meanes yet most of them were conuerted by others Laurentius baptized the sonne of Ethelbert that was a pagan The king of Northumbers marying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert by her perswasion was christened by Paulinus Erpwald the king of the Castangles receiued the faith by the perswasion of king Edwine Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptized in Scotland Many Northerne Saxons were also conuerted to religion by the meanes of king Oswald and Finan a Scot. Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua conuerted the West-Saxons Sigbert was baptized in France and raigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion Peda king of Middleangles was baptized also by Finan a Scot. Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris conuerted to Christ the Southsaxons And all this is testified by Henry of Huntington With him also agrée for the most part Beda William of Malmesburie and diuers other Chroniclers It is therefore euident that Austin performed either litle or nothing those conuersions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death Fourthly it is most apparent that neither the French nor Britains of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons were conuerted by Austin Not the French for that Austin was not sent vnto them and for that they had receiued Christianitie long before Not the Britains for that Austin was sent to Saxons and not to Britains Secondly the Britains were Christians long before Austins coming into England neither did Christianitie after their first conuersion euer faile amongst them as is euident by the testimonie of Bede Capgraue and others Not long before the arriuall of Augustine many Britains about the time of Caster being newly baptized went out with the rest vnder the conduct of Germanus to fight against the Picts and Saxons and obtained a great victorie as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Councell assembled by Austin and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared diuers Bishops of the British nation Thirdly the Britains as Beda writeth refused to subiect themselues to Austins iurisdiction and to accept his orders Finally it appeareth that Austin did rather worke the subuersion then the conuersion of the Britains animating the Saxons to destroy them Fiftly Austin shewed extreame cowardire in coming towards England and hardly was perswaded to set forward as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speake one word of English nor to preach vnlesse it were by his interpreter Lastly he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles at the commandement of Gregorie But first such feare or cowardice beséemeth no Apostolike man Secondly faith cometh by hearing and vnderstanding and not by commission or outward signes It séemeth therefore that Austins Interpreters did rather conuert the Saxons then Austin himselfe Finally what power had either the bishop of Arles or Gregorie to appoint Archbishops in England And how cometh it to passe that now more Archbishops are here then one if his order had any force That these exceptions are true Beda will witnesse Percussi timore inerti saith he lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potiùs quà m barbaram feram incredulamque gentem cuius ne linguam quidem nossent adire cogitabant Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant And againe cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interpretes And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem ciuitatis iuxta quod iussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est Whatsoeuer then was done by Austin the same concerned none but a few Saxons of Kent and such as were baptized by him Neither did he deserue more then is due to euery minister of Gods word and Sacraments that by preaching and baptizing gaineth soules vnto Christ Iesus The Normans and Northern and West Saxons are nothing beholding to him The Britains haue cause to detest his memorie and to thinke hardly of him for his pride and barbarous crueltie If therefore Rob. Parsons meane to gaine any thing by the labours of Gregorie or Austin he must proue first that these two did preach to the auncient Saxons Britains French and other inhabitants of England Next that the present Pope is like vnto Gregorie the malignant race of Masse-priests and Iebusites to Austin Thirdly that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations are to subiect themselues to the Churches and Bishops that sent them And finally if he will haue vs to kéepe vnitie with the moderne Church of Rome he must proue that the same is neither departed from Christ nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregorie If not he doth but cast feathers against the wind and both tire himselfe with writing and vexe his reader with examining his fooleries and idle imaginations CHAP. IIII. That the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by Peter Eleutherius Gregorie and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them BUt what would it aduantage Rob. Parsons if he could proue that either the auncient Britains were conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and Eleutherius or the ancient Saxons by Gregorie and Austin séeing the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which is now reiected was either oppugned by them or at the least neuer knowne vnto them Now the Romanists prohibite holy Scriptures to be read publikely in vulgar tongues as dark and vnprofitable and condemne those that reade them translated into vulgar tongues without licence But the Apostle S. Peter 1. Epist. 2. exhorteth all Christians though newly regenerate to desire the sincere milke of the word And 2. Epist. 