filled with wisdom and grace. Maxentius also in profess. fid. cath. affirmeth, that Christ according to his humanity did grow and profit in age and wisdom. Quamobrem fatendum est saith he, deum natum ex foemina non secundum divinitatem, sed secundum humanitatem, deum in cunis iacentem, pannosum, sordibus involutum crevisse et profecisse, aetate, et sapientia secundum humanitatem, non secundum divinitatem.  
Finally, if Christ as man by the Union be omniscient, why is he not omnipotent, and present in all places? and why should not all the rest of the divine attributes be really transfused into his humanity, as well as this one?  
In the the tenth Chapter he saith, we make Christ a desperate man, and for proof he allegeth certain places, as taken out of Caluin. But what if Caluin have not these words? doth not this K. desperately abuse his reader's patience? I would also complain, that Master Caluin is wronged, but that the enemies of truth take pleasure in slandering him. Whosoever list to compare Caluins' words with kellison's report, shall easily perceive the wrong offered him. For neither doth he say, that the horrible confusion of damnation did fierce torment Christ with fear, nor that he had to do with the judgement of God, albeit Kellison impute both unto him falsely also he translateth Caluins words in Math. c. 27. v. 46. turning reum, culpable, and exitio devotus, already condemned, & making him to affirm, that which he objecteth to himself, and answereth. But suppose Caluin in terms had passed to far; yet if this surveyor had done his office, he would not have reported other men's words, for grounds of our religion.  
The eleventh chapter containeth nothing but an invective against Caluin, who supposed, that the article of the creed concerning Christ's descending into hell, aught to be expounded of his grievous sufferings in his soul, which in bitterness might be parangoned, as he thought, to hellish pains. But all this concerneth us and our religion nothing, which mislike his particular opinion herein. All this while therefore, that he bauled against Master Caluin, the Surveyor seemeth to be out of his way. Furthermore most shamefully he belieth Caluin divers ways. First he saith, that Caluin acknowledged no local hell. Secondly that he affirmed, that these words, my God my God why hast thou forsaken me, were the words of a damned man. And lastly, that Caluin at the hour of death despaired and called upon the Devil. The two first are confuted by his writings upon the Creed, and the passion. The last by the testimony of all that were present at his death Neither must Kellison think to escape hell for reporting these hellish untruths devised by Bolsec, Genebrard, and such like hellhounds, unless he repent. Finally he saith first, that all hellish pains are without end. Next he counteth it strange, that Caluin brought Christ into hell. And lastly affirmeth, that Christ's blood was sufficient to redeem the Devil, and the damned. But his followers teach first, that the pains of purgatory are hellish, and caused by the flames of hell. Next they say, the limbus patrum, whither Christ descended is in hell, and lastly that Christ came not to redeem Devils, nor took the nature of Devils, but of men.  
In the 12. Chapter he goeth about to traduce us, as not loving Christ. And why? Forsooth because saith he, you love not the Mother of Christ, nor the Saints, nor the Cross, nor the Images of Christ or the Saints, nor his Nails, and other things belonging to him. He might if it had pleased him, have added also the Ass, whereon Christ road to Jerusalem, and the Bones of the Paschall Lamb, and the Baskets wherein the fragments were gathered, after he had fed five thousand with five Barley loves and two Fishes. But how proveth he, that we do not love the blessed Mother of God nor the Saints? Forsooth because we do not worship them, as the Papists do. But if this be an argument of want of love, them neither the Apostles, nor first Chrstians loved Christ, or his Saints. He telleth also how Quintin an Heretic used the Apostles with lewd terms. But we do detest Quintin, as we do Kellison. Thirdly he saith, that Caluin called Saints long eared creatures, and Wicleph called them scurras principis, and that Luther wrote, that every Minister's yoake-fellowe may be as holy, as the Mother of God. But these are calumniations devised by them, that neither love Christ, nor the professors of the Christian faith. It may be, that Caluin said the Papists made them to have long ears, and that Wicliph said they were used, as Prince's ushers. But against God's true Saints they never opened their mouth, or thought basely. Further he talketh idly of the Cross, of the nails and Images of Christ, and the Saints. For it is no great sign of love to keep the instruments, which were cause of our friend's death, and well may Christians detest the worship of Images, and yet love the memorial of holy men, that either travailed in setting forth the Christian faith, or suffered for the same. This scurvy Surveyor in seeking to set forth the honour of the Mother of God, and the Saints; doth most shamefully abuse them, endeavouring to prove, that we love not Christ, because that we love not his Mother, nor his Saints, even as those love not a man, that love not his Dog. and so most blasphemosly he compareth God's Saints to Dogs. Much he talketh of the worship of saints, and their relics, after the Popish manner. But if he were the man he would be taken for; he should leave his vagrant scurueying discourses, and prove the same with arguments. That he will be able to do it, we have cause to suspect, seeing & feeling his weakness in this kind.  
Pag. 355. he saith the Saints see and know even our cogitations and prayers. But that is as much, as if he should make them Gods. For to God alone it belongeth to search the hearts. He telleth us also, how they see all in the face of God. But then they must comprehend God's infinite essence, which implieth a contradiction.  
Thus we see our Doctrine concerning Christ's person, and nature cleared. But the wicked Doctrine of Papists concerning not only the same articles, but also his office, and the parts thereof, neither shall Kellison, nor all his consorts be able to clear or defend.   

Chap. 6. A collection of certain absurd and blasphemous assertions of the Papists, concerning Christ his incarnation, person, natures and offices.  
THIS argument, if I should prosecute it fully, would require a very ample and large Treatise. The absurd and impious assertions of the adversaries are so many. But I will content myself with few, that out of them we may collect, what the quality is of the rest.  
First then Alexander Hales p. 3. qu. 2. membr. 13. saith, that although man had not fallen, yet Christ should have been in carnated. With him also consenteth Vdalricus Lib. 5. sum. and other Doctors. Thomas Aquinas in scripto holdeth the opinion to be probable. But this opinion crosseth God's council, maketh man wiser than God, and contradicteth both Scriptures and Fathers. jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, saith the Apostle 1. Tim. 1. whereupon the gloss addeth, tolle vulnera, tolle morbos, et nulla est causa medicinae. And Augustine ser. 9 super verb. apostoli, si homo non peccasset filius dei non venisset. If man had not sinned, the son of God had not come into the world. And Leo in serm. de natiu. si homo in suo honore mansisset, creator mundi creatura non fieret.  
Secondly the same Alexander and Vdalricus do affirm, that the three persons in the Trinity may assume one man's nature, tres personae saith Alexander possunt assumere & communicare unum & eundem hominem individuum. But this is contrary to the work of the incarnation of Christ, and confoundeth the persons, and is a thing not imaginable.  
Thirdly Thomas inscripto, and Durande in 3. dist. 2. q. 1. and others say, that God was able to assume an unreasonable creature. But what is more blasphemous, then to call God a horse or an unreasonable creature, as the Son of God by taking our nature, became man, and was truly called man?  
4. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 4. saith, that the Virgin Mary hath destroyed all Heresies, and did merit the reconciliation of all mankind. Reconciliationem quoque toti humano promeruit generi. But if she did merit man's reconciliation, what needed Christ's merits? If she killed all Heresies; then was she a more excellent teacher, than the Apostles.  
5. Vdalricus Lib. 5. sum. denieth, that Christ hath two relations of a son, the one to his eternal Father, the other to his Mother. Veneramur saith he, in Christo duas nativitates non duas filiationes. Other Schoolmen also are of his side. But the Scriptures call him both the Son of God, and Son of man; and if he were not truly the Son of man, as he is the Son of God; then could he not have redeemed man.  
6. Alexander Hales granteth that this proposition, Christ as he is man, is the adopted Son of God, is true: which destroyeth by a consequence Christ's right, as being the Son of God by nature.  
7. Durand in 3. sent. dist. 11. admitteth this proposition, Christ is a creature, which cometh near to Arianisme.  
8. Bonaventure in 3. dist. 12. confesseth that in Christ there was a power to sin. primo modo saith he, fuit in Christo peccandi potentia. And he collecteth this, because he had free-will. Neither doth Thomas writing upon the sentences differ much from him. But Durand goeth beyond both, for he saith, that if the human nature of Christ had been assumed in pure naturals, that Christ might have sinned and been damned: his words are these in 3. sent. dist. 12. q. 2. Constat quod humaena natura sibi derelicta potest peccare. Ergo sic assumpta peccare potuit. And again, quod add●tur, si peccare potuit, damnari potuit, concedatur, quia cum damnari sonnet, in poenam, non est maius inconueniens dicere Christum damnatum, quam mortuum vel passum. So here they may see that the blasphemous words, which they seek for in Caluin, are expressly to be found in their own Schoolmen.  
9 Bonaventure in 3. sent. d saint 12. saith, that Christ might have taken flesh of a man, as he did of a woman. Which destroyeth the Article of Christ's birth. He seemeth also to grant, that the Son of God in the shape of a woman might have redeemed mankind, albeit it was more decent, that he should be a man.  
10. The grace of union of the two natures in Christ both Alexander, and Thomas and others hold to be uncreated. Which being granted it must needs follow, that the union of the two natures was from everlasting, which is the total overthrow of our Christian faith.  
11. In Christ they deny commonly that there was faith or hope. But he that wanteth faith, is an infidel, and he that wanteth hope is a desperate man: which to affirm of Christ, is most blasphemous. Nay in this point the Scoolemen are contrary to themselves. For if faith be an assent to the word of God; & hope be an expectation of things future: then either had Christ faith, and hope, or else he believed not the word of God, nor expected or hoped for the resurrection of his body: both which cannot be spoken of Christ without blasphemy.  
12. The Schoolmen commonly hold, that the pains of Christ's Passion were exceeding great, and yet as touching the superior part of his reason, they say that at the same time he was in exceeding pleasure and joy. But this implieth contradiction, that the same man, at the same instant, should suffer in his soul extreme pains, and yet be in exceeding joy and pleasure. It is also contrary to Scriptures: attendite saith he, si est dolour, sicut dolor meus. Behold if there be any dolour comparable to mine? But if he were in exceeding pleasure, many men's passions should exceed his.  
13. By the union of the natures they teach, that Christ was made omniscient. But no reason can be alleged, why the attribute of knowledge, should be more really transfused into Christ's human nature, than the attribute of omnipotence or omnipresence, and the rest. And therefore Durand granted, that he had omnipotence per assistentiam.  
14. Henricus de Gandavo taught, that there was an other form in Christ's human nature besides the reasonable soul, and that his death was not natural. Richard de media villa saith, his death was miraculous, and that if the influence of the divinity had not been withdrawn, he could not have died. But this is nothing else, but labour and contention to overthrow Christ's true humanity, by showing him not to be like to us, and a plain way to dissolve the union of his two natures.  
15. The master of the sentences lib. 3. dist. 16. holdeth the Christ by necessary course of nature neither suffered, nor died. dici potest saith he, Christum voluntate, non necessitate suae naturae hos defectus, sicut alios suscepisse, silicet necessitatem patiendi in anima, et moriendi in carne. But this taketh away the similitude betwixt Christ's human nature & ours, who in this frailty cannot avoid pain, nor death.  
16. Generally they say, it was not necessary, that Christ should suffer death for mankind. Kellison most impiously saith, that one drop of Christ's blood, and one tear was a sufficient ransom for the sins of the world. But this is a plain overthwart course to God's eternal council, to Scriptures, and to reason. For how could man by these means be ransomed from death, God's justice being not to be satisfied, but by death?  
17. Antisiodorensis. lib. 3. summae saith, that Christ merited nothing, as he loved God. But that maketh God a liar, that promiseth eternal life to those that perform the law, and extolleth man's obedience above the obedience of Christ. For Papists grant heaven to be deserved by such as love God.  
18. They do hold for the most part, that Christ from the first instant of his conception was vir perfectus, and had the perfect use of reason, and did merit. But this being granted, there is no difference betwixt a man and an Embryo, or Child newly conceived, and Christ must needs have a soul and body of an other nature than other men.  
19 Although Christ be the universal mediator of all mankind, yet Petrus de Tarentasia, and Richard de media villa teach that prelates and Saints are called particular mediators, praelati & viri sancti say they, dicuntur particulares mediatores personarum quarundam.  
20. They deny, that Christ was a man during the time, that he lay in the grave. In that time also Antisiodorensis doth deny him to be our redeemer, as this word redeemer signifieth the worker of the mystery of our redemption. But if he were then no man, than was our Saviour sometimes no man, & so the mystery of the union of the two natures is dissolved; if then he was no redeemer, than he lost the honour of the redemption of mankind; neither of which can be affirmed without gross inconveniences.  
21. Albertus and others say, that Devils carry their hell about with them. Which if it be granted, than the hell of Papists is no determinate place, neither is it in the bowels of the earth, but also above the earth, and in the air, and in the Pope's chamber, when the devil is there.  
22. Bellarmine lib. 1. de missa. C. 2. saith, that in a true sacrifice, that is offered to God, it is required, that it be destroyed. His words are, ad verum sacrificium, requiritur, ut id, quod offertur deo in sacrificium, planè destruatur. If then the Papists offer up the very body and blood of Christ in the Mass, as they teach; then they destroy Christ's body and blood, and deprive us of Christ's body. But this is a most blasphemous assertion, to say that Christ's body and blood may be destroyed, and such fellows deserve of all Christians to be abhorred, as blasphemers, and abolishers of Religion.  
23. They hold, that not only wicked and reprobrate men, but also that Dogs and hogs may eat up Christ's true body. But that is contrary to all Religion, not only to cast holy things, but also the redeemer of the world, to Hogs and Dogs.  
24. They believe and teach, that Christ's body is in the Sacrament really, although it be neither seen nor felt there. They believe also that the same body is both in heaven visible, and in the earth invisible at one time. But this doth quite overthrow Christ's human nature. For never was there man in the world, that had such a body.  
25. Bellarmine lib. de incarnatione Cap. 11. saith, that God is able to turn all the world into bread, and that all this bread may be turned into Christ's body. But it is most absurd to think, that Christ hath a body so great as all the world, or that all the world is no bigger, than a man's body, or that one man's body may be in all places.  
26. They pray unto Saints to help them, and to intercede for them. But what is more absurd, then to leave Christ, and to pray to those, of whom they have no certainty, whether they be saved or not? if they say, they are assured they are saved, they speak absurdly. For if they teach aright, that no man, can assure himself of his own salvation, than they teach men absurdly, to assure themselves of the salvation of all those, that are canonised by the Pope.  
