no. IN this controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs about the first conuersion of the ancient Britains and Saxons to Christian religion thrée points are principally to be considered resolued First whether the Britains were first conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke Secondly whether these thrée or any one of them taught that faith which now the Pope and his adherents professe and we refuse And thirdly what the moderne Church of Rome can challenge of vs by any fauour done to our auncestors by them Robert Parsons boldly affirmeth that the ancient Britains were conuerted to the faith first of all by S. Peter and next by Eleutherius a Bishop of Rome And thirdly that Austin sent by Gregory the first did first preach the faith to the Saxons But the first cōuersion supposed to be wrought by Peter we deny Of the second we haue cause to doubt Of the third our aduersaries haue no cause to boast He impudently auoucheth that these thrée taught the same doctrine which the church of Rome now holdeth and which we refuse We wonder at his impudency and laugh at his folly that attempteth to prooue any such matter Thirdly vpon these supposed conuersions he concludeth that England and Englishmen haue particular obligation to the church of Rome aboue other nations He would haue said if he durst for shame that therefore we are to be subiect to the Romish church and to receiue her doctrine trash I would say traditions We say that we owe nothing but hatred to the Popes and later church of Rome hauing receiued nothing from thence but wrongs and disgraces and losse If any thing we owe it is to those which tooke paines to preach the true faith among vs and not to the Romanists and their agents that now go about to turne vs from the faith and to destroy his Maiesty and our countrey by treason That S. Peter neuer preached the Gospell in Britaine these reasons are sufficient to perswade vs. First it is apparent Galat. 2. that the preaching of the Gospell to the vncircumcised was committed vnto Paul and the preaching of the same to the circumcised to Peter The direction also of the first epistle of S. Peter sent to the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus Galatia Asia and Bithynia doth prooue it true How then is it likely that S. Peter leauing the circumcision committed to his charge should preach to the vncircumcision committed to others charge Or how could he that preached to them in Asia spare so much time as to make a iourney to preach to them in Britaine Againe can any man thinke if he had preached to the Britains at the time of the writing of the first and second epistle that he would not as well haue mentioned them as the Easterne nations That the second epistle was written to the same persons to whom he had directed y e first it appeareth by these words 2. Pet. 2. This second epistle I write to you Baronius also confesseth that he wrote this epistle a litle before his death It cannot therfore be surmised that he preached to the Britains after the writing of this epistle nor that he would neglect them more then others if at any time he had preached to them Secondly if Peter preached the Gospell in Britaine either he preached in Claudius the Emperour his dayes or vnder the reigne of Nero. And so some of our aduersaryes say he preached vnder the reigne of Claudius as Baronius some vnder the reigne of Nero as Eisengrenius in his Cēturics But Eusebius in Chronico sayth that after his comming to Rome he preached the Gospell there and cōtinued Bishop 25. yeares vbi Euangelium praedicans sayth he 25. annis eiusdem vrbis Episcopus perseuerat Baronius anno Christi 58. relateth how Peter being expulsed out of Rome by Claudius preached to the Westerne nations But Onuphrius in annotat ad vit am Petri sayth that being expulsed by Claudius out of Rome he went not westward but eastward and returned first to Hierusalem where he was present at the Councell at Hierusalem and afterward sate 7. yeares Bishop of Antioch Ibidem sayth he 7. annis vsque ad Claudij obitum Neronis imperium permansit The report also of his 25. yeares continuance in Rome is imprebable For if he were martyred as some say the 13. as others the 14. yeare of Nero then could he not be Bishop there 25. yeares Paule being conuerted to Christ some yeare or more after Christes passion and afterward abiding in Arabia three yeares and 14. yeares after finding Peter at Hierusalem as may be gathered out of the words of the Apostle Galat. 2. It is not likely also that he could suddenly go frō Hierusalem to Rome being sent to preach to all natiōs The best witnesse of Peters being Bishop of Rome 25. yeares is Eusebius his Chronicle but he testifieth also that he sate 25. yeares at Antioch which is a plaine contradiction to all stories of that matter Thirdly Peter preached in no place but he there ordeined Bishops and teachers and founded Churches But in Britaine we do not reade that either he ordeined Bishops or founded Churches or left any memoriall of his being there Fourthly the tradition of the church which is a part of the word of God as the Papists beleeue ascribeth the first conuersion of Britaine to Ioseph of Arimathaea and his fellowes Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph affirmeth that they preached the word of God in Britaine with great confidence and this he sayth they did the 63. yeare from Christs incarnation Anno sayth he ab incarnatione domini 63. fidem Christi fiducialiter praedicabāt Which disprooueth Caesar Baronius his tradition of Peters first preaching in Britaine anno Domini 58. Fiftly no one English Chronicle doth so much as once mention the comming of Peter into Britaine Is it then probable that Simeon Metaphrastes the writer of the Greeke legend liuing in Greece or Caesar Baronius the calculator of Romish traditions and legends singing Masses at Rome should better know what was done in Britaine then the ancient Chroniclers of the Britaine nation Sixthly of ancient writers of Ecclesiasticall histories no one sayth that Peter the Apostle first preached to the Britains Neither doth any ancient father of the church mention any such matter but rather ascribe that labour either to Paule as doth Theodoret in commentar in epist. ad Timoth. lib. 9. de curandis Graec. affect and Sophronius in serm de natiu Dom. and Venantius Fortunatus or to Simon Zelotes as Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. and Dorotheus in Synopsi or to Aristobolus as doth the same Dorotheus and some late writers But if Peter had first founded the Church of Britaine it is not likely that all authors would either haue concealed so glorious an action or else haue attributed the same to others Finally the aduersaries themselues for the most part confesse that Ioseph of Arimathaea did
