THE FIRST CHAPTER. VVhat Religion was in this Land, before the comminge of S. Austin.

THE ancient Inhabitans of this Iland, were the Britons, whome wee now call Welch-men. Amongst whome the faith of Christ was first planted by the glorious Apostles S. Metaph. in Sur. Iun. Cambd. descript. Brit. pa 52. Baron. an. 58. p. 597. 401. Peter S. Theod. l. 9 de Graec. Sophron. Natal. A­post. Fortu­nat. Bale cent. 1. c. 26 Cambd. in Britan. p. 52. Paul, S. Nicep. l. 2. c. 40 Do­roth. in Sy­nop. Symon, and the Apostolick men S. D. Caius de antiq. Cātabr. Capgrau. in Ios. Bale cent. 1. c. 22. vbi & citat Fleming, Scrop. Po­lid. Geo. maiorem Cambd. l. cit. Ioseph of Arimathia (who bu­ried our Sauiour) and S. Doroth. in Synop. Aristobulus, of whome S. Paul maketh mention in his [Page 2] Epistle to the Romans. All these, Prote­stants grant to haue preached Christs faith in this Iland, except Saint Peter; to whome some of them will not haue this Land so much behoulden. Which que­stion, because it is besides my purpose, I wil not stand to discusse. Onely I as­sure the indifferent Reader, that S. Peters preaching to the ancient Britons on the one side is affirmed, both by Latin and Grecke, by ancient and newe, by foraine & domesticall, by Catholick writers (such as Camb. pa. 80 627. 628. de Ba­ron. Protestants them selues account most excellent, learned and great Historiographers) & by Protestāt Antiquaries, such as D. Bucley 8. Reas. art. vlt. p. 175. of Camb. Pro­testant Diuines terme excellent Antiquaries, and excellent men: And on the other side de­nied by no one ancient writer, Greeke or Latin, foraine or domestical, Catholick or other. And what better proofe will wee require to beleeue a thing done so long agoe, than the assertion of men so many, learned, of such different ages, of such dif­ferent contries, of such different religion, who haue not ben gainsaid by any one an­cient writer? To argue against such varie­tie & grauitie of testimonies without any anciēt writers testimony to the cōtrary, is indeed rather to cauill (which is no mai­stery to doe against such anciēt facts) than to reason, & to shew a minde more auer­ted [Page 3] from S. Peter and his Successors, than desirous of truth or honor of his Contrie.

2. This faith thus planted amongst the Britons by the Apostles and Apostolick men, perished not after their departure, but remained, as Gildas c. 7. writeth apud quosdam integrè, amongst some entire, and about the yeare of our Lord 158. was meruail­lously increased, and cōfirmed by meanes of Pope Eleutherius, who sending hither at the request of Lucius then King of the Britons, his two Legats, S. Fugatius and S. Damian, the King, Queene, and almost all the people were baptized, and this Land was the first that publickly profes­sed the faith of Christ, and iustly deserued the title of Primogenita Ecclesiae. For testimo­ny of this, we can produce not onely such variety, and weight of witnesses, as for the former, to wit English. Beda l 1. c. 4. Malmes. in fast. Eth­elvverd l. 1. Hunting li. 1. Florent. an. 184. VVestm. an. 185 Sander. lib de schis. [...]eland in Bale p. 23. VVelch. Ga [...]fred l. 4. c 19. Nan­nius hist. Land [...]ffen. K [...]ng Ar­thur. Foraine. Damasus in Pont Ado. Marian in Chron. Pla­tina in Eleuther Geneb. Martin. Polon. Pon­ticus Virun. Polidor. Bo­ethius l. 5. hist. Baron. mart. Rom. 26. Maij. Protestāts Bale cen. 1. c. 22. 28. 29 Camb. in Brit p. 51. & 628. Stovv anno 179 Holins. p. 74. Caius l. 1. de ant. Godvvin in S. Austin Bilson of o­bedience p. 57. Cooper an. 180. Fox l. 1. p. 51. l. 2. p. 106. 107. D. Sutclif. ansvver to 3. Conuers. c. 2. Latin, English, dome­stical, strangers, Catholick, and Protestāts, but euen all our English histories, and in a maner all foraine writers, which intreate of these tymes. And finally, the letters patents of King Arthur alleaged by D. Caius a Protestant lib. 1. de Antiq. Cantab. where he saith, that all know this to be true, and Godwin in the life of S. Paulin, ad­deth, that it cannot be denyed. Wherby we may see the impudēcy of a Minister, who is not ashamed without all testimony to [Page 4] the contrary, to deny this Conuersion of Britany by the Popes meanes, and to say, that no authenticall author auoucheth it: but that it is a fable, and seemeth to be deuised by some fauourers of the Church of Rome. Which here in the beginning I note, to aduertise the indifferent Reader, that he giue no beleefe to such impudent fellowes deniall without any sufficient witnesse.

3. The Christian faith thus receaued, the Britons kept not onely sound, Gildas de oxcid c. 7. Bed. l. 1. c. 4 and vndefiled from heresies a long tyme, but quiet also from troubles, and persecutions vntil the reign of Diocletian the Empe­ror, Gildas c. 7. Bed. l. 1. c. 6 who began in the yeare of our Lord 286. & for ten yeares space raised a more cruel persecution against the Christians, than euer had ben before: which passing into this Iland honored it with the glorie of many holy Martyrs, Gildas c. 8. who constantly stood, and died in the confession of their faith. Of whome cheefly are named Saint Alban, (whose miracles and martyrdom are largly set downe by S. Beda lib. 1. c. 7.) and Iulius, and Aaron. This storme of per­secution being ouerblown, Constantin the Great, a Briton borne, receaued the Christian faith, & exalted it in the whole Empire of Rome. In whose tyme arose the Arian heresie, which running through the world, corrupted also this Iland, and [Page 5] shortly after all manner of heresies flowed in, Heresies enter into England. & was there receaued of the inhabitants, being men (as saith S. Gildas their Coun­tryman) euer delighted to heare new things, and stedfastly retainning nothing certain. And for these heresies, and other vices were the Britons plagued by God with extreme famin, wonderful pestilence, in so much as the quick were not sufficient to bury the dead, and with most cruel, & blooddy warre of the Picts and Scotts, as yow may read in Gildas, and in Beda lib. 1. c. 12. & 14. But for the accomplishmēt of their iniquities, after all this, they admitted the Pelagian heresie, Heresie bane of a Country. which hastned their de­solation, and almost vtter destruction brought sone after vpon them by the Sa­xons, or English. For as S. Beda saith lib. 1. c. 17. a few yeares before the cōming of the Saxons into this Land (which saith he lib. 1. c. 15. was in the yeare of our Lord 429.) the Pelagian here­sies were brought in. See S. Bed. l. 1. c. 17. & seq. But of this heresie the Land was after rid by the disputation and miracles, first of S. German and Lupus sent by Pope Celestinus anno 429. & after by the same S. German and Seuerus anno 435. ex Baronio.

4. After this tyme in this place the faith long tyme (saith S. Beda lib. 1. c. 21.) re­mained sound and vndefiled. But at last, in all, or most of the Britons it was corrupted [Page 6] by an erroneous opinion about the tyme of keeping Easter, The Britōs error a­bout Eas­ter far dif­ferēt from the Quar­tadecimās See Euseb. 5. hist c 24. 25. Austin ser. 29 Epi­ph. haer 50. Theod li. 3. de haeres. which was not (as Beda well quoteth lib. 3. c. 4.) the error of the Iewes, or Quartadeciman hereticks. For the Quartadecimans alwayes kept their Easter on one set day of the moone, to wit on the 15. day after the equinoctial, and regarded no set day of the weeke. The Britons contrary wise celebrated their Easter alwayes on one set day in the weeke, to wit on Sonday, as Catholicks doe, and obserued not any set day of the moone, VVherin the Britōs erred tou­ching Ea­ster. as the Quartadecimans did. The onely differēce betwene them & Catho­licks was, that wheras Catholicks accor­ding to the appointemēt of the Cōncel of Nice kept their Easter on the Sōday from the 15. day of the moone to the 21. the Bri­tons kept it on the Sonday from the 14. of the moone to the 20. and so they both in­cluded one whole day within the cōpas of celebrating Easter, to wit the 14. day of the moone, which neither Iew nor Christian els included, and excluded the 21. day, which the law expresly commanded. Exod. 11. Which proceeded of mere ignorance in them. For as S. Beda saith lib. 3. c. 4. They knew as Christian men doe, that the Resurrection of our Lord ought alwayes to be celebrated on Son­day, but as ignorant men (in that point) they had not learned, when that Sonday should come. [Page 7] Because (as S. Wilfrid in S. Beda li. 3. c. 25. said) no cunning Calculator of tymes or Astro­nomer had come to them.

Herby it appeareth how fondly some Ministers haue inferred that the Britons, Magd. cent. 2. c. 2. Fox p. 95. The Britōs error came not from Asia. because of this error in keeping Easter, learned their faith of the Asian Churches, where the Quartadecimans were. Both because the Britons error was not the 1 Quartadecimans error, but much diffe­rent; as also because the Britons in Con­stantins 2 tyme (when Religion began first to florish) agreed with the Roman vse of celebrating Easter, as testfieth the said Cō ­stantin their Countrey man, who in Eu­seb. lib. 3. de vita Constantini, c. 8. witnesseth that the same keeping of Easter was ob­serued in the Citty of Rome in Italie, Africk, Egypt, Spaine, France, Britannie, Lybia, and all Greece, in the Diocesse of Asia, and Pontus, and fi­nally in Cilicia, Vnâ & consentiente sententiâ, with one vniforme consent. Moreouer because 3 as S. Beda li. 1. c. 11. saith, that after the for­said expulsion of the Pelagian heresie, the Britons kept the faith, sounde and vndefiled, which he neuer would then haue said, if then they had held their error of Easter, because this error he vtterly detested, as him self saith lib. 3. c. 16. and lib. 2. c. 19. calleth it Heresie. And finally B. Colman pleading in England for the Britons obseruation of [Page 8] Easter, and alleadging therto the antiqui­tie of his Countrymen, ascendeth no hi­gher than Abbot Columba, VVhē the Britōs er­ror rose. who came out of Ireland into Britanie, but anno 563. as Beda saith lib. 3. c. 4. which was 33. yeares before S. Austins comming hither, and dyed as Sigebert in Chron. and Bale write anno 598. that is, two yeares after 5 S. Austins entrance here. Nether did he euer auouch that the Britons, or Scotts had ben taught that costom of the Asians, but gathered it themselues by misunder­standing S. Anatholius his writings, Pope Iohn 4. in Bed. l. 2. c. 9. attri­buteth it to ignorance. VVhence it arose. and by imagining that S. Iohn Euangelist kept it so, wherof nether was true, as S. Wil­frid prooued to his face, in Beda lib. 3. c. 25. The author therfore of this error among the Britons was no Asian, but their owne ignorance (through rude simplicitie, as Saint Wilfrid saith) of true calculation of fin­ding the true tyme of Easter. And the tyme when this ignorance tooke effect (as it apeareth by S. Beda's forsaid words lib. 1. c. 11.) was not long before S. Austins comming. And for Scotland, Beda lib. 2. cap. 29. writeth that by the letters of Pope Iohn 4. written in the yeare 638. or as Baron. saith, 639. to the Scotts, it appea­reth plainly, that at that tyme this heresie was but a litle before risen in Scotland, and that not all the Contrie, but certain of them onely were infected [Page 9] therwith. Which also appeareth by S. Gre­gory lib. 9. epist. 61. which he writeth to Qui­rinus & caeteris in Hibernia Episcopis Catholicis. But as for the Britons it seemeth by Saint Beda lib. 2. cap. 2. that they were generally all infected with this error, Galfrid mo­num. li. 11. c. 12. VVestmon. an. 596. Godvvin Catalog. of Bishops, in S. Paulin. when S. Au­stin entred this land. And as for the rest of this Kingdom where the English dwelt they (as both Welch & English Historio­graphers agree) pagana superstitione caecati &c. blinded in Heathenish superstition they had extinguished all Christianity in that parte of the Land where they dwelt. And as S. Beda wri­teth lib. 2. c. 1. were all then Pagans and had ben euer vntill that tyme bondslaues of Idols. Miserable estate of Britany before S. Austine cōming. This was the lamentable estate of Eng­land and Wales before S. Austin came, miserably opprest, partly with heresy, partly with infidelity.

CHAP. II. That S. Austin was the first Prea­cher of the Christian Faith to our English Nation.

THat our English Nation came hither out of Germanie, being sent for of the Britons to ayde them against the Scotts, and Picts, all Historiographers agree, but they disagree somwhat about the tyme. For some write that it was in the yeare of Christ 449. but S. Beda lib. 1. c. 15. saith that it was in the yeare 449. and later in­deede it could not be. Sigeb. Chro. saith. an. 431. Mal­mesb l. 1. an. 449. Bal. cent. 2. c. 43. an. 448. Cābd. in Brit an. 450. VVhē our English nation entred this land. Because at S. Ger­mans first comming hither (which was in the yeare 429. as S. Prosper who then liued recordeth) the Saxons (as S. Beda. lib. 1. c. 20. affirmeth) waged war with the Britons. For being Pagans, and ignorant of God, and seeing the Land fruitfull, and the Britons feeble, they measured right by might, and turned their wepons a­gainst the silly Britōs, whome they partly killed, Galfrid Mon l. 17. c. 12. Godvvin in vit. Paulin. partly droue ouer seas or into those hilly places, which now are called Wales. And in this parte of the Land; which they possessed, extinguished (as both En­glish [Page 11] and Welch writers record) all Chri­stianitie, and continewed in their Paga­nisme, which they brought with them, for the space almost of 200. yeares, til (as S. Beda lib. 2. c. 1. and others record) S. Gregory seeing certaine English youths sould for slaues in Rome, Vpō vvhat occasion S. Gregory sent S. Austin hither and learning of them that their nation was Heathen, got leaue of the Pope (being then him selfe a Monke) to come to preach to them: but was recalled at the importunitie of the Romans: yet him self being after made Po­pe (and as S. Beda speaketh high Bishop ouer the whole world) did in the yeare 596 send hither S. Austin, and his cōpany to preach Christs faith vnto them. Which truth, that S. Austin was the first preacher of Christian faith vnto our English Nation here in England, S. Austin the first preacher of Christi­anity vn­to our na­tion. hath bene alwaies hi­therto as vndoubted, as it is euident, and manifest. But now because D. Sutclif in his Subuersion of the three Conuersions, c. 3. hath called it in question, and is desi­rous rather to giue the glorie to a French man and woman, to Queene Bertha, and Bishop Luidhard, who were then in England, or to captiue Britons, whome he supposeth to haue liued amongst the English, than to S. Austin, I will prooue it by as many proofes as can be desired for the beleefe of any ancient thing.

[Page 12] S. Gregory.2. S. Gregory himself, who sent S. Au­stin, writing lib. 7. Epist. 30. to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria, saith thus: VVhiles the English Nation dwelling in a corner of the worlde, remained til now infidel in the worship of wood and stones, by the help of your praier it see­med good to me, God being the Author, to send a Monk of my monastery to preach to them. The same he testifieth lib. 27. Moral. c. 8. and in diuers letters lib. 9. Epi. 52. 56. 59, and in S. Beda lib. 1. c. 27. 29. 30. 31. 32. which for breuitie I omit. And the same witnesse di­uers other Popes as Boniface, Honorius, Vita­lian, Sergius, Gregorius and Formosus, wherof some were aliue in S. Austins tyme, and others liued not long after, whose letters are extant in Malmesb. lib. 2. Pont. Ang. pag. 208. pag. 209. S. Austins compani­ons. Likwise S. Laurence, S. Mel­lit, S. Iustus, three companions of S. Austin, in their publick letters to the Scotts in S. Beda lib. 2. c. 4. write, that the English, to whome they were sent to preach the word of God, were Paynim people, and hea­then men. English­men, In like maner the English youths before mentioned being asked of S. Gre­gory, whether they were Christiās or no, answered (as testifyeth Ethelwerd an an­cient Historiographer of the blood royal of England) No: nor as yet hath any preached this vnto vs. The mer­chants. And the merchants added ex Beda lib. 2. c. 1. that they were all Paynims. And [Page 13] the very Epitaph set vpon Saint Austins tombe after his death testifieth, S. Austins epitaph. that he conuerted King Ethelbert and his Realme from the worshiping of Idolls to the faith of Christ, in Beda lib. 2. c. 3. Thus yow se both priuat and publick, both foraine and domestical testimonies, euen of that tyme when S. Austin liued, contest, that before his com­ming our English Nation was Heathen. wherto I wil add a few witnesses in the ages after, that the reader may be assu­red how vndoubted a truth this hath ben hertofore.

3. S. Beda who liued within 80. yeares after S. Austin saith plainly lib. 2. c. 1. that our Nation had ben euer to that time the bond­slaue of Idols. And Alcuin his scholler, S. Beda. but maister to Charles the Great in Malmesb. lib. 1. Pont. Ang. pag. 199. & 1. Reg. c. 14. calleth S. Austin our First Teacher, Alcuin. and Canterbury the First Seat of faith. King Kenulph, who liued within 200. yeares after S. Austin, King Ke­nulph. writing letters to Pope Leo 3. in his own name, & in the name of the Bishops, Duks and all the Nobility of his Realme, confesseth, that from Rome Nobis Fidei veritas innotuit, and that, that Sea imbued his Nation rudimentis fidei. K. VVith­laf. King Withlaf in his Charter in Ingulph. pag. 858. calleth S. Austin the Apostle of our Nation. Odo. Odo Arch­bishop of Canterbury, writing about [Page 14] 800. yeares agoe to his Suffragans, saith that from the Sea of Canterbury, Augustini & aliorum studiis Religio Christianitatis primùm cunctis finibus Anglorum innotuit. And in a Sy­nod held in the yeare 747. of all the Bi­shops of England in presence of the King, Tvvo En­glish Sy­nods. and Nobles, S. Austin is called Pater noster, and in honour of him they were wont to keepe his day most solemnly. And in an other Synod held about 500. yeares since, Lanfranc Archbishop of Cāterbury saith: Quis nesciat quòd à Cantia manauit Chri­sti credulitas in ceteras omnes Angliae Ecclesias. Superfluous it were to add to these the testimonies of such as haue lyued since, Protestāts confesse S. Austin to haue ben our first prea­cher. Fox. both foraine and domesticall historiogra­phers, who all deliuer this for as certain a truth as can be. Onely for the confusion of Sutclif and such as he, I will add the confession of some Protestants. Fox in his Acts and Monuments lib. 4. pag. 172. The Saxons ouercomming the Land deuided them selues into seuen Kingdoms: And so being Infidells, and Pagans continued til the time that Gregory, being Bishop of Rome sent Austin to preach vnto them. The like he hath lib. 2. pag. 110. 115. and in his Protestat: Holins­head. pag. 9. Holinshead in de­script. of Britany lih. 11. c. 7. Austin was sent by Gregory to preach to English men the word of God, who were yet blinde in Pagan superstition. And an. 596. Gregory sent Austin into this Ile [Page 15] to preach the Christian faith vnto the English-Saxons, which Nation as yet had not receaued the gospel. Godwin in the life of S. Austin: Godvvin. The Saxons not onely expelled Christian Religion, but the followers of the same into a corner of this I­land. And our Contrie being in a maner all growne ouer with Paganisme, for ther was no publick allowance of Christian Religion anywhere, but in VValles, It pleased God to giue this occasion of re­plāting the same here again. And telleth, how Saint Gregory seeing English boies sold at Rome, The En­glish vvithout any inc­kling of the gos­pel before S. Austin. was mooued to send Prea­chers. And in the life of S. Paulin: VVhen the Saxons had gotten possession of this Realme, the Britons that were the ould Inhabitants being driuen into a corner therof; The rest was without any knowledg, or inckling (Note) of the Gospel. And Cambd. in descript. Brit. pag. 104. wri­teth, Cambden that S. Austin hauing rooted out the Monsters of Heathenish superstition, ingrafting Christ in English mens mindes with most happie successe conuerted them to the faith. Who will see more Protestants, may read Bale cent. 1. c. 73. cent. 13. c. 1. Whitaker contr. Dur. pag. 394. Fulk 1. Cor. 4. Cooper Chron. an. 599. Stow 596.

4. Now let vs see what Sutclif can say against this so confessed a truth. For sooth that the English had notice of the Chri­stian Religiō before S. Austin his cōming, because some Britons liued amongst [Page 16] them, and also because King Ethelberts wife Bertha was a Christian, and had a Christian Bishop with her named Luid­hard. Are not these (think wee) sounde reasons to wrastle withal against such vniform consent both of his owne, and our writers? As if we denyed that the En­glish had any notice of Christianity before S. Austins cōming, but such it was as the great Turk hath without any beleefe, or liking therof. And as for the Britons they were so far from preaching of their owne accord, as by no persuasion, en­treaty, Britons refused to preach to the En­glish. or threatful prophesie of Saint Austin they could be brought to do it, as testifieth S. Beda lib. 2. c. 2. and Gal­frid lib. 11. cap. 12. Besides that as Bale writeth cent. 1. c. 7. & Boeth. hist. Scot. lib. 9. pag. 171. Aspernabantur Angli dogmata Britāno­rum. The English (for the hatred of the men) despised the Religion of the Britons. Q. Betta neglected to persu­ade King Ethelbert to the faith. And con­cerning the English Queene, she was no English but a French woman, and before S. Austins comming she had neglected to persuade her husban as S. Gregory lib 9. Epi. 59. testifieth, who rebuketh her ther­fore. And her Bishop was not sent to preach to the English, Other na­tions ne­glect vs, and onely Rome helpeth. but as Beda saith lib. 1. c. 25. to assist her, and help her in her faith. Nether doth he make any mention of this Bishops preaching to our Nation. And for [Page 17] other Nations about vs S. Gregory lib. 5. Epist. 59. writeth that he heard that the English would willingly be come Chri­stians. Sed Sacerdotes qui in vicino sunt Pastora­lem erga eos Curam nō habere: but that the Priests about them tooke no care of them. Be it therfor certaine that the first that preached Chri­stian faith to our English Nation was S. Austin, Hovv S. Austin is our Apo­stle. Malm. l. 1. Hist. c. 2. Godvvin in vit. Augu­stin. Holins­head Chro. an. 602. Apologie for oath of allegiance p. 92. 93. Iouius des­cript. Bri­tan. whome therfor Pope Honorius lit. ad Regem Edwin. apud Bedam lib. 2. c. 17. King Withlaf as we heard before, and ca­tholick English writers, and some Prote­stants also as Cambden Descript. Britan. pag. 515. and 178. Bale cent. 13. c. 7. cent. 14. c. 13. call the Apostle of England. Nether ought Sutclif or others to be offended with this title, because wee call not him absolutly an Apostle, or Apostle of the whole world as the 12. were, who were sent in Vniuer­sum mundum, but with this restriction of England. So S. Paul called Epaphroditus the Apostle of the Philippians, Philip. 2. and Protestants call Tindal and Latimer Apostles of England, as yow may see in Bale cent. 8. c. 72. 85. and Fox.

CHAP. III. That S. Austin and his fellowes prea­ching tooke great effect in ou English Nation.