27. They overthrow the grounds of arts and rules of reason and sense, where they teach, that Christ's body and blood is really in the sacrament, and offered up continually for quick and dead. For reason and Arithmetic teach us, that many unities make a number, & that one & one make two. But this ground the Papists destroy. For albeit upon this Altar is one body, and at the same time another upon an other, yet do they deny, that in this case one & one make two. They say also, that albeit Christ's body be entire upon three hundred several altars, yet there are not divers bodies upon the Altar. Sense also teacheth us, that we receive bread and wine. But they will have us rather to believe the Pope, than our own senses. philosophy teacheth us, that no body can come to a place, or go away without local motion. But these teach that Christ's body beginneth to be in the Sacrament, and departeth from thence again, the forms being corrupted, without local motion.  
28. All Christians believe, that Christ is the redeemer of the world and the sole and absolute mediator betwixt God and man. But Papists in their Mass make their priests mediators betwixt God and Christ's body, that lieth on the altar, as they say, and that in pitiful sort, included in a small room. Supra quae saith the Priest, speaking of consecrated hosts, propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, as if God would not look upon his Son, nor accept him without their mediation. And again iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altar tuum, that is, command this sacrifice viz. of Christ's body and blood, to be carried up unto thy high altar by the hands of thy holy Angel. So they make Christ a weak and impotent mediator, that cannot ascend into heaven without the Priests Prayers, and help of Angels.  
29. They believe, that their souls are redeemed by Masses (for that they boldly, affirm in the Canon) by indulgences, and merits of Saints and by our own satisfactions, as it appeareth by their common positions in their Doctrines of indulgences, merits, and satisfactions.  
30. They destroy Christ's Preesthood, and that two ways. First, as if he had offered no perfect Sacrifice for man's sin, they continually offer up sacrifices for quick and dead. Secondly as if his prayer were not heard, they run to our Lady, to Angels and Saints, and make them their mediators. Our Lady they call the gate, and S. Peter the Porter of heaven.  
31. They deny Christ to remain a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, when they teach, that their mass-priests are after the order of Melchisedech, and that Christ offereth not now but by these Vicar-priestes.  
32. They deny Christ to be the only head, foundation, and teacher of his Church, giving equal authority to unwritten traditions, and popish decretales, and to Christ's doctrine.  
Finally, no man can talk more wickedly and dishonorablye of Christ's person and offices than Kellison. Page. 256. he saith the word was mute. But what could the Arians speak more dishonourably of the eternal word, then to say, he was mute?  
He saith also, that Christ with one word or tear might have redeemed us. But this abaseth the greatness of his power, and diminisheth the merit of his passion. Page 261. He affirmeth that Christ's passion was not our formal justification, nor satisfaction, but only the meritorious cause of our redemption & salvation, which deserved for us at God's hands grace, by which together with our cooperation we may be saved and redeemed. He might in more clear words have said, that Christ did not satisfy for us, nor save us, or redeem us, but only merited for us, that we might satisfy for ourselves, & save & redeem ourselves. Which doctrine is most blasphemous, most desperate and derogatory to the glorious work of that great redemption, which Christ wrought for us upon the cross.  
P. 265. He defendeth the mediation and intercession of our Lady, & of the Saints, for such as worship them & call upon them. But as they that worship more Gods then one, are indeed without God, so this defender of many mediators hath not, nor indeed acknowledgeth any true mediator.  
P. 271. He saith, that the seven Sacraments do all give grace, to heal our spiritual wounds: which being added to that, which he said before of Christ's meriting grace, by which together with our own cooperation we may be saved: It appeareth, that he neither maketh Christ our redeemer, nor the Physician by whose wounds we are healed. For you see he ascribeth it to secondary causes, nay to extreme unction and ceremonies never instituted by Christ. Nay he supposeth, that our diseases may be cured by the Priests of Baal, by the flames of purgatory, and the oil of indulgences. But let him not deceive himself. The scalding fire of purgatory will not agree with his greasy shaven crown.  
P. 283. He speaketh eagerly against those, that deny Christ to be a law maker. But his secret purpose he dare not utter, for he knoweth, that the Romish Church maketh the Pope's laws to bind in conscience, and from Christ to him translateth the power to make laws. But this would have appeared very gross, and would have showed, that for Christ's tribunal seat, he meant to erect the Pope's consistory.  
P. 285. He telleth us, that Christ hath many vicegerents in his Preesthood. But this doth quite overthrow Christ's préesthood, that is without succession and vicegerency being according to the order of Melchisedech, that had neither successor, nor vicegerent. This K. himself will not deny, I think, albeit he be a dull fellow, that Princes that are present need no vicegerents. How then cometh it to pass, Christ being present with his church, as the Papists say really on the altar, as we say, by his holy spirit, and grace, that this fellow will needs appoint him vicegerents, bring in a race of Baal's priests, and bald Sacrificers without lawful institution or commission?  
Lib. 3. cap. 7. he talketh of Christ's judgement. And in the 8. Chapter of the same Book of wrong offered to Christ by making others equal to Christ. And in the 9 Chapter of those, that make Christ ignorant of his office. But he had little reason to talk of these matters, seeing the Papists will have Christ and the Pope to have but one consistory, & hold that the Pope's judgement is infallible, when he determineth matters of faith. They do also make the Pope head of the Church, and use other mediators as well as Christ. The gloss also upon the extravagant unam sanctam. de maiorit. et obed. doth blasphemously in a certain case charge Christ with indiscretion. Non videtur dominus discretus fuisse saith he, ut cum reverentia eius loquar, nisi unicum post se talem vicarium reliquisset.  
Pag. 338. he cometh in with this proverb, love me love my Dog. And thereupon gathereth, that we love not Christ, because we worship not our Lady and the Saints, comparing them to Dogs. What then remaineth but that the Pope cause this mad dogs teeth to be knocked out, that biteth he careth not whom, blasphemeth Christ and dishonoureth his Saints, whom he would seem to honour?   

Chap. 7. An answer to kellison's calumniations, charging us either to have no Religion at all, or a graceless Religion.  
IF Our adversary were a man of gravity, and did dispute like a Divine, or a man of learning, it were not amiss to bestow some more labour upon him. But now seeing he doth nothing, but lie like a Sycophant, and rail like a scurrilous and graceless companion devoid of reason and honesty, in that which followeth, I will truss up his great farthel of foolery within the compass of a few leaves. If any thing leave, it shall not fail to have answer God-willing in my next, if he can and will note the dedefault.  
His first bolt against our Religion is this: you have no true Priests, ergo no true Religion, as we may read, Lib. 4. c. 1. But his antecedent is false. For if by Priests he mean true Bishops and Pastors, that truly preach the word, and sincerely administer the holy Sacraments according to Christ his institution; then have we such. Neither is it material, that they have no ordination from the Pope, nor offer sacrifice for quick and dead. For neither are the Popish sacrificing shavelings true Priests, nor have they any good ordination being authorized either by the Pope, that is a lay man, or by Abbots, that have no right to ordain Ministers, or by such as have their ordination from the Pope, who is a mere usurper of Episcopal authority. That they are not true Priests, it appeareth both by their defect of ordination, and also by the false title of their office, being appointed to sacrifice for quick and dead. The scriptures speak often of Priests or Elders. So likewise do the Fathers. But they understand such, as preach the word, and administer the sacraments, and not sacrificing shavelings offering for quick and dead. Further we may answer, that for sometime, and in some places Religion may consist without ordinary pastors, & very well without Popish-priestes. This discourse therefore is all for us, and against Kellison's shaven crown, and idolatrous Priesthood.  
His second bolt is leveled at our religion very lewdly. For it toucheth not us, that have not only the sacrifices of praise & thanksgiving, & all other spiritual sacrifices used among Christians, but also the commemoration of Christ's only sacrifice once offered upon the Cross daily celebrated in the holy Eucharist. But it striketh the Massing Religion deadly. For if there be no Religion, where there is no real and external sacrifice; then have the Papists no Religion. And that is proved first by Bellarmine's words Lib. 1. de missa cap. 2. Where he saith, that in a true sacrifice offered to God, it is required, that the thing offered be destroyed. If then they offer up Christ's body and blood in their Mass; then do they consume and destroy the same, and afterward leave themselves nothing to offer. Secondly that sacrifice of Christ's body and blood within the accidents of bread & wine, which the mass-priests offer for quick and dead, as they surmise, is a mere fancy and imagination of theirs contradicting Christ his institution of the Eucharist, and divers other places of Scriptures. They allege, I confess, some words of the instituon of the Eucharist, and that which Daniel speaketh of the daily sacrifice, and Malachy of the clean oblation. But they fit not the impure Mass, nor the Idolatrous sacrifice of Baal's priests destroying Christ's institution, and offering that, which he commanded not to be offered, but to be received in remembrance of his death and Passion. The Fathers also were ignorant of the histrionical sacrifice of the mass-priests. Neither was there any certain Law or Doctrine established for it before the wicked conventicle of Trent had enacted their sacrificing Laws. All which is proved in my Books de missa against Bellarmine, which this K. doth not make any haste to answer. Nay he is more absurd than Bellarmine where he saith, that Christ powered out his blood at his last Supper. For than he should have offered a bloody sacrifice at his last Supper, and powered out his blood twice. To conclude, where he thinketh to commend unto us his massing sacrifice, he showeth that Popish religion is nothing, but mere novelties and fooleries surpassing the reach of common understanding.  
His third bolt is thus form Lib. 4. c. 3. they have no certainty of Sacraments at all: ergo no Religion. And to prove his antecedent he saith, that if any will forsake the Catholic Church and her belief of seven Sacraments, that he hath no moral nor probable assurance of any Sacraments. But first we deny, that the particular Church of Rome is the Catholic Church. Secondly we affirm, that the Catholic Church for a thousand years did never hear of 7. Sacraments, only and properly so called. Thirdly it is absurd to think, that the institution of confirmation, and extreme unction did aswell proceed from Christ, as Baptism and the lords Supper, or that they work like effects. Matrimony, orders and repentance we confess have their original from God: but never as Sacraments of the new Testament. For they were in use before Christ's time, and want both forms of words, and certain signs, and promises annexed to signs: all which are necessarily required in true Sacraments.  
Kellison braggeth of proofs of Scriptures and Fathers for all matters. But where are they? we can see none brought by him. Nay his Master Bellarmine hath bewrayed the poverty of his cause in this behalf, to no little discredit of himself, and discomfort of his consorts. If then they have either no Religion, or a graceless Religion, that have no assurance of seven Sacraments, as this K. confesseth; then is Kellison and his company left either without Religion, or with a graceless Religion.  
Only this is his comfort, that if we have no graceful religion, yet he hath a greasy Religion, and hopeth to be justified partly by the greasing of his hands & shaven crown, and partly by extreme unction being well greased departing out of the world, that he may burn like a candle in purgatory, and slip like an Eel out the gripes of Lucifer.  
The fourth bolt is thus framed by this foolish surveying fletcher. They detract from the dignity of Sacraments, and attribute little unto them. Ergo they have no Religion, or a graceless religion. But how doth he prove, that we diminish the dignity of Sacraments, or attribute less unto them, than is due? he allegeth, how some call them badges or signs, and saith, that we deny that they give grace, or effectuate any jot of sanctification in our souls more than the Sacraments of the old law did. But first no man among us, will say, or ever did say, that they serve only for signs or badges of Christianity, and have no other use. Secondly, we all confess, that God worketh sanctification by the sacraments of the new testament, albeit God's power is not so tied to sacraments, as the Papists teach, who affirm, that they contain grace, and give that to the sign, that is properly wrought and effected by God's grace. Thirdly, we teach, that the Sacraments of the new Testament are Sacraments of things passed and exhibited, as the sacraments of Moses' law were of things future; yet we deny not, that God wrought grace by them, as he doth by these. And this is consonant both to holy Scriptures and fathers. Finally we do not derogate any thing from true Sacraments, that by the word of God is due unto them, albeit we prefer baptism and the lords Supper before the pretended Sacraments devised by the adversaries. But if those have no Religion, that detract from the Sacraments, then have Papists but a poor religion, which rebaptise oftentimes those which are by us baptized, and in lieu of the holy Eucharist have thrust into the Church the idol of the mass. They have also corrupted the Doctrine both of repentance, & of orders, making their auricular confession and human absolutions and satisfactions parts of penance contrary to all antiquity, and reordaining those that are duly ordered by us. finally they make their priests, and Monks, and Friars, to forswear marriage. and separate married folks for Religion, violating the rites of their own pretended Sacraments.  
The fift bird-bolt of this dog-bolt is shot against Luther, Caluin, Brentius, Melancthon and divers other learned Divines, whom he chargeth, to have taken away in effect those Sacraments, which they seem to allow of. But first, he should have understood, if both his wits and brain had not failed him, that there is great difference betwixt private opinions, and Religion. Secondly lewdly doth he prove, that which maliciously he objecteth unto particulars. Luther never said nor thought, that either the words of baptism as they are instituted by Christ may be omitted; or that the element of water may be changed into bear, or milk, or other liquor. Nay, therein we reprehend the Papists, for that they are to bold, not only in changing and adding words, but also in taking away the Elements in the administration of Sacraments. The which appeareth in that they have thrust in these words & aeterni, and mysterium fidei, into Christ's words, in the institution of the Cup, and have added to baptism, salt, spittle, and other elements, and taken away the Cup from the communicates.  
Caluin also with all his might defendeth the integrity of Christ's institution both concerning the words and elements of the sacraments, & never called Christ's words magical charms, albeit the Papists with words, and a puff of wind, as with a charm think to transubstantiate bread & wine into the lords body and blood.  
Buccer in c. 26. Math. doth not deny, that words are necessary in the Eucharist. His words set down will clear him from kellison's slander.  
Luther, where he saith, that Children believe, saith nothing, but that which S. Augustine and others have said before him. Of actual 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. john Baptist's baptism was as good, as Christ's baptism, but that his baptism was one with Christ's baptism: which is also proved, for that Christ was baptised by john, and for that the Apostles were baptised with no other baptism. Neither doth the example Act. 19 prove it to be different. For either they were not well baptised, that were baptised into john's baptism, or they were not rebaptized, but only had imposition of hands and the baptism of God's spirit.  