Peter and Eleutherius they neuer thought nor taught that our sinnes are purged by other meanes then by the bloud of Christ which as the Apostle sayth 1. Iohn 1. cleanseth vs from all sinne 37. That the soules of the godly are tormented by diuels in Purgatory or that the bishops of Rome by their plenary indulgences and Buls of Iubiley could deliuer soules from thence was farre from the thought of Austin and Gregory and much more of Eleutherius and Saint Peter These are deuises of late Dopes and frapling Schoolemen as appeareth by the Decretals of Boniface the eight and Clement the sixt extr de poenit remiss and Bellarmine and Henriquez and others in their treatises of Indulgences and Purgatory 38. Neither did Gregory nor Austin nor any before them teach that the grace of God was nothing but charity or that charity is the forme of faith as do the moderne vncharitable powdermen papists and their associates 39. Farre also it was from their thought that men are predestinate to saluation or reprobated and destined to damnation for works foreseene in them For the Apostle Rom. 9. doth prooue the contrary by the example of Esau and Iacob and addeth this reason that the purpose of God might remaine according to Election not by works but by him that calleth 40. None of them euer taught that men are iustified by mariage or orders or confirmation or extreme vnction or by eating fish or such externall obseruances as our aduersaries now teach 41. Nay they beléeued not that christian men were iustified by the works of the law or that they could perfectly fulfill the whole law loue God with all their hart soule affection For as the Apostle saith Rom. 4. the Law causeth wrath Againe if man could perfectly fulfill the law then might he liue without all sinne which is the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine de haeres and Hierome aduers. Pelag. lib. 1. testifie 42. Neuer did any of these foure or other ancient Father teach that christian men were able not only to fulfill the whole law but also to do works of supererogation and more then the law requireth or else that the state of perfection did consist in beggery or pouerty forswearing of mariage and obedience to monkish rules 43. Finally because it were infinite to prosecute all the singular differences betwirt Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter of one part and the moderne Popes and the Iebusites on the other I will bring all into one briefe summe I do therefore pray Robert Parsons because he contendeth that now no other doctrine is taught in Rome beside that which in times past was deliuered by Gregory Austin Eleutherius and the holy Apostle S. Peter that he will be pleased of his Iebusiticall fauor plainely to demonstrate First that the particulars aboue mentioned were by thē knowne beléeued and taught And next that the rest of the Romish doctrine established partly in the Popes Decretals and partly in the conuenticles of Laterane of Constance of Florence and Trent and partly professed and proposed by Pius the fourth which the Church of England reiecteth and detesteth differeth nothing frō that forme of doctrine and wholsome words which they deliuered to their hearers in their time If he performe this he shall shew himselfe a great master if not his cause falleth his hope of mastership perisheth and his dreames of a Cardinals hat are at their last period CHAP. V. A briefe answere to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to prooue that the faith now professed in Rome vnder Clement the 8. is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past VNto our argumēts Rob. Parsons in his treatise of three Conuersions maketh no answere And yet he could not be ignorant that these and many more arguments are brought against his cause Nay it appeareth that it will be as easy a matter for him to turne himselfe into a woodcock as to maintaine his booke of Three Turnings Only least he should séeme silent he setteth on a brasen face and Pag. 8. desperatly promiseth to proue that the faith of Rome is and was all one vnder Eleutherius Gregory and Clement the 8. lately raigning He should haue added S. Peter also if he would haue mainteined his argument of three Conuersions But he knew that there is too maine a difference betwixt S. Peters catholike epistles and Clements vncatholike Decretals In the processe also of his discourse concerning the faith of Eleutherius and Gregory compared to the confession of Clement the 8. he runneth on confusedly and absurdly turning and winding vp and downe like a man that hath lost his way and is caried without direction he knoweth not whither In his discourse there are thrée maine faults First he doth not iustifie all those points of popery which are now holden by Clement the 8. at the least if the Pops beléeue the moderne Romish faith nor prooue them to haue béene beléeued and taught by Eleutherius and Gregory Next he neither proposeth his matters resolutely nor in proouing them proceedeth orderly Lastly he barely toucheth some points in controuersie but neither dare handle the principall matters taught by the Romanists nor can prooue that which he promiseth And this God willing we shall demonstrate out of the mans owne words folowing as well as we can the file and order of his disordred discourse Pag. 7. He threapeth kindnesse vpon vs and would beare vs in hand that we dare not deny but that both Masse and Images were in vse in Gregories time in the Romane Church and faith and so brought into England by Augustine But first he speaketh strangely where he sayth Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane faith For Masse is song or sayd at the Altar and Images are painted or made in bosse vpon walles or other places But faith is properly in the heart though declared with the mouth and consisteth neither in Imagery nor Massing foolery but in receiuing the sauing word of God Secondly if by the vse of the Masse and Images he vnderstand the moderne doctrine and practise of the Romish Church concerning these two points he wrongeth vs and abuseth his reader saying we dare not deny that the Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane church in Greries time and so brought into England by Augustine For by the old Romish ordinall it appeareth that Gregories Masse was most vnlike the moderne Masse of the Romanists That forme ouerthroweth priuate Masses halfe Communions prayers for the dead the carnall reall presence transubstantiation the reall propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead and the whole forme and frame of the moderne Romish Canon and Masse Gregory also as we haue declared absolutely condemned the worship of Images and neuer acknowledged that the Crosse or Crucifixe was to be worshipped with Latria Finally albeit Augustine named Masses and had a crosse and an image yet it appeareth not that his Masse was