BEcause some Ministers albeit they can not deny but S. Austin preached the faith of Christ here in England, yet will extenuatt his benefit as much as they can, & say that onely a few Saxons were behoulding vnto him, Ministers vngratul. Sutclif lib. cit. c. 3. and that nether Austin nor Gregory de­serued any great praise for the conuersion of the Saxons, or English. I will breefly touch what great good he and his fellowes here did. First therfor him self, Kingdom of Kent conuerted by S. Austin. though (through the excessiue paines which he tooke) he liued but a short time: yet did he conuert Ethelbert King of Kent, whose dominion reached vnto Humber, & many of his people as S. Beda witnesseth lib. 1. c. 26. and christened at one tyme ten thousand as Saint Gregory lib. 7. Epi. 30. Epitaph. of S. Austin saith he conuerted this Kings people. Fox Acts pag. 119. Cambden in Britan. p. 105. and others do testifie. Fox. p. 116. addeth, that he con­uerted innumerable. And pag. 118. Baptized a great parte. And Godwin in vit. Aug. saith, he conuerted all the said Kings people. Besides [Page 19] this he sent S. Mellit to London, where he conuerted Sebret King of Essex. And after he had gained (saith Malmesb. 2. part. histor. p. 250) Kent to Christ, S. Austin trauaileth through almost all England. trauailed through­out all the rest of the English Prouinces, so far as the Kingdom of Ethelbert reached. Yet Fox Acts p. 119. and Cambden lib. cit. say, that he passed beyond the dominion of King Ethelbert, and christened many thou­sands in the riuer Swale. Christe­ned ten thousands at once. Trauai­leth bare­foote. Erecteth Archb. Bishop­ricks and monast. Beda l. 1. c. 26. 33. li. 2. c. 3. Capgr. in vit. Au­gustini. Cambden in Brit. p. 178. 438. 490. Ealred in vit. Ed­vvardi. Laboreth to reduce the Bri­tons. And this trauail he tooke (saith Capgraue in his life) on foote, and for the most parte barefoote, and had great knobbs on his knees with continual kneeling in prayer. Besides in his tyme he procured the erecting of the Archbishoprick of Can­terbury, and the Bishoprick of London, and Rochester, & the foundations of the Monasteries of the Austins in Canterbu­ry, Westminster in London, Ely in Cam­bridgshier, and Cernel in Dorsetshier. And as S. Beda lib. 2. c. 4. Laied the foundation of our Church well and strongly. And not content to labor thus for the cōuersion of English mē, endeuored also to reduce the Britons to the right faith, and tooke therin (saith Godwin) much paines. Gathered (as yow may see in Beda lib. 2. c 2.) two meetings of their Diuines, & conuinced their error both by disputation and miracles. All partes of Englād beholden to S. Austin. Wher­by wee may see that all parts of England both South, West, East, North, and Wales [Page 20] to are greatly behoulden to Saint Austin. The la­bores of S. Austins fellovves. S. Lau­rence. 2. After Saint Austins death (which was as some write about ten yeares after his cōming hither) S. Laurence his fellow laborer, and successor, conuerted Edbald secōd Christian King of Kent. And taught the Papists faith (saith Bale cent. 13. c. 2.) al­most in all the dominions of the English men. And besides wrote letters which are extant in Beda lib. 2. c. 4. to the Scottish, and Irish people who were entangled in the Bri­tons error. And as Bale writeth cent. 1. c. 74. held a Coūcell with thē for that purpose in the Ile of Man. Yea as Capgraue hath in his life, he went to Scotland, and there conuerted Tenan Archbishop of Irland to the true obseruation of Easter. S. Iustus. S. Iu­stus also another fellow worker, and suc­cessor of S. Austin, conuerted so many, as Pope Boniface in Beda lib. 2. c. 8. writeth to him thus, yow may shew whole Contries plentifullie multiplied in the faith by yow. And both of him, S. Mellit. and S. Mellit his Predecessor S. Beda lib. 2. c. 7. giueth this testimony, they ruled, & gouerned the English Church with great labor, S. Paulin. and diligence. Finally S. Paulin an other of S. Austins fellow laborers, and first Archbishop of York, conuerted, and baptized Edwin King of the North parte of England, and by conquest ouer Eng­land, Wales and the Hebrides Iles, with all [Page 21] the nobility (saith Beda lib. 2. c. 14.) of his Con­trie and most parte of the common people. And, as he addeth c. 17. all his subiects of the Northen parts. And such paines herein S. Paulin tooke, that as S. Beda saith c. 14. cit. he stayed in one place 36. dayes togeather from morning to euening, instructing and baptizing the people. And by meanes of King Edwin was also Redwald King of Est-england and for a while the poten­test King of England, conuerted and Christened, and also his sonne Carpwald. Finally to conclude by Saint Austin and his fellow laborers were six English Kings conuerted from Paganisme to Christs faith, to wit, Ethelbert, Sebert, S. Austin & his fel­lovves conuerted six English Kings and foure Kingdōe. Edbald, Edwin, Redwald, Carpwald. A­mongst whome Ethelbert, Edwin, and Redwald were the most puissant Kings of their tyme. And of the 7. Kingdoms which then were, they conuerted foure viz. the Kingdom of Kent, Kingdom of Est-Saxons, Beda lib. 2. c. 16. Cambd. p. 178. Founded tvvo Archb. tvvo Bis­hop. fiue Cathedral Churches, six mona­steries. Est-angles and the Kingdom of the North, and preached, and founded Churches in the fifth Kingdom of Mercia at Lincoln, & in the sixt of Westsaxons at Cernel in Dorsetshier. Founded the two Archbishopricks of Canterbury, & York, and the Bishopricks of London, and Ro­chester, erected the Cathedral Churches of Canterbury, Rochester, London, Lin­coln, [Page 22] and York, Beda sup. Cambd. p. 490. Capgrau in Augustino Ealred in Edvvardo. and the Collegiat Church in Southwel. Began the monasteries of the Austins, and Christs Church in Can­terbury, of Westminster in London, of Ely in Cābridgshier, of Cernel in Dorset­shier. Wherby it appeareth that not onely a few Saxons (as Sutclif speaketh) but the whole nations of English, English. Scottish VVelch, I­rish grea­tly bound to S. Au­stin and his fello­vves. Scottish, Welch and Irish were infinitly behouldē to Saint Austin, and his fellowes, for leauing their Contrie, for comming so far a iorney as is from Rome, for venturing into a barba­rous, and vnknown Contry as ours then was, for hazarding their liues among fierse, and sauage people, for recalling so many Kings, and Kingdoms from Paga­nisme to Christianitie, for laboring so much to reduce Hereticks, for erecting so many Episcopal Sees, and Monasteries, and finally for spending their liues here a­mong vs. And if any parte of this land tooke no great commoditie by them, it was not to be attributed to them, but to the peoples owne negligence, and obsti­nacy. D. VVhi­tak. more gratefull than Sut­clif. Wherfor D. Whitaker as far more gratfull than Sutclif lib. 5. cont Dur. pag. 394. speaking of our conuersion by S. Grego­ry meanes, saith: That he did vs a great benefit we will alwaies gratfully remember. And now hauing shewed that S. Austin. was the first Preacher of Christs faith to our Na­tion [Page 23] in England, let vs see what qualities he had fit for so high a function to wit what learning and vertue.

CHAP. IIII. That Saint Austin was a great Clerk and excellent Diuine.

SOme Ministers are so spitefull against S. Austin our Apostle, as they seeke all occasions they can to dishonor him. Wher vpon Bale cent. 13. c. 1. saith he was ignorant in holy scriptures, and the questions which he sent to S. Gregory and are extant in S. Beda lib. 1. c. 27. were most vnsauorie and voide of all knowledg of the Gospel, and law of God. But no maruell if he, and suchlike condemne S. Austin as vnlearned, who dare condemne the gloriousest lights of Christianitie, the greatest Doctors of Gods Church of blindnes, and ignoran­ce. But how great a Clerk S. Austin was, Argumēts of S. Au­stins great learning. though we had no euident testimony, we might our selues gather by many waies. For as touching his wit, and capacitie of learning, it may suffice that he was an Italian, and Roman, His vvit. whome in wit we know to excell. The place where he stu­died [Page 24] was Rome, His place of studie. where at that tyme as Ioan. Diacon. in vit. Gregor. lib. 2. c. 13. Rerum sapientiâ cū septem artibus floruit. His Mai­ster. His Maister was S. Gregory him self, one of the foure Doctors of the Church, as witnesse S. Be­da Epi. ad Ceolwolph Regem, Ethelwerd lib. 2. c. 1. Malmesb. lib. 1. Pont. p. 195. Amongst his schole-fellowes one was (as it see­meth) that great Doctor of Spaine S. I­sidore. His scoole fellovves. For as Genebr. and Sigebert in Chron. do write, he was scholer to Saint Gregory. His ende­uour. And for S. Austins indeuor to attaine to learning, for proofe therof it may suffice that he was a Monk of Saint Gregoreis owne Monastery, where men were not (doubtles) suffered to loose their tyme, brought vp there vnder regular dis­cipline, and at last made Praepositus eius­dem Monasterij, Superior of the same Monastery. All which testifieth S. Gregory him self lib. 7. Epi. 30. 112. and lib. 2. c. 13. and S. Beda, lib. 1. c. 27. His profit. And finally for his profit in lear­ning, it may suffice that it appeareth by the choice made of him among so many learned men, as then were in Rome, and made by so great a Doctor as S. Gregory was, and so careful to chuse sufficient men, and made for so great a matter as to be Dux verbi, First Preacher of Christian saith to Infidells, and conuerter of learned hereticks. For if S. Gregory required so [Page 25] great skill in euery Pastor of soules as he wrote lib. Pastor. that Gouernment of soules is the arte of arts; How much would he re­quire in him to whome he committed the care of all the Infidells, and Hereticks in so great a Kingdom as this is? And besi­des this the care of S. Gregory to send hi­ther a great learned man, may apeare by the like great care which Pope Vitalian had afterward, as is to be seene in Beda lib. 4. c. 1. to prouide a great, and famous Deuine for the Archbishoprick of Can­terbury euen after all England was con­uerted. For neither was Pope Vitalian more ready to furnish England with lear­ned Pastors, thā S. Gregory was, nor was he more able to iudg of their learning, nor had he more choice of learned men. If therfor Pope Vitalian sent hither such learned men as S. Theodor and S. Adrian were, what shall we think of S. Austin and his fellowes sent by S. Gregory?

2. But besides these collections of ours we haue a testimony of S. Austins great learning Omni exceptione maius. S. Grego­ries testi­monie of S. Austins great lear­ning. For S. Gre­gory his Maister who best knew him, and was best able to iudg, and for his holines and rare humilitie was least likly to lye, or praise his scholler beyond his deserts, wri­ting to King Ethelbert in Beda lib. 1. c. 32. and exhorting him to follow S. Austin in [Page 26] all points saith. He was replenished with know­ledg of the holy scriptures. Ethel­vverd. And Ethelwerd, one of our anciētest historiographers, lib. 2. c. 1. saith he was diuino eloquio nimis instru­ctus, S. Iustus great lear­ning. excedingly instructed in the scriptures. Iu­stus one of S. Austins fellowes, and suc­cessors, Pope Boniface writing to him saith: He had brought vp King Edbald with great learning, and instruction of holy scriptures, as is to be seene in Beda l. 2. c. 8. And doubt we that S. Austin had not done the lyke to King Ethelbert? S. Hono­rius great learning. And of Honorius, an­other of S. Austins fellowes Beda lib. 5. c. 20. saith he was a mā profoundly learned in ho­ly scripture. And why shoud we think that S. Austin was inferior to him? Besides S. Beda lib. 1. c. 22. speaking of the British Preachers, whome he accounted most learned men, yet comparing them with S. Austin, and his fellows saith, that these were more worthy Preachers. And besides these testimonies of S. Austins great lear­ning we haue an euident proofe by the effect therof. For albeit there were among the Britons many viri doctissimi, most lear­ned men. as Saint Beda saith lib. 2. c. 2. Yet Saint Austin feared not twise to challeng them all to publick disputations, S. Austin confuted most lear­ned Here­ticks. and at the first ouercame them, and at the second they durst not (as it seemeth) encounter with him. The like disputations had af­ter [Page 27] S. Laurence, and other of S. Austins fellowes in the Ile of Man with Scottish and Irish Deuines, and wrote also to the Britons as saint Beda lib. 2. c. 4. speaketh worthy letters, and fit for their Degree. Protestāts confesse S. Austin and his fellovves learning. Cooper. Yea the Protestants them selues when they are voide of passion confesse saint Austin, and his fellowes to haue bene great scollers. For B. Cooper Chron. an. 599. saith that Austin, Iohn, Mellit, and others were godly, and wel learned men. Holinshed Holinshead an. 596. calleth saint Austin, and his fellowes learned men. And Godwin in vita Honorij, saith: Godvvin Hono­rius (a fellow and successor of saint Austin) was very learned, and some tymes disciple of Saint Gregory. And in vita Laurentij, that S. Lau­rence (his immediat successor) was a wel lear­ned man. That Deusdedit who was an En­glish man, & scoller to saint Austin, was very famous for his learning, and other vertues. And if the scoller were very famous, what may we think of the Maister? Bale Yea Bale him selfe cent. 13. c. 2. saith that saint Lau­rence, successor and fellow of saint Austin was very skilfull in logick and other Philosophie.

3. But how think yow doth Bale pro­ue that saint Austin was ignorant of scrip­ture, or his questions voide of all know­ledg of the Gospel? Surely not at all. But it must suffice that this Aristarchus hath so iudged. But perhaps it displeased Bale [Page 28] that saint Austin should in them enquire aboute the ceremonies of Masse, VVhy S. Austins questions vvere vn­sauorie to Bale. and a­bout the offering vpon the Altar, of say­ing Masse after pollution in the night, or of receauing the blessed Sacrament after a man hath carnally known his wife, which questions (no maruell) if they seeme vnsa­uorie to Bale, and voide of all knowledg of his new Gospel. Indeed the questions are not of any profound diuinitie, but of practical matters about the gouernment of the Church and holy ceremonies, and administration of Sacraments, in which matters the greatest Deuines vnles they haue bene practised therin (as S. Austin had not bene in his monasterie) are not al­waies the most skilful. Besides that Saint Austin proposed those questions to saint Gregory not vpon ignorance, but vpon humilitie, and desire to be directed by him euen in smallest matters. This saint Gre­gory him self testifieth in these words in Beda lib. 2. c. 23. I doubt not but yow haue re­quired Counsell in these matters, and I think also I haue alredy made yow answer herein, S. Austin could ha­ue ansvvered his ovvne questions. Yet that which your selfe could say, and think herein, I think yow would haue it confirmed with my ans­wer. The like account made the French Ministers of Caluin as appeareth by the Surueie of the holy discipline c. 3. p. 43. in these words. As any doubtes did arise amongst [Page 29] them concerning Church causes, though they were but very simple, and such as any student of meane capacity and iudgment might very easely haue sa­tisfyed, yet no man but M. Caluin for his tyme, and M. Beza afterward was accounted of suffi­ciency or able to dissolue them. Yow heare what simple questions the French Ministers sent to Caluin and Beza, and yet without any preiudice of their opinion in learning. And why should not S. Austin do the li­ke? And surely I here admire the good­nes of God towards our Nation, that he would Saint Austin should enquire such small matters of S. Gregory, and that his questions should remaine to our dayes. both to shew vs by our first Apostle what account we should make of the resolution of the Sea Apostolick, VVhat ac­count S. Austin made of the reso­lutions of the See Apostol. and (as S. Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. wrote aboue 1400. yeares ago) in all difficulties recur to her, and also to assure vs that S. Austin, who in so small mat­ters would do nothing of himselfe, but by the direction of S. Gregory, would much lesse vary from him in matters of faith or religion; And consequently, that the faith which he taught our Ancestors, was the faith of the greatest Doctor that euer sin­ce S. Peter sate in the Church of Rome, Belt. VVo­ful cry p. 3. and by the confession of Protestants was as famous and as learned a man as euer was Bishop of Rome, yea omnium Pontificum, Of all the Bis­hops [Page 30] of Rome, the most excellent for life and lear­ning. Bale cent. 1. c. 68. Which thing wel cō ­sidered, can not but breed great comfort in them, who had the faith of their Forfa­thers deliuered to them by S. Austin, and as great discomfort in them, who haue forsaken it. And thus much of S. Austins learning: now let vs see his vertue.

CHAP. V. That Saint Austin was a great Saint, and holy man.

IF Ministers were before vnwilling to grant that S. Austin was our first Prea­cher or a learned man, much more loth they are to confesse that he was a holy man. And not without cause, because therby they perceaue it will follow, that his faith was the true faith of Christ. For as S. Paul saith Rom. 10. The iust man liueth by faith. & Heb. 11. without faith it is impossi­ble to please God. By hovv manie kinds of testimo­nies S. Austins great ho­lines is proued. But I will prooue not one­ly by the testimonie of them that saw, and knew S. Austin, but also by the testi­mony of his Maister, his own life and death, by publick and priuat testimony of them that liued with him, by all kind [Page 31] of writers following, by the vertuous life of the Church which he founded, and fi­nally by the confession of diuers Prote­stants that S. Austin was a saint and ver­tuous holy man.

2. As for S. Austins Maister, Ambros. lib. 2. de Virginibus. saith: Hovv ver­tuous S. Austins Maister vvas. The first spur to learning is the excellēcy of the Maister. And no doubt but the example of an excellent Maister is a great spur to vertue. And what Maister ether in that age, or long before, or after could S. Austin haue had comparable to S. Gregory, who for his great vertue, and noble acts is surnamed the great: whome S. Isidor lib. de viris illustrib. c. 7. who knew him saith, S. Isidor. was by compunction ful of the feare of God, in humilitie cheefest, and endued with such light of knowledg, as the like was not then, nor be­fore. 8. Coun­cel Tolet. And the 8. Councel of Toledo doub­teth not to prefer him in morall doctrine before all other Doctors. S. Ilde­fonsus. S. Ildefonsus al­so lib. de vir. illustrib. c. 2. writeth that he ex­celled so high in perfection of all vertues, as setting a side all famous men, antiquitie could not shew the like. For in holines he surpassed S. Antony, in elo­quence S. Cyprian, in knowledg S. Austin. S. Gregor. Turon. S. Gre­gor. also of Tours, who knew him great­ly cōmendeth him lib. 10. de Gestis Franco­rum. c. 1. S. Beda lib. 1. c. 13. saith, S. Beda See S. Da­masen orat. 2. de defun­ctis. He was a man of the greatest vertue & learning of his tyme. And who will see more of this vertuous [Page 32] man may reade his life in Ioannes Dia­con. in S. Beda lib. 2. c. 1. Here I will con­tent my self with the iudgment of our fa­mous and ancient King Alfred: K. Alfred who thus commendeth him. The true seruant of God the Roman Pope Christs Vicar Gregory, a man of considerat fortitude, King Al­fred Prae­fat. Pasto­ral. without rashnes, indued with cheefe wit, wisdome and Counsel, an infinit trea­sor, because he wonne the greatest part of man­kinde to heauen, the best man of the Romans, most abounding in greatnes of courage, and most free of Maiestie. This was the iudgment of our great King touching S. Gregory, and of the same minde were all our Catholick writers, as yow may see in Florēt. an. 605. Malmesb. 1. Reg. c. 3. Westmon. an. 605. and others. In so much as D. Reinolds in his Confer. p. 583. Ancient English men. writeth that our Ance­stors had a reuerend opinion of the Pope long after S. Gregory for S. Gregories sake. To these Ca­tholicks I will ad also the verdict of a few Protestants. Protestāts. D VVhi­taker. D. Whitaker cont. Dur. p. 397. saith: He was a learned and holy Bishop and p. 502. I confesse Gregory to haue bene a good and holy man. Godvvin. Godwin in vita August. a good man that blessed and holy Father Gregory. Item This good man being made Pope tooke especiall ca­re of sending Preachers into this Land. D. Sut­clif Subuers. c. 2. D. Sutclif. Gregory and Eleutherius were Bishops, and famous men in the Church for their painful labors, and constancy in teaching the [Page 33] truth. Bale cent. 1. c. 68. saith he was the ex­cellent of all the Bishops of Rome for learning and life. That against his will and striuing to the con­trary, and at last compelled, he succeded Pope Pe­lagius. That he was a learned, and good man, founded hospitals, inuited pilgrims to his table, sent things necessary to the Monks of Hierusalem, and maintained three thousand Virgins. And c. 7 He reduced the Goths from Arianisme to the Church, professed himselfe by writing the Seruant of Gods seruants, that therby he might appeare most far from all ambition, and desire of command. Bell in his Wofull Cry p. 62. saith: Bel. Gregory was a holy Bishop indeed. And in his Suruey p. 156. He was vertuous and learned. pag. 480. D Hum­frey. Luth, Gal. 4 I tink Greg vvas loued. c. 5. the vvorld hath in admiration the holi­nes of Gregory. A man of sufficient credit. Willet in his Syn­opsis, A modest and humble Bishop. D. Hum­frey, Iesuitismi part. 2. pag. 624. Gregory surna­med Great, and indeed great, a great man, and indued with many vertues of deuine grace. Thus Protestants account of saint Austins Mai­ster.

2. As for S. Austin himself, Godwin in Aug. saith: He was a man of exceeding tall sta­ture, well fauoured, S. Austins vertuous deeds. and of a very amiable counte­nance. And as for his great holines it appea­reth many wayes. For first, being very 1 yonge, he forsooke all the pleasures and commodities of the world, and became a Monk, entering into S. Gregories mona­stery, which no doubt was a Nurserie of [Page 34] vertue. Where, (as Greg. saith ex Beda lib. 1. c. 27.) he was brought vp from his youth in re­gular discipline, and according to his rule imita­ted the forme, and rule vsed in the Primitiue Church of the Fathers, among whome all things were common. where he so exceeded in ver­tue as he was made Superior ouer the Monastery. ex Greg. lib. 7. epist. 112. Second­ly, at Saint Gregories commandement he left his owne Contry, where he serued God in quietnes, and came to preach the Gospell both so far of as our Contry is from Rome, & to such barbarous people, as our Nation then was. Thirdly, after he entred into England, he liued so ver­tuously, that albeit he prooued, no doubt, his doctrine by great learning, and con­firmed it (as shalbe shewed hereafter) by many and great miracles, yet as saint Beda affirmeth lib. 1. c. 26. our Contry was con­uerted more by the holines of him, and his fellowes liues, than by any other meanes. See Hun­ting. lib. 3. After they were now entred (saith Be­da lib. cit.) into their lodging they began to exer­cise the Apostolick order of liuing of the primitiue Church, S. Austins and his fellovves Apostolick life. seruing God in continuall prayer, wat­ching, and fasting, and preaching the word of life to as many as they could, despising the commodities of the world as things none of their owne, taking of them onely whome they instructed so much as might serue their necessities, liuing them selues [Page 35] according to that they taught other, and being redy to suffer both troubles and death it self in defense of the truth they taught. VVherby many did beleeue and were baptized, marueling much at the simpli­citie of their innocent liuing, and at the sweetnes of their heauenly doctryn. Infrà. The King him self being much delighted with the puritie of their life, and the example of their godly conuersation, as also with their sweete promises, which to be true they prooued with many miracles did beleeue, and was baptized. VVhat paines he tooke first in persuading our Nation the Christian faith, which was then addicted to Idola­trie, after in instructing them, who were so rude and ignorant in all faith, and lastly in baptizing, and administring the sacra­ments hauing some times to Christen ten thousand at a tyme, none can expresse. Capgraue in his life saith, he went trough England on foote preaching, S. Austins paines and frequent praier. Had the gift of mi­racles and of Prophe­cie. and most cō ­monly barefoote, and had callum in genibus by frequency of prayers. Much paines also he tooke vvith the VVelch men in two Councels, & besides disputation wrought miracles in their sight. He had the gift of miracles ex Greg. apud Bedam lib. 1. c. 31. And of Prophecie, Beda lib. 2. c. 2. This briefly was the admirable and Apostolick holines of life of Saint Austin and his fellowes, which no doubt he cōcluded with a hap­pie death. For his Epitaph recorded by [Page 36] S. Beda lib. 2. c. 3. witnesseth after he had con­uerted King Ethelbert and his people to the faith of Christ, fulfilling in peace the dayes of his office, died the 26. of May.