1. sheweth That they do well that take heede to the words of the Prophets as to a light shining in a darke place Neither néed we doubt but that all Peters true successors maintaine the same doctrine Gregorie in Ezechiel homil 10. doth commend Scriptures as meate and drinke and lib. 2. Moral as a glasse It is not likely therefore that he would prohibite Christians to eate and drinke and to behold themselues in a glasse that thereby they may learne to informe themselues in matters of faith and to reforme their manners 2. Now they teach that the holy Scriptures to vs are not authenticall nor canonicall vnlesse the Pope deliuer them and consigne them And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith that the Scriptures do depend vpon the Church and of Stapleton in his booke written in defence of the authoritie of the Church But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith that the word of the Prophets is most sure vnto vs. We haue saith he a most sure word of the Prophets And Gregorie in his preface vnto his Commentaries vpon Iob saith that in vaine we search
own faction began now to hold y t in euery seuerall church there ought to be but one bishop Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well vnderstand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist 8. For indéede he speaketh not of the Romane church but of the vniuersall church The like may be sayd of Cyprians booke de simplic Praelat Finally if Parsons vpon the words of Cyprian or Origen can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope he shall well deserue a Cardinals hat But in the meane while he must content himselfe with a garland of Fore tayles for his insignious fopperie that by such weake surmises thinketh to proue the faith of Eleutherius Clement the 8. to be all one He should also haue alledged the testimonie of the Magdeburgians as yeelding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Masse for transubstantiation the worship of images but therein he faileth Onely he talketh idlely of certaine frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of Frée-will Iustification Repentance Good workes Fasts Uirginitie kéeping of Holy dayes Martyrdome inuocation of Saints Purgatorie Traditions Monasticall life Reliques and such like points But all this is nothing to the purpose For neither are we bound to performe and make good euery priuate mans singular opinions nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference betwixt themselues and the Fathers nor do they alwaies gather their sentences out of the authenticall writings of the Fathers neither do they meane and comprehend all as oft as they speake against one or two nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from vs that either al the Fathers make against vs or that all most or any do ioyne with the Papists Robert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends to leaue this vaine and roauing discoursing and scholerlike to conclude somewhat against that religion which he hath forsaken and we do professe and beleeue to be most Catholike and auncient and Apostolicall For proofe that the religion now professed in Rome is the same which was brought into England by Austin the Monke he referreth vs p. 152. to Stapletons Fortresse of faith as he called it But he should remember that the same fortresse was taken and ouerthrowne by M. Doctor Fulke of worthie memorie and that in such sort that the builder and author of that foolish fortresse durst neuer vndertake to repaire the ruines thereof Furthermore he is to vnderstand that Stapletons discourse containeth a briefe recapitulation of certaine ceremonies and abuses in doctrine which were in practise about the coming in of Augustine into England But neither were they matters of any importance nor were they generally receiued nor were they agreable to the formes now receiued and vsed in the Church of Rome Part. 1. ch 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gregorie and Austin and rayling against M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead And Chap. 9. and 10. endeuoureth to proue that Austin brought into England no other religion then that which the Church professed during the times of Eleutherius But first we haue no speciall quarrell either against Gregorie or Austin If Parsons will needes vrge vs to speake against the Monke Austin he shall heare what he was anone Secondly these good men M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead it is no maruell though they be rayled on by such wicked fellowes Vpright and good men as the Wiseman sheweth vs Prou. 29. are an abhomination to the wicked Thirdly we do not so much contend about the corruptions brought in by Austin the Monke as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust vpon vs. Parsons therfore ought to shew that now the same religion is professed ' in Rome which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britaine and England and not so much to prate of the times betwéene Eleutherius and Austin Howbeit it appeareth that euen in these times superstition and false doctrine began to créepe into some corners of the Church contrarie to that forme which was receiued from the Apostles and vsed in Eleutherius his times Some began to talke doubtfully of Purgatorie others to pray priuatly to Saints In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised diuers from Apostolicall orders Of Fréewill and of Workes some began to talke philosophically others to aduance mans merits Churches were built in honour of Saints and their Reliques worshipped Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table and a siluer crosse and began to chaunt Letanies which Rob. Parsons albeit all the Iebusites in Rome should helpe him with their suffrages will neuer proue to haue bene knowne or practised in Eleutherius his time Pa. 181. he proueth altars in Britaine out of Chrysostome and afterward altars of stone and sacrifices and vowes and othes made to Saints out of Gildas He alledgeth also Optatus and Augustine for proofe of altars and y e Masse But neither doth