True it is, that caluin denieth women power to baptise: & so would that adversaries also, if they did not corrupt all good orders. But that addeth to the dignity of the sacrament. He saith further, that some that are not baptised may be saved. And so the adversaries grant also, especially when either Martyrdom supplieth baptism, or a man seeketh baptism, and cannot have it in time. That the Children of the reprobate are not to be baptized, or that the Children of the faithful need not to be baptised Caluin never said, nor thought. Neither doth he say, that we receive bare signs in the Lord's supper, but the communion of the body and blood of Christ. If then this surveyor would have set down these learned men's words truly, then should he have had no reason to charge them with taking away the Sacraments, or derogating from them.  
But the Papists, while they depend wholly upon the priest's intention, and chop and change words in the holy institution, and take away, not only the substance of bread and wine, but also the Cup from the communicantes, do indeed deprive Christians of the Sacraments. Thomas Aquinas p. 3. q. 66. saith that baptism may be administered, in lixinio, that is in lie, and Albertus, in Brodio, that is, in pottage. Dionysius Carth. in 4. sent. dist. 3. q. 2. saith, that our Lady's name may be added to the name of the Trinity, and yet all remain good. Potest in inuocatione beatae mariae fieri baptismus cum inuocatione Trinitatis. Finally, they teach, that Dogs & Hogs may eat the Sacrament of the Eucharist, & use to baptize bells. These are the men therefore, that abuse the Sacraments, and deprive Christians of them: & not Luther or Caluin.  
His sixth and last bolt is directed against the Liturgy and prayers of the Church. But as in other places so here also the man shooteth at rovers, ranging up and down 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 he proposeth to himself, he forgetteth, and cannot prove viz. that either we have no prayer, or else disorders in prayer. He is not ashamed to affirm, that we have no prayers at all on working days. But that is confuted both by common experience and the public orders of the Church. On Holy days, he saith, we spend our time in yelling out Geneva Psalms. So the Devil teacheth him to yell out blasphemies against the praises of God in Psalms, translated out of holy Scriptures. And why think you? forsooth because we admit not the filthy idolatrous prayers of the Mass, and breviaries, and for that also we pray in tongues understood, and with our spirit, and understanding, and for that we use not their Baal's songs. But when Christians consider how Papists pray like Parrots, not understanding what they say, and sing their monkish Hymns, & call upon they know not whom, and send up their prayers before stocks and stones; they have no occasion, either to mislike our Prayers or Psalms, or to allow their own. Neither is it material, that we believe not, that Prayers merit heaven, or satisfy for our sins, or that man naturally hath liberum arbitrium both in knowing and doing things pleasing to God. For albeit they merit not, yet they both obtain things necessary, and remove things hurtful. Again, albeit we cannot satisfy for our sins by prayers, yet by them we obtain remission of sins, for which our Saviour hath sufficiently satisfied. Finally albeit the natural man by free-will and nature doth neither understand the things of God, nor pursue after things pleasing to God; yet directed by God's holy spirit, by prayers we obtain God's grace, that both enlighteneth our understanding, and helpeth our weakness. So in all these cases prayer is profitable.  
Furthermore albeit we teach, that man is justified by faith, and that every true Christian led by God's spirit, is to assure himself of God's favour; yet are we not to neglect the means, nor to contemn Prayers which are exercises of our faith, and help to confirm us, and are means to obtain things necessary for us. The Surveyor therefore that concludeth against the means, because we assure ourselves of the end promised unto us through Christ jesus, is but an idiot disputer. For albeit we hope to attain to the end; yet we do not deny ordinary means.   

Chap. 8. The Surveyors calumniations against our Doctrine concerning God, refuted.  
AS it is a heinous Heresy to make God the author of sin, and condemned in Florinus and Blastus; so it is a heinous calumniation to charge innocent christians with so heinous a crime, as to hold God to be the author of sin. All this notwithstanding, Kellison a Surveyor, as he calleth himself, but not for Christ, but for Antichrist, will needs affirm, that we make God the author of sin and wickedness. But what if we teach contrary? will it not appear, that the author of sin was author also of this shameless and sinful slander? well then let us see what is publicly professed by the reformed churches. In the confession of the French Church, we read that God is not the author of evil, and that he is clear of all blame for things done evil. The Helvetian Churches condemn Florinus and Blastus for maintaining the contrary Doctrine. Damnanus say they, Florinum & Blastum, & omnes, qui deum faciunt authorem peccati. The same also we do both in our writings and Sermons publicly teach, and profess. Neither can this K. allege either sentence or word to the contrary. But saith he, lib. 5. c. 1. Caluin and his followers avouch, that God immediately and directly is the author of wickedness: and Melancthon in Rom. c. 8. avoucheth, that David's adultery, & judas treachery were as much the work of God, as S. Paul's vocation. He saith also, that Beza, & divers others have like sayings. But first we are unjustly charged with every private man's opinions: neither will our adversaries think it reason, in their own case to be so used. secondly Caluin is much wronged by this foul mouthed cur. For he is so far from saying, that God is the author of all wickedness, that expressly lib. 1. instit. c. 18. he teacheth, that God is author of no wickedness. Falsely also doth he charge Caluin to say, that God not only foreseeth man's sins, but hath created him of determinate purpose to that end. He saith only, that God doth not only permit men to do what they will, but doth govern their actions, and direct them to such ends, as he appointeth, not that he willeth or acteth their sin, or the obliquity of the action, but that he directeth their wicked actions to good ends, which is the Doctrine of Saint Augustine in enchiridio ad Laurentium, and divers other places. Melancthon also is most wickedly slandered by this false and wicked fellow, for he hath no such words, as those, wherewith he standeth charged. Neither may we doubt, but this fellow, that hath such leisure to pry into all men's faults, would have set down Bezaes' words, and any thing written or taught by us, if the same had made for his purpose. Wherefore seeing this K. setteth down his own malicious slanders, and not our words, he may, if he find any inconvenience or absurdity redounding thereof, take the same wholly to himself, and not impute it to us. He may also forbear to prove, that God is not the author of sin. For unless himself have any such wicked conceit, we know no man, that will maintain any such blasphemy.  
In his second Chapter of his fift Book he chargeth Caluin further with teaching, that Gods will and power doth so domineer over the will of a sinner, that he cannot resist God's motion, which eggeth & urgeth him to sin. Matters utterly false & forged. For proof he citeth Lib. 3. instit. c. 21. 6. et 8. But there is no such matter to be found in those places. There also he is charged to say, that Gods will is a necessity of things. But neither doth he say any such thing in that place; nor if he should say, that God's absolute will doth impose a necessity of things, doth it follow, that God doth egg and urge men to sin. It appeareth therefore that this lying companion sought not to find out truth, but to oppress truth, and the favourers thereof, with lies and slanders devised by himself.  
Thirdly he supposeth, that we teach, that God's commandments are impossible, and that a man can as soon touch the heavens with his finger, as fulfil the least commandment. But this is so gross a lie, as a man may almost touch it with his finger. For although we believe, that no man in this frailty of our nature, after the fall of Adam, is able perfectly to fulfil the whole Law of God; yet absolutely and simply no man teacheth them to be impossible. Nay we know they were possible to Adam in the state of innocency, and that now by grace many commaundemets may be performed. But suppose we should say, that the Law cannot perfectly be performed, yet should we say no more, than Ambrose and Hierome do teach in Galat. 3. and Chrysostome in Gal. 2. and Bernard serm. 50. in cant. and Thomas Aquinas in Gal. 3. lect. 4. He would prove, that the commandments of God are easy and light. But therein he showeth his own lightness, that condemneth himself for not performing that, which he taketh to be light. The rest of his illations are mere fooleries grounded upon his own fancies.  
In his fourth Chapter he would infer that we make God a most cruel Tyrant, because we teach, that no man is able to perform the whole Law of God perfectly. But his inference is most wicked and blasphemous, and could not proceed, but out of the blasphemous thoughts of a wicked masspriest. Out of our Doctrine no such matter is to be inferred. For as in matter of debts, the Creditor may justly exact his own, the Debtor having bound himself to pay, and after proving unsufficient & unable; so man is justly punished for not paying his debt, whereto he is bound, & which by his own fault he is made unable to pay. Luther de servo arb. confesseth, that in this obscure light of nature, and debility of understanding man cannot see, why God should not be unjust condemning him, that cannot choose but sin. But yet he accuseth not God either of injustice or cruelty, as this man would have it, but rather accuseth man of blindness and ignorance. And yet others do plainly see, that God doth most justly exact that at the hand of man, which by his own default he is become unable to perform.  
Finally he chargeth the reformers, that they pull down the true God out of his throne, and place an Idol in the same of their own imagination. And his reason is first, for that all Heretics are Idolaters; and next for that we hold, that God is the author of sin, and of a bad nature, unreasonable, and cruel. But if all Heretics be Idolaters; then as the Papists are gross Heretics, so are they gross Idolaters, holding divers branches of the Simonian, Carpocratian, Collyridian, Angelican, Manichean, Pelagian Heresy, and of divers other damned Heresies. Again if all Idolaters pull God out of his Throne; than the Papists that give God's honour to creatures, & worship the Sacrament, stocks and stones Idolatrosly, do pull God, as much as in them lieth, out of his Throne. Finally if we have cleared ourselves from all the injust imputations of this Sycophant, and showed, that neither Caluin, nor any of our teachers do hold, that God is author of sin, or guilty of any injustice; then I hope the very Papists themselves will be ashamed to hear such blasphemous terms proceed from their teachers, & be more wary hereafter, how they give ear to our adversaries clamours. It is one thing to cry loud, and another thing to bring sound proof. Sycophants object great crimes: but wise judges proceed according to proofs.   

Chap. 9 That our Doctrine giveth due obedience and respect both to Princes and to their Laws.  
HOW wickedly the Popes of Rome have abused the clemency of Christian Princes, it would require a long discourse to relate. This briefly may be verified, that they have trod down the majesty of Kings, contemned their Laws, and set variance betwixt the Prince and his subjects from time to time. And yet, as if the Doctrine of Popery, were clear in this point, this K. blusheth not to object the faults of his consorts to us. Like unto Parmenian the Donatist, who when he might be ashamed of his own faults, yet blushed not to accuse innocent Catholics. Cum pro tuis erubescere debueras, saith Optatus to Parmenian, Lib. 2. contr. Parmen. catholicos innocentes accusas. The difference betwixt our Doctrine and Popery in this point is very great. We say, it is not lawful for any subject to lay violent hands upon their anointed Kings. The Papists are taught to rebel against kings excommunicate by the Pope. Nay Pius the fift in bulla contr. Elizahethan denounceth them excommunicate, that would not stir against Queen Elizabeth, and take arms against her.  
Secondly we say, that the King is not subject to any foreign Potentate. They hold, that it is necessary to salvation for the King of England to be subject to the Pope, and think men bound to believe it. Nay they say the Pope is as far above the Emperor, as the Sun above the Moon.  
Thirdly we say, that the kings Laws concerning ecclesiastical matters are to be obeyed. The Papists give all power in Ecclesiastical affairs to the Pope, and say that the King therein is but an usurper.  
Fourthly we say, that not only laymen, but also all mass-priests, Monks, and Friars, aught to be subject to the Prince. These fellows exempt their Clergy and their goods from Prince's government, as appeareth by Bellarmine's treatise de exemptione Clericorum, and divers decrees of Popes.  
Finally we make Princes and Kings, sovereign commanders over their subjects, and immediate executors of God's laws. Contrariwise the papists make them most base executioners of the Pope's Laws, and therein prevail so far, that they not only set Princes together by the ears one with another, but make them the Pope's hangmen, and force them to persecute their own innocent subjects, if they will not admit the Pope's Idolatrous, and Heretical Religion.  
But saith Kellison Lib. 6 c. 1. they teach, that no Prince can bind a man in conscience to obey his Laws and commandments, and give subjects good leave to rebel and revolt. This he saith, and how proveth he that, which he saith? forsooth saith he, Luther exhorted the Germans not to take Arms against the Turk. And in his Book against the King of England called him all to nought. Secondly he telleth us of the Rebellion of the Boors in Germany. Thirdly he citeth certain places out of Luther, showing, that the Pope's laws, or Princes positive laws bind not to mortal sin, nor rule the conscience.  
Lastly he spendeth much idle talk about the tumults in France, Flaunders, and Germany. But first what maketh all this to laws binding in conscience? Secondly the Articles of his accusation contain manifest untruths. For neither do we give subjects leave to revolt, neither do we deny that Prince's laws do bind in conscience, as oft as they command any thing commanded in God's word, or prohibit things by God prohibited. If Luther respected not the Pope, nor his decretal laws; it is no marvel, seeing he is no lawful Prince, but an Usurper, and the head and maintainer of Antichristes Kingdom. Furthermore where he and Caluin defend Christian mens liberty, as touching their conscience, they say no other thing, then that which they have learned, and which every man may gather out of Saint james Chap. 4. where he saith, there is own Lawgiver, that can save and destroy. As for kellison's proofs they are either grounded upon false reports; or else contain matters impertinent. First false it is, that Luther exhorted the Germains not to take arms against the Turk. Nay he rather encouraged them to defend their country against the Turk, only showing them, that if they meant to prevail against him, they must first correct their lives, and reform their errors in Religion. But whatsoever he said in this argument, it concerneth this matter in question, nothing. Secondly, he was not King Henry's subject, but dealt against him more freely, as being by subtlety of Papists set forth to countenance the Pope's lewd cause. Thirdly, we defend not the Rebellion of the rustical Boors in Germany, neither did Luther spare to reprove them, and to write against them. Beside that, the cause of their insurrection was not Religion, but temporal oppression. Fourthly we have before declared what is Luther's & Caluins' meaning concerning the binding of men's consciences. Fiftly, the Germans and States of the low Countries are well able to clear themselves from all blot of rebellion, or imputation laid upon them by this sycophant, as may appear to any that will read their defences. Finally the Christians in France never rebelled, but only took arms in defence of their lives, against such as broke the King's edicts, and therefore have been justified in their actions by the Kings themselves, and by their edicts at divers times. Wherefore seeing their own Kings did clear them; this swad hath no reason to accuse them.  