Vvitnesses of S. Au­stins ho­lines. S. Gregor.4. Thirdly, for the witnesse of those, that liued with S. Austin. First is S. Gre­gory himself, who best knew him, and was best able to iudg of his vertue. He writing to King Ethelbert in Beda lib. 1. c. 32. saith, that S. Austin had bene brought vp in the rule of Religion, and was by the grace of God of much vertue. And lib. 9. epist. 58. writing to S. Austin him self, saith: I haue much hope, that by the grace of God thy Creator, and our Redemer, Lord and God, Christ Iesus, thy sinnes are alredy forgiuen thee, and that thou art ther­fore choosen, that by thee other mens sinnes may be pardoned. Nether shalt thou haue sorow of any sinne hereafter, who endeuourest by conuersion of many, to make ioye in heauen. And surely who considereth what great perfection Saint Gregory lib. 4. epist. 24. requireth in a Pastor, to wit, that he be Pure in thought, notable in work, discret in silence, profitable in speeche, neare to all in compassion, aboue all in con­templation, fellow by humility to all that do well, stout through zeale of Iustice against the vices of the offending, will nothing doubt but Saint Austin, whome he chose to so high a fun­ction, was an excellent perfect man. And lib. 5. epist. 52. he saith: Austins zeale and [Page 37] indeuor is well known to vs. and repeateth it epist. 53. 58. 59. Likwise of the Popes, soone after succeeding to S. Gregory, Diuers o­ther Popes he is high­ly commended: Of Pope Boniface 4. in Malmsbury lib. 1. Pont. p. 208. he is called the holy Doctor: Of Pope Honorius ibidem p. 209. Austin of holy remembrance. Of Gregory 3. ibidem p. 210. Austin of blessed memorie: Of Leo 3. ibid. p. 211. Blessed Augustin. Besides by them who liued with him, and saw his happy end, he is called in his Epitaph, Authors of his epi­h.tap Blessed Austin. Stow Chron. p. 67. or as God­win hath, Saint Austin.

5. Fourthly, Vvitnesses of S. Aust. holines after his tyme. touching the testimony of those that liued after Saint Austins tyme, the first is Saint Beda, whose testimony of his holy life is already set downe, to which I add, that lib. 2. c. 3. he calleth him the deerly beloued man of God, holy Father Austin. S. Beda. and lib. 4. c. 27. The blessed Father Austin. In a Councell of all the Bishops of England held anno 747. A Coūn­cell in England. in presence of King Ethel­bald and all his Nobility, it was apoin­ted, That the day of our Father Saint Austin be kept holy, as writeth Malmesbury 1. lib. Pont. p. 197. and Fox lib. 2. p. 128. After that, King Kenulph and all his Bishops, Dukes, K. Ke­nulph and his Bis­hops and Nobles. and Nobility writing to Pope Leo 3. say thus: Austin of blessed memory most gloriously gouerned the Churches of England. ex Malmesb. 1. Reg. pag. 31. S. Odo. In the letters of S. Odo Archbishop [Page 38] of Canterbury in Malmesbury 1. Pont. pag. 201. he is called Austin of blessed memory. Of Ethelwerd lib. 2. Ethel­vverd. c. 1. & 5. he is called Holy Austin seruant of Christ, and innumerable mi­racles wrought by him. Malmesbury 1. Pont. pag. 196. Malmesb. saith thus: How great the merits of Austin are before God, the great miracles do shew, which after so many ages he worketh, not suffering Kent, yea all England to become slow in honoring of him. Hunting­ton. Of Huntington lib. 3. pag. 321. he is called the seruant of God, man of God, to haue imitated the Apostolicall life of the Primitiue Church, to haue led a most clean life. Of Ho­ueden 1. Houeden. part. Annal. he is called the glorious Doctor of the whole Kingdom, the notable Foun­der of Christian Faith and Religion. And in like sorte is he commended for a great saint, of Westmon. Chron. an. 596. VVestm. Marian & others. Odo chron. 583. cal­leth them tim [...]tes Deum. Marianus ibidem. And finally of all writers domesticall and foraine, who writt of him before our times.

6. Fifthly, touching the proofe of Saint Austins holines by the holy life of the Church which he here founded, that is euident to all them that reade our Eccle­siasticall Histories. The ho­lines of our church founded by S. Au­stin. And so manifest as Fox lib. 2. pag. 114. citeth and approueth these words out of ancient Chronicles: In the Primitiue Church of England Religion shined most purely, so that Kings, Princes, Dukes, Consuls, Barons & rulers of the Church incensed with a de­sire [Page 39] of heauen entred into Monkerie, volontary exile and solitarie life, forsooke the world and followed Christ. And the same hath Huntington lib. 5. in Prolog. and Houeden 1. Confessed by Prote­stants. Fox. part. Annal. pag. 412. And the same Fox p. 123. saith: I do reade and also do credit that the Clergy of that tyme (S. Austins tyme) of England applyed nothing that was worldly, but gaue themselues to preaching, and teaching the word of our Sauiour, See more in Fox p. 132. 133. Cambden and fillowed the life that they preached by giuing good example. Cambden in descript. Britan. pag. 345. saith: that tyme was most fruitfull of Saints. And pag. 628. he braggeth that no Kingdom hath so many canonized Mar­tyrs and Confessors as England hath, Of some England vvas cal­led religios [...] Anglia of others Pa­radisus Dei See Baron. to 9. Serra. de reb. Mo­gunt. lib. 3. nota 55. Protestāts confesse S. Austine holines. Fox. and that it, which before tymes was called a fertill Prouince of Tyrants; may now be cal­led a fertill Contrie of Saints. And who will see more of the great holines of our Cler­gy may reade Beda lib. 3. c. 26. Othlon in vita S. Bonifacij. Marcellin. in vita S. Suiberti. Serrarius de Mogunt. lib. 3.

7. Lastly, for the confession of Prote­stants, Fox in his Acts pag. 105. saith of Saint Austin and his fellowes thus: At length when the King had well considered the ho­nest conuersation of their life, and mooued with their miracles, wrought through Gods hands by them, he heard them more gladly and lastly by their holsom exhortations and example of godly life, he was by them conuerted and christened in the yeare [Page 40] 596. And the same he repeateth againe pag. 116. Bilson. Bilson lib. Of Obedience, pag. 57. saith: Austin and his fellowes came with religion to God, and submission to Princes. Cooper. Bishop Cooper anno 599. calleth Austin and his fellowes, godly and learned men. And anno 630. calleth Pau­linus (one of the company) a holy Bishop; Stow Chron. pag. 65. Stovv. saith, that S. Austin and his fellowes liued in the feare of God. Godwin in vita August. saith: Godvvin. He was a Monke of great vertue; and calleth him, Saint Austin. And in vita Paulini, saith: Paulin (his companion) was called away to receaue the glorious reward of his blessed labors. Holinshed And Holinshed in the Historie of England: Austin and his company arriued at Canterbury, where he made his abode by the Kings permission, exercised the life of Apo­stles in fasting, watching, and prayers, preaching, the word of God to as many as they could, despi­sing all worldly pleasures, as not appertaining to them, receauing onely of them whome they taught, things seeming necessary to the sustenance of their life, and liuing in all points according to the do­ctrine, which they set forth. Itē: King Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin & his company, and by miracles shewed, to be bapti­zed. Hereto I might add what diuers Pro­testants haue written of the great holines of some of S. Austins company, who suc­ceeded him in the Archbishoprik of Can­terbury: But for that we shall haue more [Page 41] conuenient place hereafter. Now let vs see what the malice, and hatred of some Ministers against Saint Austins doctrine, hath caused them to obiect against his person.

CHAP. VI. Certain slanders imposed vpon Saint Austin, disprooued.

CIcero, in his Oration for Roscius, saith: that as fier falling into water is straight put out: so a slander put vpon an innocent man, is quickly extinguished. Which (I doubt not) will prooue true in the calumniations obiected against S. Austin. The first wherof is cruelty (say they) in exhorting Ethelfrid a Heathen King of the North, against the British Monkes, of whome he slew at once aboue 1200. But this is an impudent slander, de­uised first (for any thing that I can finde) by Bale, who centur. 1. capit. 70. Bale slan­dereth S. Austin v­pon re­ports. fearfully broached it, and therfor referreth it to re­ports, saying: Vt ferunt, as some reporte. But afterward Cent. 13. cap. 1. he confidently a­uoucheth it. After him tooke vp that slander Iuell Defens. Apolog. part. 5. Ab­bots [Page 42] in his Answer to Do. Bishop, p. 198. Sutclif Subuers. c. 3. & 7. and others.

That S. Austin vvas no cause of the death of the Bri­tish Mōks.This false slander is many wayes refu­ted. First, because it is auouched without all testimonies of antiquity. Bale (as I say) hauing no one to name before, referreth him selfe to vncertain reports, if he be 1 not both Author, and reporter too. Ab­bots citeth Iuell, Sutclif, alleageth Tho­mas Grey, & a nameles Chronicle which he calleth ould, as if they should haue said, 2 ask my fellow if I be a theefe. Secondly, because the Britons albeit enemyes to Saint Austin, blamed not him, but others, for this slaughter, as is euident in Galfrid 3 lib. 4. cap. 4. Thirdly, because the slanderers of Saint Austin disagree in their tale more than the accusers of Susanna, and therfor if Daniel might be iudge, these would be condemned as well as they were. For some say S. Austin excited King Ethel­frid to this murder, others say, not Saint Austin but K. Ethelbert his scoller: Some say, that Ethelfrid made this slaughter: others, that K. Ethelbert, as Grey cited by Sutclif. So they agree nether in the Author nor Actor of this matter. Fourth­ly 4 because as Beda testifieth lib. 2. c. 2. Saint Austin was long before that slaughter, taken out of this life to the Kingdom of heauen, and no way caused it but rather forwar­ned [Page 43] the Britons therof by prophecie. But it came to passe (saith Beda) by the secret wor­king of Gods iudgement vpon that vnfaithfull and naughty people. And the same testifie our best Historiographers both Catholicks and Protestants. Namely Malmesbury lib. 3. Reg. pag. 325 Hunting. lib. 3. Florent. an. 603. Westmon. an. 603. Sigebert an. 602. 615. Stow Chron. pag. 66. Godwin in the life of Saint Austin. Fox Acts pagina 119. where he writeth that Saint Austin forspoke the destruction, and by report of others was dead before it hapned.

2. To this Sutclif cap. 7. cit. answereth, Sutclif feigneth cor­ruption in S. Beda. that those words of Saint Beda touching Saint Austins death before the slaughter, are added by some forger. First, because after this war Saint Austin ordained Iu­stus and Mellitus Bishops, as Beda (saith he) reporteth. Secondly, because they are not in the Saxon Translation of Beda made by King Alfred. Thirdly, because the Chronicle of Peterbrough and Flores Histor. testifye, that Saint Austin dyed three yeares after this execution. Confu­ted. But this surmise of forgerie in Saint Beda his La­tin History is altogeather incredible, both 1 because all Latin copies (in which lan­guage Saint Beda wrote) haue the sayd words, and impossible it is that ether one forger should corrupt all the copies in [Page 44] Christendome, or that in all Christēdome men would agoe to corrupt Beda in that 2 place, and in no other. And also because till Sutclif no man suspected any such for­gerie. 3 Finally, because, as it shall appeare anon by true Chronologie of tyme, Saint Austin was indeed dead befor the slaugh­ter. And no little presumption therof it is, that the Britons, who layd the blame therof on King Ethelbert Saint Austins scoller, would soner haue layd the blame therof on Saint Austin himselfe who threat­fully (saith Saint Beda) prophecied it, if he had bene aliue, as King Ethelbert was, when it chauced. But little will he mar­uell to hear Sutclife to suspect Saint Beda as corrupted, who considereth how many and how vndoubted bookes of Fathers in his Challeng he had reiected as ether forged or corrupted, Vsuall vvith Sut­clif to say Authors are forged as Saint Athanas. de vita Antonij, Saint Hierom de vita Pauli & Hilarionis, S. Gregories Dialogues, Saint Ambrose de Viduis, & many others. Which kinde of shift, at it is most vsuall with Sut­clif, so in the eye of any wise man it is most desperat. As for his proofes, the first is a manifest vntruth. Sutc. be­lieth S. Beda. For Saint Beda repor­teth not that S. Austin ordained Bishops after the said slaughter of the British Monkes, but onely talketh of the slaugh­ter before he speaketh of the ordination. [Page 45] The cause wherof was, because hauing tould of Saint Austins prophecie of the Britons destruction, which prophecie was before he ordained Bishops, to shew that it was a true prophecie addeth, that after it hapened as S. Austin had fortould, and how long after, he soone after decla­reth, to wit, long after S. Austins death. Sutclifs second proofe I greatly suspect to be a forgerie of his owne. But how so euer that be, ther is nether reasō that he should vrge, nor that we should beleeue one translation before all originalls. Originals to be be­leeued be­fore trās­lations & many be­fore one. For who would not think that, that trāslation were defectiue in that place, rather than that all Originalls had more than they should. As for the Chronicle of Peterbrough and Flores Histor. wee might take iust ex­ception against them, as hauing past through the corrupt fingering of diuers Protestants, but who are they to oppose against so many cited before to the con­trary, especially seeing that Flores Histor. cleareth Saint Austin from this slaughter, and attribueth it to Prophecie. And be­sides his Chronologie (as Godwin in the Bishops of York pag. 442. a Protestant confesseth) is very vncertain, VVhē the British Monks vvere slaine. & in this point is very false. For as Sigebert in Chron. and Bale him self Cent. 1. cap. 74. reporteth out of Masseus the slaughter was done an. 615. [Page 46] At what tyme as all writers agree S. Lau­rence was Archbishop, and Saint Austin dead, VVhen S. Austin died. ether an. 614. as Malmesbury saith in Hist. and in Fastis; or an. 605. as Sigebert saith in Chron. or 608. as Bale hath cent. 13. cap. 1. or an. 604. as Baron. gathereth out of Beda, and Florent. in Chron. and Stow pag. 62. affirmeth. How then could Saint Austin cause this slaughter, which was so long after his death, and much les goe in the army to the slaughter as Sutclif citeth out of an ould Chronicle, if he do not lye himselfe.

3. For this Bilson in his Booke of Obe­dience pag. 114. saith, that the King Ethel­bert King of Kent (whome Saint Austin conuerted) mooued King Ethelfrid to commit this massacre, and citeth therto Galfrid of Munmouth lib. 8. cap. 4. and so indirectly deriueth the faulte to Saint Austin his teacher. That K. Ethelbert caused not the British Mōkes to be slaine. But first, if this slaughter were done (as we haue seene out of Bale) in the yeare 615. certain it is, that Saint Austin liued not till that tyme, but dyed before, as is alredy shewed, and therfore he could not be the author of this 2 fact. Secondly, in defence of King Ethel­bert I oppose against Bilson what Fox saith p. 119. Fox defē ­deth King Ethelbert. that it seemeth rather suspicious than true, that Ethelbert being a Christian King, ether could so much preuaile with a Pagan Idolater or [Page 47] els would attempt so far as to commit such a cruell deede. And in truth who so considereth 3 the disposition of that Pagan King in Be­da lib. 1. cap. 33. where he is compared to a rauening wolfe, will easely see, that he needed no stirrer vp to make war against the Britōs. And therfor Fox loco cit. right­ly ascribeth it to the fierse furie of Ethelfrid, which was so great as he is sirnamed Fe­rus. Besides that K. Ethelbert was more 4 potent than King Ethelfrid, for he had all the South part of England at command, as testifyeth Saint Beda lib. 1. cap. 25. and Ethelfrid onely the North. And therfor if he would haue reuenged Saint Austin by war, and bloodshed, he would rather haue done it him selfe, than stirred an other Heathen King against them. But this good King was so far from causing the 5 Britons to be murdered, because they would not receaue S. Austins doctrine, as that, (as writeth Saint Beda lib. 1. c. 26.) he would not force his owne subiects to receaue it. As for Galfrid ther is no such thing in the place cited by Bilson, which argueth that he cited it out of Iuell without seeing the booke. But indeed lib. 11. c. 13. Galfrid saith that Ethelbert excited Ethelfrid to goe to Bangor and destroy Abbot Dimoth & other Monkes, who had resisted S. Austin. But Galfrid is a very fabulous Author, the [Page 48] first broacher of Merlins Prophecies, Cambd. in Brit. p. 8. calleth his history in­epties fooleries, and his book is forbidē by the Councell of Trent. and of other incredible fables, and liued many hundred yeares after Saint Beda, who te­stifyeth lib. 2. cap. 2. that King Ethelfrid came not of purpose to kill the Monkes, (but to get Chester, as he, loco cit. and Mal­mesbury lib. 1. Reg. c. 3. do insinuat) and being to ioyne battell with the Britons, espying the Monkes at prayer, and vnder­standing that they came to pray against him, set first vpon them, and slew them.

4. The second fault, which Ministers impute to S. Austin, That S. Austins not rising to the Bri­tons pro­ceded not of pride. is pryde, because he sat stil in his chaire when the British Bi­shops, and Deuins came to confer with him. True it is, that S. Austin did so, but that it proceeded not of pryde appeareth, 1 because nether S. Beda nor any English or foraine writer vnto our times besides the Britons (who were hereticks then, & consequētly most proude themselues) 2 imputed it to pryde. Secondly, because Saint Austin and his fellowes, as them selues write in Beda lib. 2. cap. 4. Honored the Britōs with great reuerēce while they thought they were Catholicks. Therfor Saint Austins not rising to them proceeded not of pride, 3 but of some other iust cause. Thirdly, be­cause the British Priests were such then, as they deserued no honor, yea much dis­honor, and therfore it could be no pride [Page 49] in S. Austin to giue them none. VVhat kind of men they vvere to vvhome S. Austin did not al­so. For be­sides that they were hereticks, S. Beda lib. 2. cap. 2. calleth them vnfaithfull, naughty and detestable people. And Gildas their owne Contry man saith, that they were wolues, enemies of truth, and friends to lyes, enemyes of God, and not Priests; merchants of mischeef, and not Bishops, Impugners of Christ, and not his Mi­nisters, more worthy to be drawn to prison, or to the cage, than to Priesthood. And much more of the like sorte. And Fox addeth out of an ould Chronicle Acts lib. 2. pag. 114. that all things whether they pleased or displeased God, they regarded alike, and not onely seculer men did this, but their Bishops & teachers with­out distinction. Which being so I appeale to the iudgement of any indifferent man, whether these men deserued any honor at S. Austins hands, especially he being lawfully apointed their Archbishop and Superior by Saint Gregory. Great hu­militie in S. Austin to confer vvith tho­se to vvhome he did not rise. And whether it were not great humility in him to seeke conference with this kind of people now the second tyme after he had once before confuted them both by disputation and euident miracle, which made them to confesse that he taught the truth. The cause therefor why he arose not to them, vvhy S. Austin a­rose not to the Bri­tons. was ether because he followed the aduise of his Maister Saint Gregory, who albeit he were one of the humblest men, that [Page 50] euer was, yet lib. 4. Epist. 36. giueth this counsell to Bishops: Let vs kepe humility in minde and yet maintain the dignity of our order in honor. Or els perceauing the Britons to 2 be obstinat, which well appeared when for so small occasion they would forsake the doctrine, which them selues had seene confirmed by miracle, and confessed to be truth he followed the aduise of Saint Iohn Epist. 2. Protest. cōdemne that in S. Austin, vvhich they com­mend in Cranmer. If any come to yow and bring not this doctrine, receaue him not into your house, nor say to him, God speede. But whether S. Au­stin would not arise to the Britons for these or other iust causes to him known, Protestants can no way cōdemn his fact, who commend a far les excusable fact of Cranmer, Fox Acts: edit: 1596. p. 1599. 1699. Latimer, and Ridley. For Cooper Chron. an. 1555. sayth, that because the Bishops of Lincoln, Gloster, & Bristow declared themselues to be in the Popes Commission, nether Ridley, nor Latimer would shew any reuerence to them, nor put of their capps. The same he wri­teth of Cranmer pag. 373. And if this be­hauiour be commēded in protestant Pre­lats, towards their superiors and Iudges, why should the like be condemned in S. Austin towards his inferiors?

5. The third fault is that which the sol­dierly-Minister Sutclif obiecteth to him c. 3. cit. to wit, extreme Cowardice not besee­ming an Apostolick man. Because being sent [Page 51] with his company to England they deter­mined with common consent that it was better to return than go forward. S. Austins feare for a tyme, ex­cused. This wee confesse was a fraylty. Yet first, See inf. l. 2. c. 11. Hovv the Protest: Apostles a [...]iure their faith. such 1 a one it was as a far greater fel not on­ly to an Apostolick man, but euen the Prince of the Apostles S. Peter, when for a womās word he denyed his maister, & to all the Apostles when they forsooke him. Secondly such a feare it was as might ca­dere in constantem virū. For our Nation was then (as they sayd truly) Barbarous, fierse, and Infidel, and who daylie made war vpon Christians, and whose Ancestors saith Beda l. 2. c. 15. had slayne Priests at the Altar, and murdered Bishops with their flocks without respect of dignity. And, as our stories record, had made such hauock of Christians, as they made great hills, yet extant, of their bodies, and were therfor as S. Gildas ter­meth them, Deo & hominibus inuisi. Let Sut­clif goe now to preach to such Pagans, or to the Indian Caniballs, and then he may be the better suffered to obiect feare to Saint Austin. Besides, that Godwin also in his life cleareth Saint Austin of this feare. For that he saith not all, but in a ma­ner all were afraid to prosecut the iorney, Godvvin excuseth S. Austin. and they as it were compelled Saint Austin to go back to craue licence to return. Wherby we see that Saint Austin was little or nothing faulty [Page 52] in this point. Thirdly, I say, that such a feare it was as Saint Austin and his com­pany manfully ouercame, S. Austins Apostlick courage. and stoutly per­formed the iorney, and abode here, being ready (saith Saint Beda lib 1. cap. 26.) to suffer both troubles, and death it self in defence of the truth they taught. Which is courage well be­seeming Apostolick men.

