for the writers of Scriptures when we faithfully beleeue that the holy Ghost was the author of the booke Quis haec scripserit saith he valdè superuacuè quaeritur cùm tamen author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur Which is as much as if he should say that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs proceedeth not from the writer much lesse from the teacher or propounder but from the holy Ghost 3. Now the Romanists teach that the books of the Machabees and such like are canonicall Scriptures and equall to other books of the old Testament But S. Peter 2. Ep. 1. where by the word of y e Prophets he vnderstandeth y e Scriptures excludeth from the ranke of Scriptures of y e old Testament al books not written by Prophets of which sort are the books of the Machabees being written long after the times of Malachy the last of the Prophets Gregor lib. 19. moral c. 17. doth say plainly that y e books of the Machabees are not canonical 4. Now they affirme that the Pope is the foundation head of the Church But the Apostle Paul sheweth vs that Christ is the head of the Church and that the same is built vpon the Apostles and Prophets Christ being the chiete corner stone and we may not thinke that the Apostle Peter taught any other doctrine Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 82. naming Peter and other Apostles saith they were not heads but members of the Church Sub vno capite saith he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Neither is it credible that Eleutherius or Austin taught any other doctrine 5. When Cornelius as we reade Act. 10. did fall at Peters feet and adored him Peter would not suffer it And Gregory and Eleutherius were far from admitting men to kisse their slippers But now the Romanists giue the bastonata to those that wil not worship the Pope and ordinarily the Pope requireth adoration and suffereth great Princes to kisse his feete Of late some are said to haue disputed that Latria is due to the Pope 6. Now also the bishops of Rome haue giuen ouer preaching and feeding the flocke But the Apostle Peter exhorteth all Bishops and Elders to feed the flocke that dependeth on them And Greg. in pastor p. 2. saith That all bishops take on them the office of a Preacher or Cryer Praeconis officium suscipit saith he quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit 7. Now the Popes carry themselues as Lords ouer their flocke and entitle themselues Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishops But Peter 1. Epi. 5. forbiddeth Elders to beare themselues as Lords ouer Gods heritage And Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 78. 80. condemneth this title of Uniuersall and Oecumenicall bishop as proud and Antichristian 8. Now they that take vpon them to curse kings and to raise rebellion against them and to thrust them out of their royall seates as appeareth by the wicked Buls of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. of England of Pius the 5. Sixtus the 5. against Q Elizabeth and the wicked Decretais of Greg. the 7. against Henry the 4. and of Gregorie the 9. and Innocent the 4. against Friderick the 2. But the Apostle Peter neuer cursed Nero albeit he was a most cursed fellow nor went about to depose him Nay contrariwise he exhorteth all Christians to submit themselues to kings and gouernors Likewise Eleutherius Gregorie were obedient to temporall Princes Greg. li. 4. ep 78. calleth the Emperor his most pious Lord and submitteth himself euen in an Ecclesiastical cause to his order Pijssimi Domini scripta suscepi saith he vt cum fratre consacerdote meo debeam esse pacificus 9. Now they teach that the reprobate wicked men professing the Romish faith are true members of the Catholike Church as appeareth by Bellarmines discourse de Ecclesia militante They include the same also within the precincts of the Romish Church But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. sheweth that it consisteth of the elect according to Gods foreknowledge dispersed in Pontus Galatia and other countries Gregorie in Cantic 4. saith that the holy Church is called hortus conclusus that is a garden walled round about because it is of euery side so enuironed with a wall of charitie that no reprobate person may come within the number of the elect Likewise in the 28. book of his Morals he concludeth all the elect within the measure of the Church Neither doth it appeare that either Eleutherius or Austin did teach otherwise 10. They now teach vs to doubt of our election and saluation But S. Peter exhorteth vs 2. Epist. 1. to make our calling and election sure Which were a most vaine exhortation and request if no man could assure himself of his saluation Neither did Eleutherius or Gregory or Austin in this dissent from him 11. They now teach priests to offer for quicke and dead and Christians to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kind But Peter kept Christs institution inuiolably which sheweth that the Sacrament is to be receiued vnder both the kinds of bread and wine and not to be offered for quick and dead Gregory also homil 22. in Euang. sheweth that the people receiued both kinds Quid sit sanguis Agni saith he speaking to the people iam non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis 12. They make their followers beleeue that Christs naturall bodie is really vnder the formes of bread and wine although it cannot be felt nor séene there But Peter knew that Christ had no other body but such a one as might be felt and séene And Gregorie lib. 14. moral c. 31. 