that they either held that religiō which Eleutherius taught or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth Finally he affirmeth that the religion taught by Austin was catholike and confirmed by miracles and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times But that which is the point in controuersie viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time is the same that was preached by Austin the Monke the wise disputer doth scarce mention and no way proueth Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents and by Austin we are to renounce all those heresies false doctrines and abuses which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church Secondly that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence nor transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead nor halfe Communions nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie nor his Indulgences nor the worship of Images nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused to haue bene preached by those that first planted Christian religion in this countrie CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood who will needes beare the Reader in hand that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome but also to that faith which now the Pope and his adherents do professe Now therfore it resteth that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope Two things it séemeth he aymeth at in this worke The first is to bring the King the Cleargie the Nobles and people of England vnder the Popes obedience and into the captiuitie of Babylon The second is to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon But to effect this purpose this labour is wholy vnsufficient For first no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion or rule ouer Gods people as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples The Princes of nations saith he beare rule ouer them and afterward but it shall not be so with you Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage Neque dominantes in Cleris saith he Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius applieth this to him and sheweth that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination and Lordlinesse Planum est saith he lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences Not saith he that we haue dominion ouer your faith but we are helpers of your ioy Finally our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi or Maister and sheweth that this is Pharisaicall Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop and reason sheweth that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master or teacher of the whole Church Secondly the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie Stand fast saith the Apostle Gal. 5. in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage And againe Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of mind and worshipping of Angels aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind Which words do directly belong to the Pope who pretending humilitie and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels and telling newes out of Purgatorie and strange things which he neuer saw affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope who ruleth in their consciences and marketh them for his slaues as we reade Apocalyps 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie He made all both small and great saith Iohn rich and poore free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand and in their foreheads But let such beware how they continue in this bondage and let others that are frée take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast and his image and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads or in their hands shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Thirdly experience teacheth vs that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem and from thence went foorth into all lands And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles Act. 1. saith They shall be witnesses to him both in Hierusalem and in all Iudaea and to the vttermost part of the earth Yet neuer did either the Bishops or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge where they say Peter preached and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations then the Church of Hierusalem where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached and from whence as we reade Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world and to teach all nations Fourthly we reade in histories that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine For so Capgraue writeth citing Freculphus for his author It is said also that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France and that Iames coming from Ierusalem preached first in Spaine S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers that came out of the East country Finally our histories do teach vs that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine and that the Frizelanders and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria nor the English to the French or the French to the bishops of Athens or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem or the
Hares insult ouer dead Lyons If he had not bene a renegate Christian and fugitiue traytor he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant Neither if he had bene wise would he haue mentioned these two examples himselfe in apostacie being like the one and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine And yet not many yeares since in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him and his whole house Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note singing that only which maketh for his profit Modo palliatus modo togatus Now he playeth Dolman now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius vnum portentum est duo nomina that is one monster two titles Yet such is the folly of this parasite that thinking to praise the King he doth greatly dishonor him comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie and implying that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation yet may we probably suppose that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty and the subuersion of the realme as appeareth by a publike edict against them In commending the Kings booke he condemneth his religion as if any could be more dishonored then by imputation of want of religion Againe he contradicteth himselfe cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God and godlinesse and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity and inanity of sects and heresies where no ground no head no certaine principle no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion which his Maiesty professeth or cleanly auoyd in that sect which he followeth being a pack of impieties blasphemies heresies nouelties vncerteinties contradictions absurdities and fooleries The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion wherein we declare that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it and full of sincere wisedome but also approoued by Councels Fathers consent of nations miracles yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse of the Sacraments of the Pope of Purgatory Indulgences works of supererogation and such like For what more impious then to say