6. The fourth slander or rather many slanders is that, wherwith Iuell chargeth him Art. 1. diu. 21. where he writeth thus: He was by iudgement of them that saw him ne­ther of Apostolick spirit, Iuell slande­reth S. Austin & belieth the Britons. nor any way worthy to be called a Saint, but an hypocrit, and superstitious, cruell, and bloody man. and citeth Galfrid lib. 8. cap. 4. But this is most slanderous. For nether is ther any word in that place of Galfrid of Saint Austin, or the Briton Bishops, nether lib. 11. cap. 12. where he tal­keth of this matter, doth he say that the Britons charged Saint Austin with any crime, but that they refused either to be subiect to him, or to preach to the English. Because sayd they (as he reporteth) they had an Archbishop of their owne, and the English continewed taking their Contry from them. And this was all the cause which Galfrid saith they gaue. But as for these other crimes of hypocrit, superstitious, cruell, and bloody, as Iuell saith, they that saw him and knew him, iudged him, that no Briton though then [Page 53] his enemyes, but the vngratfull English hereticks Iuell hath imposed vpon him. And if Cham were iustly accused of his Father for reuealing his carnall Fathers shame, what deserueth he who falsly im­poseth vpon his & vpon all English mens spirituall Father, for (to vse Saint Paules words) in Christ Iesus he begat vs through the Gospell, shamefull crimes neuer imputed to him by his enemies. And this dealing of Iuell with Saint Austin bringeth me in mynde of his damnable writing against the Catholick faith. For a little before his death he charged his Chaplin named Iohn Garbrand, that as sone as he was dead, Iuel vvro­te against his ovvne conscien­ce. Garbrand should publishe to the world, that what he had written, he had done against his owne knowledg & conscience onely to complie with the State, and to vphould that religion which it had set vp. And albeit Garbrand did not for feare pu­blish this so openly as he was charged, yet did he auouch it to diuers in Oxford. Au­thor of this is a Protestant of good ac­count, whome I could name, yet liuing at Lewis in Sussex, who tould it to two Ca­tholick Gentlemen of whome I learnt it. And the more credible this is, because I could name a Minister, a Doctor, Learned Ministers impugne knovvne truth. and of great account among the Ministers, who confessed to a freind of his, of whome I [Page 54] heard it, that he taught against the truth and his owne knowledg. And the same he doubted not to affirme of the rest of his brethren that are learned. And thus ha­uing shewed that Saint Austin had great learning and vertue, requisit for a first preacher of Christs faith vnto Infidells: let vs see what authority he had to preach and how he was sent to do it.

CHAP. VII. That S. Austin was mooued with holy motiues to come to preach to our Nation.

ALthough what can be said of this matter, will be clear inough, partly by what hath bene already said, partly by what shall hereafter: yet because it helpeth much to the perfect iudgmēt of religions, to know what mooued the first Authors & Founders of thē in any Cōtry to preach & publish them, for therby they may iudg of their sincerity or fraudulent meaning, and whether they seeke the glory of God, and saluation of the Cōtry, or their owne good: Therfore I will declare now what motiues Saint Austin had to teach vs his [Page 55] religion, and afterward, in the Second Booke, what motiues likewise Luther had to teach vs his. First therfore, Saint Austin could not be mooued by that pro­per motiue or spur of all Archereticks or Sect-maisters to abducere discipulos (as the Apostle saith of them) post se: Vaine glorie moued not. S. Austin. that is to be the head and founder of a Sect, because (as shalbe shewed anon) his religion was the vsuall and common religion of all Christendome in his tyme. Secondly, he could no be mooued in hope of honor, Nor ho­nor. for in Rome he was head of his monastery, & in England among a fierce, strange & barbarous Nation, he could expect none. Wherfore albeit (beyond all humaine ex­pectatiō) he was made Archbishop, yet ha­uing no hope therof, that can not be iustly thought to haue moued him to vnder­take that voyage. Thirdly, profit could not moue him to this enterprise. For what profit could he expect here, or what pro­fit did he expect, who (as Saint Beda lib. 1. Nor profit cap. 26. saith of him and his fellowes) despi­sed the commodities of this world as things none of their owne, taking of them whome they instru­cted, onely so much as might serue their necessities. And being made Archbishop did accor­ding as Saint Gregory appointed him in Beda lib, 1. cap. 27. liue according to his re­ligious rule, not a part from his Clergie, [Page 56] but followed that trade and forme of liuing which was vsed in the primitiue Church among the Fathers, among whome there was none that said that to be his owne, which he possessed, but all things were comon.

2 And as for worldly pleasur what should moue Saint Austin (think we) to leaue his natiue Contry, Nor plea­sure. and to seeke pleasure in a strange Contry, where he knoweth ne­ther place, person nor language? What pleasure should moue an Italian to chāge Italy for England, Rome for Canterbury, especially when our Contry (as then it was) was sauage and barbarous? What pleasure can we imagin can moue a Chri­stian to goe to preach Christs faith among barbarous infidells? Or what pleasure did Saint Austin seeke here who with his fellowes liued here so Angel like, that as Saint Beda writteth lib. 1. cap. 26. our Na­tion maruailed much at their simplicity, of their innocent liuing, and our King was then much delighted with the puritie of their life and the example of their godly conuersation. And being Archbishop, yet left not his religious life, and as is before shewed, tooke ex­ceeding paines in teaching, and bapti­zing our Nation, and wonderfully labo­red to conuert the Britons also. Who (as is before said) went still on foote, and for the most part barefoote, and had his [Page 57] knees hard like the knees of a camell by continuall prayer. Motiues of S. Au­stins prea­ching Wherfore no human motiue, but the diuine motiues of obe­dience to his Maister and lawfull Bishop the great Saint and glorious Doctor of Gods Church Saint Gregory, Obediēce. who sent him and commanded him to come hither to preach. And of Charitie, Charitie to saue our Nations soules, by bringing them out of heathenish infidelitie to the faith of Christ. Gods glo­rie. And glorie of God were the in­citements, motiues and causes of Saint Austins comming hither, and preaching that religion which he did. And this is manifest both by the testimonies of Ca­tholick Writers and confessions of Pro­testants which we cited before touching Saint Austins holines, and shall alleadge in this next Chapter where we shall prooue that this great Clerck and holy man Saint Austin moued by these saintly motiues to preach to our Nation, was also lawfully sent therto with suf­ficient authoritie and commission.

CHAPT. VIII. That Saint Austin was lawfully sent hither to preach, prooued by di­uers authorities and confession of Protestants.

TWO things ther are required to eue­ry lawfull Pastor, to wit, both right Orders, and lawfull Commission to ad­minister the Sacraments and Word of God. And albeit by order of doctrine, wee should speake first of Saint Austins orders, yet because his Commission being cleared, his orders will easely appeare to be good, I will speake first of his Cōmis­sion where with he was sent to preach. And that he was sent of Saint Gregory, wee need not prooue. For as Sutclif saith in his Subuersion cap. 3. It is not denied, that Gregory sent Austin. The onely difficulty can be whether he were lawfully sent, and by sufficient authoritie or no. Hovv ma­nie vvayes S: Austins mission is prooued. But that he was lawfully sent to preach I will prooue first by sacred testimony from Heauen; Secondly, by authority of Catholicks; Thirdly, by confession of Protestants; Fourthly, by examples; and lastly by rea­son. [Page 59] The testimony from Heauen is of Saint Peter, By S Pe­ters testi­monie from hea­uen. who appearing in a vision to Saint Laurence successor of Saint Austin, when he vpon the reuolt of our Contrie to Paganisme intended to abandon the Land, scourged him (saith Saint Beda lib. 2. cap. 6.) with sharp stripes a great while in the close night, and asked why he would forsake the flock which he him self had committed vnto him. Behould Saint Peter from Heauen testi­fieth that he had cōmitted English men to the teaching of Saint Laurence, one of Saint Austins fellow labourers, & whome Saint Austin him self appointed & con­secrated for his successor. And when Saint Laurence awaked (saith Godwin) he found it more than a dreame, for all his body was gore blood. VVherfore going immediatly to the King Edbald, he shewed him his woundes, and together related to him the occasion of them, which strook such a terror into the King, as by and by he renounced his Idolls, and caused him self to be baptized. The appa­rition of S Peter to be true. Now that this apparition to S. Laurence was no dreame or illusion appeareth many wayes. First, by the reall wounds, which 1 both Saint Laurence felt, and the King sawe. Secondly, by the authority of Saint 2 Laurēce, who being so holy a man would neuer auouch an idle dreame, or illusion for a certain vision. Thirdly, by the be­leefe 3 giuen therto by King Edbald and [Page 60] his people, who doubtles examined it throughly, before they would vpon the credit therof forsake their Idolls. 4 Fourthly by the heauenly effect which it wrought, which was the recalling of our Contry from Paganisme to Christianity, to which ende the Diuell would neuer 5 cooperat any way. Fifthly, by the autho­rity of S. Beda and our best Chroniclers Malmesbury lib. 1. Reg & lib. 2. Pont. Hun­tington lib. 3. Marianus an. 617. Westmon. anno 616. ibidem. Florent and others, who haue credited and recorded it as a 6 true vision. Protestāts confesse S. Peters ap­parition. Lastly, by the confession of diuers Protestants, as Godwin in the life of Saint Laurence, and Holinshed in the life of King Edbald. And surly who well considereth it, can not but account it a singuler fauor of God, and honor to our Contrie, that first in the Britons tyme it should receaue the faith of Christ by the preaching of S. Peter, S. Peters care of this Coū ­trie. by whose month as he saith Acts 15. From ancient tyme God hath made choice that Gentils should heare the VVord of God and beleeue. And afterward in our English Ancestors tyme should reco­uer the same faith againe by the meanes of Saint Gregory one of the gloriousest suc­cessors of Saint Peter that euer was, and mooued therto by him from Heauen. Which amongst other things declareth [Page 61] that to be true which the same Saint Pe­ter said to Saint Brithwald, Ealred in vit. S. Ed­vvardi. Sur. tom. 1. Regnum Anglo­rum, regnum Dei est. The Kingdom of England, is the Kingdom of God.

2. As for the authoritie of Catholicks, S. Austins mission proued by authoritie of Catho­licks. S. Grego­rie. the first place is due to Saint Gregory, who writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria lib. 7. epist. 30. saith: VVhiles the English Nation abiding in a corner of the world, remained hitherto in infidelity in the wor­ship of wood and stones, by the help of your prayers it seemed good to me, God being the Author to send a Monke of my Monastery thither to preach. Loe he ascribeth the sending of S. Austin to God as Author, and to holy mens prayers as helpes therunto. And againe writing to Saint Austins company in Beda lib. 1. c. 23. saith: Let nether the trauaill of the iorney, nor talk of euill tongues dismay yow. But with all force and feruor make vp that, which yow haue by the motion of God begun. And lib. 5. epist. 52. saith, he sent Austin, auxiliante Domino; By Gods help. and 54. disponente Domino; by Gods disposition. Superfluous it were to cite the rest of the Popes, who followed Saint Gregory, and cooperated all they could to our conuersion, as Boniface 4. and 5. Diuers ancient Po­pes. Honorius, Vitalian, and the rest who vn­doubtedly taught Saint Austin to haue bene lawfully sent. Onely I will add the names of those Princes & Bishops whome [Page 62] Saint Gregory testifieth to haue holpen, and encoraged Saint Austin in his Godly enterprise. Bishops of Ger­manie or France. First, he saith lib. 7. epist. 30. that by his licence Saint Austin was made Bishop of the Bishops of Germanie, and with their comforts brought to the English Nation. And epi. 114. he sendeth a Pall to Siagrius Bishop of Aust, & maketh his See next to the See Metropolitan, because in the busines of Saint Austins mission (saith he) we know thou shewedst thy selfe so carefull, deuout and helper in all things as thou shouldest. lib. 9. Kings of France. epist. 53. wri­ting to Theodorick King of France. VVhat great fauours your Excellency shewed to our most reuerent brother, and fellow Bishop Austin in his iorney to England certain Monkes comming from him haue tould vs. And 55. to Clotarius an­other French King writeth thus: Some who went with our most reuerend brother, and fellow Bishop Austin vnto the English Nation re­turning to vs haue tould vs with what charitie your Excellency refreshed the said brother of ours in your presence, and with how great help yow furthered him in his voyage. Queene of France. And 56. writing to Brunechild the Queene of France, he hath these words: VVith what fauor and help your Excellency succoured our most reuerend bro­ther and fellow Bishop Austin going to the English Nation, nether did fame before suppresse in silence, and afterward some Monkes comming from him to vs haue particulerly related. Yow see the [Page 63] mission of Saint Austin was not onely allowed as lawfull, but also holped and furthered by the Christian Bishops and Princes of that tyme.

3. After Saint Austins tyme Beda lib. 1. S. Beda cap. 22. speaking of Saint Austin, and his fellow Preachers, saith: the goodnes of God prouided them for our English people, And c. 23. saith, that Gregory being mooued by inspiration of God therunto, sent the seruant of God Saint Austin. After him Ethelwerd lib. 2. cap. 1. Ethel­vverd Gregory sent Saint Austin, confirmat eum diuino admonitu. Florent Chron. ann. 596. saith: Gregory mooued by Gods instinct, sent Austin and others to preach the VVord of God to the English Nation. Of Protestants, Stow pag. 65. saith: Protestāts confesse S. Austin to haue bene sent of God. Gregory was mooued of godly instinction to send Austin to preach to the Angles. Godwin in vita August. Yt pleased God, &c. Apologie for the oath of allegeance: Albeit Gregory sent Aust [...]n and others as he said with deuine reuelation into England vnto King Ethelbert, Kings Ma­iestie in his oration to the parle. 19. No­uemb. 1605. D. Couel defence of Hooker. p. 77. Buny Treatises of Pacificat. p. 109. Some in Peury. Hooker yet &c. Luther lib. cont. Anabapt. Fatemur in Papatu esse verum praedicandi officium. VVe confesse, that in the Popedom is the true office of preaching. The law­fulnes also of Saint Austins sending must needs all such Protestants confesse as do deriue the authoritie of preaching in Lu­ther, and their first Preachers from the Church of Rome, of whome wee shall speake in the second booke. And also all [Page 64] such as do graunt, 3. booke of Eccles. of Polic p. 188 D. Baron. his 4. ser­mons p. 448. Feild. lib. 3. of Church. p. 183. Fox Iuel Caluin. 4. Iustit c. 17. paragr. 49. VVhitak. cont. Dur. p. 397. Bel Suruey pag. 257. that the Church of Rome is a true Church of Christ, or that Papists may be saued, which commeth to one, because none can be saued out of the true Church. For if the Church of Rome be yet a true Church, and can send prea­chers lawfully, it can not be denyed, but it had the same goodnes, and power to send in Saint Gregory his tyme. And this also are they likly to grant who will needs haue S. Gregory and likwise the Church of Rome in his tyme to haue bene Prote­stant, or at least Saint Gregory was a true and vertuous Bishop. Finally they also must needes grant that Saint Austin was lawfully sent who say (as D. Feild doth lib. 3. Of the Church, cap. 6. 8. and others doe) that before Luthers diuision their Church was all one, & the same Church with ours. For suerly that Church alowed of Saint Austins mission. And therfor if she had authoritie to approoue Saint Au­stins mission, he was lawfully sent.

S. Austins mission proued by examples. Rome 1000 years agoe vsed to send preachers into all the vvorld.4. Fourthly, I prooue that Saint Austin was lawfully sent of Saint Gregory by examples. For as Saint Laurence, Saint Mellit, and Saint Iustus fellowes and suc­cessors of Saint Austin write in their let­ters to the Bishops and Abbots of Scot­land in Beda lib. 2. cap. 4. The accustomable manner of the Sea Apostolick was to send into all [Page 65] places of the world to preach the word of God. And this custom of the Church of Rome, sending preachers to all places of the world may be prooued by induction euer since Saint Peters tyme. S. Clemēt For Saint Cle­ment 3. Pope after Saint Peter, sent Saint Dennis into France, as testifie Hilduinus in Areopagit. and the French Chronicles. Whervpon the French Bishops writing to Pope Leo anno 400. acknowledg the See of Rome fontem & originem religionis suae. Pope Eleutherius about the yeare 170, S. Eleutherius. sent hither Fugatius and Damian, as is before shewed. S. Victor. And Pope Victor his suc­cessor about the yeare 203. sent others in­to Scotland, as witnesse Boethius libr. 6. Hist. Scot. Genebr. in Victor. Baron. and others. About the yeare 255. S. Stephen Pope Stephen con­secrated Saint Mellonus a Briton, Bishop of Ro [...]e, and sent him thither to preach, as testifie the Author of his life, and Bale cent. 1. cap. 31. In the yeare 432. (saith Bale cent. 1. cap. 43.) died Saint Ninian, who being a Briton (as he saith there after Be­da lib. 3. cap. 4.) comming from Rome preached to the South Picts, and conuer­ted them to Christianitie. S. Celestin About the year 429. Pope Celestin sent hither Saint Ger­man and Lupus to confute and expell the Pelagians, as testifieth Prosper in Chronic. Bale cent. 1. cap. 45. Baron. an. 429. And the [Page 66] same Pope about the yeare 434. consecra­ted Palladius Bishop for Scotland, and sent him thither, as testifie Prosper Chron. Beda lib. 1. cap. 13. Baron. an. 429. Hunting. lib. 1. and others. And about the same tyme also he sent S. Patrick to Irland, as testifie Marianus in Chron. Cambd. in Hibernia. Bale cent. 1. cap. 49. where he saith that Saint Pa­trick preached sinceram Christi religionem. And thus yow see how before S. Grego­ry, Ancient Britons Scotts Picts and Irish receaued prea­chers frō Rome. Popes sent preachers hither to all the ancient inhabitants of these two Ilands, and that they receaued his Legats, which Legats also for the most part were Bri­tons. Which declareth plainly what opi­nion those ancient Nations had of the Popes authoritie to send preachers hither.

5. In like sorte after S. Gregories tyme, the Pope sent preachers both hither, and into other Contries. For about the yeare 635. Pope Honorius sent hither Saint Bi­rin, P. Hono­rius. who conuerted the West Contrie, as Beda saith lib. 3. cap. 7. Godwin in vita Bi­rini. Bale cent. 13. cap. 4. And cap. 5. he ad­deth that he sent also Saint Felix, who conuerted the East-Angles. In the yeare 668. P. Vitalian Pope Vitalian sent hither S. Theo­dore and Saint Adrian, as writeth S. Beda lib. 4. cap. 1. Godwin in Theodor. Bale cent. 13. cap. 6. and others. About the yeare 690. Pope Sergius 1. P. Sergius. sent S. Willebrord and [Page 67] other English Mōks to preach to the Fri­sons and Saxons, as testifieth Marcellin in Sur. tom. 2. Beda lib. 5. cap. 11. 12. Bale cent. 1. pag. 78. cit. About the yeare 719. Pope Gregory 2. sent Saint Boniface an English man, called the Apostle of Germany, P. Grego­ry .2. thi­ther to preach, as testifie Bale cent. 1. pag. 79. and all German writers. About the yeare 870. Pope Adrian 2. P. Adriā 2. sent Saint Cyrill and Methodius to preach to the Morauians and Slauonians, Baron Martyrol 9. Martij. Sigebert. in Chron. About the yeare 970. Pope Iohn 14. inuited (saith Bale cent. 2. P. Iohn 14. cap. 30.) the Kingdom of Polonie to Papisme, and sent thither Cardinall Giles. About the yeare 989. Pope Iohn 15. P. Iohn 15. sent S. Adilbert to preach to the Hungarians & Bohemians. About the yeare 1000. Saint Boniface was sent by the Pope to the Russians. About the yeare 1145. Pope Eugen 3. sent Adrian an English man, and afterward Pope, P. Eugen. into Norway, as Bale saith cent. 2. pag. 178. About the yeare 1252. Pope Innocent 4. P. Inno­cent. 4. sent the Franciscans and Dominicans vn­to the King of Tartarie, whome they con­uerted, and christened, as writeth Bale cent. 4. cap. 17. About the yeare 1494. Pope Alexander 6. sent Bucill and 11. P. Alexan­der 6. Monkes more into the West-Indies then newly discouered by the Spaniards. And at the same tyme were Franciscans sent by the [Page 68] Pope into the East-Indies, and since that Dominicans, Iesuits, and other religious men haue bene sent into diuers barbarous Prouinces of both Indies, Africk, and Bra­sile. And in almost all these missions haue those which were sent by the Pope, con­uerted those Nations, to whome they where sent, God cooperating with them, and confirming their words with miracles following, & are therfor termed the Apostles of those Contries. And if this so long continuance of the Popes sending Preachers into all parts of the world, and Gods meruailous and miraculous concurse with them, by the conuersion of the Nations, to which they were sent, be not ynough to prooue that S. Gregory had sufficient authoritie to send Saint Austin hither, I know not what authoritie can be sufficient.

CHAP. IX. That Saint Austin was lawfully sent hither to preach, S. Austins mission prooued by reason. prooued by reason.

BY reason I will prooue it. First, Out of vvhat protest grant Bilson. out of that which Protestants haue gran­ted. For, It is well knowne (saith B. Bilson de Obedien. part. 1. pag. 60.) that the Pope was not onely Patriarch of the VVest parts, but of the foure Patriarches which were the cheefe Bishops in Christendom in order, and accompted the first. And pag. 318. Patriarch of the VVest we grant he was. The same in other termes confes­feth Iuell art. 9. diuis. 26. where he saith: Iuell. The Pope had in his prouince one great parte of Christendome. Reinolds. And Reynolds Confer. pag. 541. where he calleth his diocese a Princely diocese, and insinuateth it to contayne all the West Church. the Popes Patriar­chat lavv­full. For the East he diuideth among the three other Patriarchs, Lik­wise the graunt that he vsurped not his Patriarchat. But (saith Bilson, pag. 60. cit.) it was giuen him by consent of men. and pag. 319. it came by custom, as the Councell of Nice wit­nesseth. D. Doue of Recusancy p. 80. VVhat authoritie the Pope hath had ouer the Latin [Page 70] Church, hath bene giuen him by human constitu­tions, and generall consent of Princes and States. Caluin lib. 4 Institut. cap. 7. §. 1 Decreto Nice­nae Synodi primus inter Patriarchas locus tribui­tur Romano Episcopo. Finally, they grant that the Popes Patriarchat ouer the West is not new, Popes Pa­triarchat ancient. but begun euen in the tyme of the primitiue Church. For Feild lib. 3. of the Church, cap. 1. saith: In the tyme of the Ni­cen Councell, and before, as appeareth by the Acts of the Councell, there was three principall Bishops or Patriarchs of the Christian world, namely the Bishop of Rome, of Alexandria, of Antioch. Thus breefly yow see the Popes Patriarchat ouer the West granted to be most an­cient, and lawfull. Hence I argue thus. A Patriarch hath authority to send prea­chers to all partes of his Patriarchie: Ergo the Pope had authority to send preachers to England, England euer vnder the Popes Patriar­chat. which is a parte of the West. The Antecedent none can deny. The Cō ­sequent notwithstanding Bilson lib. cit. pag. 320. doth strangly deny. But no maruell if strange and vnheard of shifts be found to maintaine falfe doctrine. For saith he: Pope Innocent 1. epist. 91. inter epist. Aug. confes­seth he had no authoritie to call one poore Briton out of this Realme. And the Britons would yeeld no subiection to Austin the Romish Legat. Ther­for England was not within the compas of the Popes Patriarchat.

[Page 71]2. But the first of these proofes is a mani­fest vntruth, and the second a meere folly. For vntrue is it, that Saint Innocent con­fessed he had not authoritie to call one out of Britany. For the Briton of whome he spake was Pelagius the heretick, who at that tyme was not in Britany, but in Palestine, as testifyeth Saint Austin epist. 32. writen the same yeare, which was an. 416. Nether had Pelagius bene in Brita­ny long tyme before that. For as Baron sheweth an. 405. out of Saint Chrysostom and Isiodor Pelusiot. He was brought vp in the East, and after that liued, as Saint Austin saith epist. 95. longe tyme in Rome, where being discouered, he fled, as Baron telleth an. 412. into Sicilie, and thence into Palestine, where (being by his hypocrisy and fraud absolued from heresie, and fin­ding fauor at the Bishop of Hierusalem, but contrariwise condemned by Pope In­nocent and Zozimus) he stayed, and for any thing I finde ther dyed. For if him self had brought his heresy into Britany, Beda lib. 1. cap. 17. Would neuer haue ascribed the bringing of it to one Agri­cola long after. And therfor I doubt of that which Bale cent 1. cap. 38. citeth out of Walden. that Pelagius was à suis Britan­nis pulsus in exilium ob heresim, vnles by dri­uing into banishment he ment keeping [Page 72] out of the Contrey, as perhaps Pelagius was. Besides Innocent saith not, that he had not authoritie to call Pelagius wheresoeuer he were, yea he insinuateth the cō ­trary; but that Pelagius if he were obsti­nat would not come at his call, and that others, that dwelt nerer to him myght do it more conueniently, than he who dwelt so far of as Rome is from Palestine. His words are these, Qui Pelagius si confidit, &c. VVhich Pelagius if he trust and knowe that he deserueth not to be condemned of vs, because he reiectets that which he taught, he should not be sent for of vs, but he himselfe should make haste that he may be absolued. For if he think yet as he did, when will he present himselfe to our iudge­ment vpon any letters whatsoeuer, knowing that he shalbe condemned? And if he were to be sent for, that might be better done of them who are ne­rer, than so far of as we are. But there shall want no care of him if he will be cured.