32. imputeth this as an heresie to Eutychius that mens bodies after the resurrection should be impalpable and inuisible 13. They giue out that we may redéeme our sins with siluer and gold buying and procuring Indulgences and with our owne satisfactions both in this life and in Purgatorie But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. saith expresly We are not redeemed with siluer and gold but by the precious bloud of Christ. Gregorie likewise in Psal. 5. Peenit saith that our Redeemer is called excelsus or high because none beside God could redéeme vs out of the hands of our enemies And lib. Moral 9-cap 30. Non valent virtute propria saith he ab humano genere supplicia sequuturae mortis expleri that is No man by his owne power can satisfie for the paines in the world to come 14. Now in celebration of the holy Eucharist they haue added a number of prayers for quicke and dead and prayers and confessions to Saints Angels But the Apostles as Gregorie testifieth lib. 7. Epist. 63. did consecrate saying onely the Lords prayer And in his time and long after the formes now vsed were not receiued 15. Neither Saint Peter nor Eleutherius nor Gregorie nor Austin did make the traditions of the Church equall to the word of God written Nay Gregorie vpon the Canticles cap. 2. saith that in Christ alone we find wholesome meate But if in Christ
doth differ from the Church of Christ from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor and Gregorie the first he alledgeth first that M. Foxe speaketh nothing of these thrée ages nor of the Doctors that then flourished in the East or West Church and in Britaine it selfe or of their doctrine And all this he supposeth to haue bene omitted because it made much against him and nothing for him Otherwise he thinketh he would haue set downe somewhat vndertaking to set foorth at large the whole race course of the Church from Christ to our times Next he saith that the Magdeburgians in their fourth fift and sixt Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the thrée ages from Constantine downward find nothing for themselues but rather against themselues as for example in the matter of Free-will where they say in the 4. Centur. c. 4. that almost all the Doctors of that age speake confusedly and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture and in the Paragraffe of repentance where they say it is handled by the Doctors of this 4. age thinly and coldly And likewise in the matter of the reall presence where they cite the Fathers abundantly saue in the matter of the sacrifice where they reprehend them and finally in the controuersie of Good-workes satisfaction inuocation of Saints and concerning ceremonies where they reprehend the Fathers But all this brabblement about M. Foxe and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose For first what if either they should haue omitted or spoken any thing which they should not It is a vaine thing to imagine that all this should be imputed to vs. Secondly the reason why M. Foxe speaketh so litle of the 4. 5. and 6. ages and of the Fathers then flourishing was for that we acknowledge that faith which was then professed and adioyne ourselues to that Church What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages when the same is euery where apparent in the Fathers of that age whose faith if we might haue restored without the leauen of the Church of Rome lately brought in the controuersie betwixt vs and our aduersaries would soone be ended Furthermore it was not his purpose to handle controuersies and therefore no maruell if in euery question he did not set downe y e sentences of the Fathers Thirdly the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-wil repentance the sacrifice good-works inuocation of Saints and such like mislike some of the Fathers But he is a very simple ideot that therefore would conclude that they ioyne with the Papists in their moderne heresies Likewise they alledge the Fathers for proofe of a certaine reall presence But it is not that corporall and carnall presence of the body and bloud of Christ of which the Papists dreame Finally albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians taxe some one or two of the Fathers or rather those authors which haue published counterfeit books vnder the name of the Fathers yet in the matters of greatest moment they shew the true Fathers to make for vs. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons if leauing his bangling about these small aduantages he list to deale with vs in any substantial point of controuersie In the 4. chapter of his second part and diuers chapters following he handleth the discent of times from Gregorie the first vnto the preaching of Iohn Wicleffe and therein spendeth much vaine talke to small purpose For although in those times the tyranny of the Pope increased and Monkish life began to be in request and the worship of Images and Saints departed together with diuers friuolous ceremonies by litle and litle entred and Priests were separated by the Popes practises from their lawful wiues yet the substance of Christian Religion remained still in the Church of England all this while and the corruptions that then began to enter were nothing in comparison of that which followed afterward nor generally receiued In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Uniuersall Church nor did he vndertake to depose Kings before Gregorie the 7. or to ouerrule all Churches