that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist What more blasphemous then to giue Gods honor to stocks stones and to Antichrist What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature and office and to worship Angels Saints and Images What more new then the doctrine of Constance Florence Trent concerning the massing sacrifice the communion vnder one kind the subsisting of accidents without substance indulgences and such like What more vncertaine then popish religion that dependeth vpon the Popes determination a man oftentimes blind vnlearned and variable What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible aboue and below dead and aliue at one time What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome or to say with the Donatists that it is perished out of the whole world saue in one corner of the Romish church Finally what more foolish then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches and such like superstitious ceremonies In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue that man is mutable by his owne example that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions But that is little for his credit or the credit of his cause For what if he turne like a weather-cocke and renounce religion would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe Truth also is constant and alwayes like it selfe But falsehood varieth and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas sayth Hilary to Constantius The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite who being vncertaine in his resolution and leauing matters formerly purposed brought forth matters neuer designed for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion condemneth the sluggishnes of them that are carelesse in this behalfe But his words are contrary to the Romish practise that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion Much certes it were to be wished that men would do as he sayth for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists and see that popery is not Catholike as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke nor darkenes continue when light appeareth To preuent perillous courses and to giue light where certeinty of religion lyeth he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions But alas the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion as the East is from the West For what assurance can he haue of religion who doth beleeue neither Propheticall nor Apostolical writings nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes Surius Baronius and other fabulous writers and vaine and vncertaine traditions of which he hath no certeinty Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history and not matter of faith or doctrine Lastly he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon then to keepe them from any danger Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised In this preface I confesse he compareth the Church to a mansion house and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same promising that he will make proofe that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons But first there is great difference betweene the Church and a mansion house the Church being a mysticall body and being scattered here and there and not being appropriated to any family city or nation and a mansion house being a
Meduinus that were sent to baptize Lucius were Britains Thirdly the sound of the names of those which were sent to Lucius doth rather declare them to be Britains then Romaines For whether we call them Eluanus and Meduinus or Phaganus and Deruianus or Faganus and Duuanus they will hardly be drawne to sound like Latine Finally Capgraue in Iosepho Malmesburiensis in hist. Glaston and Caius in his booke of the antiquitie of Cambridge do declare that Christianitie once planted by Ioseph was alwaies continued in the land by those which succeeded him What then néeded the Britains to runne to Rome to fetch a commission to baptize the king vnlesse it were to winne a litle glorie by the reputation which the Romains then had in the world Againe albeit we should grant that they were Romains that baptized king Lucius yet what glorie can hereof redound either to Eleutherius or to the Romains For Eleutherius neither preached to the Britains nor once mooued a foote from Rome Neither could those Romaines that are said to be sent into Brittaine speake the language of Britains or teach them Christianitie Nor is it so great a matter to baptize king Lucius who if euer there were any such was like to the Caciques of the Indians or the petty kings of Ireland To conclude this point this fable seemeth to be deuised by some fauourers of the Church of Rome that indeuour to draw all nations to like that sea as the fountaine of many fauors and yet it is neither probably related nor maketh any thing to the purpose for which it was first forged and afterwards by diuers related and enlarged Let vs then sée what Rob. Parsons is able to make of this matter First he saith that these two conuersions vnder two famous Popes of Rome viz. Eleutherius and Gregorie are acknowledged and registred by the whole Christian world But what is this to the purpose if it were true séeing neither of them did much cooperate in the conuersion of the Britains and Saxons And being false who doth not sée that the notorious impudencie of this Iebusite deserueth to be censured of all the Christian world Caius for his principall proofe of the baptisme of king Lucius alleageth letters patent of king Arthur Beda saith onely that Lucius was christened per mandatum Eleutherij that is by the commandement of Eleutherius The rest that go further are writers of legends and contemptible fellowes speaking all vntruth to win the Popes fauour Of Gregorie and Austin the Monke we shall speake when their turne cometh Furthermore albeit Gregorie and Eleutherius were Bishops and famous men in the Church for their painfull labours and constancie in teaching the truth what is that to the Popes of our time that are rather Wolues then shepheards loyterers than labourers infamous persecutors of Christians then conuerters of Pagans to the Christian faith maintainers of errors then teachers of truth Parsons calleth them successors to Eleutherius and Gregorie but neuer shall he shew that these two called themselues Vniuersal bishops or Heads of the church or took vpon them to depose kings or to giue away kingdomes or to ride vpon mens shoulders or to giue their féete to be kissed Is he not then ashamed to compare such monsters to such holy men and to ascribe the prayse of good Bishops to those that are no Bishops nor good men 2. Further he sheweth how matters passed in this conuersion which he supposeth and how Lucius hearing of the horrible persecutions of Christians in Rome and how two worthy Senators called Pertinax and Tretellius had bene lately conuerted from paganisme to Christ and that Marcus Aurelius then liuing began to be a friend to Christians as the