3. Bilsons proofe out of the Britons de­niall of subiection hath no more color or reason, than a few rebells deniall of sub­iection hath to prooue a Prince to haue no authoritie ouer a parte of his King­dome. Cathol. Britons e­uer tooke the Pope to be their superior. For their Catholick Ancestors did euer acknowledg themselues vnder the Pope his iurisdiction, as appeareth both by that which hath bene said before as also because the Archbishops of the Bri­tons [Page 73] not long before Saint Austins com­ming were the Popes Legats, as writeth Galfrid a man of good account among Protestants lib. 9. cap. 12. Dubritius (saith he) Primat of Britannie, and Legat of the See Aposto­lick was famous with such great pietie. And had Palls from Rome, as is euident in the life of Saint Sampson. Nether did the here­tick Britons refuse to be subiect to Saint Austin, because they thought Saint Gre­gorie to haue no authoritie to apoint an Archbishop ouer them, (for vndoubted­ly they would haue alleadged this as a reason of their refusal if they had so thought it) but onely because, as Saint Beda reporteth lib 2. c. 2. VVhy the Britons refused to be vnder S. Austin. they sayd with them selues. If he would not so much as arise to vs, If wee should subiect our selues to him he would despise vs. If he had risen to them they were determined to subiect them selues to him, as Beda there saith, which they neuer would haue done if they had doub­ted his authority insufficient.

Secondly I prooue it by reason groun­ded in scripture. Secōd rea­son in proofe of S. Austins mission. The authority which Christ left in his Church to preach to all Nations he gaue to euery Apostle, as ap­peareth by his words Matth. 28. Docete om­nes gentes, Teach all Nations. And Protestants who teach, euery Apostle to haue bene head of the rest of the Church besids them [Page 74] selues, do not deny: Therfore this autho­rity must remaine in some successor of one or other of those Apostles, and must not be onely in the whole Church, be­cause it must descend to some such as Christ gaue it vnto. Authori­tie to send preachers to all nati­ons must remaine in some one Bishop. Besides if authority to send to all Nations were not in some one Bishop or other, but in the whole Church onely, when soeuer there were Preachers to be sent to Infidells, ther ought to be a generall Councell called, which were both absurd, and was neuer practised in Gods Church. But authority to preach or send preachers to England was more likly to be in Saint Gregory, than any other Bishop. For touching the Patriarchs or Bishops of the East, it is a thing vnheard of, that any of them should haue iurisdiction ouer England. And as for the Bishops of France, certain it is they neuer had any authority ouer England. And the same I may say of Scotland, Ire­land, Flanders, Spaine, and all other Con­tries. The doubt onely may be of Britons, because they once had authority ouer the Contry, No Bishop could sēd preachers to Englād but the Pope. which the English possessed. But that could yeald them no spirituall au­thority ouer the English in Saint Austins tyme, because nether was the English euer subiect to the Britons, nor was ther in Saint Austins tyme any British Bishop [Page 75] aliue who had had any diocese within England: Therfore they could at that tyme clayme no more authority to send Preachers into England, than the Bishops of Wales can now. Wherfore if this au­thority was then in any Bishop (as needes it must be) it was in the Bishop of Rome, who euer since the primitiue tyme of the Church hath vsed to send preachers hi­ther as is before shewed. And if any re­quire the Princes approbation for the lawfullnes of a Preachers mission, this al­so S. Austin had as is euident by S. Beda l. 1. Protestāts confesse the Pope to haue bene the cheef B. of Christen­dom. D. vvhitak c. 25. Besides Protestants confesse the Pope to haue bene alwaies the cheefe Patriarch & Bishop of Christēdom. Saith D. Whit­aker lib. 6. cont. Dur. p. 464. I will not deny that the Bishop of Rome was Primat of all Bishops. And p. 148. Rome the Seat of the first Patriarch. The See of Rome, saith Caluin l. 4. c. 7. §. 26. Caluin. was in tymes past the cheefe of all Iuell art. 4. diu. 16. Iuel. Of the Patriarches the Pope had the first place both in Councell, and out of Councell. And. 26. Of the Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was euer the first. And .32. Victor sayth that Rome is the chee­fe or head ouer all others, which of our parte for that tyme is not denyed. Bishop Bilson pag. 60. Bilson. saith it is well knowne that the Pope was the cheefe of the Patriarchs. D. Reinolds Con­fer. pag. 568. Among all the Apostolick Churches, Reinolds the Roman for honor, and credit had the chiefty [Page 76] And 554. Chrysostome and Basile gaue the Pope a supreheminence of authority. pag. 368. Cyprian giueth a speciall title of honor and preheminence to the Church of Rome. The Fathers apply the name of the Rock to the Bishop of Rome. Finally Fox in his Acts pag. 18. saith, that in Lyrinensis, Pascasin, Iustinian, Athanasius, Hierome, Am­brose, Austin, Theodoret, and Chrysost. S. Peter with his successors is called Head of the Church, Cheefe of Bishops, Prince of the Apostles. And the like confesse all other Protestants. Therfor if authority of sending preachers remaine in any Bishop, it is most lykly to remaine in the Pope.

Third rea­son for proofe of S. Austins mission.4. Thirdly, I argue thus. Who hath au­thority to gouern the whole Church of God, hath authority to send Preachers to all Nations: But Saint Gregory had authority to gouern the whole Church: Ergo he had authority to send Preachers &c. The Maior needeth no proofe. The Minor I prooue thus. Saint Peter had authority to gouern the whole Church, euen as it includeth the rest of the A­postles; But Saint Gregory succeeded (though not immediatly) Saint Peter in that authority: Protestant graunt e­uery A­postle to haue bene Head of the rest of the church Ergo, That Saint Peter had authority ouer the whole Church besides the Apostles, the Protestants do graunt. For they teach that Christ made euery one of them Head and Gouernor of all [Page 77] the Church besides them selues. D. Whit­aker lib. 5. pag. 365. cont. Dur. Quis Petrum, &c. VVho confesseth not that Peter was the foun­dation of the Church, seeing that it is common to all the Apostles? And lib. 9. pag. 745. Super Pe­trum, &c. Vpon Peter is the Church founded, but not vpon him onely, Et Petro totius, &c. And to Peter is the care of the whole Church com­mitted, but not to him onely, Quia hoc com­mune, &c. Because this was common with the rest of the Apostles, as the Scripture, and Fathers most clearly testifie. Declarat. of discipl. print at Geneua 154 [...]. Christ cō ­mēded to Peter all his flock. Behould how he con­fesseth that both Scripture and Fathers testifie, and that most clearly, that the care of the whole Church was commit­ted to Peter. D. Reynolds Confer. pag. 32. As the name of foundation is giuen to the Apostles, Apoc. 21. so the twelue foundations do prooue them twelue heads. Ibid. All the Apostles were heads. Item pag. 26. Christ promised to build his Church not vpon Peters doctrine onely, but vpon his person in some sorte. And pag. 28. Christs words to Pe­ter import this sense: Vpon thee I will build my Church. And Bilson lib. of Obedience, pag. 87. granteth, The same saith Fulk Annotat. Mat. 16. Ioan. 1. that the Rock on which the Church is promised to be built Matth. 16. was Peters person, and that the Church was built vpon him, but not vpon him onely, but the rest of the Apostles too. And if passion did not blynd their eyes, they would see that the Scripture and Fathers [Page 78] do as plainly testifie that Saint Peter was Head of the whole Church, euen as it in­cludeth the rest of the Apostles, as they testifie that euery Apostle was Head of the rest of the Church beside themselues. S. Peter as plainly o­uer the A­postles as ouer the rest of Christiās For the places of Scripture out of which they do or can prooue that euery Apostle was head of all other Christians (as yow may see in Whitaker loco cit. pag. 147. and Reynolds loco cit.) is Matth. 28. where eue­ry Apostle is bidden to teach all Nations. and Ephes. 2. where Christians are said to be founded vpon the Apostles. And Apoc. 21. where the twelue Apostles are called the founda­tions of the Church, by which places they do prooue (and well) that euery Apostle was made Head ouer euery Christian, and the whole Church beside themselues; because there is no exception made of any man, whome they are not to feede, nor of any Christian in the Church, which they founded. And therfore in the commission giuen by Christ to euery Apostle in the word Nations, are included all other beside them selues. And in the speech of the A­pocalyps vnder the word Church, are vn­derstood all other Christians whatsoeuer. And cōsequently euery Apostle is by the plain verdict of Scripture Preacher to all Nations, and Founder of euery Christian beside them selues. In which authority [Page 79] because their Apostleship did consist, Hovv so­me Fa­thers say that o­thers vvere e­qual in the Apo­stleship vvith S. Peter. and therin all the Apostles were equall to S. Peter (for euery one of them was as well sent to all Natiōs with authority to found Churches euery where, as he was) some Fathers say, that other Apostles had parem potestatē with S. Peter, as Anaclet dist. 21. c. Cū in nouo. Cypr. de vnit. Eccl. Chrys. in 1. Gal. & that the Church is equaly foūded on all the Apostles, because ouer the rest of the Church besides, the Apostles euery one of them had equall authority with Peter: & the Church, (not including the Apostles) was equaly foūded on euery one of them.

5. But by the same maner, and in the same euidency that Protestants do prooue that euery Apostle was Head ouer all the Church besides them selues, do we prooue that Saint Peter was head ouer all the Church euen as it includeth the rest of the Apostles. For as in their cōmission, Teach all Nations, and the other speech of them Foundations of the Church, Proued by Scripture that S. Pe­ters com­mission includeth the rest of the Apo­stles. all are included be­side them selues, because none are ex­cepted, as they are by reasō of that relatiue opposition which is there found betwene Teachers, & Taught, Founders, and Founded; & therfor euery one of the Apostles being in this speech called a teacher & foundatiō none of them in the same speech can be ment to be taught, or founded him self. So in [Page 80] like sort in S. Peters Commission Ioan 21. Feede my sheepe, Luc. 22. Confirme thy bre­thren. and in Christs words of him Mat. 16. Thou art Peter, and vpon this Rock will I build my Church. No one Apostle or other besides him self, who alone is spoken to, and is in them apointed Feeder and Confirmer and Foundation, is any more excepted than any other Christian is excepted in the Com­mission of the Apostles in generall. And therfore are they as well and as clearly in­cluded in his Cōmission vnder the name Sheepe, Brethren, Church, as other Christians are included in theirs vnder the name of Nations and Church. And therfor Saint Ber­nard said de Consider. Nihil excipitur, vbi nihil distinguitur. There being no distinction in these words of Christ, my Church, my Sheepe, thy Brethren, made from the rest of the Apostles, they are not excepted, but inclu­ded in them. Wherfore if Protestants will here admit their commō rule of expoun­ding one place of Scripture by an other, they must confesse that Scripture as clear­ly maketh S. Peter Head of the Apostles, as it maketh them Head of all other Christians. Secondly prooued by confes­sion of Protestāts. Secondly I prooue by confes­sion of Protestāts, that Christ in his words My Church, My Sheepe, Thy Brethren, spoken to Saint Peter, included the rest of the A­postles. For D. Reynolds Conferenc. p. 385. [Page 81] saith, that Christ by, My Church, Mat. 16. meant generally the Catholick Church, all the chosen. But the Apostles were chosen, yea the chefest of them. And p. 386. It is the Church of Gods elect, and chosen, which Christ doth call in this place (Math 16.) my Church, where he ad­deth, that this is cleare and out of all controuersie. And p. 368. Christ said of his whole Church that the gates of hell. &c. Therfore the whole Church was founded on Peter. The same he repeateth Conclus. 1. p. 615. and Conclus. 2. p. 625. and generally all Protestāts graunt the same. For out of this place they proue that the Elect can not fall from God, be­cause Christ here sayd that Hell gates should not preuaile against his Church, That is (say they) against his Elect. In like sort the said Reinolds Conf. p. 386. saith, that these words, My Sheepe, Iohn 10 (where it is sayd my sheepe heare my voice) included all the Elect. Therfore Ioan. 21. the very same words include all the Elect (beside Peter, who is excepted because he is apointed to feede them) vnles we will, not vpon any different occasion ministred by scripture, but vpon our own preconceited opinion expound the same word, now one way, now an other. Finally the sayd Reinolds Conf. pag. 103. confesseth that by, Thy Bethren Luc. 22. Christ ment all the faithfull. Then surely he included all the Apostles.

[Page 82] Thirdly by authoritie of Fathers6. Thirdly, I proue that S. Peter was head of the whole Church by the au­thoritie of holy Fathers, whome because Whitaker cōfesseth (as yow heard before) to teach most clearly, that the Church i [...] founded vpon Peter, I wil omit their words and remit those that list read them to Bellarm. l. 1. de Pont. c. 10. Onely I will shew that they teach that the Church (as it includeth the rest of the Apostles) is founded vpon Peter onely. Cyprian. epist. ad Iulian. Ecclesia quae vna est super vnum. The Church which is one is founded vpon one, who by the commaundemēt of our Lord receaued the key ther­of. In which words we see, that as the Church is sayd to be one onely, so it is said to be founded vpon one onely. And lib. 1. epist. 8. Ecclesia vna & Cathedra vna. &c. One Church and one Chaire was by our Lords word founded vpon Peter. And Saint Hierom. in 2. Isaiae▪ after he had said that the Apostles were, Montes, mountains, addeth: Super vnum montium Christus fundat Ecclesiam, & loquens ad eum: Tu es Petrus. &c. Vpon one of the Montains Christ foundeth his Church, and speaking to him thou art Peter. &c. S. Leo serm. 2. de Anniuers. saith, Saint Peter was plus ceteris ordinatus. &c. ordained more than the rest, whiles he is cal­led a Rock, a Foundation, and apointed porter of the kingdome of heauen. And for this cause the Fathers when they speak of Peter in [Page 83] respect of the rest of the Apostles, they manifestly prefer him in authority before them, ceteris praelatus discipulis. Preferred be­fore the rest of the disciples saith S. Basil. ho­mil. de Iudicio Eccles. And this is so euident as D. Reinolds Confer. pag. 179. confesseth that the Fathers call Peter the mouth, the Top, the highest, the President, the head of the Apo­stles, and. pag. 562. The Prince, the Top, the Chee­fest of the Apostolick company, the Teacher of the whole world, and a Father of the houshould. And graunteth also that some of these Titles touch gouernment, and signifie a preheminence in gouernment. Reinolds deuiseth an autho­ritie in S. Peter to auoid his suprema­cie. Whervpon he is inforced pag. 180. to acknowledg that Saint Peter was superiour among the Apostles, as a President of a Parliament in France, or as a Consull among the Romans. But who wel considereth, shall easely perceaue that this is but an authoritie deuised of pur­pose to delude the words of the Fathers, who speaking of Saint Peters authoritie ouer the Apostles, vse the very words which we do, to declare his supremacy. And therfor if they be vnderstood by their own words, and not as Reinolds pleaseth to expound them, they vsing the same words as we do, must be vnderstood as we are. But because this question is some what beside my present purpose, I will vrge it no farther. Onely I would know [Page 84] of Reinolds how Peter did come by his Consulship ouer the Apostles, which he graunteth to him. Did the Apostles giue it him? But where readeth he that? Did Christ bestow it on him? But where? if not Math. 16. and Iohn. 21. In which places if Christ gaue him any authoritie ouer the Apostles he gaue him as full power ouer them as ouer other Christians. For ther is no limitation of his power towards some more than towards others, but they are as well to be foūded on him as others are, & he was to feede them, as wel as others. Nether doth this his authoritie ouer the rest of the Church, and the Apostles too, preiudice the supreme authority of Christ ouer all, any more than the lyke authority which the Protestāts graunt euery Apo­stle had ouer the rest of the Church. Se­cōdly, I would know of Reinolds why he doth not graunt this Consulship ouer the whole Church to the Pope, or at least to some one Bishop or other, but wil make euery Prince head of the Church in his Kingdome.

That S. Peters authority re­maineth in some Bishop of the Church.7. Now that this authority of Saint Pe­ter remaineth still in the Church, and des­cended from him to some Bishop, I pro­ue, because all the ends for which ether Christ declared, or the Fathers affirme, that Christ instituted this authoritie, to [Page 85] remaine as well after his death, as before. The first was, that the gates of hell should 1 not preuaile against the Church. Math. 16. Secondly, that what is loosed in earth, 2 may be loosed in heauen. ibi. Thirdly, that 3 Peter might cōfirme his Brethren Luc. 22. Fourthly, that he might feede Christs 4 sheepe. Io. 21. Fiftly, that one being made 5 head, occasion of Schisme might be taken away. Hierom. lib. 1. cont. Iouinianum. Sixt­ly, 6 that the origine of the vnitie of the Church might appeare. Cyprian. de simpl. Praelat. be­cause, as he saith, lib. 1. epist. 3. Priestly vnity rose from Peters chaire. And epist. ad Fulcian. Our Lord began the origine of vnitie from Pe­ter. This cause alleadgeth also Leo. epi. 84. and Anast. and Optat. l. 2. contra Parmen. But all these ends remaine after Saint Peters death. Therfore the authoritie also remai­neth. Besides S. Austin saith l. de Pastor. c. 1. Christiani sumus propter nos, Praepositi non nisi propter vos. Therfore Saint Peter being made Cheefe of Gods Church, for the good of it, left his authoritie in the Church. Whervpon S. Austin tract. 50. in Ioannem, saith, that when Peter recea­ued the keyes, Ecclesiam sanctam significauit, he represented the holy Church, because he re­ceaued them, as her Gouernour vnder Christ, and for her good. And therfore as long as she remaineth, the authority [Page 86] which Saint Peter receaued for her good must remaine. Aarons authoritie remained in his Suc­cessors. Therfore Peters. Secondly, I proue it, because God in the ould law instituted one high Priest, who vnder him in spirituall matters should be head of the Sinagogue, as in plaine termes confesse Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 6. §. 2. Whitaker cont. Dur. p. 151. Reinolds Conferen. pag. 204. 205. And his authoritie descended to his successors, so long as the Synagogue continued. Wherfore wel said the Archbishop of Canterbury, Suruey cap. 8. VVe must not dreame that when the Apostles (S. Peter) died the authoritie which was giuen to them, ceased, no more than we, may that the authority of Aaron, and his naturall sonnes expired, and ended with them. But the gouernment of the Synagogue was but a figure of the gouernment of the Church. For as Saint Paul saith: Omnia in figura contingebant illis. Therfore, &c. Who will see more of this matter may read Stapleton. contr. 3. q. 2.

That the Pope is Successor to S. Peter.8. Onely this remaineth, that wee proue that the Bishop of Rome (& consequent­ly Saint Gregory) was successor to Saint Peter in this authority. Which I proue, 1 First, because no other Bishop euer clai­med it. For albeit the Patriarch of Con­stantinople in Saint Gregoryes tyme clai­med to be vniuersall Patriarch, that is (as Saint Gregory vnderstood him) to be the onely proper, and formall Bishop, as shall [Page 87] be more declared hereafter, yet he ac­knowledged him self vnder the Pope, as Saint Gregory him self withall witnes­seth in these wordes, lib. 7. epist. 63. De Constant. sede quis dubitet eam Sedi Apostolicae es­se subiectam, &c. VVho doubted but the See of Constāt. is subiect to the See Apostolick (of Rome) which both the most religious Lord the Emperor, and our (Eusebius) religious brother, Bishop of the same Citty do dayly professe. Where, by the way I note, that Eusebius is not the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople, at that tyme, but a sirname giuen vnto him for his great externall acts of religion, who also was for his abstinence named Ieiunator, that is, Faster. Secondly, because the Bis­hops 2 of Rome haue alwayes challenged, and often practised the same authority. The Church of Rome saith (Fox Act. lib. 1. pag. 1.) in all these ages aboue specified (from the A­postles) that challanged to it selfe the title and ringleading of the whole Vniuersall Church on earth, by whose direction all other Churches haue bene gouerned. And pag. 18. VVhat so euer was done in other places, commonly the maner was to write to the Roman Bishop for his approbation. The testimony of the Roman Bishop was some­tymes wont to be desired in those dayes (of Pope Iulius) for admitting Bishops in other Churches, wherof we haue examples in Socrates lib. 4. c. 37. VVhen Bishops of any other Prouinces were [Page 88] at any dissention, they appealled to the Bishop of Rome. Doct. Reinolds Confer. pag. 457. Popes of the second 300. yeares after Christ claimed some soueraignty ouer Bishops. pag. 383. Zozi­mus, Boniface, Celestin did vsurp (saith he) ouer the Churches of Africk, whiles Austin was aliue. pag. 544. They would haue Bishops, and elders appealle to Rome. And. pag. 550. Popes (namly Innocent, Leo, Gelas. Vigil. Greg.) taught that the Fathers by the sentence of God decreed that whatsoeuer was done in Prouinces far of, should not be concluded before it came to the notice of the See of Rome. And this they say all Churches tooke their beginning from the Roman, that all Bishops had their honor from Peter. And yet him selfe saith pag. 545. that Pope Innocent was learned and Catholick. And pag. 540. That S. Austin alleadgeth his authority against hereticks. And that in those times Popes were learned, and Ca­tholicks. pag. 552. 554. 555. and sued vnto by S. Basil, S. Chrisostom, and S. Augustin, and the African Bishops, sought vnto them for their aduise and counsell, for their authoritie and credit. Of such acount were those Popes that clay­med the supremacie euen amongst the cheefe Doctors of the Church. Doct. Whitak. lib. 7. cont. Dur. pag. 480. saith, that Pope Victor practised authoritie ouer externe Churches, who was not long after S. Peter, and by the iudgment of Protestants a godly [Page 89] martyr. Wicklif in Fox pag. 445. confesseth the Bishop of Rome to be Christs Vicar on earth. And Luther for some yeares after he began Protestancy confessed the same, as yow may see lib. de Captiu. Babyl. in initio, and in Fox pag. 774. Edit. 1596.