In his second Chapter of his sixth book he chargeth us, that our Doctrine doth bring judges and tribunal seats into contempt. And his reason is partly, for that Luther and Caluin teach, that the positive laws of Princes bind not in conscience, and partly for that they do condemn the Popish Doctrine of free-will. But his reason is so simple and soppish, that it falleth of itself without our help. For albeit the positive laws of Princes, that have no strength of God's law, do not reach so far, as to bind the conscience; yet all the laws of Princes, that have their ground in God's law do bind the conscience also. Likewise the authority of Princes is of God, and therefore no man may resist them without offence of conscience. Furthermore albeit positive laws of Princes bind not in conscience; yet they do bind men to sustain the punishment inflicted by Prince's laws not direct contrary to God's laws. Finally albeit man have not free-will after the opinion of the Papists in discerning spiritual matters, and doing works pleasing to God, & tending to the ateining of eternal life; yet he hath free-will to do lewdly, and therefore justly deserveth to be punished. This fellow therefore rather deserveth to be punished, that understandeth our cause no better, then admired for his profound sophistry. He addeth, that it followeth by the Doctrine of these nowellants, that Princes have no authority to command. But then these old hacsters' must bring in new & strange conclusions. For as we have before declared, we maintain the Prince's authority against the usurpation of the Pope, and obey his laws better than Papists, who for a long time have stood for the Pope against their Princes, both in France and other places. Kellison like an old sycophant may therefore do well, seeing the Pope's tyranny is so new, to abstain from charging others with novelty, and forbearing to rail and lie, to produce some better arguments.  
In the third chapter of his sixth book he concludeth, that we bring Prince's laws into contempt, and in the fourth and last Chapter, that by our Doctrine, neither the Prince is to rely upon his Subjects, nor Subjects upon the Prince, nor one upon another: And all this because Luther and Caluin teach, that Princes mere positive laws do not bind in conscience. But as lepers, that mistake their rising fall oft in the midst, so disputers failing in their grounds come short of their conclusion. This position of Luther and Caluin I have heretofore showed to have been quite mistaken by Kellison. But had they taught so as he imagineth; yet do they neither bring laws into contempt, nor breed any distrust or evil correspondence betwixt Princes & subjects. For all God's laws bind in conscience, & man's laws as far as they have vigour from God's law. The authority of Princes is grounded upon the Law of God. From the same also not only our duty towards our parents, but also of husbands to their wives, & wives to their husbands, of children to their parents, & contrariwise for the most part receiveth strength. Finally the same authorizeth divers contracts willing us so to do to others, as we would have others to do to us. Furthermore beside matter of conscience, civil laws do sufficiently keep themselves from contempt by divers sorts of civil punishments. His frappling out-courses therefore touch us nothing. But admit once the wicked and damnable doctrine of Popery, and give the Pope leave to excommunicate Princes; then subjects are assoiled from their fealty and obedience, oaths are broken, laws are trodden under feet, Kings are murdered and empoisoned, rebellions are raised, lawful contracts are broken, the Father betrayeth his Children, and setteth fire to them, as hath been seen by practice where Popery beareth sway, and the like do the Children to their Parents. Finally all lawful contracts are dissolved, and all justice is banished. And this we can prove by divers practices of the Pope and his adherents in England, Franc●, Flanders, Germany and other countries. But that we reserve the full declaration hereof to another place.   

Chap. 10. That our Doctrine leadeth men to virtue, & deterreth them from all vices.  
AS the Pagans cried out in old times against Christians, as if they were Atheists, & the lewdest men that ever lived; so do Papists cry out against Christians of our time. Kellison doth redouble his cries of Atheism and blasphemy, and in the seventh book of his Survey accuseth us of lose carriage, and vicious living. And thus it is come to pass, as saith Nazianzen epist. 31. ijdem iniuria afficiuntur, & accusantur, Honest men are both wronged & accused. But our Doctrine will always stand firm against their accusations, and we doubt not but the professors of our Religion will always pass for right honest men, whensoever they shall be paralleled either with pope's, cardinals, Monks, Friars, nuns, or the Canaillery & rabblement of mass-priests & their followers.  
Many reasons we have to persuade us to obedience of gods Laws and holiness of life, whereof these are principal. First God's commandment, which we are to obey; Secondly his honour, which we are to seek; Thirdly Christ's example, which we are to follow; Fourthly the election and vocation of Christians, which requireth a life answerable to our profession; Fiftly the reward promised to those, that keep Gods laws; Sixtly the scandal, that ensueth of lewd actions; and lastly the curse and eternal misery and punishment, that is denounced against the transgressors of the laws of God.  
Herein we have also great advantage of the Papists. We follow Gods eternal word, that is a lantern to our feet, and a light to our paths; they follow obscure and unwritten traditions, We ground our doctrine upon the Apostles and Prophets, that were most holy men: they follow the decretales of most wicked and impure Popes. We propose to ourselves the example of Christ and his holy Apostles: they follow Antichrist, and the founders of divers orders of Monks and Friars, and nuns, who were rather superstitious, than zealous, ceremonious, then holy and Religious. We punish adultery in most places with death, and fornication with shame & reproach; neither do we admit public bordels: they count fornication and adultery small faults, and maintain in all great cities of Italy, and most Country's subject to the Pope common bordel houses, whereby great occasion of corruption of manners is offered to youth, and great offence to Infidels and weak Christians. We force none to forswear marriage: the Papists suffer neither Monks, Friars, nuns, nor mass-priests to marry; whereof many horrible sins and abominations follow. We dispense neither with oaths nor promises, nor dissolve contracts: the Pope taketh on him to do all this, whereby great occasions are offered of perjury, and perverse dealing. We set up no banks of usury: they commonly set up banks of usury, and call them sometime banks of pity, because men borrow upon less interest, then of common-bankers. We suffer neither jews nor Marans among us: they admit both, and take tribute of them, to the great scandal of Religion. We count it a thing abominable, for men professing Christianity to empoison and murder those, that are opposite to them in Religion: the Pope and his adherents count such murders and empoysonments meritorious, and honour the assassiners, as Saints, as appeareth by the example of james Clement, William Parry, Ghineard, castle and such like. Such as rebel or conspire against Princes we detest as Traitors; they honour as Martyrs, as appeareth by the example of Plomptree, the two Nortons', Campian, Ballard, Watson and Clerke and such like. And shortly we doubt not to hear but that Percy and Catesby and the gunpowder Traitors shall be put into the Pope's calendar. We give no power to Preestes to absolve impenitent sinners: the popish Massepreestes absolve all that confess, and bid them do penance afterward. Nay they absolve, murderers, assassinors and Traitors. We allow no indulgences of Popes, that remit, as they say. temporal punishments; they being confident upon the Pope's indulgences commit gross offences. We do not believe, that sins are done away by masses: they hope to be justified by gazing upon a Massepreest. Finally, we leave no hope for sinners after this life: they promise sinners that they shall pass to eternal life through Purgatory.  
kellison's discourse therefore concerning virtues, which are so rare among the Papists; and of vices, that so swarm amongst them, was unreasonably inserted in his Survey. Against our Doctrine, certes, justly he can take no exception. In the title of the first Chapter of his 7. Book, he chargeth us with taking away the hope of Heaven and fear of Hell. But when he should bring his proofs, he allegeth only a broken sentence or two out of Luther and Caluin, which notwithstanding being truly set down, do make nothing for him. For neither doth Caluin deny, that men ought to do well for hope of reward, but only condemneth the humour of those, that respect only reward, as if nothing else were to move men to do good: nor doth Luther mislike, that man should fear Hell, but that Christians should not be moved for other causes to refrain from evil, then for fear of Hell. But what is this to us, if advantage might be taken of some words of Luther or Caluin? Further he runneth back to talk of Laws positive not binding in conscience, most falsely and without all colour, charging us with taking away all fear of Laws. The rest of his first Chapter of his 7. Book is nothing but a ranging discourse of divers sorts of fear, and of the effects of the hope of reward and fear of punishment, which in Douai might pass for a piece of a Schoolboys declamation, but here coming out of place, and being not gainsaid shall pass, as do the rest of his idle declamations, for a piece of pedantical foolery.  
In the second Chapter of the same Book he maketh a great matter of faith only justifying, and saith that thereby a gap is opened to all vice. But his discourse is such, as rather may beseem a stage vice, than a Divine speaking against vice. First he telleth us, that Satan beateth his doctrine into men's heads, and that the same was maintained first by those, against whom S. john S. james, S. Peter and S. Jude writeth, as Augustine testifieth; and then by Simon Magus, and Eunomius; and lastly by Luther and Caluin. But herein he resembleth the jews Luke 11. that attribute the miracles of Christ to the power of Belzebub. For this Doctrine of justification by faith without works is the Doctrine not of Satan, as this Satanical masspriest affirmeth, but of the holy Ghost. We conclude saith the Apostle Rom. 3. that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law. Neither doth he understand the works of the ceremonial Law, or works done by force of free-will. For than he would not have excluded all the works of the Law, nor denied that Abraham was justified by works. Furthermore he would only have concluded, that man is not justified by the ceremonial Law or by works done by the force of free-will without grace. S. Augustine also lib. de fid. et oper. c. 14. teacheth us, that man is first justified, and then doth good works. His words speaking of good works are these: sequuntur justificatum, non praecedunt iustificandum. They follow him that is justified, and go not before in him, that is to be justified. As for those Christians, that turned the grace of God into wantonness, as Saint Jude saith, and the rest, against whom the Apostles wrote, they did altogether contemn good works: a matter much condemn and far from us. Simon Magus likewise & Eunomius gave themselves over to a dissolute life, and Eunomius promising salvation to his followers believing only, speaketh not of the true faith of Christ, but of his own wicked and Heretical faith. But Luther and Caluin neither speak against good works, nor contemn them, nor allow of their opinions, that contemn good works, but only exclude them from being the cause of justification, or concurring in the act of justification before God's tribunal seat. Otherwise they exhort all Christians to good works, and highly praise them, as the fruits of our justification, and very acceptable in God's sight. And this Doctrine they devised not of their own brain, but received 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 justificari hominem per ●●dem sine operibus legis, non hoc agit, ut praecepta contemnantur, sed ut sciat se quisque per fidem justificari, etiam si legis opera non praecesserint. When the Apostle saith, that he believeth man to be justified by faith without the works of the Law, he intendeth not, that the commandments should be despised, but would that every man should know, that he is justified by faith, albeit the works of the Law go not before. Against us therefore neither the words of Jude nor of other apostles make any thing. But against our adversaries, if S. Augustine be judge, they aim directly. arbitrantur saith he Lib. de fid. et operib. c. 15. per quasdam poenas ignis eos posse purgari ad salutem percipiendam merito fundamenti. He saith, the certain in his time erroneously believed, that such as live lewdly may be saved through fire holding the foundation. And against such he disputeth and applieth the Apostles words.  
Secondly our adversary telleth us, that Luther and Caluin teach, that goodworks are mortal sins, and that faith according to Caluins' opinion is sin. But that is rather a lewd & sinful trick to impute that to any, which he never wrote nor thought. Nay it appeareth manifestly, that they teach contrary.  
Thirdly he asketh a question, where we read in Scriptures, that only faith justifieth. But this question we have already answered. And now we say further, that this is found in all places, where either the Law and works are excluded from causing justification, or else we are said to be justified freely and by grace, or else are taught that the just doth live by faith. The Apostle Gal. 2. saith if justice be by the Law, that christ died in vain. And Gal. 5. volentes justificari per legem à gratia exciderunt. While they sought for justice by the Law, they fell from Christ. Neither is our adversaries exception of any moment, where he saith that the works of the ceremonial Law, and of the Gentiles are only excluded by the words of the Apostle. For he doth not only speak of the Gentiles, but of Abraham, that was the Father of the faithful, & denieth that he was justified by works. The prophet David also Psal. 32. pronounceth him blessed, to whom God imputeth no sin. Which showeth, that it is not the ceremonial Law, but the whole Law, whose transgressions are imputed to us. And the Apostle generally excludeth all works for which a reward is due from justification. Ei qui operatur merces non imputatur secundum gratiam. He addeth also how faith may be said to justify. But he might have remembered, that here he is no teacher, but an adversary. We do therefore rather expect arguments, than documents from him. His exposition of faith justifying as a disposition, or as a work is far from truth, and from the meaning of the Apostle, who excluding our works placeth our true justification before God in God's mercy, and Christ's justice made ours by faith. To conclude this point, seeing none are saved but such as are justified, and none are justified by works of the law, but such as perform the whole law; it is manifest that before God, which is so just and holy, and leaveth no sin unpunished, no sinner is justified by the works of the law. If it were otherwise, then would it follow, that Mary Magdalen, and other great sinners transgressing the law were justified by the law.  
Fourthly he saith It is an absurd heresy to say, that faith cannot be without works. But if he speak of a true, lively and justifying faith, he is rather an absurd heretic, if he say, that the same may be without good works. The apostle saith that faith worketh by charity, and that the just doth live by faith. But lively faith is active. S. Augustine also lib. de fid. et oper. c. 16. doth testify, that true faith cannot be void of works, fides Christi saith he, fides gratiae Christianae, id est ea fides, quae per dilectionem operatur, posita in fundamento n●minem perire permittit. So it appeareth, it deserveth not the name of Christian faith, that worketh not by charity. In this place also this K. accuseth the Lutherans & calvinists, as he calleth them, for their evil life. But this is only an ordinary phrase of his railing style. For not those, that exclude works from causing our justification before God, but such as albeit they pretend faith and works, yet neither have true faith nor good works, are guilty of this accusation. If we please to parallel those, whom he calleth Lutherans and calvinists, with the Popes, Cardinals, mass-priests and their adherentes, I doubt not, but they will appear Saints in the eyes of indifferent judges in comparison of them. If any man else doubt, let him read the acts of the Conventicle of Constance against john the 23. the reports of john the 12. Sergius the 3. Landus, Gregory the 6 and 7. Alexander the 6. Paul the 3. Leo the 10. & other Popes set down in Histories. To speak generally there is great difference betwixt the men of Geneva and Rome, of England and Italy.  