the name of Masse or altars or sacrifices or vowes prooue the Romish Masse altars sacrifice vowes or the Romish doctrine of these points as at large hath bene declared in my bookes De Missa and De Monachis against Bellarmine nor do we stand vpon names or termes nor are these the principall points of Romish religion which we impugne nor is the testimonie of Gildas authenticall Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth vs of a Church built in the honor of Saint Martin where Austin song prayed and said Masses of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his prayer and application of reliques of a prayer made to Saint Alban of honoring Martyrs sepulchers of Alleluia and the obseruance of Lent out of Bede But therein he spendeth his labour in vaine For neither were the Masses then said nor the honor then done to Saints reliques nor their obseruances like to those which the Church of Rome now practiseth Beside that Bede speaketh of things past after the manners of his time and reporteth many things by heare-say Parsons also to helpe the matter translateth these words of Bede lib. 1. hist. cap. 18. Beatum Albanum Martyrem auctori Deo per ipsum gratias petierunt thus They went to the sepulcher of S. Alban prayed to the Saint largely But there is no such meaning to be forced out of the words Finally these points are not great in regard of the rest of the Romish religion which we refuse Out of Galfridus Monumetensis he gathereth that Dubritius was the Legate of the Apostolike sea and that there were Procession Organs and singing in the Church Out of M. Bale M. Foxe Trithemius and others that before Austins time there were diuers learned men and preachers among the Britains whereof some were instructed at Rome some were sent from Rome some built Monasteries some were Monkes But neither doth that make any thing for proofe
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
with the article of transubstantiation that is so repugnaÌ„t to Scriptures faith authority and common sence Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist in the times of darkenes Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the article of the Trinity Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impudently where he saith the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning For I haue shewed before that the Master of Sentences knew it not And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose make nothing for Parsons For he will not deny but that species or formes remaine where as Ambrose saith they are changed Againe Ambrose will not haue any other change in the elements then is wrought in our regeneration or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. and de Sacrament lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such that the things still remaine Vt sint quae erant in aliud commuteÌ„tur The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread Tu sayth he quia accipis panem diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignoraÌ„ce or negligence that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sacramentis where he wrote but sixe if those sixe bookes at all were his and alledgeth these two places as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis that are not there to be found but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose where he sayth he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another for he doth neither talke of the change of natures of elements nor substances To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy of the worship of images and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene alwayes beléeued in the Church he alledgeth neither authority nor reason but only saith that although we appoint certaine times when these things began yet we dare not stand to any certaine time nor can alledge the certaine authors of them But as in his owne proofes so in reporting our assertions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie For we do not say as he reporteth that the Pope challenged this supremacy which now in some countries he possesseth vnder Pope Gregory and Phocas the Emperour but that they began to encroch by litle and litle and that Boniface the 3. obteined of Phocas that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his successors The authors of the Masse and of the worship of Images both entring by degrées we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories and stand to our allegation so firmely that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied we graunt therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this exception or his negatiue proofe as he ridiculously calleth it His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better First he citeth the names of Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy fréewill merit of works the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing or else to speake against the producents cause Only he could not as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres ca. 3. beginning Maximae antiquissimae ecclesiae c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence which sheweth that y e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded then that of the church of Rome and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only not as head but for auoiding tediousnes Quoniam valde longum est saith he in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam in this sort for that vnto this church in respect of her more mighty principality it is necessary that all churches must agree haue accesse Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes dignity and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly y t because Christians did respect y e church of Rome much while it kept the faith sincere now also all churches are to respect it being departed froÌ„ the faith tyraÌ„nizing ouer all others