9. Thirdly, I prooue it, Third reason that the Pope succeded Peter in his authority. because the Pope is successor to Saint Peter in his Bishop­rick, therfore he is more like to haue his authority than any other. That the an­cient Fathers say, that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, Protestants nether do nor can deny. And therfore I will for bre­uity omitt their testimonies, and content my self with these mens confessions. The learned and ancient Fathers (saith Bilson lib. of Obedience pag. 143.) call the Bishops of Rome Peters successors. pag. 380. Saint Peter founder of Saint Leo his Church. The Fathers say (wri­teth Reinolds pag. 218. 219). Peter was Bis­hop of Rome, and he nameth Hierom, Eu­seb. Irenaeus. Bishop Cooper in Chron. Linus first Bishop of Rome after Peter. But saith Reinol. they meant improperly. And why so? Because (saith he) Peter being Apostle could not be Bishop of one Cyttie. VVhē the Fathers call Peter Bishop of Rome they meane properly. Secōd­ly, because Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. nameth Li­nus first Bishop of Rome, and Eusebius in Chron. calleth Euodius first Bishop of An­tioch, which could not be if Peter had be­ne a proper Bishop. But against these ca­uils [Page 90] I oppose the propriety of the word Bishop, which no Father or ancient writer hath signified that he vsed improperly when he called S. Peter Bishop: And all words (especially in histories) are to be taken properly, when the Authors declare not the contrary, els we should neuer be sure how we should vnderstād the writer. 2 Secōdly, they say, that S. Peter was first B. of Rome. Negare non potes (saith. Optatus l. 2. writing against hereticks) Thou canst not deny that thou knowest, that to Peter first was an Episcopal Chaire set in Rome in which first sate Peter, to whome succeded Linus. Loe how certain was it thē that the very hereticks could not deny, but they knew it to be so. Wherfor I ask when the Fathers sayd Pe­ter was first Bishop, how they vsed the word Bishop? If improperly, then they meant so of Linus. If properly, thē we ha­ue 3 our purpose. Thirdly, in reckoning of the Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, they alwaies name Peter first. Iren l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. Chron. Epiph. haer. 27. Hier. in Cle­mente, Optatus l. 2. Aug. ep. 165. But what should he do in the Catalogue of proper Bishops, if he were none him self? Besides they reckon him first Bishop of Rome as they reckon Mark first B. of Alexandria, 4 but Mark was a proper Bishop. Fourthly, they call the See of Rome the seat or [Page 91] chaire of Peter, S. Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. lib. 4. epist. 2. S. Hierom in Pet. ep. ad Damasum Aug. lib. 2. cont. Petil, cap. 51. Sozom. lib. 1. c. 14. Prosper lib. De ingratis Bernard epist. 237. And in like sort they call it se­des Apostolica as Caluin confesseth, and is euident ex Concil. Calcedon. Act. 16. And Rein. Confer. pag. 369. The Fathers in speaking of the Church of Rome mention often the Chair, and seat of Peter. Hierom honoreth the Bishop of that See with the name of Peters Chaire. Fiftly, they 5 call the Bishop of Rome successor to S. Peter. S. Hier. ep. ad Damas. Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 2. S. Eulog. apud Greg. lib. 6. ep. 37. And that they meane of a proper successor, appeareth by that they attribute that pe­culierly to the Pope. Sixtly, & lastly they 6 say that Peter sate in the Bishops Chaire of Rome as they saye his successors did. Cathedra (saith S. Austin lib. 2. cont. Petil.) quid tibi fecit Romana in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua nunc Anastasius sedet? VVhat hath the Chair of Rome done to thee in which Peter sate, and in which now sitteth Anastasius? Therfore either Peter was a proper Bishop, or Anastasius was none. To conclude, Reinolds sayth P. Damas. succeded Peter in his chaire. Reinolds him self though vnawares confesseth it pag. 376. where he sayth that Damasus succeded Peter as in Chair, so in doctrine.

10. As for the first of Reinolds cauils. It is no more against Peters Apostleship to be [Page 92] Bishop of one Citty, than it was to take a particuler care of the Iewes, as he did, nor more than it is for the Bishop of Win­ster to be Parson of Eastmean. And for the second, Irenaeus doth not call Linus first Bishop of Rome, but onely saith that Peter, and Paul gaue him the Bishoprick to gouern the Church, to wit vnder Pe­ter, and in his absence. Euseb. indeed cal­leth Euodius first Bishop of Antioch, but that he meaneth of pure Bishops which were not also Apostles. For before he had sayd Petrus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundauit, òbique Cathedram adeptus, sedit. And Rein. loco cit. confesseth, and both he, and all graunt that Linus was Peters successor. And as for Ruffin, his words proue no more, but that Peter instituted Linus to help him, especially in his absence, as Valerius did institute S. Aug. in his life tyme, who after his death succeeded him, and so did Linus to Peter. Thus haue I prooued that S. Gregorie was successor to S. Peter in his Episcopall See, and that he succeded him also in faith I neede not proue, because protestants, although they find some fault with Greg. doctrine, yet they confesse (as is shewed before) that he taught as much as is needfull to saluation, and con­sequently he wanted no thing to true succession to S. Peter.

[Page 93]11. Fourthly I proue that the Pope was most likely, to succede Saint Peter, Proued out of Fa­thers that the P. suc­cedeth pe­ter in his authority. by that which the Fathers attribute to him. Saint Hierom epist. ad Damasum de nomine hypostasis. Ego nullum primum, nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est, Cathedrae Petri communione consocior, super illam Petram aedi­ficatam Ecclesiam scio. Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit prophanus est. I follow­ing none formost but Christ, communicate with thy Holines, that is with the Chaire of Peter. Vpon that Rock do I know the Church was built, who soeuer shall eate the lambe out of this house is pro­phane. Note how he saith, that he followeth first Christ, and next the Pope, and that the reason, which he giueth herof after, was not why he followed Christ first, for that were needles to proue amongst Christians; And if he would haue giuen any, it would haue bene, Hierom follovveth the P. next after christ because Christ made the P. the rock of his Church. because Christ is God; But the reason which he giueth, was why he followed the Pope next to Christ, to wit, because he knew him to be the Rock, on which the Church was built. Wherby it is euident, that by the Rock, he meant not Christ, as Bilson lib. de Obed. pag 87. and others would, but Pope Damasus as Reinolds cōfesseth p. 370. 376. But yet he meant not (saith Reinolds) the succession of the Popes, because Hierom writeth that Pope Liberius had before [Page 94] subscribed to Arianisme. But if Hieroms words be well pōdered he will be found to haue said, both that Pope Damasus was the Rock, and that his succession to Saint Peter in his Chaire of Rome, was the cause why he was the Rock. For if a subiect writing to the King should say: Nullum primum nisi Deum sequens maiestati tuae, id est, Throno Conquestoris (in temporalibus) consocior. Super illam petram aedificatum Angliae Regnum scio. Quicumque extra hanc domum aliquid egerit, rebellis est. He should confesse that both the King were head of the Realme, and with all tell how he came by that authority, to witt, by succession to the conqueror. So Saint Hierome in the forsaid words both sayd that Pope Damasus person, which he meant by Beatitudini tuae, was the Rock on which in his tyme, the Church was built: and sayd with all that his person had that authoriry by his succession to Saint Peter in his Roman Chaire, and therfore added these words, id est, Cathe­drae Petri, as a further explication of the former. And consequently he meant that the Church is built vpon all Popes that lawfully succeed in the Chaire of Peter. Which is so euident as Doct. Feild lib. 1. de Ecclesia▪ D. Feild. cap. 41. confesseth plainly that Saint Hierome loc cit. said, that Peters Chaire is the Rock the Church is builded vpon. As for Rei­nolds [Page 95] reasons, were it truth that S. Hie­rome wrote (as Reinolds saith) of Libe­rius, which yet diuers deny, and Reinolds must deny, if he will speak agreably to him self. For pag. 570. he saith, that the words of Austin (ep. cont. Donat. and Hierome ep. cit.) do import a sincerity of faith in the Roman Bishops to their tyme, which would not be true, if Liberius had fallen. But admit I say it were true, that Liberius had denyed his faith, that maketh no more against his Rock ship, than the like fault in S. Peter did against his. For as S. Peter though he denyed his faith, yet taught not infidelitie as he was Apostle, and Pastor of the Church, so nether Liberius though he committed a personall crime, yet taught he no heresie, as successor to S. Peter, in which sorte onely he is the Rock of the Church.

12. Secondly, S. Austin ep. contra Donat. saith: S. Austin. Numerate Sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri Sede. Ipsa est enim Petra quam non vincunt superbae infero­rum portae: Number the Priests euen from the very Seat of Peter; Successiō of Popes by S. Au­stin the Rock of the Church. It is the Rock which the proud gates of hell do not ouercom. Behould how the very succession of Popes from Peter, is called the Rock of the Church, as the Chair of Peter was before called of S. Hierome. To this Bilson pag. 88. First saith that the text is corrupted, and that it should be ipse [Page 96] and referred to Peters person. But this is a mere surmise refelled in all the copies in Europe. Secondly he saith, that though it be ipsa, and grammatically agree with the substantiue Petra, which followeth, yet it may be meant of Peters person. But if Saint Austin had meant that Peter alone had bene the Rock, and that his successors partaked nothing with him in that, he would neuer haue byd vs number his suc­cessors too, and then tell vs that that was the Rock. Wherfore Reynolds Confer. pag. 384. confesseth that Saint Austin applyed this text the gates of hell, &c. to the Church of Rome. And Bilson himself as doubting of either of the former answers saith thirdly, that Saint Austin said not that Peters Seat is the Rock of the Church, but that hell gates preuaile not against it. But to our purpose all is one, that in Saint Austins iudgment Peters Seat (that is Peters suc­cessors in Seat) are either the Rock of the church, Theodo­ret. or so surely founded theron, as the gates of hell shall not preuaile against thē.

13. Thirdly, Theodoret an ancient and Grecian Doctor writing to Renatus, saith of the Roman See: Tenet enim sancta Sedes gubernacula regendarum cuncti orbis Ecclesiarum. That holy seat hath the gouernment of all the Churches of the world. Which words are so plaine, as Iuell Art. 4. Diu. 21. findeth no [Page 97] better answer than (iudging others by his owne humor) to say, That man naturally ad­uanceth his power at whose hands he seeketh help. As if Theodoret were such a man as would giue an Antichristian title (for so Protestants acount the gouernment of the Churches in the world) or S. Leo accept it for flatery. Finally the great Councel of Galcedon ep. ad Leonem, calleth Pope Leo their head, and say that to him. Concil. Galcedon. Vineae custodia a Domino commissa est. The custodie of the Vinyard (that is the Church) was com­mitted by our Lorde. And thus I hope I haue sufficiently proued both by reuelation from heauen, by the authoritie of the Church then aliue, and since, by the exam­ples of Popes euer since S. Peters tyme bv confession of Protestants, and finally by reason taken out of scripture, that S. Greg. had lawful authoritie to send S. Austin. Now let vs come to S. Austins orders.

CHAP. X. That S. Austin was rightly ordered to administer the Sacraments, and preach the word of God.

1. THat S. Augustin was created Priest at Rome is euident by his saying Masse, preaching, and Christening as soone as he came to Canterburie, as is before rehearsed out of Beda lib. 1. cap. 26. And after he had conuerted King Ethelbert he came (saith Beda cap. 27.) to Arles, where of Etherius Archbishop of that Citty he was conse­crated Archbishop of the Nation of Englishmen; according as S. Greg. the Pope had commanded. And the King (saith the same S. Beda cap. 26.) gaue him place for his See in the Citty of Canter­burie. Here by the way I note, that wheras S. Greg. lib. 7. epist. 30. saith, that S. Austin was created Bishop a Germaniarū Episcopis, he doth not gain-say S. Beda, who saith he was created by the Bishop of Arles, because France was of the writers of that tyme called Germanie, as appeareth by Venantius Fortunatus in Carmine de Nuptijs Sigeberti & Brunechildae, which might be, [Page 99] partly because the French at that tyme and long after gouerned a great part of Germany, partly also because the Francks who then ruled in France were Germans come out of Germanie. But to our pur­pose. That S. Austin vvas rightly ordered. That S. Austin was rightly created Priest appeareth, by that he was made by the authoritie of S. Gregory, or his prede­cessors, whome protestants account to haue bene true Bishops of Rome. And Doct. Reinolds Confer. pag. 362. acknow­ledgeth 1 the Pope to haue yet Bishoply power ouer his owne Diocesse. S. Austin therfore being a Roman, and made by the Bishoply authoritie of the Pope, was rightly made Priest. And in lyke sort it may be proued that he was rightly con­secrated a Bishop. For he was made by the authoritie of the Pope with the consent of the King of England. Secondly I proue 2 that S. Austin was lawfully consecrated Bishop by the consent of the Christian world. For S. Greg. commanded him to be made Bishop, the French Bishops made him, the English Christians receaued him, and the East Church, to whome S. Greg. wrote of the matter, neuer disliked him, and all the Christian world hitherto hath approued him. Nether did the Britons (though enemyes) take any exceptions against his orders. Thirdly because all 3 [Page 100] protestants call S. Austin a Bishop, and number him first in the Catalogue of the Archbishops of Canterburie. And if their Bishops and Ministers will haue any orders at all, they must confesse that S. Austins orders were good, and sufficient. For as Doct. Feild saith, lib. 3. of the Church cap. 39. In England they which had bene Bishops in the former corrupt state of the Church (so he termeth Catholick tymes) did ordaine Bishops and Ministers. And Sutclif. answer to exceptions pag. 88. saith. Couerdal and Scory (who were Bishops in King Edwards tyme) layd hands vpon Bishop Parker. Bel in his Funerall professeth openly that he hath not departed from the substance of his Popish orders, but onely from the cere­monies therof. Besides, euident it is, that what Bishop or Priest so euer had bene made in King Henries tyme, was neuer consecrate a new in King Edwards dayes. Who had bene made in Queene Maries dayes was acounted to haue suffi­cient orders in Queene Elisabeths Reigne. And yet what Priest apostateth from his faith is, without more orders, thought to haue orders ynough fore ministring the Sacraments and vvord of God, or prote­stants haue no order at all. And thus hauing shewed that S. Austin was the first Preacher of Christian fayth to our [Page 101] English Nation, and that he had both suf­ficient learning and vertue to discharge such a function, and withall lawfull com­mission and right orders to administer the Sacraments, and preach the word of God; now let vs see what kind of faith and religion it was, which he preached; and first what kind in generall, and af­terward what it was in particuler.

CHAP. XI. That the Faith which Saint Austin preached to our English Ancestors, was the vniuersall Faith of Christendome at that tyme.

1. THis I proue first by the testimony of those that liued in that tyme, S. Austins vniuersal religion proued by S. Greg. a­mong whome the cheefest and principal is S. Gregory him selfe, who hauing be­ne long tyme the Popes Legat in Con­stantinople, and after being Pope and re­ceauing letters from all partes of Chri­stendome, could not be ignorant what was the vniuersal faith of East, West, and of all Christendome at that time. He I say [Page 102] writing to S. Austin. lib. 9. Epist. 58. hath these words. f All the aithful of S. Austins time ioyed at our Na­tions con­uersion by him. Quis sufficiat, &c. VVho can tel what ioy arose in the harts of all the faithfull that the English nation by the working of Almighty God his grace, and the labor of thy brotherhood, hauing cast away the darknes of errors, is endued with the light of the holy faith, that with sincere deuotion it trampleth the Idolls to which before vvith mad feare it bowed vnto, that with a pure hart it is subiect to Almightie God. Behould S. Greg. witnesseth that all faithfull of that time acknowledged and reioyced that Austin brought the faith to our English Nation, and that they by his meanes ser­ued God with most sincere deuotion and pure harts. But yet more plainly auoucheth he this truth, Moral. 27. cap. 6. Where glory­ing in God of the conuersion of England he writeth thus. S. Austins doctrine the faith of Chri­stendom from the East to the vvest. Behould now the faith hath entred the harts almost of all Nations. Behould God hath ioyned the bounds of the East and west in one faith. Behould the tonge of Britanie which knew nothing but to roare rudely, of late hath begun in Gods praises to sound out the hebrew Alleluia. O most comfortable speach to all those that follow S. Gregory and S. Austins doctrine, Great comfort for Ca­tholicks. to heare auouched by irrefraga­ble testimonie that it was the faith of the Church of God from the East to the west aboue a thousand yeares agoe. For as Tertullian saith. Admit that God had ne­glected [Page 103] his Church, and permitted it to run into errors, is it lykly that so many and so great Churches would conspire wholy in error? No surely.

2. The next is S. Austin him self who in Beda lib. 2. cap▪ 2. saith thus vnto the Bri­tons. S. Austins. Doctrine proued to be vniuer­sal by his ovvne testimonie Although in many other points yow do con­trary to our custome, or rather contrary to the custome of the vniuersall Church of Christ. Be­hould how he testifyeth his custome to be the custome of the vniuersall Church of Christ in his tyme. And lib. 1. cap. 27. in his questions proposed to S. Greg. he asketh, VVhere there is but one faith, whie be there so many sundry customs of Churches, and one custome of Masses obserued at Rome, another in France? Here he manefestly testifyeth that there was but one faith and one masse in sub­stance euery where, and the difference onely in ceremonies. S. Greg. commu­nicated vvith all partes of Christen­dom. The same also may be proued by the communion which S. Gregory (whose faith was vndoubtedly the same with S. Austin) had with all Christendom. For lib. 6. epist. 4. & 5. he communicateth with Cyriacus the Pa­triarch of Constantinople lib. 4. epist. 34. 36. lib. 7. epist. 30. he communicated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, and gloried to him of the conuersion of England. lib. 1. epist. 25. lib. 4. epist. 37. lib. 6. epist. 24. lib. 7. epist. 3. 47. he communicated with the [Page 104] Patriarch of Antioch; vnder which three Patriarchs was almost all the Eastern Church. And touching the Western Church lib. 1. epist. 4. lib. 4. epist. 46. He communicated with Leander Primat of Spaine. lib. 4. epist. 51. He communicated with Vigilius primate of France. lib. 9. epist. 61. he communicated with all the Catholick Bishops of Ireland. lib. 2. epist. 28. he communicated with all the Bishops of Italy. lib. 1. epist. 60. 61. he communicated with Ianuarius of Sardinia. lib. 1. epist. 68. he communicated with all the Bishops in Sicilie. lib. 1. epist. 76. with Leo Bishop of Corsica lib. 1. epist. 75. with all the Bishops of Numidia. lib. 2. epist. 15. lib. 3. epist. 16. with all the Bishops of Dalmatia. lib. 3. epist. 37. He communicated with all the Bishop of Vizach, and epist. 30. With the Bishop of Istria. And lib. 7. epist. 30. with the Bishops of Germanie, and consequentlie with all Catholick Churches in the East and west.

S. vvilfrid auou­cheth S. Austins doctrin to be vni­uersal.3. Of those that liued after S. Austins tyme. First is S. Wilfrid Archbishop of York, who was borne soone after S. Austins death. For as S. Beda saith. lib. 5. cap. 20. He went vp to Rome in the tyme of Ho­norius Archbishop of Canterburie who was one of S. Austins fellowes, and he was as S. Beda ther writeth a worthie Prelat and notable Bishop. This man therfore in [Page 105] Beda. lib. 3. cap. 25. disputing with the Scotts for the Roman obseruation of Easter and shauen Crownes, saith thus, The Easter which we obserue we haue seene to haue bene in lyke maner obserued in Rome, in all Italie and France. This maner we know to be obserued in Africk. in Eegipt, in Asia, in Grece, and throughout all Nations and tongues of the world where the Church of Christ taketh place, besides these few Scotts, and the Picts, and Britons, with whome these men do fondly contend against the whole world. Behould how S. Wilfrid auoucheth his Religion euen in that point wherein the Scotts then dissented from vs, to be the Religion of all the Christian world. Nether did the Scotts, or could they deny it. S. Ceolfrid The next is S. Ceolfrid Abbot, and Maister to S. Beda, who liued in the same tyme, who writing to Naitan King of the Picts in Beda. lib. 5. cap. 22. and speaking of his tyme saith: The whole Catholick Church agreeth in one faith, in one hope, and one charitie towards God. The third is S. Beda him self who, lib. 2. cap. 2. saith, S. Beda. The Britons preferred their own Traditions before all other Churches, which throughout the whole world agreed with Austin in Christ. What I pray can be sayd or imagined against these so manifould or irrefragable testimonies. Were S. Gregory, S. Austin, S. Wilfrid, S. Ceolfrid, S. Beda ignorant what was [Page 106] the vniuersall faith of Christendome at that tyme? or were they so impudent as they would write, yea auouch to their aduersaries face a knowne vntruth? No surely. And this truth Protestants also partly openly confesse, partly tacitly grant and acknowledg. For Napier vpon the Reuelation of S. Iohn, See more infr. lib. 2. cap. 3. saith. Betwene the yeare of Christ 300. and 316. the Antichristian and Papisticall Religion reigning vniuersally without debatable contradiction 1260. yeares. And Brocard also vpon the Reuelation pag. 110. writeth that the Church (of Prote­stants) was troden downe and oppressed by the Papacy euen from Siluesters tyme vnto these times. Bale cent. 1. pag. 69. saith. From this tyme (of Boniface 3. who succeeded S. Greg. with in a yeare or two) the puritie of heauenly doctrine vanished in the Church. pag. 65. After Greg. tyme puritie of doctrine perished, And 73. From Phocas who liued in S. Greg. tyme vvho (saith he) begot the Papacy till the renewing of the Gospel (by Luther) the doctrine of Christ was all the vvhile among Idiots in holes. Now if the heauenly doctrine of protestants perished straight after S. Greg. tyme, and euer since hath bene onely in Idiots, and lurking holes, how could it be the vniuersall faith of all Christendome in his tyme? Could the vniuersall faith of Christendome perish in one or two yeares? Would [Page 107] all learned men, and open Churches for­sake it in so short time, and onely Idiots and holes keepe it? See more of this matter lib. 2. cap. 1. infra.

CHAP. XII. That the doctrine vvhich Austin taught vvas the true vvay to saluation. Proued by the open confession of his Aduersaries, and other things affirmed by them.

1. THe first aduersaries which S. Austin had to his doctrine were the Bri­tons before mentioned. Of whome S. Beda l. 2. cap. 2. writeth that S. Austin hauing cured a blind man whome they could not, The people praised S. Austin as a true preacher of all truth and veritie; Britons approue S. Austins doctrine. And the Britons confessed indeed that they vnderstood that to be the true way of righteousnes, which Austin had preached, and shewed to them. The same writeth Hunting­ton lib. 3. Stow Chron. pag. 66. and others. And albeit his preaching to them, then tooke not that effect, which he intended, [Page 108] yet if Fox say true lib. 2. pag. 123. that in Ina his time began the right obseruing of Easter day to be kept of the Picts and of the Britons, with in short tyme the whole Nation not onely approued, but also admitted S. Austins doctrine. Yea if it be true that Godwin writeth in vit. Theod. That to him all the British Bishops, and generally all Britany yeelded obedience, and vnder him conformed them selues in all things to the rites and disciplin of the Church of Rome, they performed this longe before, about 60. yeares after S. Austin.