Emperors Legate in England told him c. sent men to Rome to demand preachers of Eleutherius the Pope who directed to him two Romaines named Fugatius and Damianus And the cause hereof he assigneth to be for that he vnderstood the chiefe fountaine of religion to be at Rome and was not contented with instructions by Christians at home But in this and the rest of his narration of Lucius he telleth many grosse lies learned by him of his father Lucifer the father of pride lies For first it is not like that this was the occasion of Lucius his ambassade to Rome considering that in the latter end of Marcus Aurelius and beginning of Commodus his Empire we do not reade of any such horrible persecutions against Christians as he reporteth Secondly this sending to Rome which Parsons imagineth to haue fallen out in the raigne of Marcus Aurelius Baronius referreth to the second yeare of Commodus Thirdly the conuersion of two Senators Pertinax and Trebellius by Parsons called Tretellius is not reported by any authenticall Writer Fourthly if Lucius were enemie to the Romaines as Parsons sayth it is not likely that an Ambassador did reside with him or that he had any commerce with the Romaines Fiftly he sent to Rome not to demand Preachers but baptisme as Galfridus Beda and Damasus testifie Sixtly neuer can it be shewed that Lucius beléeued Rome to be the fountaine of religion For it séemeth rather to be worldly respect then respect of religion that moued him to send to Rome Finally I haue before shewed that those which were sent to Lucius were Britains and not Romans neither doth any authenticall Writer affirme the contrarie 3. For proofe of his grosse leasings he saith that this conuersion vnder king Lucius is testified in auncient bookes of the liues of Romaine bishops attributed by some to Damasus by ecclesiasticall tables and martyrologies by Bede by Ado Archbishop of Treuers by Marianus Scotus and all Authors since But all this testification amounteth to nothing but onely to make proofe of Parsons his notorious ignorance and impudencie For first the aduersaries themselues giue no credite to those notes that passe vnder the name of Damasus Secondly nothing is more ridiculous then to alledge lying legends and moth-eaten martyrologies for authenticall proofes Thirdly neither doth Bede nor Damasus nor Ado speake one word of the conuersion of Britaine nor say that Lucius was christened by any Romaine Fourthly Ado was not bishop of Treuers as Parsons ignorantly affirmeth but of Vienna Fiftly Marianus Scotus doth differ in time from others and yet saith little for Parsons his purpose Finally neither all nor many writers after him do report this storie 4. To answer our obiections concerning the great differences concerning the time wherein this conuersion is supposed to be made and the obseruation of Easter after a fashion diuers from the Church of Rome he saith first That there is no small varietie found among principall Writers about principall points and mysteries of our faith as about the coming of the Magi the martyrdome of the Infants the time of Christ his baptisme yea also of his passion what yeare and day each of these things happened But first he sheweth himselfe to be a leud and blasphemous companion that compareth the
authority of the Pope of Transubstantiation and popish worship of Images is not only not to be prooued but also to be disproued by holy scriptures The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels and authority of Fathers as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments We only will alledge some few First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed receiued and not to be offered vp for quick and dead Next to holy Scriptures and Fathers that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall Finally if Christes body be not really present nor the bread wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick dead But that is proued by the words of the institution bread and wine being named after consecration by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words hoc est corpus meum figuratiuely by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne and by diuers other arguments For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority there is no one word in scripture nay scriptures shew that all the Apostles were called and authorized alike and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl praelat Furthermore the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory as I haue shewed condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian neither can it be shewed that y e Pope either made lawes or ordeined bishops or iudged all causes throughout the whole church vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body and supposeth it neither to be visible nor palpable repugneth to the words of institution and common cōsent of Fathers that declare bread wine to remain after consecration taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches The worship of images is contrary to the law of God Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels to y e doctrine of Fathers and abolisheth all true religion God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes to the intent to worship it or to bow downe to it The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls The 2. Councel of Nice though it allow some worship done to images yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images Epiphanius tore downe a vaile that had an image of Christ or some Saint painted on it Gregory as before I haue shewed vtterly condemned the worship of Images Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin c. 19. saith plainely There is no religion where there is an image Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe the one as he calleth it negatiue and the other affirmatiue and by them he vanteth that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly For what can be supposed more absurd then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue by a negatiue or contraxiwise and yet such is Parsons his wisdome that he offereth vs this abuse Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe where he talketh of negatiue proofes For albeit he standeth vpon his denial and resolueth to put vs to proue yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe His meaning is that we are not able to shew that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time after or that they came into the church afterward And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy the Romish masse Transubstantiation and the worship of Images the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church and that long after Eleutherius his time The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added we may sée in Walafridus Strabo Platina Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited vntill the late conuenticle of Trent nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority nor beléeueth transubstantiation or receiueth the Popes masse or popish purgatory or his doctrine of Images Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent and the Emperour protested against y e Synod Little therefore doth Augustine help but to confound Parsons his cause albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church But sayth Parsons Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran as these words Consubstantiall Trinity and the like in the first Councell of Nice yet the substance of the article viz. concerning transubstantiation was held from the beginning And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose lib. 4. 5. 9. de Sacramentis and out of these words Non valebit sermo Christi vt species mutet elementorum And againe Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erat But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures
as appeareth by the discourse written of his life first stirred vp her subiects and when that serued not he animated both Spaniard and French against her and her people Gregorie the 13. by his Legate Sanders stirred the Irish to take armes against our nation The same man when force serued not animated the assassinor and murtherer Parry to lay violent hands vpon her person not omitting withal any course to hurt or trouble her subiects In the end by the procurement of Sixtus quintus the Spanish Armada supposed and ridiculously called inuincible came vpon vs with a full intention to depose the Quéene to destroy her true subiects and to marke the rest for slaues And can any man thinke well of the Pope so long as any memorie of this action remaineth It is no maruell then if the Pope set on that traiterous companion Allane to speake all the dishonor he could both against the Prince and her nation seeing he intended the totall destruction of the kingdome and her subiects But if we search all histories we shal neuer find a more bloudie and sauage enterprise then that which the Papists of late attempted resoluing to extinguish the Kings line to destroy the King his Nobles and the commons in Parliament assembled and vtterly to subuert the state Our nation then hath great obligation to the Popes of Rome and their adherents but it is to hate them and detest them and resist them as most bloudie and malitious enemies of our nation for many yeares But saith Parsons in his Ward-word Our nation hath bene twise conuerted by the labour and industrie of that sea And since he saith The same hath bene thrise conuerted from Paganisme to Christian Religion So absurdly doth he confound himselfe in his owne deuise But neither can he proue his Conuersions nor should we grant them could he win any thing at our hands but hatred and indignation against the late Popes of Rome which are so degenerated that they seeke to destroy both the bodies and soules of those whose auncestors auncient Bishops of Rome are said to haue gained to Christ. And this may serue to answer Parsons his patcherie talking of the obligation which England and English men owe to Rome Now because the same man euery where telleth vs of the succession of Romish Bishops and gladly would smoother the fame of Pope Ioane albeit the same be somewhat impertinent to the matter of Three Conuersions yet shall we examine the title of the Popes succession turning a litle out of the way to obserue our aduersaries exorbitant procéeding CHAP. VIII That the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane MUch doth Robert Parsons boast of the succession of Popes especially Part. 2. cap. 1. and giueth out that it is of great importance for triall of true Religion Bellarmine De not is Eccles. and diuers others his consorts estéeme it a principall marke of the Church But when the matter shall be throughly discussed he shall well perceiue that he hath no cause so much to boast of these conceits séeing neither the Popes are successors to Peter or the auncient Bishops of Rome nor the succession of Popes is any marke of the Church or proper triall of true religion The first is proued by these arguments First no man can claime right of succession but either by right of testament or proximitie of bloud or some law or laudable custome For that is the opinion of all Lawyers where they talke of successions But Clement the 8. and his predecessors for diuers ages can neither produce any Will made by S. Peter declaring the moderne Popes to be his successors nor any law or custome grounded on the old or new testament Neither can they shew that they are of his kindred or affinitie whereby they may seeme to haue right of succession The like also we may say of Eleutherius Secondly all successors either do succéed as heires in the whole right or as Legataries in some special bequest of land goods or right or else as executers of any office or charge But if Clement the 8. should claime to be Saint Peters heire or a Legatarie then must he shew some testament or will or lawe made in his fauour If he claime to succéed him in office then must he shew both records how he holdeth his office and also acts which may declare him to haue truly executed Saint Peters office Likewise if he claime to be Eleutherius his successor he must both shew a lawfull title and declare that he hath executed Eleutherius his function But neither can he exhibite any proofe for hïs title of Apostolicall or Episcopall function neither doth it appeare either that he worketh miracles or teacheth all nations as did Saint Peter or that he preacheth or baptizeth as did Eleutherius Wherein then haue Clement and his predecessors employed themselues Forsooth in stopping the preaching and procéeding of the Gospell and in murthering the Saints of God and maintaining the kingdome of Antichrist None of them certes can shew any title either from Peter or Eleutherius or other godly Bishop Thirdly the Popes claime to be Vniuersall Bishops and heads and spouses of the Vniuersall Church But that neuer came into the head of Peter or Eleutherius Nay Gregory lib. 4. epist. 82. speaking of Peter and other Apostles saith they are not heads but members of the Church vnder one head Sub vno capite sayth he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Likewise in the title of Decumenicall or Vniuersall Bishop he sheweth that the Pope doth rather follōw Lucifer then Peter or any godly Bishop Quis sayth he speaking of the title of vniuersall Bishop in hoc tam peruerso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere He sayth also that none of the Prelates of that sea would euer be called by so prophane a title The Apostle Paule sheweth that there is but one head and spouse of the Uniuersall Church that is Christ Iesus Fourthly our Sauiour Christ forbad S. Peter and his Apostles so to beare rule ouer Christians as temporall Kings did ouer nations Neither do we find that S. Peter or Eleutherius did transgresse Christes commandement If then the Pope doth rule not as Princes ouer nations but as King of Kings challengeth power to depose Kings then is he not S. Peters or Eleutherius his successor S. Bernard sayth the Pope cannot both beare this rule and succeed Peter in his Apostleship Plane ab alterutro prohiberis si vtrumque similiter habere voles perdes vtrumque And againe forma Apostolica haec est dominatio interdicitur indicitur ministratio Fiftly Peter exhorted Christians 1. epist. 2. to obedience to Kings and gouernours and Eleutherius no question did follow his exhortation Where either of these perswaded Christians to take armes against their superiors