Finally he concludeth, if faith only do justify, that if a man retain faith, all the vilanyes in the world cannot hurt him: & that he may assure himself, he is just, howsoever he liveth. And this he goeth about to confirm by Luther's words which he reporteth thus, Sola fides Christi necessaria est ad salutem: cetera omnia liberrimaneque praeceptaneque prohibita. Only faith is necessary to salvation, all other things are free, and neither commanded nor forbidden. But as his dealings are dishonest, so his conclusion concerning villainies is most villainous. For albeit we hold, that a Christian man is to be justified by faith alone in Christ jesus: yet we teach also, that he abuseth God's grace, and deceiveth himself, which walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit, and living loosely and ungodly supposeth notwithstanding, that he retaineth true faith. Furthermore none of us ever taught, that every one is presently justified, that believeth himself to be just as this K. boldly avoucheth, but he that indeed truly believeth in Christ jesus. Lastly this sycophant doth most unjustly wrest and misreport Luther's words. For in his commentaries in Gal. 2. he hath not the words alleged by Kellison, albeit he boldly affirm it. Nay he seemeth to write plain contrary. justificato sic cord per fidem, saith he, 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, omnium legum opera. Omnia sunt iam libera licita, & lex per fidem & Charitatem est impleta. His meaning therefore is that those that are justified by faith, have charity and do all good works, and avoid sin, not by constraint of laws, but moved by God's spirit working by faith and charity, and being stirred to do well of their free choice. And after the former words he addeth, that a sinner looking for righteousness at God's hands is not to look upon his own works, but upon God through Christ. Are not these fellows then strange collectors that conclude contrary to a man's words and meaning, and would make Luther a favourer of licentiousness of life, and an enemy of good works, who expressly condemneth all wickedness and commendeth good works, detracting nothing from them, but that they do not justify before God, but are rather fruits of justification?  
In the third Chapter he affirmeth, that Luther and Caluin in assuring men by an assured faith of election, remission of sins, justice, and perseverance in the same lose the bridle to all iniquity. But had not he loosed the reins of his malicious tongue, and suffered the same to range without restraint against such as defend the truth; he would never have uttered so much falsehood and villainy against Luther and Caluin. For they say not, that whatsoever men's lives be, they may boldly rely on Christ: or else, that men being clogged with all the sins of the world are to believe, that they are just, as this surveying sycophant giveth out, but rather, that no man is to presume of his faith or of God's mercy, or justice without repentance and good life, which are the fruits & marks of a good faith. And Luther albeit he say that life cannot be lost by any sins, unless a man will not believe: yet he doth not speak of sins to come, but of sins past and done away by the grace of Christ through baptism and repentance.  
Further out of Luther's words lib. de captain. Babyl. concerning the effect of faith he collecteth, that howsoever a man live, & though he be never so incredulous in the Articles of his belief; yet if he believe that he shall be saved, that it shall be so. But no such conclusion can be drawn from his words or Doctrine. Nay he showeth that good life cannot be separated from true faith, and never meant to disjoin the faith of the articles of the Creed, from justifying faith, this being derived from that faith. Lastly albeit Christians being justified by faith, hope they shall be saved; yet no man ever believed, that justification is nothing else but an assurance that he shall be saved, as the Surveyor surmiseth.  
Page. 540. he calleth the faith of a man's own salvation fantastical, as if the Apostle Saint Paul believing that nothing should separate him from the love of God were fantastical. Furthermore how can a man profess himself a Christian, if he believe not remission of sins and eternal life? and if he believe this, how can he choose but believe his own salvation? again how can we pray without doubting, if we doubt of remission of sins, which we crave in the lords Prayer? finally the Sacraments are seals of this assurance of salvation when they are applied to every particular Christian.  
His last reason or rather reasonless argument to prove, that assurance of faith bringeth forth looseness of life, is this: because a man, as he thinketh, may apprehend Christ's justice to be his, either being moved to sin, or being in the act of sin. But this is his own weak surmise. For he that truly apprehendeth Christ is clad with his justice, and guided by his grace, and preserved from sinning. And he that walloweth in sin, and yet presumeth of Christ's grace, is not partaker either of his grace or justice.  
In his 7. Book and 4. Chapter he inveigheth against us for teaching that sin is not imputed to a faithful man. But all Christians are rather to exclaim against him, that believeth that sins are neither done away by repentance, nor purged by faith in Christ's blood, but always imputed unto true believers. To help forth with a bad matter, he saith that Caluin lib. 3. instit. c. 14.17. and chap. 18.8. saith plainly that all just and faithful men's works are sins. But this is a plain lie, and showeth that this surveyor doth use but little just and plain dealing. For in those places no such thing is to be found. Nay, it implieth contradiction to be a good work, and a sin both together. After this he concludeth, because sin is not imputed unto them that believe, that Christians are not to fear thefts, or adulteries, or other sin. But his conclusion doth but lewdly follow upon his premises. For albeit former sins are done away by true faith and repentance; yet all true Christians being once cured are to take heed they sin no more. Further repentance bringeth with it newness of life and a care to avoid sin afterward, and not as K. surmiseth, a boldness in sinning.  
The fift Chapter containeth nothing almost but vain repetitions and odious calumniations against Master Luther and Caluin and other Godly men. First he saith, that they condemn the just man's good deeds as mortal sins. But this hath been declared to be a mortal or rather capital slander. For although they hold, that even in the works of good men there are imperfections, and that many acts to us seeming good are evil; yet they no where say, that the just man's good deeds are mortal sins. in the words by K. alleged partially, there is no such matter. Secondly he chargeth them to teach, that the faithful man's evil deeds are good and honest. But therein he dealeth unfathfully and dishonestly. For they do not diminish men's sins, but commend Gods great mercy, that imputeth them not, albeit they be very great and heinous. Thirdly he affirmeth, that Caluin teacheth, that original sin hath blotted out the image of God in man. But if all the untruths of this slauderous Survey, were blotted out, the rest would scarce serve to stop one Vinegar bottle. Caluin saith, that the image of God in man is not lost by his fall, but only blemished and defaced. The same man, where he speaketh of the works of Infidels saith not that all of them are sins, but that they sinned all in their moral actions. And this he proveth out of Augustine lib. 4. contr. julianum. Finally, none of us teaching, that our will is unable to perform any good work tending to the attaining of eternal life, doth either teach contrary to scriptures, or overthrow Arts, or extinguish reason, or make all sins equal, albeit this K. in his brablement doth charge us therewith.  
In the sixth Chapter he runneth beside himself, and entereth into a tedious declaration concerning free-will, and divers odious repetitions of the same matters. But what will you say, is this to the purpose? Forsooth no more than if he should tell you what command he had in time passed over the Hogsheads in my Lord Vauxes Cellar. For we do not deny free-will in all things, as did the Manachees, who held that sin proceeded not from our will, but from the substance of the evil soul, and therefore are justly refuted by Saint Augustine in his Book de duab. anim. c. 11. neither did Luther deny free-will simply, but only in things that concern the attaining of the Kingdom of heaven. Furthermore neither doth Luther teach, that free-will goeth necessarily that way, which either the spirit spurreth it, or the Devil urgeth it, as this lewd Sycophant ridden and spurred on by no good spirit shamefully lieth: nor doth Caluin affirm, that God's providence and predestination taketh away free-will, as he desperately and imprudently chargeth him: neither do we either teach. that man sinneth unwillingly, or deny, that he hath his will free in natural & civil matters. What then is it that pincheth this thick-skinned fellow? Forsooth because we say that the natural man neither discerneth the things, that are of God, nor by his free-will is able to perform them. This is it, which the semipelagian Papists mislike, and against which Doctrine Kellison marshalleth all his forces, if such weak stuff at the least, may be termed forces. And first he endeavoureth to prove free-will. But if by this word he understand only an ability & will to do wickedly, than we deny not, but man hath free-will. If by free-will he understand that will and power in spiritual matters and concerning eternal life, which the conventicle of Trent and other Romish teachers do mean; then he may do well to take a larger term to prove his Doctrine. That conventicle sess. 6. c. 1. et. 5. speaking of free-will in matters concerning eternal life, saith, it is only attenuated, and weakened and not extinguished or lost by the fall of Adam. Gabriel Biel Lib. 2. d. 27. 4. teacheth. that a man by force of free-will may remove the bar (of God's grace) that is mortal sin; because he may cease from the consent and act of sinning, yea hate sin, and frame his will not to commit sin. Homo existens in peccato mortali saith he, potest removere obicem, ho est peccatum mortale: quia potest cessare à consensu et actu peccandi, imò odisse peccatum, et velle non peccare. Commonly they hold, that man in his natural faculties, was left sound after the fall; that the will by the force of nature is able to dispose itself to receive grace: that the same is able by the force of nature to avoid every mortal sin, and to fulfil the Law of God, as touching the substance of the act. But the Scriptures teach us, that the unregenerate man is dead, and sold under sin. 1. Cor. 2. We read that the natural man understandeth not the things that are of God, and that they are foolishness unto him. And 2. Cor. 3. that all our sufficiency is of God. Si ad aliquid idonei sumus, id ex deo est, saith the Apostle.  
Secondly he saith if man have no free-will, that then all vice may go for currant. But if he mean free-will and the power thereof according to the Doctrine of the Papists; then his conclusion will not pass for currant, nor will his vize-ship prove more vicious holding with us according to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and Fathers, than he now is esteemed defending the decretales of Popes, and Copper Doctrine of Schoolmen.  
The seventh Chapter of his 7. Book containeth an invective against us, as if we taught, that all God's commandments are simply impossible. But herein it seemeth, that wilfully he● mistaketh our Doctrine, that he might the better vent his swelling eloquence to his gaping and witless disciples. For we neither hold, that the Law is simply in itself impossible, nor teach that it is impossible simply for the regenerate man, to perform the Law of God in part. But we say, that the unregenerate cannot perform any Law of God in such sort as he should, and that the regenerate cannot so perfectly perform the whole law, as he ought. And this we know is the doctrine of the holy Apostles & Fathers of the Church. Saint Peter Act. 15. saith the Law was a yoke which neither the Disciples of Christ, nor their Fathers were able to bear. Quid tentatis deum saith he, ut imponatur jugum super ceruices discipulorum, quod neque patres nostri, neque nos portare potuimus? Saint Paul Rom. 7. speaking of himself saith the Law was spiritual, and he carnal sold under sin. And Rom. 8. the affection of flesh is death and enmity against God, and is neither subject to the Law of God, nor can be. Saint Ambrose in Galat. 3. saith that the commandments of God are so great, that it is impossible to keep them. Tanta sunt mandata, ut impossibile sit servari ea. Likewise lib. 9 epist. 71. He saith, no man can avoid sin. Peccatum nemo evitare potest. And with him consenteth S. Hierome in c. 3. ad Galat. affirming, that no man can perform the Law. Augustine lib. de perfect. justit. showeth reason, why no man is able to fulfil that which is commanded. S. Chrysostome in his Homilies upon the epistle to the Romans speaking of the Law, affirmeth plainly, that it is a matter impossible to fulfil it. Id verò saith he, nemini possibile est. And Bernard serm. 50. in cantic. saith that God commanding things impossible made not men transgressors, but humble. And this is so plain a matter, that Thomas Aquinas wrighting upon the third to the Galat. confesseth freely, that it is impossible to fulfil the whole Law. Implere totam legem saith he, est impossibile. But what should we need to produce so many testimonies, when the Pelagians are condemned for Heretics for saying, that a man may live without sin (which must needs follow if a man be able to fulfil the whole Law) and when experience teacheth us, that even the just man falleth and all of us offend in many things? if than all those that affirm the Law to be impossible give occasion of all impiety, as this sottish Surveyor, affirmeth; he had need to distinguish subtly, if he mean to clear the ancient Fathers and Christ's Apostles from impiety. If he teach contrary to them; then is his Doctrine more like to savour of impiety, then that of the holy Apostles and ancient Fathers.  
The rest of his seventh Book is nothing else, but a rest of railing terms, degorged out of his cankered and malicious stomach, and void of truth and proof. We answer therefore briefly, and plainly to the intent that hereafter he may be better informed concerning our Religion first that Christ hath not freed us from the obedience of Laws, and that this is no part of our faith to hold so. Nay we say, that faithful men, as they are freed from the curse of the Law for their sins, so by divers arguments they are exhorted and stirred up to hearken to the words of the Law, and to yield their obedience unto it. Secondly we pronounce them anathema, that shall say, that God is the author of sin: and have, I trust, fully discharged Master Caluin from this most unjust imputation. Thirdly we take them to be brutish Heretics in the form of men, that do not diligently distinguish between virtue and vice. In our Doctrine there is not the least suspicion of any such matter. Fourthly of conscience we speak according to the holy Apostle, that groundeth it not upon the Pope's decretales, but upon the Law of God. Fiftly we hate all pride, knowing that humility is the cognizance of Christians, and groundwork of all virtues. Sixtly we exhort men to labour diligently in their vocation thinking them unworthy to eat, that will not work. We exhort all men also to do good works and that while it is day, because the night cometh when no man can work; so far are we from allowing idleness. Seventhly we hold that Marriage is honourable among all degrees of men, and say that God will judge adulterers and fornicators. We teach chastity, we punish unchaste and lecherous persons. Finally our Doctrine doth show the way for sinners to arise, and to be loosed from the bonds of sin. What a shameless fellow than is this to make these Doctrines falsely imputed to us rules of our Religion, when we not only renounce them, but also detest them, and the reporter of them?  

The Papists justly charged with that which is falsely i●●●●ed 〈◊〉  But if we look back and reflect our eyes upon the Doctrine and practice of Papists, we shall then perceive them to be guilty of that, which they most wickedly and slaundrously impute unto us. First as if Christ had freed them from all laws, so they contemn all Laws. The Pope taketh upon him not only to dispense against the Doctrine of the Apostle, and the Law moral, but also to lose the subjects from the obedience of laws, & to arm them against their Princes. The mass-priests and marked slaves of Antichrist are exempted from all burdens of Law. And Emanuel sa in his Aphorisms saith, that the rebellion of a Clerk against. his Sovereign Lord is no treason, because he is not his Subject  
Secondly, albeit they say, that God is not the Author of sin, yet they hold, that their idolatrous doctrine of worship of Angels, saints, and Images, that the rebellious and treacherous practices of Subjects against Princes upon warrant of the Pope, that the heretical opinions and traditions of the Synagogue of Rome, which are most wicked and sinful, are of God. They blush not also to say that the pope & papacy is of God. But he is the man of sin, and his state is the Kingdom of Antichrist.  
Thirdly, as if they put no difference betwixt virtue and vice, so they choose Prelates, Cardinals, Pope's indifferently, without respect to the●r piety, learning, and other good qualities. The Pope he dispenseth with all vices, the people liveth most beastly. Petrarch in his Sonnets calleth Rome Babylon, in regard of the confusion there. In his Epistles without title speaking of the Pope's Court, all goodness, saith he, is there lost. Omne ibi bonum perditur. Bernard lib. 4. de consid. speaking of the Romans saith, they were impious towards God, profane in handling holy things, seditious one toward another. Breidenbach in the history of his travails, showeth a marvelous corruption to have grown among the people of his time. Recessit lex à sacerdotibus, saith he, à principibus justicia, consilium à senioribus, à populo sides. That is, the Law is departed from Preestes, justice from rulers, counsel from the Elders, and good dealing from the people. And lest any man might doubt of the indifferent opinion that Papists have both of good & bad, the Pope granteth indulgences to all, and Preestes absolve all that come to them, and promise heaven to all.  