For why should we rather respect that church then the church of Ephesus Smyrna whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected then that of Rome Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words saying lo here the principality of that church coÌ„firmed For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome or vnderstood by principality Next he vrgeth the coÌ„fession of y e MagdeburgiaÌ„s against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome True it is that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y e title of Incommodious opinions and stubble of some Doctors they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter and saying that the Church is built vpon him Likewise they taâ—â— Cyprian for some spéeches But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude that either Cyprian or Tertullian or Irenaeus or Ignatius doth hold maintaine the bishop of Romes authority which now he challengeth Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian No way certes he can be thought to vnderstand him that nameth Salonius for Sidonius and supposeth Maximus Vrbanus and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers and to haue affirmed that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church wheras these three returning from the side of schismatikes that in euery church had erected a bishop of their
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
and not by the Popes Decretals Finally he sheweth pag. 475. out of S. Augustines 48. Epistle ad Vincentium that the Church is sometime shadowed and obscured which plainely ouerthroweth the Popish doctrine concerning the illustrious and perpetuall visibilitie of the Church of Christ. If then any simple Papist heretofore haue bene seduced by this fabulous discourse of Rob. Parsons to beleeue that the inhabitants of this land haue bene thrice conuerted to that faith which now is professed at Rome or to giue credit to the hereticall doctrine of the Romanists let him reforme his opinion and beware how he admit such trifling bookes wherein Scriptures are so wickedly abused and Fathers so corruptly alledged and lyes so commonly interlaced And if he loue Rob. Parsons let him admonish him hereafter to haue more care what he writeth and to desist from wresting and abusing Scriptures from falsisying and corrupting the testimonie of Fathers from Thrasonicall bragging and yet beggarly crauing matters in controuersie from his impious spéeches against God and disloyall termes against his Prince and finally from lying slandering and impertinent babling Otherwise as his faults and errors appeare many and grieuous so it will manifestly appeare that it is Gods iudgement that so wicked a cause should be defended so weakly leudly and wickedly God giue him grace to repent him of his inueterate malice against true Christians and confirme all Christians in the truth that they giue no eare to the fabulous tales and leasings of such leud wicked and malitious companions FINIS The Contents of the Discourse precedent THe Praeface conteineth a briefe examination of Robert Parsons his Epistle Dedicatorie of the addition to it and of his Praeface The 1. Chapter disputeth this question Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or no. The 2. Chapter sheweth what we are to thinke of the pretended Conuersion of Lucius King of Britaine and of the Britains to Christian Religion by Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and his Agents The 3. Chapter resolueth vs of Austin the Monkes coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here In the 4. Chapter is proued that the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by S. Peter Eleutherius Gregory and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them The 5. Chapter conteineth a briefe answer to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to proue that the faith now professed in Rome is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past The 6. Chapter discouereth the vanitie and foolerie os Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England The 7. Chapter bringeth euident demonstrations that the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation The 8. Chapter containeth proofes concluding that the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane The 9. Chapter sheweth that the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meane of triall of the truth The 10. Chapter proueth the Church of England to be the true Church of God and to hold the Apostolike and true Catholike faith The 11. Chapter refuteth Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward The 12. Chapter sheweth that the moderne Church of Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England Chap. 13. therein is declared how litle conscience Parsons maketh to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures The 14. Chapter containeth a catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other authors committed by Parsons The 15. Chapter exhibiteth certaine examples of Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question The 16. Chapter alledgeth arguments of Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries The 17. Chapter containeth a Table of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall The 18. Chapter containeth a Table of Parsons his lies calumniations and false allegations The 19. Chapter sheweth how Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause FINIS a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca. 62. a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Part. 1. ca. 1. pa. 19. a In Eleutherio 1 Part. 1. cap. 4. a Part. 1. p. 80 a Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26. a Pag. 113. a Pag. 123. a Mallb 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 22. a In Chronico a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Pag. 333. and pages following