The Bishops of England tooke not themselues to be subiect vnto the Pope vnder paine of damnation nor did he much encroch vpon them before the times of Henry the second King of England The doctrine of the carnall reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud in the Masse of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria and of Images with the same worship that is due to the Original of the seuen Sacraments and of the degrées of merits of workes and workes of supererogation of the force of fréewill in iustification of the Popes two swords and superioritie ouer generall Councels and his power in Purgatory and in granting Indulgences and such like was not then knowne in England but was deuised afterward by schoolemen and Canonists and established by the Popes Decretals and wicked conuenticles assembled by their commandement Nay albeit the Popes by all meanes sought to subdue Christian Kings and to bring all Ecclesiasticall preferments to their owne disposition and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wiues yet could they not do this but in long time and after great contradiction of many Of this discourse then two things may be gathered direct against Rob. Parsons his cause The first is that the Church of England from the time of Gregorie the first to Alexander the thirds time was not subiect to the Pope nor had receiued the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Popes late Decretals and deuised in the Conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and published in the prophane disputes of schoolemen The second is that the tyrannie of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England increased by litle and litle vntill King Henry the eight his raigne and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entred into England after his time Of which two points we may conclude that the Church of England from the time of Austin vntill the time of Alexander the third in fundamentall matters of faith did communicate with vs and not with the moderne Papists whose principall corruptions haue entred since In the 9. 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarrelleth with Master Foxe for building the Church vpon M. Wicleffe Sir Iohn Old-castle Husse M. Luther M. Caluin Zuinglius and others holding as he saith many dangerous points of doctrine and differing from themselues from vs and many of thē noted of diuers great crimes But while he quarelleth with others he bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downeward or to affirme that there was no Church in the world for certaine ages before Wicleffe but rather to shew that the Church in diuers places and by little and little being corrupted since the time of the Fathers by the pride and false doctrine of the Popes began much to
and false allegations NOw we enter into a large field But it shall be sufficient for vs if of many impudent lyes calumniations and false allegations of authors we reherse some part and giue you a tast of his false dealing in the whole For thereby you may coniecture how this child of the father of lies hath dealt in the rest In a certain addition following his Epistle he telleth how it was foretold that S. Martin Nectarius Ambrose and Augustine should be conuerted to Christian Religion long before it came to passe But if he vouch not his authors we may boldly auouch that he hath forged this lye on his owne head without truth or authority In the same place he affirmeth that he knoweth most certainely how the Papists desired his Maiesties aduancement before all others But he that readeth his booke of titles set out vnder the name of Dolman and considereth not only the practises of Brooke Watson and Clerke against the King and the State but also the matters obiected by the Secular priests against the Iebusites and their faction concerning this point and especially the attempt of the gunpowder papists and vnderminers of the Parliament house will say that neither Parsons nor the popish faction shewed themselues very zealous of the Kings aduancement And as for the King of Spaines pentioners it were great simplicitie to thinke that taking his money they promised or intended his Maiesties aduancement and honor There also he telleth tales of the readinesse and forwardnesse of Papists in aduancing his Maiesties present admission to the Crowne The vntruth whereof is not only testified by their owne consciences but also by secret conuenticles after the late Quéenes death and by open practises to the contrary True it is that when they saw their owne weakenesse then they came on forward but with great sorrow and heauinesse of hart appearing in their countenances and rather to saue themselues then to helpe the King He addeth somewhat of his Maiesties Mother and the loyaltie of Papists towards her But his glauering leasing may be refuted first by the history of Sammier a Iebusite that was the principal motiue to bring her into trouble Next by the practises of the Pope Frenchmen and Spaniards that vsed her name as a pretence for their owne ambition And lastly by the practises of the Spanish pentioners and namely of Parsons for other titles In his Preface he saith that Master Foxe in his booke of Acts and Monuments treateth of the principall pillars of his religion whereof he maketh some Martyrs and some Confessors and distributeth them in a certaine Ecclesiasticall Calendar according to the dayes of euery moneth wherein their festiuals are to be kept But in these few lines he