Protestāts account S. Austins doctrin sufficient to salua­tion.2. The next open Aduersaries of Saint Austins doctrine in England haue bene the Protestants; Of whome, diuers haue in their writings openly acknowledged as much as the Britons did. For Iuel in his famous challeng, Iuel. offered to recant if any of the holy Fathers who liued in the first 600. yeares after Christ were found contrarie to him in his Articles. In which compasse of yeares both S. Greg. and S. Austin liued. And cryed out saying, O Gregorie, O Austin &c. If we be deceaued yow haue deceaued vs. Fulk. Fulk in 1. Cor. 15. Seeing Gregorie and Austin, (saith he) taught the truth in all points necessarie to saluation, our Contrie hath not beleeued in vaine, nor all our fore Fathers are dead in their sinnes. Fox. Fox in his Acts pag. 111. 120. 122. Calleth the faith planted here by Austin and his fellow-laborers the Christian [Page 109] faith. p. 115. 116. the faith and doctrine of Christ. pap. 121. Christs Religion, and that Church, the Church of Christ. And pag. 112. The perfect faith of Christ. Cooper. Bishop Cooper Chron. Anno. 636. calleth it, the right beleefe. Stow Chron. pag. 9. calleth it the Christian faith. Stovv. And pag. 72. pure and incorupted Christianitie. Cambden Cambden in descript. Britan. pag. 519. The true Religion of Christ. Godvvin. Apologie for the oath of allea­geance, The faith of Christ. Godwin in Paulin. The Gospel; And in Mellit. The faith of Christ. Holinshed in Brit. Holinshead. The Christian faith. The faith of Christ. The word of God. Bilson of Obed. part. 1. pag. 57. calleth it Religion to God. Bilson. Sutclif Subuers. cap. 3. ter­meth it Faith, Religion, Christian Religion, Sutclif. and saith the people were conuerted to Christ, Finally Fox lib. 2. pag. 124. after he had tould in particuler how euery one of those seauen Kingdoms which then were in England, was conuerted, concludeth thus; Fox. And thus by processe of tyme we haue discoursed from tyme to tyme, how and by what meanes the Idolatrous people were induced to the true fayth of Christ. And who considereth with him selfe, that not onely our Catholick English Ancestors imbraced the doctrine of S. Austin, but also the erroneous Britons, and Protestants account it the true way of righteousnes, the Gospel, the Faith of Christ. The perfect faith of Christ, the right beleefe, the true [Page 110] Religion of Christ, pure and incorrupt Christianitie, and finally true faith of Christ, neede seeke no more, but what S. Austins faith was, and follow it. To those that grant that S. Austins faith was the true way to salua­iion, I might adde also the Protestants, who affirme the same of the present Romā faith, whose testimonies yow may see in the Apologie of Protestants Tract. 1. Sec. 6. Onely I will content my selfe with his Maiesties wordes to the parlament 9. of Nouember An. 1605. put forth in print thus: VVee do iustly confesse that many Papists especially our Forfathers laying their onely trust vpon Christ and his meritts (as they them selues teache in Bellarm.) may be and often tymes are saued, detestinge in that point and thinking the crueltie of Puritans worthy of fyer that will admit no saluation to any Papist.

3. Besids this open confefsion of diuers Protestants for the truth of S. Austins Re­ligion, it may be also conuinced out of di­uers other things which them selues teach. For it being supposed out of Gods word heb. 11 that without the right faith it is impossible to please God: and withall confessed of diuers Protestants that S. Austin and his fellowes were holy men, it necessarily followeth that his faith was the true faith of God. S. Austin and his follovvers holie men by Protest. Of S. Austins holi­nes, & the English people in general some [Page 111] thing hath bene sayd before. Of others Fox lib. 2. pag. 123. saith Cutbert Iaruman, S. Cutbert Cedda and VVilfrid I iudge (saith he) to be of a holy conuersation. pag. 125. S. Aldelm. Aldelm a worthie and learned Bishop, of notable praise for his learning and vertue. Ibid. he calleth S. Iohn of Be­uerly and S. Egwin Saints. pag. 127. S. Iohn Beuerly. Tou­ching the integrite and holines of Bedas life. It is not to be doubted, S. Beda. with great comfort of his spirit he departed this life. pag. 128. He intituleth S. Boniface a Martyr of God. S. Boni­face. And yet pag. 129. calleth him a great setter vp and vphoulder of Popery. pag. 112. calleth king Edmond three tymes Saint. S. Edmōd. Item pag. 121. King Oswald a Saint (saith he) had great vertues, and by prayer ouercame his enemies. S. Osvvald Cooper Chron. an. 636. calleth Birin Saint an. 643. Oswald a holy king. 869 holy king Edmond. Stow Chron. pag. 78. Cedda a holy man. Iaruman a Bishop of great vertue. Ibid King Sebbi, very deuout and godly. pag. 81. Kinesburg and Kineswith for holy conuersation excelling. pag. 99. Cutbert Saint. Bale cent. 1. cap. 76. saith of S. Aidan, that he was a man of most innocent life and ful of the spirit of God, and yet was Oswald his scholler a manifest Papist, praying before crosses and for the dead, euen when him selfe was redy to dye. ex Bed. lib. 3. cap. 2. & 12. The same Bale cent 1. cap. 83. saith, that Aldelm went happilie to Christ, and yet withal con­fesseth [Page 112] that he wrote for shauen crownes after the Roman maner, feasts of Saints, single lyfe, and such things, and was long tyme familiar with P. Sergius. cent 1. cap. 93. He calleth Ceolfrid, Beda, S. Ceolfrid S. VVille­brord. Willebrord, Boniface and the like most holy monkes, And addeth cent. 2. cap. 1. that Beda had a most happie end; And yet the same man saith of Boniface pag. 79. that he brought the Germans to Papisme: and pag. 103. VVas the next to the Pope the greate Antichrist, and signed a hundred thousand men in Bauaria with the Popes mark. And cent. 2. cap. 5. writeth that Willebrord preached Papistrie. Of S. Beda he saith cent. 2. cap. 1. That he can not be excused from all superstitious doctrine. And in the same place saith that Ceolfrid vsed the new ordinations of the Roman superstition. And that he was a plaine Papist appeareth by his epistle in Beda lib. 5. cap. 22. where he teacheth one sacrifice of the bodie of Christ, rounde shauing of Monks, Calleth Peter head and Primat of the Apostles. Wher­vpon Fox lib. 2. pag. 126. termeth him a shaueling, condemneth him for calling Peter a Mediator, and termeth it a Monkish epistle, And in lyke sort Bale speaketh of diuers others. S. Hilda. For cent 1. cap. 94. he saith: S. Hilda Abbesse was a most holy woman, Ibid. Iohn of Beuerly a man very learned and pious, accounted it most sweet to preach Christs Gospel out of the Pulpit, and ended his life in great constancie of [Page 113] Euan­gelical spirit. And cent. 2. cap. 1. Calleth him a most holy prelat. Cambden also Descrip: Britan. pag. 518. Calleth S. Werburg Saint. S. VVer­burg. S. Mil­burg. S. Botulph pag. 526. S. Milburg a most holy virgin. p. 612. King Oswald Saint and pag. 150. That that age was most fruitful of Saints. pag. 473. Botulph most holy. And pag. 472. Guthlac lead his life in great holines. This by the confession of Protestants was the fruit of S. Austins religion. And if it be true, (as most true it is which our Sauiour said) that we can not gather grapes of thornes nor figges of brambles: And if it be true that vertue springeth not out of the Diuels seede, nor Saints out of his Religion; Sure it is also, that S. Austins Religion came not from the Diuel but from God. Can any man of sense thinke that so great sanctitie can stand with ignorance of the true way to saluation? With ignorance of the true worship of God? That men become Saints and attain to heauen by Religion of Diuels? Are Diuels so bountiful to men, as they will teach them the waye to heauen? Or haue they such skil as they can inuent new wayes to heauen besides the way that Christ taught? And this for the vertue of S. Austins followers; Now let vs see what account Protestants make of the learning of some of them.

4. That we may be assured that it was [Page 114] not ignorance which made our Ancestors imbrace S. Austins doctrine, That our Ancestors follovved not S. Au­stin vpon ignorance S. Aldelm, Bale saith cent. 1. cap. 83. Did so studie both Deuine, and Human learning, that be far passed all the Deuines of his tyme, most learned in Greeke, and Latin, S. Aldelm. in Verse, and Prose, and cleare in wit and speeche. Fox Acts 125. saith, he was a learned Bishop of worthy praise for his learning. Cambd. Descript. Brit. 210. saith, he was surely worthie that his memorie should remain for euer. For he was the first Englishman that wrote in Latin, and first that taught Englishmen to make Latin Verses. Godwin in Vit. Aldelm. He became Very learned, in Poetrie excellent, and writ much in Greek and Latin, Prose and Verse, but his cheefe studie was Deuinitie, in the which no man of his tyme was comparable vnto him. And yet to assure vs also of his Religion lib. cit. affirmeth, that he wrote at the comman­dement of Monks for shauing and anointing of Priests, for feasts of Saints, and single life, and other, (saith he) new rites, and that he had great familiaritie with Pope Sergius. And cent. 14. cap. 26. saith, that Maidulph maister of S. Aldelm was sullied with Papistical blemish, and was a most eager defender of the Roman constitutions. And yet the same Maidulph, (saith Cambden Brit. pag. 210,) was of great learning and singuler pietie. S. Beda. Of S. Beda Bale cent. 2. cap. 1. giueth this testimonie. He was so practised in Prophane writers that he scarce [Page 115] had his match in that age, he learnt Phisick, and Metaphisick out of the purest fountains. He knew the misteries of the Christian faith so soundly, (note) that for his exact knowledg both of Greeke and Latin many preferred him before Gregorie the Great. There is scarce any thing worth reading to be found in all Antiquitie which in due places is not read in Beda [...] if he had liued in the tymes of Austin, Hierom, Chrisostom; I doubt not but he might haue contended for equalitie with them. He put forth many bookes ful of all kind of learning. Thus Bale of S. Beda: and in like sort Fox Acts. pag. 127. saith, he was a man of worthy and memorable memory and famous learning, The whole Latin Church at that tyme gaue him the maistry in iudgement, and knowledg of the holy scripture. Stow Chron. pag. 93. Beda a famous learned man. Cooper Chron. An. 729. Beda for his learning and godly life was renowned in all the world. Bel in his Downfal Beda for vertue and learning renowned in all the world. Cambden. Brit. pag. 670. Bede the singuler glorie of England, by pietie and erudition obtained the name of venerable, wrote manie volumes, most learnedly. And yet how plaine a Papist S. Beda was shalbe shewed both by his owne doctrine, and by open con­fession of Protestants cap. 17.

5. The third wherof I will speake is Al­cuin scholler to S. Beda, Alcuin. but maister to Charles the great. Of whome. Bale cent. 2 [Page 116] c. 17. VVriteth thus. He was thought by far the most learned Diuine of his age, yea of all English men from the beginning after Aldelm and Beda, in so much that he was maister to Charles the great, and the first beginner of the Vniuersitie of Paris, skilful in Latin, Greeke, and Hebrew. Cambd. in Brit: pag. 629. Calleth him the onely glorie of York. And yet who readeth this Alcuins booke de Diuinis Officijs shall clearly see that he, and our Contry then was as perfect Papists as any now are. For there he shal finde all our Ceremonies at Baptism of exsufflation, exorcising, of salt, Chrisme, and the lyke. Our An­cestors. vsed all our pre­sent Cath. Ceremo­nies in baptisme. Our three Masses on christ­masse day, Our Candlels on Candlemasse day, Our Ceremonies in the holy weeke of keeping the Sepulcher, hallowing the font, putting out all the candels but one. Ther he shall see our seauen orders, our attire of Bishops at masse, our Transub­stantiation, our Extreme Vnction, and that acounted a Sacramēt, our Confession of all our sinnes, our singing Masse, and praying for the dead. These, to omit in­numerable more, confessed in lyke māner by Protestāts to haue bene great schollers, and profound Diuines, shew that it was not ignorance or want of knowledg which made our Forfathers to follow S. Austins doctrin, nor that the Protestants learned men haue by their learning dis­couered [Page 117] in it errors, as they call them. For whome haue they had comparable to any of these in learning, and industry whome of their owne haue they so much commended as they haue done these? Compa­raison of Protest: learned men vvith ours Let any Protestant desirous of truth take Tindal, Latimer, Ridley (whome they terme the Apostles of England) and con­sider whither in learning, or vertue they be comparable to these three. And then iudge with indifferency on whose side truth is most lykely to stand. For all reason teacheth that they are most lykely to find truth, who abounded with most learning to search it, and were indued with most vertue to haue it from God. What reaso­nable man then is ther that forsaking the Doctrine of S. Aldelm, S. Beda, and Alcuin, whome not onely wee, but very Protestants confesse to haue bene most industrious to finde truth, most skilful to discerne it, and most vertuous to deserue to haue it taught of God, will follow Tindal, Latimer, Ridley, whose learning by the iudgment of Catholiques was very meane, and their life very vicious; and by the iudgement of their own men are but meanly commended either for good life, or good learning.

CHAP. XIII. That the Doctrine which S. Austin preached he sealed and con­firmed by true mi­racles.

Hovv manie kindes of proofes for S. Austins miracles.1. THat Saint Austin confirmed his doctrine by miracles, I will proue. First by the testimony of those who liued in his tyme, secondly by the testimony of those that liued soone after, and lastly by the plain confession of Protestants. VVitnesses then liuing. Of those that liued in his tyme, first is S. Gre­gory who writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria lib. 7. epist. 30. saith. S. Grego­rie. Both he (Austin) and they, vvho vvere sent vvith him shine vvith so great miracles in that (English) Nation, that they may seeme to imitat the vertues of the Apostles by the miracles, vvhich they vvorke. And lib. 9. epist. 56. writing to the Queene of France saith. VVhat and hovv great miracles our Redeemer hath vvrought in the conuersion of the forsaid (English) Nation, The Q. of France knevv that our nation vvas con­uerted by great mi­racles. yt is alredy knovvn vnto your Excellency. And can any man thinck that this great Doctor would write to a Queene of France that she knew what miracles were done in England, if they [Page 119] were not manifest, and out of all doubt? And lib. 9. epist. 58. writing to S. Austin him selfe he saith. Reioice that English mens soules are by outvvard miracles dravvne to in­vvard grace. Ib. Diligently discusse thy self, vvho thou arte, and hovv great the grace is in that Nation, for whose conuersion thou hast receaued the gift of miracles. And lib. 27. Moral.. cap. 6. VVheras by good precepts, and heauenly words, yea with manifest miracles too, the grace and knowledg of God is powred into it (English harts) &c. By which words (saith S. Beda lib. 2. cap. 1.) this holy Father doth declare that Austin and his company brought the English men to the knowledg of truth, not onely by preaching to them in word but also by shewing them heauenly signes and miracles.

2. The second testimonie is the publick Epitaph which the English men set vpon S. Austins Tombe after his death in these wordes. S. Austins Epitaph. Here resteth the body of S. Austin first Bishop of Dorobernia, that was sent into this Land by S. Gregorie Bishop of the Cittie of Rome, approued of God by the vvorking of miracles, and brought Ethelbert and his people from the vvorshi­ping of Idolls vnto the Faith of Christ. The third testimonie of those that liued in S. Austins tyme, are the Britons, The Bri­tons. who by the mira­culous cure of a blind man, wrought by S. Austin in their sight were compelled to confesse (as S. Beda saith, lib. 2. cap. 2.) [Page 120] that to be the true vvay of righteousnes, vvhich S. Austin preached. And this testimony is much to be regarded, VVhy the testimo­nie of the Britons for S. Au­stins mi­racles is much to be regar­ded. for it is the testimo­nie of many, of enemyes, of eye witnesses, and of those among vvhome (saith S. Beda lib. 2. cap. 2.) vvere plures viri doctissimi. So they can be no way suspected ether of partia­litie, being enemies, or of insufficiencie being many and present, and through their learning most able to iudg. Camb­den also citeth a peece of a Historie, An vnna­med Au­thor of S. Austins time. written (as he saith) in that time, which recordeth that S. Austin hauing blessed the Riuer Swale, and apointed that of ten thousand men (besides weomen and children) twoe and twoe should goe in, Great mi­racles. and Christen eche other, besides that none perished in so deepe a water, this miracle also happened, that all sicknes and deformitie was cured by that Christening.

3. After S. Austins tyme liued S. Beda who lib. 1. cap. 26. writeth. VVitnesses of S. Au­stins mi­racles af­ter his tyme. The King being much delighted vvith the puritie of their life (S. Austin and his fellowes) and the example of their godly conuersation, as also vvith their svveet pro­mises, vvhich they proued to be true by the vvorking of miracles, S. Beda. did beleeue and vvas baptized. And lib. 2. cap. 2. he reporteth the Prophecie of S. Austin of the destruction of the Britons for their obstinacie, and the euent answered therto after his death. Which is [Page 121] so sure a token of diuine reuelation as the Prophet Esay. cap. 41. saith, Tel vs vvhat things are to come herafter, and vve shall knovv that yovv are Gods. The like prophetical knowledg of things past is attributed to S. Paulin, one of S. Austins fellowes, by him lib. 2. cap. 12. and Godwin in vita Paulini, Fox Acts pag. 121, Holinshed pag. 108. and others. Likwise lib. 2. cap. 6. He recounteth the miraculous scourging of S. Laurence successor to S. Austin by S. Peter for in­tending to abandon our Contrie, vpon the reuolt therof to Paganisme. Which miracle is contested also by our cheefest historiographers Malmsbury lib. 1. Reg. and lib. 2. Pont. Huntington lib. 3. Marian. an. 617. Westmon. an. 616. Florent. an. 616. and confessed by some protestants, as Godwin in vit. Laurentij, and Holinshed pag. 158. In like manner lib. 2. cap. 33. Beda telleth how Peter a companion of S. Austin being drowned, Our Lord (saith he) made that euery night there appeared a light from heauen vpon the place vvhere he lay buried. Ethel­vverd. After S. Beda liued Ethelwerd who lib. 2. cap. 1. writeth. That by the prayers of S. Austin Bishop our Sauiour Iesus Christ sheweth innume­rable miracles to his faithful, at whose Tombe vnto this day no small miracles are wrought. Malmesb. Huntingt. vvestmon. Capgraue. To these witnesses we may ad Malmsb. lib. 1. Pont. Hunting l. 3. westmō. an. 603. and Capgraue [Page 122] also, who in the life of S. Austin writeth. That there were none or few in S. Austins company who had not the gift of curing, that they lightned the darknes of the heathens no lesse by miracles, than by preaching. And he addeth that S. Austin cured all the weak and sick that were brought vnto him, or visited of him.

Protestāts confesse S. Austins miracles.4. Thirdly amongst protestants Fox lib. 2. pag. 116. writeth that when the King had wel considered the honest conuersation of their (Austin and his fellowes) life, Fox. and mooued by the mira­cles wrought through Gods hand by them, and in the margent putteth this note, (Miracles vvrought by God for the conuersion of this land) he heard than more gladly. pag. 118. he mentio­neth S. Gregories letter testifying Saint Austins miracles, and pag. 119. he saith that Beda, Cestrensis, Huntington, Iornalensis, and Fabia testifie the forsaid miracle of the blind man. Godvvin. Godwin in the life of S. Dauid, I doubt not but God affoarded many mira­cles to the first infancie of our Church. Nether therfor would I be to peremptory in derogating to much from such reports as we see no reason why they may not be true. And in the life of S. Austin. Austin wrought a miracle by healing a blind man for confirmation of his doctrine. Holinshed in Descript. Brit. King Ethelbert was persuaded by the good example of S. Austin and his company, and for many miracles shevved, to be baptized. And pag. 602. Austin to proue his [Page 123] opinion good, vvrought a miracle by restoring to sight one of the Saxon Nation that vvas blinde. And the same miracle acknowledgeth Stow Chron. pag. 66. and of forrein Pro­testants Hemingius in exposit. psal. 84. parte 1. cap. 6. Stovv. Hemin­gius.

5. Concerning the witnesses which I haue produced to testifie that S. Austin wrought these things which wee call miracles, The qua­lities of the sayd vvitnesses for S. Au­stins miracles. I would haue the Reader to consider, first that some of them were then liuing, as S. Greg. the Britons, and Authors of the Epitaph. Others liued after 1 as the rest. Secondly, some were forrein 2 as S. Greg. others Domestical in England. Thirdly some are publick as the Epitaph, 3 others priuat. Fourtly some were enemyes 4 to S. Austin as the Britons, the others, freinds. Fiftly, some were great Clercks 5 as S. Greg. S. Beda, and some of the Bri­tons, who by their learning could iudg of the miracles; others of lesse account. Sixtly 6 some were great Saints, as S. Greg. and S. Beda were, who would not deliuer an vntruth, or vncertain fables for true and certain miracles; others of meaner qua­lities. Seuenthly some were eye witnesses, 7 as the Britons (and they enemyes too who would finde what falt they could) and the authors of the Epitaph; others by report. Lastly some are Catholicks, some Prote­stants. 8 [Page 124] And what greater variety of testi­monies, or better qualified witnesses, would we aske to beleeue a thing than these be?

6. This great weight and varietie of witnesses we haue to beleeue that S. Austin did these things which are accounted miracles, No author before our Daies nor reason against S. Austins miracles. wether they be true or false, which we shall see anon. And to the contrary ther is no Author, forrain or Domestical; eye witnesse or other; freind or foe; Catholick or Protestant, before our daies: nor any reason at all besides that which Fulk Anotat. in Io. 14. giueth against S. Austins miracles, Se more of this in the prefa­ce to the Reader sup. and Fox lib. 2. pag. 122. against other miracles. vz. That they are not in scripture: therfor they are not bound to beleeue them. As if God were bound to write all the miracles, which he worketh, or we not bound to beleeue with human faith (of which alone we speak in this matter) that which is auouched by so sufficient human authoritie, vve bound to belev­ve vvith humane faith vvhat is deleue­red vvith sufficient authoritie. as we can take no iust exception against it, either for skil to know the truth, or for will to speake it. If not, then farwel all human beleefe, which can require no more than so fufficient human authoritie, Inconue­niences of not bele­vving hu­mane au­thoritie. farwel all human authoritie, which can affoard no greater certaintie; farwel all human conuersation, which cannot stand without the beleefe of such [Page 125] authoritie, and let vs beleeve nothing but what God hath written or our selues haue seene. Let vs not beleeue any Records or Histories of times past, See S. Aust. lib. de vtil cred. cap. 12. no that euer there was such a man as S. Austin. And for times present, let vs beleeue no Iurie, nothing done in far Contries, nothing done out of our presence, no not that such were our parents, because none of these are written in Gods word, but are deliuered to vs by human authoritie, to which (as they say) we are not bound to giue credit. Thus yow see to what inconueniences this kind of sensles reason would lead vs, if we should follow it in other lyke mat­ters. But besides, it is fond in it selfe, for it is taken from negatiue authoritie: which kind of argument (saith Iuel Art. 2. Diu. 13.) Vnles it be in consideration of some other circum­stance is so simple as that a verie child may soone answer it. And iustly, Negatiue authoritie no autho­ritie. for negatiue authori­tie is no authoritie, and silence no witnesse. Whervpon the law saith. Qui mutum exhibet nihil exhibet; especially when the silence is of such which had no cause to speake of the matter, as the scripture had none to fortel S. Austins miracles. And therfor to argue from such negatiue au­thoritie is to argue from noe authoritie and to seeme to vse reason, when indeed ther is none. For who would suffer a [Page 126] Malefactor, against whome many honest men haue deposed, to clear him selfe be­cause diuers standers by say no thing against him? Would their silence, which in any mans iudgment maketh no more for him than against him, be preferred before the depositions of diuers witnesses omni exceptione maiores? And so, besids that the scripture was written many hunderd yeares before S. Austin was borne and therfor could not speak of his miracles but by prophecie, the silence therof in his mi­racles maketh no more against them than for them. For as it affirmeth them not, so nether doth it denie them. And therfor as Fulk argueth; The scripture affirmeth not S. Austins miracles; therfor they were not. An other might with as good reason say. The scripture denieth them not, ther­for they were. But leaueth them to the authoritie and credit of those that report them. Which (as hath bene shewed) is as great as can be required to human beleefe: and therfor bindeth vs to giue human credit vnto them. S. Austin. For as S. Austin said wel lib. de vtil. cred. cap. 16. It is miserable to be deceaued by authoritie, but most miserable not to be moued by it. A part of beasts not to be mo­ved vvith authoritie. Because to be deceaued ether by probable reason, or sufficient authoritie is a thing incident to man. But not to be moued with conuincent reason, or such [Page 127] sufficient authoritie, as no iust exception can be taken against it, hauing no reason or authoritie to the contrarie, is the part of a beaste vncapable of reason, or au­thoritie.