Bellarmine de not is Eccles. ca. 8. sayth that we cannot conclude necessarily that the Church is there where is succession of Bishops Non colligitur necessariò sayth he ibi esse Ecclesiam vbi est successio But were they resolued to stand vpon this succession yet would the same draw with it the ruine of the Popes cause For neuer shall they be able to shew a number of Bishops professing or holding the doctrine of the Popes Decretals and of the late conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent vntill of late yeares But saith Parsons Part. 2. Ch. 1. Augustine was held in the Church by the succession of Bishops And Tertullian de Praescript aduers. haeretic doth challenge heretikes to this combat of succession And Irenaeus proueth by the succession of Roman Bishops the true succession and continuation of one and the selfe same Catholike faith Likewise hée alledgeth Hierome who in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith We are to abide in that Church which being founded by the Apostles doth indure to this day And Augustine lib de Vtil credend ca. 17. that sheweth how we are not to doubt to rest in the lap of that Church which notwithstanding the barkings of heretikes about it by successions of Bishops from the Apostles seate hath obteined the height of authority Finally he telleth vs Pag. 283. how 70. Archbishops of Canterbury were all of one religion But first we must vnderstand that the ancient Fathers talking of succession neuer speake of the externall place and bare succession of Bishops without respect to the truth of doctrine Irenaeus lib. 4. Ch. 43. would haue those Bishops harkned vnto which succeede the Apostles which with the succession of their Bishoprick haue receiued the certaine gift of truth according to the will of the Father Tertullian lib. de Praescript aduers. haeret sheweth that the persons are to be approued by their faith and not faith by the persons Non habent haereditatem Petri saith Ambrose lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. 6. quifidem Petrinon habent That is they haue not right to succeed Peter or Peters inheritance that hold not the faith of Peter Nazianzen de laudib Athanasij saith that they are partakers of the same chaire or succession that hold the same doctrine as they that hold contrary doctrine are to be counted aduersaries in succession Qui eandem fidei doctrinā profitetur saith he eiusdē quoque throni particeps est Qui autem contrariam doctrinam amplectitur aduersarius quoque in throno censeri debet Whatsoeuer then y e Fathers speake of succession it concerneth as well succession in doctrine as in place externall title of office Unlesse then this Iebusite can shew that y e moderne Popes are true Bishops and hold y e same faith which Peter the first Bishops of Rome did the testimonies of the Fathers which he alledgeth wil make against him Secondly y e Fathers do alledge y e succession of other churches as wel as Rome Irenaeus li. 3. aduers. haeres c. 3. appealeth as wel to the Churches of Asia namely to that of Ephesus Smyrna as to Rome albeit for auoiding prolixity he citeth only y e names of the Roman Bishops Testimonium his perhibent saith he quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui vsque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo Likewise in the end of the Chapter he citeth the testimony of the Church of Ephesus Tertullian de Praescript aduers haeret maketh all Churches founded by the Apostles equall and citeth as well the testimony of the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus as Rome But the succession of these Churches is no certaine marke of the Church or triall of the truth S. Augustine contr epist. fundament c. 4. reckneth diuers things ioyntly with the succession of Bishops which reteined him in the Church and among the rest sincerissimam sapientiam the sincere wisdome of Christian doctrine But Parsons must proue that the succession of Bishops only is a sufficient argument of truth Likewise Augustine in his booke de Vtilit credendi ca. 17. talketh not of the Romish Church but of the Catholike Church whose authority notwithstanding he placeth after the primary foundations of Scriptures Likewise Hierome speaketh of the Catholike Church not of the particular Church of Rome Finally neuer shal it be proued nor is it likely the later Bishops of Canterbury before the reuerend Father most glorious Martyr Bishop Cranmer receiuing y e new Decretals of the Pope the decrées of y e conuenticles of Lateran Constance and Florence but that their faith differd much frō the first Bishops of Canterbury which liued before the times of these conuenticles that authorized these new corruptions If then Rob. Parsons haue no better argumēt in his booke then this of the externall succession of the Popes of Rome it is likely he meaneth fraud and for the true Church commendeth vnto vs the synagogue of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon rather shunning then seeking any lawfull and certaine triall of truth CHAP. X. That the Church of England is the true Church of God and holdeth the Apostolike and Catholike faith AS Esau hated Iacob because of his fathers blessings as we reade Gen. 27. so Rob. Parsons the more it hath pleased God our heauēly Father to blesse y e Church of England the more hatred doth he shew against his countrymen and brethren In the first part of his treatise of Three Conuersions he endeuoureth to make thē slaues to the Pope In the second he raileth at them as vagrant persons and strangers frō Gods Church and people without succession of teachers from the Apostles and deuoid as he saith of all demonstrations and euidences to proue themselues to be Christes Church But if those be Gods true Church which heare his word with attention and beléeue it and receiue the Sacraments according to Christs institution and séeke to worship God with true deuotion and to liue after their Christian profession then is the Church of England Gods true Church For although Bellarmine and others do spend much time in taking exceptions against our doctrine practise in Gods worship and manners yet can none of them either proue any error in the doctrine which we teach or the administration of Sacraments which we practise or in the rules concerning Gods worship or common manners which we follow Secondly those Christians which professe and beléeue all the Apostolike faith and condemne all those errors and false doctrines which the Apostles condemned and endeuour vnfeinedly to liue according to their profession are the true Church For that is a property of Christes shéep to heare his voice not to follow strangers as we reade Iohn 10. The Apostle also sheweth Ephes. 2. that the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone But the Church of England beléeueth and professeth all the Apostles faith and condemneth whatsoeuer is contrary to the same