telleth many vntruths For first Master Foxe neuer accounted these Martyrs the principall pillars of his religion founding himselfe and his religion principally vpon the Prophets and Apostles Secondly not Master Foxe but their death and sufferings for Christes faith made these holy men and women Martyrs and Confessors Thirdly not M. Foxe but the Corrector of the print distributed them in the Calendar according to his pleasure Fourthly this Calendar was not made for the Church of England which abhorreth the abuses of popish Calendars but for a direction to those that shall desire to know the order and times of their martyrdome and sufferings that are named in the story Lastly M. Foxe neuer presumed to appoint festiuall dayes for the memorials of these holy men nor had he presumed so farre could he haue done it But in this point both he and we condemne the arrogancy presumption of the Pope that challengeth this power to himselfe In his argument before his first booke he giueth out that the church of Rome frō the times of S. Peter vntill our dayes hath alwayes mainteined and taught one faith without change or alteration of any one substantiall article or point of beliefe And this is the maine post whereon turneth his windmil-like discourse Who then doth not sée y t his whole discourse is founded vpō vntruth That this is a notorious vntruth it appeareth by the great alterations of Religion made partly by the Schoolemen and partly by the Popes Decretals and not least by the decrees of the conuenticles of Rome Lateran Constance Florence and Trent wherein I hope Parsons will not deny but that substantiall points of Religion haue béen discussed Pag. 9. he maketh the Centuriasts Centur. 2. 3. 4. to say that Christian doctrine fell away in the time of the Doctors But his report is false and slanderous For they speake only of a decay or declination in some points of doctrine and in some Doctors and not of any falling away or corruption in all the Doctors or in all points of their doctrine Pag. 23. he saith that some hold that Ioseph of Arimathaea was sent into Britaine by S. Peter A matter of no moment yet falsely affirmed by him y t careth not what vntruth he speake Pag. 40. speaking of Ieffrey of Mommouth he affirmeth that lib. 11. ca. 12. there is not one word of not acknowledging the Popes supremacy And his reason is for that Austin was not sent to the Britains but to the Saxons and for that they had their Archbishops iurisdiction reserued But his assertion conteineth a manifest vntruth For Austin Gregories Legat required subiection of them which they could not deny without impugning Gregories authoritie He caused them also most cruelly to be murthered which he would not haue done vnlesse he had thought his authority to be vniustly resisted His reason is most ridiculous and not only false For neither is there any mention made of any reseruation of iurisdiction in Austins story nor do y e Popes Legates spare to vsurp all iurisdiction where they can do it Furthermore it is a vaine thing to talke of Gregories reseruation of Archiepiscopall iurisdiction in Britaine when before his time no Bishop of Rome was euer heard to appoint either Bishop or Archbishop in Britaine Pag. 57. he saith the Lutherans reiect Hester S. Iames his epistle and the Apocalyps from the canon of Scriptures But their bookes and acts declare the contrary They only make a difference betwixt some Chapters of Hester S. Iames his Epistle and y e Apocalyps and other canonicall Scriptures which neuer haue been doubted of or called in question Pag. 58. he saith that Luther lib. de Concil did perswade the German Princes to obserue Easter day as an immoueable feast But either he wilfully forgetteth or slothfully dreameth For in his booke of Councels he saith only that it had bin better to haue left the law of Moyses concerning Pase dead and buried Quanto fecissent consultiùs saith he pag. 26. si legem Moysis de Paschali festo reliquissent ibi iacêre mortuam sepultam so farre was he from making it an immoueable feast Pag. 64. he telleth how Vlfrides festiuall is kept by the vniuersall Church vpon the 12. day of October But
this leasing is plainely confuted by the Calendars of the Easterne and African Churches that neuer knew any such Saint and Molanus signifieth that this Saints feast was only kept in England In Anglia saith he natalis Vlfridi But now the reformed Church hath blowne away these superstitious festiuals and condemneth the Popes claime in canonizing his disciples Rehersing the report of Lucius his conuersion out of Baronius pag. 77. he addeth lyeth and forgeth like a forging falsary That which he telleth of Lucius hating the Romans for their old religion and how he knew that the fountaine of religion was at Rome is both added and false That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conuersion and Marcus Aurelius his fauor and of Fugatius and Damianus who as he saith were Romans is false and not to be iustified by any good author That Wicleffe and Husse taught that Kings are no Kings longer then they rule well as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a méere calumniation Their bookes conteine contrary doctrine Pag. 103. he saith The article of the Trinity and Christes two natures were as little or perhaps lesse specified in the first two hundred yeares after Christ then the popish doctrine of the Popes authority of the Masse and of Images Matters not only false but blasphemous The doctrine of the Trinity and Christes two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse and Images being contrary to Scriptures Pag. 147. speaking of the Magdeburgians he saith They accuse openly and by name S. Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Prudentius Epiphanius and Ephrem for the error of praying to Saints But he that shall reade the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary The same is also to be proued by reason For what néeded they to accuse the Fathers when neither the writings mentioned are certainely theirs nor any matter is in those writings contained that cannot probably be defended and be wrested out of the hands of our aduersaries that by them would proue prayers to Saints Pag. 152. he beareth his reader in hand that we cannot say that the faith of Rome in the time of Gregory the first was any other then that which is now in Rome And for further proofe he referreth vs to Srapleton his translation of Bede and his Fortresse of faith But first the translation is wicked and corrupt and his fortresse of perfidye and heresie is ouerthrowne by D. Fulke of worthy memory Secondly that which he affirmeth that we cannot say that we both say and prooue and thereof haue giuen diuers particulars in our former answere Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weake fortresse are neither the most materiall points in controuersie betwixt vs nor any way proued by him substantially Pag. 153. he telleth how by all meanes we can deuise we discredit Gregory and Austin But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great vntruths for we do neither discredit them nor wrong them but only report as we find Nay we doubt not but in diuers great points of controuersie to ouerthrow our aduersaries by the testimonie of there two Pag. 192. he sayth that S. German prayed largely to S. Albane But Bede vpon whose credit this report is made saith not so as we may reads hist. Anglor lib. 1. c. 18. Pag. 205. he affirmeth that Dinothus was punished by the sword of Ethelfred after the death of S. Austin Yet Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor c. 3. sheweth after this execution done vpon the innocent Britans how Austin ordeined two Bishops which he could not well do being dead Pag. 227. he telleth how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to breake King Henry the 8. his last will and that he conspired to put downe and destroy all the Kings children and was put to death for heresie and treason Matters certes most grossely deuised and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretike and traytor For first King Henries will if any such were was not cancelled by him but by the popish prelates in Quéene Maryes time and of that the lay Papists brag in their petition to the King an 1064. Secondly not Archbishop Cranmer but the bloody Papists had determined not only to breake his will that they might conuey the Crowne to strangers but also to burne his body if they had not béen preuented by Quéene Maryes death Thirdly that graue Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Quéene Mary albeit many Papists did it and she to requite his kind dealing cruelly persecuted him to the death Lastly he dyed for defence of true Religion and not for heresie And albeit matters of treason were obiected to him yet neuer came he to his arraignement for them as no question Rob. Parsons should if he might be caught Pag. 239. he sayth Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristow but this is not only false but also improbable for the good old man was most méeke and peaceable Pag. 241. he writeth that the Abbots of Glastenbury Whalley and Reading and D. Forest and Powell gaue their bloud for defence of Catholike vnitie But the acts of their triall shew that diuers of them were executed for plaine rebellion and all for treason And if any Abbots or Iebusites should make the like stirres abrode against the Pope or the King of Spaine it would auaile them but little to pretend Catholike vnity Forest and his fellowes vnder pretence of this Catholike vnity sought to reuoke and call backe into England the Popes tyranny Pag. 243. he shameth not to say that the King gaue Bishop Gardiner speciall commission to procure a reconciliation with the Pope But his impudent lying may be refuted both by his commission and instructions yet extant wherein no such matter is signified but rather the contrary Parsons therefore may do well to shew by what commission he lyeth thus shamefully Pag. 283. he sayth that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion vntill Cranmers time But hardly shall he prooue that all of them had in them any religion at all And by no meanes can he deny but as the church of Rome changed her faith so her louers likewise changed The faith of the conuenticle of Trent none of them euer knew Pag. 287. he alledgeth these words as out of Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. § 3. We are forced to beleeue the Church to be inuisible and to be seene only by the eyes of God But he that hath any eyes at all may sée this fellowes impudent lying In that place he hath no such words but rather teacheth contrary Likewise doth he belye Luther affirming that he teacheth the Church to be inuisible Pag. 296. and 297. he saith that we doubt that the Church is fayled and that Master Foxe contradicteth former writers and that we hold that all is not true which the Church held But we make no doubt but that Parsons doth grossely lye and faine For neither do we say that the vniuersall