Fourthly, he that seeketh for conscience, must never hope to find it among Papists, who making conscience to work on a holy day, and to eat flesh on Fridays, were nothing scrupulous to murder old and young, men and women, and all sorts of people, and without form of law to kill many thousands of innocent Christians, as may appear by the bloody massacre of France Anno 1572. and by divers executions done upon men of our religion both there and in other places. Of late in England Percy and his mates being resolved to blow up the upper house of Parliament, and to make a general massacre of such as feared God, were absolved by jesuits and mass-priests, and promised heaven for their good service. To make a some of all, they make no conscience to make idols, and to worship them, to violate the Saboth, to rebel against Magistrates or parents, or to break any law of God. But to break the Pope's orders, or their own traditions, they account it a matter very heinous.  
Fiftly, next to Lucifer the Pope excelleth in pride He treadeth on Prince's necks, he giveth his feet to be kissed, he rideth on men's shoulders, he is called a God on the earth and usurpeth his honour. Such also are the Prelates and the rest of the popish Clergy. Aventinus lib. 6. annal. in praef. showeth they excel in pride, and with goods given to the poor keep Dogs, Horses, Harlots. Pauperum alimentis canes, equos, scorta alunt.  
Sixtly, never was idleness more in price, then since Monks and Friars came into the world. They devour the fruits of the painful labour of others, and intent nothing but to eat, drink, sleep and to enjoy carnal pleasures. Of such we may say with the Apostle. 2. Thess. 3. He that laboureth not, let him not eat.  
seven, albeit the mass-priests, Monks, nuns and Friars forswear marriage; yet not sect of Religion, or state of men or women is more impure. Honorius Augustodunensis speaking of Nuns, saith they are more common than Harlots. Omnibus fornicarijs peius prosternuntur. In England most horrible abominations were found in the visitation of Abbeys. Petrus de Alliaco lib. de reformat. Eccles. and Theodoric à Niem in nemore union. & divers others show, that albeit Priests were not married; yet commonly they kept Harlots, and that now is evident, in our times, by common experience. Sacerdotes moderni saith Holcot in lib. sap. lect. 182. sunt similes sacerdotibus Baal, sunt angeli apostatici, sunt similes sacerdotibus Dagon, sunt sacerdotes priapi, sunt angeli abyssi. The Priests of his time he resembleth to heathen Priests, and showeth how much they were subject to lechery, and heathenish impieties.  
Finally, the Doctrine of Popery is a doctrine full of licentiousness, the Popes of Rome take upon them to dispense with all sins and wickedness. Their indulgences as the Germans Gravam. 3. complain, are causes of many mischiefs, hinc stupra say they, incestus, adulteria, periuria, homicidia, furta, rapinae, foenora, ac tota malorum lerna. They take upon them to absolve most wicked sinners, à poena & culpa. Nay every masspriest challengeth to himself power to give absolution to such as come to confession. The jesuits of late absolved them before hand, which by gunpowder went about to blow up the Parliament house. Hammond the jesuite absolved Percy, Catesby and their fellows taking arms against their King and Country. While men hope to satisfy for their sins in purgatory, they defer repentance to the last breath. Their enemies they tie with iron bonds. Alexander the 3. would not release the Emperor, until he had trod on his neck with his feet, and used him with great indignities. Contrariwise they promise heaven to their friends, though laden with grievous si●s. They hold every transgression of the Pope's decretales to be sin. This is therefore a Religion, that both promiseth reward to cutthroates & grievous sinners, and by their indulgences, absolutions, and fancies of purgatory hold a sinner so fast bound in sin, that there can be no hope for him, to be loosed as long as he followeth their wicked Doctrines. As for Luther and Caluin they are far from such wicked courses. They teach christian liberty. But they extend it not so, that they exempt Christians either from the obedience of God's laws, or man's laws, but only from the curse of the law, and from human traditions, that they bind not men's consciences. They distinguish Christ & Moses. And so would Kellison too, but that he talketh he knoweth not what. Of Moses his law they make divers uses, and only detract from it the effect of justification, and salvation by reason it accuseth man of sin and is not fulfilled. The Apostle also teacheth, if justice were of the law, that Christ had died in vain. Of the author and original of sin, and of conscience, they teach most christianly, following therein the Doctrine of the Apostles and holy Fathers of the church. The pride of the Pope & his adherents they detested and refused both by words and examples; and so far were they from idleness, and allowing of idleness, that they thought him unworthy to live or eat, that laboured not in some honest, and lawful vocation. Concerning chastity they taught as truly, as the Papists wickedly. They showed, that it consisted not in forswearing marriage, but in abstinence from all filthy thoughts, acts and speeches. That which some impute to Luther, of taking the Maid, when the wife refuseth, is a mere calumniation. He showeth only what some do, or at the least threaten to do, and not what they ought to do. Of the degrees of consanguinity they teach better than the Pope. They never taught, that a man might marry his brother's wife, or his Niece, or his Sister, as the Popes have done. Finally they hold no sinners fast bound in sins, but show the right way, how to rise from sin, by faith in Christ and true repentance, clearing those doubts, which before had entangled many Christian souls, and brought them to utter destruction. If then this K. had not had his conscience seared, & his eyes seeled, and his understanding darkened in these points, he would have seen and acknowledged the deformities of his own fellows Doctrine, and abstained from accusing others.   

Chap. 11. A rejection of Kellison's slanderous accusations, imputing in his 8. Book, Atheism, and contempt of Religion to the professors of true and Christian Religion in the Church of England.  
Consort not thyself with detractors saith Solomon Proverb. 24. For their destruction shall come upon them suddenly. But Kellison was not so wise, as to borrow light from so wise and prudent a King. He hath chosen rather, to imitate fools, who as if all their treasure were in their tongues, count it gain, to speak lewdly of their betters. Istic est thesaurus stultis in lingua situs saith plautus in paenulo, ut quaestui habeant malè loqui melioribus. Forgetting his friends in Italy, Spain, and other countries groaning under the captivity of Antichrist: in his preface he chargeth his native country of England, as unfortunate for engendering a certain Monster called Atheists. But if our Country men had less frequented Italy, there had been far less Atheism, then in England now there is. It is well known, that Machiavelisme came from Italy, and rose not in England, and how Englishmen Italienated are said to be like Devils incarnated. Furthermore if the mass-priests, as they have brought with them the dregs of Popish heresies, had not also brought with them the sins of Sodom, and mixed divine Religion with temporal policies, and state practices, seeking with fire and Gunpowder to re-establish in this kingdom the Pope's tyranny; then had he had no colour of this imputation. Neither doth this any way concern us, that profess Religion here in England, being the proper crime of the Italianated and Hispaniolized mass-priests and their consorts, that being inspired with the malicious spirit of Antichrist, live like Atheists and Sodomites, & teach rebellion, murder of Princes, perjury, equivocations, and divers other points of Doctrine repugnant both to Religion and civil policy.  
In the first Chapter of his 8. Book, he affirmeth, 
kellison's calumniatitions, as if our doctrine savoured of Atheism refuted.  that certain points of our Doctrine open a gap to a denial of the divine Majesty. But when he cometh to particulars, he poureth out of his wide mouth a stream of impudent slanders. First he saith, we are not afraid to avouch, that God is the author of all sin and wickedness: and that he hath ordained us to sin from all eternity, that we sin by God's will and commandment, and that he urgeth us to sin. And concludeth, that we make God cruel and tyrannical, as commanding us that, which we cannot perform, wanting free-will, and punishing us for faults, which we cannot avoid. But first he doth not so much as offer to prove his charge either out of the Doctrine of the Church of England, or out of any man's writings, whose name is of any note in our Church. Nay he knoweth, we teach contrary to that, which he imputeth unto us. May he not then be ashamed to charge his adversaries with matters so false and improbable? Secondly, he is neither able to convince Master Caluin of any such impious Doctrine, nor hath he reason to make so great clamours, if any one private man of our teachers should hold any point of erroneous Doctrine. Lastly, before he come at his conclusion, he must make better proof of his premises, if he mean to have the particulars of his survey to pass without censure. He must also understand, that albeit we have not free-will, or liberium arbitrium in discerning the things of God, and doing things pleasing to his divine Majesty; it followeth not, that God is therefore cruel or tyrannical, because by our own default we became unable to perform the Law, and blind in discerning matters tending to eternal life.  
The rest of the first Chapter containeth a long invective against Atheists, and certain weak arguments brought to prove, that there is a God. But as in the first he toucheth his own fellows, so in the second he confirmeth them in their Atheism, being able to bring no better arguments to confute them, and in the whole behaveth himself fond and unlearnedly. First he saith, that neither reason, nor faith, nor both together are able to discover, what God is. But therein he discovereth by his own confession, that he is a poor Surveyor of Religion, not knowing what God is, and a silly Doctor of Divinity, if he deny that Scriptures teach us what God is, as far as is necessary for us to know.  
Pag. 642. he saith, that creatures in God are increate, infinite, perfect, and that all of them in God are God. Which assertion first taketh away the distinction betwixt God and creatures. Next advanceth creatures to a divine being. And thirdly cometh near to servetus his impiety. For if a creature in God is God, why may not Kellison also say, that God in a stone is a stone, and in Iron Iron, as servetus did, if Bellarmine in praefat. ante tom 1. disput. say truly. Neither can it excuse him, that God foresaw and foreknew all things, and as Philosophers say, had ideas in him. For this devise of ideas is a Philosophical fancy, and yet cannot make kellison's assertion good, seeing the platonical philosophers distinguish ideas from the things themselves and make them separate from them.  
Pag. 645. he talketh of convincing a Godhead, and saith, that the world by Philosophers is called Alle. But the first speech is impious seeming to import, that he meaneth to overcome God, and to confute him, as he hath already endeavoured to confute his truth. The second proceedeth of ignorance. For hardly will he be able to show, in what tongue Philosophers call the world, Alle.  
Pag. 648. he belieth Caesar, where he maketh him say, that the first inhabitants of England sprang out of the earth, as herbs or Toad-stooles. Caesar in his commentaries talketh neither of herbs nor Toad-stooles, and utterly rejecteth this falsehood.  
Pag. 649. he would gladly prove, that there is a God by the convulsions of men possessed. And pag. 650. by Witches. He saith also, that such as are possessed by Devils sometimes howl like Dogs, sometime yell like Wolves. But his arguments from Witches and possessed with Devils prove the Devil, rather then God. Secondly his proofs are weak being drawn rather from illusions and counterfeit tricks, then from matters evidently true. Lastly it is hard to be believed, that he hath heard any, that either howled like Dogs, or yelled like Wolves. These proofs therefore are liker to draw men to infidelity, than otherwise.  
Afterward he talketh idly of the heavy and lumpish nature of the earth; an element, as it seemeth predominant in him, of the Commonwealth of Bees so well ordered, that a Statist may learn policy from it, as he believeth, of the leaps of Hares, of Foxes and Fern bushes, of Spiders and spiderwebs, and such like vain and idle similitudes. But what should I follow or run after him, that runneth so far not only from his argument, but from himself also?  
In the second chapters rubric he affirmeth that our Doctrine, ruineth all Religion. But in the Chapter itself there is no ground brought for proof of his assertion. Only in the latter end he doth afresh charge us with holding, that God is the author of all sin. And thereof concludeth, that those which believe this must needs have cold hearts in Religion. But we have declared his antecedent to be false and fantastical. What then shall we need to beat down his ruinous consequent? The rest of this Chapter containeth divers points of popish Doctrine concerning Gods true worship, Heretics and their marks, Christ's honour, Priests an sacrifices, succession, unity, universality, here idelye repeated, and formerly refuted. Pag. 671. he beareth us in hand, that the modern Romish Religion is most conformable to the Doctrine planted by the Apostles. But he shall not be able to prove all his life, half of that which he hath affirmed in one line. He saith, he hath proved it in his commentaries in secunda secunda. But his proofs are weak, and therefore dare not abide the light. If he come forth with his proofs of his Religion hereafter, we will pray him also to show, that the Romish Doctrine of blowing up Princes and Parliament-houses with Gunpowder, of breaking of oaths, of lying and equivocating, of the Pope's universal Monarchye, of kissing the Popes Pantoufle, of justification by confirmation, extreme unction, Marriage, and orders ex opere operato, of taking Christ with the teeth, of transubstantiation, half communions, private Masses, prayer in a tongue not understood, worship of Saints and Angels, and the rest of those Popish Heresies which we refuse, are conformable to that Religion, which was first planted by the Apostles.  
In the third Chapter he affirmeth, that in contempt of the Church's authority we bring all Religion into contempt. But how proveth he, that we contemn the Church's authority? First he saith, it is a maxim, and almost an article of faith among us, that the true Church, which once was, hath erred grossly, and in no less matters, than faith, justification, merit, free-will, works, satisfaction, Purgatory, prayer to Saints, worship of Images, number & virtue of Sacraments, sacrifice and such like. But if he mean the whole Catholic Church; this is neither article, nor maxim, nor opinion of ours, that the whole Church hath erred grossly. If he mean the Pope, and his adherents, and parasites, why should not they err as well, as the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Constantinople? That they have indeed erred, we have already proved, and offer ourselves always ready to prove: and it is most apparent, for that their Doctrine is not only divers, but also contrary to the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, and namely in the points above specified.  
Next he saith Luther cared not for a thousand Churches, and Caluin, Beza and others despised all the Counsels, and ancient Fathers. But neither the contempt of the Synagogue of Rome, nor the rejection of divers Conventicles assembled by Popes, nor the refusal of divers counterfeit Books alleged under the name of Fathers, or of some Father's singular opinions doth argue any contempt of the true Church, or of lawful councils, or of the authentical writings and common Doctrines of Fathers. Further, I would have thought, that reason might have taught him, talking so long of Religion, that private men's sayings and opinions should not so often have been imputed generally to us or to the whole Church.  