S. Ambrose and S. Augustine he saith It was presumed and foretold that they would be such before they were Christians indeed But in the Legend of S. Martin it is said he was a Christian at the age of twelue yeares and nothing doth Parsons alledge wherby we may vnderstand that any prophesie was made by any of the future Christianitie of Nectarius Ambrose and Augustine In his preface speaking of the Church most ridiculously he compareth it to a mansion house and the markes thereof to charters ridiculously I say For first there is great difference betwéene a mysticall body and a naturall bodie the Church being changed albeit men continue and a mansion house not being moued although the right be translated to others Next Charters do rather shew which are the bounds and markes of lands then may be called the marks of them and are rather compared to Scriptures then to the markes assigned by Papists Lastly this similitude of a mansion house doth ouerthrow the cause of the synagogue of Rome For the mansion house of the Church is in no one particular place and the Charters of the Church are rather holy Scriptures then Popish Decretals In the same place he alledgeth Alexander Halensis 3. part q. 79. to proue That a man hath two lights whereby he may vnderstand matters of faith But in that part he hath only 69. questions and nothing of the two lights Durandus also is there cited in nu 39. but neither booke nor section noted Doth it not séeme therefore that Parsons as he hath long since lost the light of faith so is now become destitute of the light of humane reason Pag. 9. he alledgeth Tertullian de Coena Domini who neuer wrote any book De Coena Domini It may be he mistooke Tertullian for Cyprian Pag. 14. He saith Peter and Paule were put to death the 14. and last yeare of Nero. But Baronius and diuers learned men say they died in the 13. yeare of his raigne Others deny that they dyed both in one yeare Pag. 43. He citeth an Epistle of Basill Ad Innocentium But in Basils works no such Epistle is to be found And certes strange it were if Basill should write to Innocentius Bishop of Rome seeing he died twenty yeares at the least before Innocentius came to be Bishop there as Canisius in his Chronology and Baronius in his Annales to go nofurther might haue taught him Pag. 54. He alledgeth Eusebius lib. 7. hist. c. 29. where there are but 26. chapters of that booke in Christophersons version And pag. 55. he mentioneth two bookes of S. Augustine ad quaest Ianuarij which are more then he euer saw or we can find in the workes of S. Augustine Percase he meant S. Augustines 118. Epistle ad Ianuar. But there is no mention made of such mysteries concerning immoueable or moueable feasts as our dreaming aduersarie fancieth Pag. 67. He alledgeth Theodoret lib. 6. c. 9. whereas his historie containeth onely fiue bookes Pag. 77. He nameth one Photinus a Bishop of France and Ado Bishop of Treues whereas he cannot find any Photinus Bishop in the time of Irenaeus and might well know that Ado the Chronicler was of Vienna and not of Treues Pag. 104. He braggeth That he will proue the Pope the Masse Transubstantiation and the vse of Images Via negatiua Which passeth the reach of common foolerie For who euer heard of affirmatiue propositions proued by negatiues Or who is so sottish to take impudent denials for proofes Pag. 106. Where S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptis contr Donatist c. 6. speaketh of the custome of not rebaptizing Christians once baptized by Heretikes our ignorant aduersarie supposeth he talketh of the custome of baptizing of infants Pag. 111. He alledgeth the ninth booke of S. Ambrose De Sacramentis and supposeth these words Non valebit Sermo Christi c. to be found in the fourth fifth and ninth booke De Sacramentis and these words Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat c. to be in the same bookes Whereas these words are taken out of the booke De ijs qui initiantur c. and the former are onely found in one booke of Ambrose and neither make for his purpose Pag. 119. There can be no doubt thereof saith he speaking of the Popish doctrine of Sacraments And why trow you Forsooth because the conuenticle of Trent the Master of sentences and Thomas of Aquine haue taught it I would therefore pray all moderate men attentiuely to consider this fellowes either madnesse or ignorance We do by arguments out of Scriptures and Fathers refute the impious doctrine of the conuenticle of Trent Lombard and Aquinas And yet he thinketh it sufficient by the testimonie of his owne fellowes most partially deposing in their owne cause to refute our arguments grounded vpon Scriptures Fathers and other authenticall witnesses Pag. 120. He saith Popish auricular confession is in it selfe repugnant to mans sensuall nature As if it were not as natural to confesse a truth as to deny it This we find that nothing is more beneficial to Massepriests or more pleasing to man then to haue absolution after confession And by this engine the Pope doth work many wonders to maintaine his state Pag. 123. He signifieth that Irenaeus lib. 5. aduers. haeres speaketh for the supremacie of the Pope whereas the Pope is not once mentioned in that place vnlesse it be where he foretelleth that Antichrist tyrannically shall take vpon him as God Ipse se tyrannico more saith he conabitur ostendere Deum Pag. 133. And otherwhere he supposeth that we are bound to defend all the singular opinions of the Magdeburgians But if we alledge to Papists the opinions of Bellarmine Baronius Suarez Stapleton or other Popish proctors they think themselues not tyed to their particular doctrines Againe he imagineth because the Magdeburgians mislike some of the Fathers in some things y t therfore we mislike thē But neither do we in all things hold w t the Magd. nor do they condemne y e Fathers y t in some singular points dissentfrō thē Pag. 146. A Treatise De bono pudicitiae and a Sermon De natiuitate Christi is alledged vnder the name of Cyprian And yet it is méere simplicitie to suppose them to be Cyprians Pag. 165. For the title De Regularibus In sexto he alledgeth De Reg. iuris lib. 6. mistaking chalke for chéese And for the 25. Session of the conuenticle of Trent he citeth 28. whereas there are not so many in all Pag. 181. He alledgeth an Oration of Chrysostome Contra gentes with this title Quòd vnus est Deus whereas the true argument is Quòd Christus sit Deus Pag. 239. He talketh of the burning of William Tracie And yet by the acts that concerne him it appeareth he died quietly in his bed and that his religion was not discouered but by his testament after his death Pag. 268. he mentioneth the Bishop of Cardiffe whereas euery