To prove, that contempt of the Church's authority bringeth Religion into contempt, he allegeth, that we cannot know, which is Scripture, which not, but by the voice of the Church. But first this is nothing to us, which do much esteem the authority of the Apostolic and Catholic Church. We say also, that every private man is to reverence the judgement of the true Church. But what is this to the Romish synagogue that is not the true church? again what is this to the Pope, that is an oppressor of the church, and an enemy of Christian Religion? if Kellison will contend, that the sentence of the Pope, which neither understandeth, nor percase can read Scriptures in the original tongues, must needs be followed in deciding the controversies about Canonical scriptures; his own scholars will laugh at him, that maketh a betilheaded fellow judge in matters of religion, & a blind man judge of colours. If he refer men to the particular church of Rome, that now is, it will be said, that she cannot be judge and party, and that the ancient Church is much to be preferred before her. Saint Augustine, we confess among many other reasons was induced also to believe by the churches authority. So likewise are many more than he. But K. removeth all other reasons and motives in matter of discerning scriptures, and maketh his modern Church a necessary cause and almost sole motife of faith, as if none were to believe either scriptures, or any other Article of faith unless he be resolved by the Pope, and the modern Church of Rome. Blasphemously also he affirmeth, that the Roman Church being contemned, we can no more assure a man of Scripture, then of a Robin-hoodes tale. But to use these comparisons is blasphemy. To make so much of nothing, and to stand so much upon a blind Pope, and to prefer the Roman modern Church before the ancient, and all other modern churches, is foolery.  
In the fourth Chapter he beareth his Reader in hand, that we reject some books of Canonical Scripture, and for proof saith that Luther rejected the Book of job, Ecclesiastes, and all the Gospels save that of john, and that we reject the Books of judith, Tobia, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and the Maccabees. But these latter Books he shall never prove to be canonical, unless we take the Canon largely, as Saint Augustine sometimes seemeth to do. S. Hierome in prol. galeato, Athanasius in Synops. Gregorius Nazianzenus in carminibus, Epiphanius in lib. de pond. & mensur. and the most and best Fathers esteem of them no otherwise, than we do. The calumniation concerning Luther we have answered already. But saith K. they will needs receive Scripture at the Roman Churches hand. And of this he would infer, that as well we ought to follow that Church in the number of books, as in receiving canonical Scripture upon that Churches warrant. This s●ith he, but he taketh that for granted, that no man yieldeth him. For we take the Scriptures as the Church of Rome herself did, from the Prophets and Apostles. We do also assure ourselves, that the judgement of the Apostolic Church is far to be preferred before the judgement of the Apostatical modern Romish Church. lastly we answer to his argument, that we have divers arguments to assure us of the authority & truth and number of canonical books of Scriptures, beside the testimony of any one particular Church, as for example the testimony of Scripture itself, the likeness, Majesty antiquity, truth, style of Scripture and such like.  
In the fift chapter he endeavoureth to prove, that our dissensions in Religion do open a gap to contempt of Religion. And thereupon talketh his pleasure of calvinists and Lutherans, Puritans, Protestants, soft and rigid Lutherians, Zwinglians, Bezites, anabaptists, Libertines, Brownistes, Martinistes, family of love, and damned crew. But first the damned crew is by us damned. In this late conspiracy of Papists, Edward Baynham, that is known to be of the damned crew was choson for a fit man to go as nuntio from this damned crew to the Pope. anabaptists, Libertines, & the family of love, are more among the Papists, then among us. We say to them anathema maranatha. The Brownistes and Martinistes, we generally condemn. The rest are the names of slander devised by Papists. To answer his objection therefore, we say, that the Churches of germany, France, and other countries do well agree: and private men do submit themselves to the determination of a free general council, and in the mean while to their national Churches.  
The grounds of his sixth chapter are laid upon the Pope's head-ship. For because we want a visible head, he supposeth we give great advantage to Atheists. But as the Pope's headship is a matter rather fancied, then proved out of Scriptures or Fathers; so what so ever is thereupon built, the same is founded upon fancy, and not worth a head of Garlic. That Saint Peter did rule both the Apostles and all the church, as Christ's vicar general, and head of the Church, it cannot be proved. All the Apostles were called alike, and sent to teach and administer the Sacraments alike. They had also the keys of the Church given to them by one joint commission, and Paul professeth, that the principal of the Apostles gave unto him nothing. But had Peter had any such monarchy, as is pretended; yet that is nothing for the advantage of our triple crowned Popes, that are so unlike to Peter, and kill Christ's sheep, as he fed them. Nay the ancient Bishops of Rome neither gave laws to the whole church, nor ordained bishops in all quarters, nor received appeals out of all the world, nor reserved certain cases to themselves, nor practised the rest of the modern Pope's authority. But saith K. where a head wanteth, there every man may preach, and embrace what Religion he will. As if general and provincial counsels, and Bishops in their Dioceses, & Godly Princes in their Kingdoms, were not able to remedy this disorder. Other means certes there was not in the primitive Church, and he that looketh, that Popes should redress Atheism, and other abuses, is himself much abused.  
In the last Chapter he saith, that denying the real presence (taught by the Popish Synagogue) we ruin Christian Religion, and call all other mysteries of faith in question. But his proposition is most false, and absurd. For not those which deny the cyclopical eating of Christ's flesh, and the carnal presence thereof under the accidents of bread and wine, but such rather, as hold that Christ's flesh and blood is received of reprobates persons, nay Hogs and Dogs, and is swallowed down into the belly, and deny things felt and seen, do bring a slander upon Religion, and call all holy mysteries, not only into question, but into contempt also. Averroes for this gross opinion only affirmed, that the Religion of Christians was of all other most ridiculous. For what can be devised more ridiculous, then to make a God, and to eat him up presently? this doctrine of Papists hath been a great stumbling block both to Gentiles ●nd Christians, and is so improbable and contrary to Christ's institution, the expositions of Fathers, and common reason, as nothing more. Kellison, I confess, braggeth that he will bring as plain proofs for the real presence, as are brought in scriptures, either for the holy Trinity, or Christ's incarnation. Or else he promiseth he will yield the bucklers. Which if he would have performed, then had he long ere this lost and forsaken the field. For he bringeth only two places, and neither of them to his purpose, as I have at large declared in my Book de missa against Bellarmine, where all the cavillations of our adversaries are particularly discussed, and so stand, for any thing either this doughty Doctor of Douai, or Bellarmine can say against us. Furthermore the comparison of the popish real presence, and the Doctrine thereof compared with the great mysteries of the holy Trinity, and Christ's incarnation, declareth him to be an Atheist, that believeth such fundamental points of Religion no more, than the popish absurd Doctrine of the carnal and cannibal like eating of Christ's flesh, and drinking of his blood and receiving them with our mouth into our bellies.  
divers other absurdities he committeth also in this Chapter. page. 698. speaking of popish sacrifices: by sacrifice saith he, we consecrate to his service the lives, and substance of brute beasts. So it appeareth, if they sacrifice Christ in the Mass, that they kill him, and compare him to brute Beasts. page. 710. he falsifieth Saint Augustine's words in his tract. upon S. john's Gospel. page 713. he confoundeth real, & sacramental eating. There also he saith, that Christ would not say, he meant a figurative and spiritual eating: but most falsely. For Christ saith that the flesh profiteth nothing. And both Origen and Austen do expound these words of eating Christ's flesh spiritually and figuratively. Lastly to prove the real presence, he allegeth page. 728. a testimony out of S. Andrew's legend.  
But neither can he prove his carnal real presence, nor justify his assertion, where he maketh them Atheists and ruiners of Christian religion, that deny this absurd, scandalous and blasphemous Doctrine.  
Wherefore as by lawful trial we have acquitted ourselves & our doctrine of all suspicion of Atheism; so we doubt not, but to lay the same most justly upon the Pope, & his adherents, & upon their impious & wicked doctrine. Outward 
* professors of Popery inward Atheists.  Bernard in serm. 1. in Conuers. Pauli. began to complain long since, both of the iniquity of Popes, and of the dissoluteness of Priest and People. Egressa est iniquitas à senioribus judicibus vicarijs tuis saith he, qui videntur regere populum tuum. Non est iam dicere, ut populus, sic sacerdos, quod nec sit populus, ut sacerdos.  
Petrarch in his Sonnets calleth Rome false and traitorous Babylon and the mother of errors, and chargeth her with serving Venus and Bacchus rather than the God of heaven. In his Epistles without name speaking of the Pope's Court, he saith, it is void of all goodness, and that there is neither liberty, nor rest, nor joy, nor hope, nor faith, nor charity, but contrariwise great loss and casting away of men's souls. Omne ibi bonum perditur, sed primum omnium libertas, mox ex ordine, quies, gaudium, spes, fides, Charitas, animae iacturae ingentes.  
Wernerus in fascic. temporum in Martino. 2. Adriano. 3. & Stephano. exclaimeth, as if holy men were perished from the earth, and truth diminished among the Sons of men, and as if that were a most wicked time. o tempus pessimum saith he, in quo defecit sanctus, & deminutae sunt veritates à filijs hominum!  
Breidenbachus in historia peregrinat. sua, reporteth, that in his time, the law was departed from priests, justice from Princes, counsel from the Elders, faith from the people, love from parents, reverence from Subjects, charity from prelates, Religion from Monks, honesty from young men, discipline from the Clergy. His words are these: Recessit lex à sacerdotibus, à principibus justitia, consilium à senioribus, à populo fides, amor à parentibus, à subditis reverentia, charitas à praelatis, religio à monachis, à iunenibus honestas, à clericis disciplina.  
In veritate comperi saith Walterus Mapes quod sceleri cleri studet universitas, livor regnat, veritas, datur funeri, haeredes luciferi sunt praelati. That is, of a truth I find, that the whole (Romish) Clergy doth study villainy. Envy reigneth, and truth is buried. Such Clergiemen are the heirs of Lucifer. And again non est qui faciat bona istorum, quorum conscientia speluncae est latronum. There is none of these, that doth good, their conscience is like a den of thieves.  
Matthew Paris in Henr. 3. saith, that in those times the sparks of faith began to grow cold. Temporibus illis ingruentibus igniculus fidei coepit nimis refrigescere.  
Petrus de Alliaco in lib. de reformat. eccles. noteth the luxuriousness, avarice, idleness, blasphemies, magic arts, and superstitions, and that both of Princes and people of his time.  
Adrian the 6. in his instructions to his legate Cheregatus confesseth ingeniously the corruptions of the church of Rome and Romanistes. Omnes nos saith he, declinavimus, unusquisque in vias suas, nec fuit iam diu qui faceret bonum, non fuit usque ad unum.  
The Bishop of Bitonto preaching in the first session of the conventicle of Trent & speaking of the manners of the people then, confesseth, that they said in their heart, that there was no God, dicunt in cord suo saith he, quod non est Deus.  
This may also be specified by infinite examples both of Popes and Cardinals, and their followers. Theodoricke à Niem. de schism. lib. 2. c. 42. calleth Gregory the 12 and Petrus de Luna Elders of Babylon, and saith, that such iniquity was gone from them, that the Catholic faith was thereby overshadowed, and that Religion suffered Shipwreck, and that virtue was departed from all men.  Catholica fides obnubiletur, & omnis religio naufragium patiatur. Virtutes ab omnibus recesserunt.  
john the 12. or as some number, the 13. drank to the Devil in his merriment, and called upon him, when he played at Dice, and as the Histories set out by Papists themselves declare, was a wicked fellow.  
Gregory the seventh, as Beno the Cardinal writeth had commerce with the Devil, and was in the Council of Brixina condemned for a Magician. He saith also, that he cast the Sacrament into the fire, which is not so much in him to be marveled. For he that worshippeth the Devil, cannot esteem much of the body of Christ, which as Papists hold, is contained under the forms of bread and wine in the Sacrament. This man, when he died, as Sigebertus witnesseth, confesseth, that by the persuasion of the Devil, he had raised many stirs in the world.  
Silvester the second, as stories report, made a compact with the Devil. It is said also, that Gregory the 6. Bonnet the 9 Paul the third, and divers other Popes were Magicians, and necromancers. But such men, as give themselves to art Magic, renounce God and serve the Devil.  
Of Sixtus the fourth we read, that he laughed at Religion, and believed not, that their was a God.  
Riserat ut vivens caelestia numina Sixtus,  
Sic moriens nullos credidit essé Deos. saith one.  
Upon Alexander the sixth Sanazar wrote these verses, as a memorial of his impieties: 
Humana iura, nec minus caelestia,  
Ipsosque sustulit deos etc.  That is he dissolved both God's Laws, and man's Laws, and believed not that there was a God.  
Clement the 7. as is said, when he drew near to his end, told those which stood about him, the shortly he hoped to be resolved of that, of which he had ever much doubted, viz. whether there were either Heaven or Hell, or no. And the rather we believe this report, because these verses were written of him.  Contemptor diwm, scelerum vir, publicus hostis, 
that is, a contemner he was of God, a flagitious fellow, and a public enemy of his Country.  
john the 23. was condemned by the council of Constance for denying the resurrection of the dead, and for other points of Atheism. Leo the 10. esteemed the Gospel no otherwise then as a fable. And of julius the third, the Papists themselves report divers speeches savouring of Atheism.  
If then Atheism do so reign in the Popes of Rome, whom the Papists call most holy, and honour as the heads and foundations of their Church, & supreme judges of all controversies, and are bound to follow, albeit they may lead infinite souls to Hell, as it is said in Chap. si Papa. dist. 40. it is no marvel, although the Mass priests and their followers be tainted with Atheism, and contempt of Religion. Machiavelli, whom many Atheists follow, was no Englishman but an Italian, and a great friend of Clement the 7. to whom also he dedicated his Florentine history. Neither was he an Englishman, that held it a peccadillo or little sin, no creer en dios, that is, not to believe in God. That Italian, that believed no other Trinity, than Messer domine dio, il papa et nostra donna, et preti et frati, that is, God Almighty, the Pope and our Lady, and Priests and Friars, learned not his impiety, I trow, from us.  
The 
* That the Doctrine of Popery tendeth to Atheism.  very doctrine of Popery tendeth to Atheism and ignorance of God. Generally the lay-people think themselves safe, if they believe, as the Church believeth, and so Hosius and others teach their Disciples. But what, I pray you, is this, but Atheism for men to be ignorant of Christ his grace, and of the means of their salvation, and of God's true worship?  
Ephes. 2. the Gentiles worshipping many Gods are said to be without God in the world. May not then the same be verified of Papists, that worship so many Angels and Saints, and give the honour of God to the Sacrament, to the Crucifix, and the Images of the Trinity?  
Thirdly how can we esteem them to have any feeling of true piety, that speak so lewdly of Scriptures? Some call them a Nose of Wax, some a Shipman's Hose, some a bare Letter, some Inky Divinity, some a matter of strife, some the ground of Heresies. Kellison pag. 687. saith, if a man contemn the authority of the Roman Church, that he shall no more be able to assure himself of Scripture then of a Robin hoods tale. Pag. 41. he saith the Scripture with a false meaning is the word of the Devil. As if the Scripture being indited by the holy Ghost could in any respect be called the word of the Devil. Pag. 39 he compareth Scriptures to Aesop's Fables, and saith they are of a Waxy nature. But he that is of God heareth God's word, and speaketh reverently of Scriptures.  
Fourthly none but Atheists, and such as savour of Atheism directly violate and impugn God's commandments, and make Laws repugnant unto them. But the Papists offend herein both grievously and notoriously. God saith thou shalt have no other Gods but me: the Popish faction saith contrary, thou shalt have other Gods, commanding their followers to call upon Saints and Angels, to worship the Sacrament and Crucifixes, to confess their sins, & to offer Christ's body and blood in the honour of Saints and Angels. Tursellinus a jebusite in his Epistle to Peter Aldobrandini before his story of Loreto. saith Christ hath made his Mother partaker of his divine Majesty & power as far as it was lawful. Matrem suam saith he praepoteus ille deus divinae maiestatis, potestatisque sociam, quatenus licuit, ascivit.  
In the second Commandment we are directly prohibited to make graven Images, to the intent to bow to them, and to worship them. But the Papists have impiously blotted out this commandment in their short Catechisms, & command men upon pain of death and damnation to fall down before Crucifixes, and other Images, and to worship them sometime with doulia, sometimes with latria, according to the subject.  
The third Commandment forbiddeth us to take God's name in vain. But Papists in their rascal Rhemish annotations in Act. 23. teach their followers to perjure themselves, & in their resolutions of cases of consciene teach them how to equivocate, & to frustrate oaths. And the Pope commandeth his followers to break their oaths given to Princes by him excommunicate upon pain of damnation.  
God commandeth subjects to obey Kings, and Children to honour Parents. The Pope commandeth them to Rebel and take arms against such as he excommunicateth, and willeth Children to be executioners of their Fathers, by his inquisitors being falsely judged Heretics.  
God forbiddeth murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witnessing and concupiscence. The Pope promiseth heaven to murderers of Princes, and to Gunpowder Traitors, permitteth common stews, & receiveth the hire of Whores, commandeth all his followers to spoil such as by him are most unjustly excommunicated, by lies and forgeries maintaineth his usurped Monarchy, and determineth in the conventicle of Trent, that concupiscence is no sin in the regenerate. Can we then doubt, whether Papists be Atheists?  
Fiftly, none but Atheists either take to themselves divine honour, or give the same to creatures. But the Pope c. satis. dist. 96. taketh to himself the name of God. In the first Book of Ceremonies. c. 7. he applieth to himself the honour, that is proper to Christ saying, All power is given to me in heaven and earth. In c. quoniam. de immunitate in 6. he claimeth to be the spouse of the Church. His flattering parasites call him a God on the earth, and our Lord God the Pope, and such like terms, as may be proved by the testimony, of Felin in c. ego N. de jure iurando. and by the gloss in c. cum inter non nullos. extr. de verb. signif. Thomas Waldensis a man much esteemed by Stapleton, in prolog. Tom. 1. doct. fid.. thus crieth out to Pope Martin, Lord save us, we perish. Simon Begnius in council. later. sess. 6. calleth Leo the x. the Lion of the tribe of juda, and a Saviour. Ecce venit Leo de tribu juda saith he. And again te Leo beatissime, salvatorem expectavimus. The same may also be proved by infinite other testimonies.  
Sixtly Atheists they are, that make a mock of Christian Religion. But this is a common crime of Popes and Papists. for commonly they use words of Scripture to make sport withal. As did Bon●face the 8. casting ashes into Prochetus his eyes and turning these words memento homo quod cinis es, into a jest. They also say, that Christ may be eaten of Hogs and Dogs, and hang him upon every Altar. Gregory the 7. cast him into the fire. When the Pope rideth abroad he sendeth his God of past among the baggage and scullery. When their Saints do not answer their desires, they cast them into the water, and rail on them.  
seven not contenting themselves with Christian Religion, they have forged divers new Relgions, and place more perfection in them, then in Christian Religion. Unto S. Francis they give the title of figurative jesus, and say, that the order of S. Dominicke is protected under our ladies gown in heaven: all which be tricks of Atheism.  
Eightly the worship of Angels and saints is confirmed with infinite lies, and most ridiculous fables red publicly in popish Churches. And yet no man alloweth them, but such, as make mocks at Religion.  
Ninthly it is plain Atheism to devise, new worships of God. For Christians have but one God and one worship of God prescribed in his word. It is also atheism to violate Christ's institution in his Sacraments. But Papists have devised divers new forms in worshipping of God by Masses prayers to saints, incensing of images, leading about Asses, carrying of palms, and infinite such like ceremonies. They have also devised new Sacraments, and made them equal to baptism and the Lords Supper. Unto bapisme they have added chrism, salt, spittle, light. From Christ's supper they have taken the Cup. They have abolished bread and wine. Of a Sacrament to be received they have made a sacrifice to be heaved and offered. That which should be common to all, they have made private, & where Christians should celebrate the memory of Christ's death in the lords Supper, these command the Sacrament to be administered in a tongue not understood, where the People understandeth neither what is done nor said.  
Finally by the confession of Kellison the Papists may be convinced to be execrable Atheists. 
Papists proved Atheists by kellison's confession.  For if Atheists be monsters begotten by Heresies, as he saith, then are Papists monsters. For they maintain many old and new Heresies, as hath often been proved, and are easily convinced to be Atheists. The heresies of Simon Magus, Carpocrates, the Scribes and pharisees, the Capernaites, of Marcus, the Encratites, Collyridians, Eutychians, Pelagians, Staurolatrians, & divers others are common among them.  
Page. 261. he saith, that Christ's passion was not our formal justification, or satisfaction. He meaneth likewise, that his justice is not our formal justice, and saith that he is only the meritorious cause of our redemption and salvation, which deserveth for us at God's hands grace, by which together with our cooperation we may be saved & redeemed. But this is most horrible impiety, and taketh from Christ the honour of our redemption, salvation, and justification, making man to be his own redeemer and saviour.  
Pag. 667. he reckoneth them among Atheists, that make God cruel and tyrannical. But so do the Papists making our Lady more merciful than Christ, and setting out him with Darts and Thunderbolts, and her with mercy and pity. They do also say, that God punisheth sins forgiven with cruel torments in Purgatory, and make the Pope to grant indulgences, which God doth not.  
Pag. 668. he insinuateth them to be Atheists, that err in God's worship, and offer not lawful sacrifices unto him. But of this crime the Papists are most guilty pretending to offer Christ's body and blood really which was never commanded them, nor can be done more than once, and erring wholly in the worship of Saints and images.  
Pag 674. He giveth out boldly, that those which contemn the Church's authority bring all Religion into contempt. But audaciously he therein condemneth the Pope and Synagogue of Rome. For none ever did more proudly condemn the authority of the church than they. The Pope claimeth to be above the general council, and above the Church. If the whole world should give sentence against the Pope, they say his sentence is to be preferred before all. Him they honour as supreme judge. The authority of the Fathers they regard not, if he say contrary. They give him power to dispense against the Law, and against the Apostle.  
Page. 689. he saith, that such as admit some books of Scripture & reject others, open a gap to contempt of all Scripture and religion. But if such, as reject Scriptures, and contemn them, be Atheists; then are Papists superlative Atheists They also reject the third and fourth books of Ezras, and the third and fourth of the Maccabees. Lastly they esteem not, in allowing, or disallowing of canonical Scriptures, either the sayings of Fathers, or the judgement of the ancient Church, but wholly rely upon the opinion of the Doctors of Trent, and the Pope. They prefer the old Latin translation before the original text of the Bible, and allow no sense of Scripture, but that which the Romish church approveth.  
Page 693. he maketh dissension in Religion to be a note of Atheism, but if that be so; then hath he branded his own consorts with a mark of atheism. For hardly shall you find one article of Religion, wherein the wrangling Schoolmen do not differ one from another. Bellarmine quarreleth as often with his own fellows almost, as with us. About the divine attributes, and notions they are not yet resolved. If they durst, many would dispute against the Pope's Monarchye, dispensations, indulgences and such like. The Mass, as yet, is not perfectly settled.  
Page 696. he signifieth, the erroneous opinions about the head-ship of the Church, are enducements to atheism: which being granted, then are the Papists in a fair way to atheism. For under the title of Christ the sole and true head of the church they admit Antichrist, and bring us forth a monster, not only with two heads, but with as many heads as Popes. There wanteth therefore nothing, but some Hercules, to cut of these Hydra's heads, and to restore to Christ his right of headship. Further in every vacation they want their visible head, which as Kellison saith, giveth adavantage to Atheists, and maketh them to make a mock at Religion. They have also some times Popes without brain, or wit: which is as great an inconvenience, as the rest.  
Finally if such as teach erroneously of the presence of Christ's body & blood in the sacrament, & understand not the words of Christ's institution, ruin Christian Religion, and call all other mysteries of the faith into question, as Kellison Page. 698. resolutely and peremptorily avoucheth; then will it plainly fall out, that the Papists are ruiners of Religion, and have no assurance of any point of faith by them defended. For as I have before touched, and shall elsewhere more plentifully declare, they err most grossly in their Doctrine concerning the real presence, and have shamefully mistaken and corrupted Christ's institution of that holy mystery.  
We may therefore conclude first, that as the true professors of the christian faith in the church of England are most innocent and clear of this shameless imputation of atheism most wrongfully charged upon them by this surveying, or rather surfeiting Sycophant; so the Papists our adversaries and the principal actors among them are much to be suspected, that under colour of Popery, they cover a secret poison of atheism. Secondly if either our adversaries, or any other would with indifferent eyes and unpartial judgement consider either the articles of our faith, which we profess, or the deformities and abuses of popery which we refuse and detest, discerning truth from the slanderous imputations of such wicked sycophants as this; that then they would neither mislike us for our forsaking the Synagogue of Satan, nor allow the impious courses of our railing adversaries, nor long stick in the miry and filthy puddle of popish errors, and endure his tyrannical government.  
ALmighty God, which hast told us, that Antichrist shall be revealed, and slain by the breath of the mouth of the Lord jesus, and destroyed with the brightness of his coming, vouchsafe daily more and more to reveal him to all the christian world, and to discover his treacherous and murderous practices to all true Catholics, and to dispel the mists of calumniations, lies and forgeries, which his agentes do daily endeavour to spread abroad against the professors of truth, that so the truth appearing, both such as are in error may be reform, and the weak confirmed in the sincere profession of the Gospel, & the Kingdom of Antichrist destroyed through our Lord and Saviour Christ jesus. And let all those, that wish the prosperity of Zion, and the conversion or confusion of Babel, say always Amen. Amen.    

An advertisement to the Reader.  
RIDICULOUS it is, gentle Reader, for him, that entereth into the Battle, to complain of blows. He that cometh to strike others must not think strange, if he be stricken himself. And yet I perceive my adversaries blush not to complain, that herein they have received wrong. They, I say, that come like wolves with open mouth to devour us, & rail at M. LUTHER, Master CALVIN, & all the church of England, as if it consisted of Heretics, Schismatics, lose livers, & Atheists, nay of a sort of men worse than Turks and Pagans, find fault with me, if I tell them of their heresies, Treasons, Gunpowder practices, idolatries, infidelity, perjuries, and other villainies.  
Whether they, or we have reason, I refer myself to indifferent judges, that shall read the Treatises of both the parties. HILARY in his Book against CONSTANTIVS thought it no fault to speak sharply, if truly. Si falsa dicimus, saith he, infamis sit sermo malidicus. That is, if we speak untruth, let our tart speech seem infamous. Otherwise he challengeth the liberty of Apostles in censuring manifest faults. Si universa haec manifesta esse ostendimus saith he, non sumus extra apostolicam libertatem, & modestiam. Saint HIEROME apolog. 2. in Ruffin. thinketh it lawful to bark for Christ, because dogs bark for their Masters. Canes latrant pro dominis suis, tu non me vis latrare pro Christo? Beside that, when a man is accused of Heresy, he would not have him patiented.  
If then we neither show impatiency, nor speak doggedly, but only report those crimes truly, of which our adversaries are most guilty; it is then our adversaries evil conscience that pincheth, rather than our tart style that biteth. To let Dogs bawl without correcting were nothing else, but to encourage them in their dogged snarling and barking: and Bishop jewel of reverend memory and others, that have used this mildness have greatly confirmed our adversaries malice.  
This therefore understand, that it is not out of stomach, but out of judgement, that we take this course of plain dealing. Phryx plagis emendatur. The PHRYGIAN, and such as are of his base humour, are bettered with stripes, rather than with gentle words. There distemper is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as THEOPHRASTUS saith in sympos. apud Plutarchum, That is, a drunkenness without wine. But it may be corrected with a sad and tart answer. Further, necessity forced us, for the repelling of their malicious slanders, to show, that they are to be charged with those crimes justly, which they impute to innocent men most falsely. And it may be, if truth make them not cease their barking, yet shame will make them bark more softly.  
This is the reason of our doing: which if thou be indifferent, I hope thou wilt allow. If enemy, I hope thou canst not justly condemn. And if thou be'st experimented in these courses, thou canst not choose but acknowledge the same to be both profitable, honest, and necessary. Profitable to repress the malice of such Curs, as continually bark against truth: honest for the defence of the pious memory of the innocent: and necessary for the ending of these brablements. If the adversaries give us no occasion to lay open their faults, we shall be content to bury them in silence. If they persist in railing and reviling at honest men, they must have patience to hear our free answer. Against Popes, Cardinals, Monks, Friars, mass-priests and their seditious saltpeter followers, we cannot want either words, or matter. This is that which I thought good to advertise thee, and which I hope will satisfy all, if they be indifferent. If not indifferent, they have no reason to take upon them, to be our judges, nor we to undergo their censure, nor you to mislike our style, as too sharp and unfitting.  
Laus Deo.