7. For this cause, perhaps some will grant that S. Austin did these things, That S. Austins miracles vvere true miracles. which are reported of him, but yet will say, that they are not true miracles, but false, such as may be done by nature, arte, or the Diuels helpe. But against these I oppose. First 1 that they say this without the authoritie of any ancient writter at all or any other before our dayes. See Alan. Copus Dial. 5. cap. 18. Secondly they say it without any reason taken from the mira­cles 2 them selues. For the sudden cure of a blinde person, whome the Britons could not cure, what suspition giueth it of a false miracle? That he was blind the Britons saw, that they could not cure him, them selues experienced. Thirdly I oppose the 3 manes wherby S. Austin cured him, which was as Beda testifieth lib. 2. cap. 2. By prayer to the Father of our lord Iesus Christ, beseeching that he would restore light to the blind person that by corporal illumination, and lightning of one man his spiritual grace might kindle many. Which meane of prayer to God, is quite opposit to the working of false miracles, which is by calling vpon the Diuel. Fourthly I oppose the ende for which 4 [Page 108] most of S. Austins miracles were done, which was to draw Pagans from Infide­litie to Christianitie, and from vice to vertue, as the effect did shew. But the Di­uel would do nothing (and much lesse a miracle) to draw men from Infidelitie, and vice to which he enticeth them all he can; or to Christianitie and vertue, from which he driueth them by all meanes that in him lyeth. Therfor S. Austins mi­racles came not from the Diuel. And this trial of miracles by the end of them pro­testants allow as the true touchstone to try them by. As Fox Acts pag. 351. where he crediteth the miracle wrought in the king of Tartaria his child, which when it was born was vgly and deformed, and being Christened became faire and bewtifull. Because (saith he) it serued to the conuersion to the Christian faith, to which vse properly all true miracles do apertain. And yet that faith to which that King was brought, and for which that miracle was wrought was Papistical as Bale granteth cent. 4. pag. 303.

5 8. Fiftly I oppose the admirable, and by Protestants confessed holines of Saint Austin and his fellowes. What affinitie or commerce had such great vertue with the Diuel; From which how far he was, so far was he from working those mira­cles, [Page 129] which Austin and those vertuous men did. Sixtly I oppose the iudgment of 6 S. Gregorie, Beda, and other learned, and holy men hitherto who accounted them for true miracles. Who if learning, or vertue can descrie false miracles, were as like to descrie them as any now liuing. yea better, because many of them were present, and might consider many circun­stances, which might help them to finde out the truth, which now we do not know. Seuenthly I oppose the iudgment 7 of the Britons amongst whome ther were as S. Beda saith, plures viri doctissimi, and who all were opposit to S. Austin, and therfor they wanted nether skil, nor wil to discouer the falsitie of his miracles, if any had bene. Lastly I oppose the confes­sion 8 of the fornamed Protestants, who hauing duly considered all circunstances, haue not onely iudged, but confessed, written, and subscribed that S. Austins miracles were true miracles wrought (as Fox speaketh) through the hand of God.

9. For this, perchance, some may be perswaded to confesse that both S. Austin wrought these wonderous things which are recorded of him, That a miracle can not be vvrought to confir­me an vntruth. and also that they be true miracles, and yet may say as Fulk doth Annot. in Marc. 9. That Hereticks may work miracles to confirm their erroneous opinions. [Page 130] That is direct blasphemie against God. For a miracle can not be wrought but by God his diuine power, who vseth it as a seal to confirm his Doctrin with. Wher­vpon S. Paul. 1. cor. 12. called miracles signes of his Apostleship, And marc. 16. they are called confirmations from God, and our Sauiour Io. 5. calleth them a greater testimonie than S. Iohn Baptist. And biddeth the Iewes if they will not beleeue him, beleeue his miraculous works. And S. Austin lib. de vtil. cred. cap. 14. saith, that Christ by mira­cles got authoritie, by authoritie deserued credit, by credit gathered multitudes, by multitude got antiquitie, by antiquitie strengthned Religion. Certain it is therfor, that as God can not contest, or confirme a lye, so he can not with hereticks cooperat to a miracle to confirme their erronious opinion. Wher­for as our Sauiour sayd to the Iewes. If I cast out Deuils in the finger of God suerly the Kingdom of God is come amongst yow. So might S. Austin say, if I by the finger of God work miracles, surely the Kingdome of God is come amongst yow. That S. Austin vvrought miracles for con­firmation of that vvhich protestāts denie.

10. The last euasion which any Prote­stant can finde why he should not beleeue the doctrine of S. Austin confirmed of him by true miracles, is that which Fulk also giueth 2. cor. 12. To wit: that we are [Page 131] not certain whither his miracles were to confirme any of that corruption which he brought in. To which I reply, that this is but a ghesse of a distrustful mind. For who tould him 1 that S. Austin wrought no miracles for confirmation of that which he accounteth corruption. Secondly that God in con­uersion 2 of Infidels vseth not to work miracles for confirma ion of euery Article of faith, but to authorize the Preacher for a true messenger of God, and the faith and religion which he teacheth for his diuine truth and way of saluation. And this Saint Austins miracles did proue sufficiently, and it is all wee seeke. Thirdly 3 I say that S. Austin wrought a miracle to confirm that which Protestants now account corruption. For the ende for which he cured the blind man in the sight of the Britons, was as S. Beda saith lib. 2. cap. 2. that they should conforme them selues to the holy Roman Church, namely in administring of baptisme. But the maner of administring of baptisme which S. Austin exhorted the Britons to, was vndoubtedly the same which his maister S. Gregor. lib. de Sacrament. and our ancient Contreyman Alcuin lib. de diuinis offic. describe, which Catholicks now vse, and Protestants reiect, to wit, besids baptising with water, to exorcize the [Page 132] child, and to breath in his face, to make the signe of the Crosse in the childs for­head, and brest, to put salt into his mouth, and to touch his nostrels and eares with spitle, and to anoint him betwene the shoulders. Surly these things considered, me think [...] S. Austin may say to vs as Saint Paul did to the Thessalonians. My Gospel was not to yow in speech onely, but in veritie and in the holy Ghost, and in much plentie. And that our Ancestors and we may say with the great Doctor Richard de S. Victore. The things which we beleeue were confirmed with so many, so great, so wonderful miracles, that it may seeme a kind of madnes any way to doubt of them. I would the Iewes (Protestants) would mark. I would the Pagans (Puritans) would consider, with what securitie of conscience we may appeare before God touching this parte. May we not with all confidence say to God, Lord if it be an error we were deceuied by thee? For the things which we beleue were confirmed amongst vs with so greate signes and wonders, and with such, as could not be wrought but by thee. Surely they were deliuered vnto vs by men of great holines, and approued with great and authentical testimonies, thy self cooperating and confirming their speeche with signes following.

11. Finally if any men be founde so Thomas-lyke, and hard of beleefe, that he will not beleeue that S. Austin wrought [Page 133] any miracle, let them answer that which S. Austin saith lib. 22. de ciuit. cap. 5. against the Pagans, S. Austin▪ who would not beleeue the miracles of the Apostles. If they beleeue not, that miracles were wrought by the Apostles of Christ (by S. Austin and his fellowes) that they might be credited; this one miracle alone sufficeth, that all the world should beleeue without miracles. That our English Ancestors should without al miracles forsake their ancient, and easy Religion, and follow a new, and difficult both for points of beleefe, as the mysterie of the Trinitie, Incarnation, Eucharist, and more diffi­cult to practice, as to refrain both act, and thought.

12. If any ask why are not miracles now done for confirmation of S. Austins doctrine as wel as then, VVhy mi­racles are not novv. I answer with S. Gregorie homil. 29. in Euangel. S. Austin [...] The multitude of the faithful was to be nourished 1 with miracles, that it might increase to faith. Because we water the plants, which we set til we see them to haue taken roote, but after that we 2 leaue watering them. S. Greg. And with S. Austin lib. 22. de ciuit. cap. 8. I might say that miracles were necessarie before the world (of Britanie) did beleeue. VVho so euer now requireth wonders to beleeue, he is a great wonder that beleeueth not when the world beleeueth. Was it sufficient for the Iewes to beleeue the doctrine of [Page 134] Moises, that their Forfathers saw it confirmed of him by many wonders? And shall it not suffice vs that our Forfa­thers testifie that they saw S. Austins doctrine confirmed in lyke sorte? Were not our Forfathers to be credited as wel as those Iewes? Or are we more incredu­lous than their posteritie?

And hitherto Gentle Reader we haue shewed that Saint Austin had all things requisit to a sufficient and lawful Preacher of Gods word, vvhat hath bene hitherto proued. to wit great learning, famous vertue, lawful vocation and right orders: we haue also shewed that the Doctrine which he preached was the vniuersal faith and religion of all Chri­stendom at that time, is confessed by the greatest Aduersaries therof to haue bene sufficient to bring men to heauen and was aproued and contested by God by manie miracles to be his diuine and infallible faith; what now remaineth but to seek out what S. Austins Religion was in particu­ler, that finding it we may be sure to haue found a Religion taught vnto our Ance­stors aboue 1000. years agoe by a great Diuine, by a famous Saint and a lawful Preacher rightly sent and ordered, which so long since was the Religion of all Christendom, was approued by God him self by true miracles, and is confessed of [Page 135] the aduersaries to haue bene sufficient to saluation. Than the which I know not what more amy reasonable man can desire.

CHAP. XIIII. That S. Austin was a Roman Ca­tholick, proued by his Maister S. Gregorie.

1. HOw careful S. Austin was to follow the doctrin and Religion of his Maister S. Gregorie apeareth by what was sayde before out of S. Beda. lib. 1. cap. 27. of the questions, S. Austins Rom. reli­gion pro­ued by S. Gregorie. which S. Austin sent vnto him so far as from England concerning small matters. And therfor his Religion may be euidently gathered by that of S. Greg. But because it would be tedious to proue that Saint Greg. was a Roman Catholick in all substantial points of Religion, I will for proofe hereof make choice of two especial points: To wit. The Popes Su­premacie, and the Sacrifice of masse. Because in the first of these points Do: Reinolds in his Confer: pag. 568. affirmeth the very being, and essence of a Papist to consist. And D. Whitaker cont. Dur. pag. 503. [Page 136] saith: It is the head of popish Religion of which almost all the rest depend. And in the masse (saith D. Sutclif in his Answer to Exceptions pag. 11) The very soule of Poperie doth consist. And D. Whitak. loc. cit. pag. 426. affirmeth that, Nothing is more holy and diuine in our con­ceipt. And lastly I will proue it be the open confession of diuers Protestants.

S. Greg. beleued the Popes suprema­cie.2. As for the first pointe of the Supre­macie S. Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 32. faith of Saint Peter (who as Bil on saith lib. 1. of Obed. pag. 380. was Founder of the Roman Church) It is manifest to all that know the Gospel, that by our Lords voice the care of the wholle Church was committed to S. Peter Prince of all the Apostles. And lib. 1. epist. 24. Peter houlding the Prince­dome of the Church accounted him self the cheefe in the Church. And lib. 11. epist. 44. he calleth the Roman Church Caput fidei, the head of the faith. His words are these: Admonemus vt Apostolicae sedis reuerentia nullius praesumptione turbetur. Tunc enim status membrorum integer manet, si caput fidei nulla pulsetur iniuria. Likwise lib. 7. epist. 49. he saith, The care enioyned to vs of all Churches doth bind vs. lib. 7. epist. 6. VVho doubteth but that shee (Church of Constant.) is subiect to the See Apostolick. And epist. 64. If any falt be found in Bishops I knovv not vvhat Bishop is not subiect to her (Church of Rome) Which last words do so plainly auouch S. Greg. opinion of the supremacy, as [Page 137] Doct. Reynolds Confer. pag. 547. findeth no better shift than impudently to say that either Greg. vvrote not so, or he vvrote an vntruth to cheere vp his subiects. Caluin lib. 4. cap. 7. §. 12. saith that, There is no vvord in all Greg. vvritings vvherein he more proudly boasteth of the largenes of his Primacie than this. Furthermore S. Greg. lib. 7. epist. 69. VVithout the authoritie and consent of the See Apostolick vvhat so euer is done (in Councells) hath no force. And contrariwise lib. 7. epist. 115. That reuerence is caried of the faithfull tovvarde the See Apostolick, that vvhat is apointed by her decree shall not after be disturbed. And the Archbishop of Rauema writing to him lib. 10. epist. 36. saith. The See of Rome sendeth her lavves to the Vniuersal Church. And him selfe lib. 12. cap. vlt. The See of Rome doth looke ouer the vvhole vvorld, and sendeth nevve con­stitutions vnto all. And lib. 11. epist. 56. writeth that the cause of a Bishop who had no Patriarch or Metrapolitan ouer him, vvas to be iudged (immediatly) of the See Apostolick, vvhich (saith he) is omnium Eccle­siarum caput, head of all Churches. Which proofe sheweth that he meaneth not head ship in excellency of gifts as Reinolds would Confer. pag. 548. but in gouern­ment. In like sort in psal. 4. poenit. he calleth Rome the head of all Churches and Lady of Nations, which Title of the [Page 138] head of all Churches because Pope Boniface 3. who succeded S. Greg. within one yeare or two procured the Emperour Phocas to declare to appertaine to the Bishops of Rome, he is accounted of all Protestants generally to be the first true Pope and Antichrist of Rome. But if S. Greg. authoritie were not so great in the Church as Ministers are ashamed to ac­count him an Antichrist, they would as soone call him Pope and Antichrist, as they do Pope Boniface, because he auoucheth the same Title which Boniface did.

3. Nether did S. Greg. onely claime this Supremacie but also practized it often tymes. S. Greg. practizeth the supre­macie. For. lib. 2. Epist. 14. He excommu­nicated the Archbishop of Salona in Dalmatia. lib. 4. Epist. 50. He deposed Anastasius Archb. of Corinth in Greece. And Epist. 15. made the Bishop of Prima Iustiniana his Legat, and likwise the Bishop of Arles in France. Epist. 51. And. lib. 5. Epist. 24. When there arose a contro­uersie betweene a Priest of Calcedon, and the Patriarch of Cōstantinople according to the Canons (saith he) it fel to the See Apostolick and was ended by our iudgement. And lib. 10. Epist. 30. He maketh a Bishop sweare that he will In all things abide in the Communion of the Bishop of Rome. And in Bed. lib. 1. cap. 27. [Page 139] Taketh vpon him to commit all the Bi­shops and Priests of Britany to S. Austins charge, and without asking the Prince his leaue, apointed him to erect two Archbishoppriks, and 24. Bishopricks. Finally he tooke vpon him to depose kings, and princes. For lib. 11. Epist. 10. He saith Siquis &c. If any king Priest Iudge or secu­ler person knowing this constitution of ours shall attempt to break it, Let him want al Dignitie of his povver, and honor. And lib. 12. cap. vlt. If any king Prelat Iudg or seculer person of vvhat Degree or highnes soeuer (doe violat the priuiledgee of S. Medards Monasterie, Let him be depo­sed. And (as Baron: An. 600 writeth out of the Chronicles of Millan) gaue the Bishop of that Cittie authoritie to chuse what king he woulde after the race of Lomburdian kings was ended. Protestāts opinion of S. Gregorie about the supre­macie. For these speeches and acts of Greg. Doct. Reinolds Confer pag. 549 saith of him and of all the Popes for 300. yeares before him that they auouch more of their See than is true and right. But now the question is not about right, Reinolds▪ but about S. Greg [...] opinion of Supremacie. And pag, 545. saith that S. Greg. is somewhat large that waye. pag. 550. The primacie which Greg Leo and others giue to the See of Rome doth so exceed the truth that &c. And pag 17. he saith that Leo the great (who was Pope 130. yeares before Greg.) [Page 140] cherished the egge of the Popes Supremacie. And pag. 16. saith, Leo made Peter a fellow, head, a partie, Rock, and half foundation with Christ. Which saith he pag. 10. Leo did that he might rise vp with S. Peter. And Doct. Whitak, VVhitaker Fulke. lib. de consil. pag. 37. Leo was a great builder of the See of Antichrist. Fulkin 2. Thessal. 2. Leo and Greg. were great workers and futherers of the See of Antichrist, and of the mystery of iniquity. And ibid. he doubteth not to say that the mysterie of iniquitie did vvorke in the See of Rome in Peters tyme, and did shew it self in Anicetus, Victor, Cornelius, Sozimus, Bonifacius, Cel [...]stinus. By which confes [...]ion of Protestant [...] a man of mean eyesight will easely see, what S. Greg. and his Predecessors thought of the suprema­cie. For if they were not of greater autho­ritie for their learning holines and anti­quity, they would haue bene as wel accounted Popes and Antichrists as their successors are.

In vvhat sense S. Gregorie impugned the Title of vniuer­sal Bishop.4. If any obiect that S. Greg. vehemen­tly impugneth the Title of the vniuersal Bishop, which the Patriarch of Constanti­nople in his time vsurped, calling it proude, sacrilegious, and such like, which he would neuer haue done if he had thought him selfe to haue bene head of all the Churches in the world; I answer, that S. Greg. could not doubt, but that the [Page 141] Title of vniuersal Bishop might in some sense agree to the Pope. Because the Councel of Calcedon which lib. 1. Epist. 24. he professeth to reuerence as one of the fower Ghospells, offered it to his Predecessors as him self testifieth lib. 4. Epist. 32. Whervnto he addeth Epist. 37. That his adduersarie the Patriarch of Constant. knew wel that per Calcedonense Concilium huius Apostolica Sedis Antistites Vniuersales oblato honore vo [...]ati sunt. And lib. 4. epist. 36. saith that the Patriarch of Alexandria knew it also to be so. Which he would neuer haue said, vnles it had bene both certain and euident, so as his Aduersaries could not deny it. Wherto lib. 7. epist. 30. he addeth, that it was giuen to his Predecessors by Fathers after the Councel. And in the said Councel, VVhich (as Reinolds saith Confer. pag. 563.) was a Company of 630. Bishops sound in Religion and zealous of the glorie of God. (although it hath bene falsified by the Gr [...]cians as witnesseth S. Greg. lib. 5. epist 14.) yet thrise is Pope Leo called Vniuersal Patriarch without the gain saying of any one. Which so many and so zealous would neuer haue permitted, if it had bene altogether vnlawful. And the same Reinolds confer. pag. 562. professeth that the said Councel named Pope Leo their head. And pag. 561. That he was President of the [Page 142] Councel. S. Beda calleth S. Gregorie ouer the vvhole vvorld. And of Bed. lib. 2. cap. 1. S. Greg. is called high Bishop ouer the whole vvorld. Besids that, Popes were before that time called Bishops of the Vniuersal Church, as it is to be seene in Pope Leo Epist. 54. 62. 65. Sixtus 1. epist. 2. Victor epist. 1. Pontianus and Stephanus epist. 2. Which in sense is all one with Vniuersal Bishop, if this Title be taken in the proper sense. vvhy the Patriarch of Con­stant vn­lavvfully tooke the title of vniuer­sal Bis­hop. But S. Greg. condemned it in the Patriarch of Con­stant. both bec [...]use it could no waye pertain to him in the proper sense, for that he was not head of all the Church, and also because he claimed it in such a 1 sense, as is vtterly vnlawful both to the Pope, and to any Bishop els, and is in 2 deede sacrilegious. For as S. Gregorie witnesseth lib. 4. epist. 34. 36 38. lib. 5. epist. 60. lib. 6. epist. 31. 37. and lib. 7. epist. 29. and 30. He would be called Vniuersal Bishop in such sort as his brethren being despised, he alone might be called Bishop, or that he might seeme to haue denyed his brethren to be Bishops. That is, so as if him self alone were the onely true and proper Bishop, and others but his Deputies or Vicegerents, and not so formal nor true Bishops as he. In which sense that Title is truly sacrilegious; as robbing all other Bishops of their Episcopal Dignitie. S. Grego­rie for Masse.

5. And for the second point of Masse; [Page 143] S. Greg. him self saith, lib. 7. epist. 29. thus: VVee do the solemnitie of the Masse euery day in honor of them (Martyrs). Sutclif in his Answer to the Catholick supplication denieth these words to be in the place cited. Which who will seeke shall take a taste of his impudencie. Doct. Reinolds in his Confer. pag. 532. Iuel art. 1. diui. 31. And art. 3. diuis. 21. and others saye, that S. Greg. Masse was a Communion, be­cause in the Canon therof are these words, vvho so euer shal receaue of this partici­pation of the Altar the holy body and blood of thy sonne. But so they might prooue that our Masse were no true Masse, because the sayd wordes are in the Canon therof. And they proue no more, than that the Church prayeth for all such as shall com­municat at masse, and there shall receaue (not bare bread and wine) but the body and blood of Christ. That S. Greg: masse vvas no Protestant Commu­nion. For to say that S. Greg. masse was a Protestantish Com­munion of very material bread and wine, as Iuel speaketh Art. 8. Diui. 2. were great impudency. First, because in S. Greg. Massse is the Canō of our Masse, in which the substance of our Masse consisteth. 2 And therfore his masse can be no more a Protestant Communion than ours. And besides in the same booke of S. Greg: is the very forme wherwith our Priests are [Page 144] made to say our Masse, vz: Take power to 2 offer Sacrifice and to say Masse as wel for the liuing as for the dead. Secondly Saint Greg. Masse was a true sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ, as appeareth by these his words lib. 4. Dialag: (which book Bale cent. 1. cap. 68. confess [...]th to be his) cap. 58. VVe must sacrifice the daylie hosts of his (Christs) flesh and blood; The hoste sacrificed at Masse saueth the soul accor­ding to S. Greg. for this holsome sacrificie doth saue the soule from euerlasting death, which mystically representeth to vs that death of the onely sonne, who albeit rising from death now dyeth not, and death hath now no more power ouer him, yet he liuing in him selfe immortally and incorruptibly is sacrificed for vs in this mysterie of the holy Obla­tion. Christ sacrificed at masse vvithout dying. For his body is there receaued, his flesh is deui­ded for the saluation of his people. His blood is not powred now into the hands of the Infidells but into the mouth of the faithful. Christs blood povvred into the mouths of the faithful. Loe how he pro­fesseth that we daylie sacrifice Christs body and blood, and that this daylie sacrifice saueth the soule from eternal death, and that though Christ be not killed therby, yet is he sacrificed; and his flesh and blood distributed to the people when they communicat at Masse. which is the verie doctrin which we teach. S. Greg. beleued Transub­stātiation. Again, in S. Gregories Masse Transubstantiation was beleeued, as appeareth by these wordes of Doct. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. 627. Gregorie and Austin [Page 145] brought in Oblation of the holy host, Transub­stantiation &c. How then could his Masse be a Protestant Communion? Morouer in the Masse which his scholler S. Austin taught our Forfathers, The mystery of the flesh and pretious blood (saith Beda lib. 5. cap. 22.) of the immaculat lamb is offered to God the Father in hope of redemption? And S. Greg. lib. de Sacram. ante Canonem calleth the host of his masse the holesome host of the whole world, the vital host, The hoste of Masse a vital hoste expelling sinnes. which expelleth all sinnes and causeth warines to auoid them for euer. Is this likly to be very material bread? And again l. cit. Dial. cap. 57. he telleth vs that while one was captiue amongst enemies, Masse louseth the bonds of a cap­tiue. his wife got sacrifice certain dayes to be offered for him, who longe tyme after returning to his wife tould her what dayes his bonds were loosed, which she knew to be the dayes, when she got sacrifice offered for him. Masse saueth from drovvning as manie faithful vvitnesses testifie. Ibid. VVhen a Bishop (saith S. Greg.) offered the Sacrifice of the holesome hoste for the soule of him whome he thought was drowned, he was saued from drowning, as many (saith he) faithful, and religious men haue witnessed to me and doe witnesse. S. Greg. apointed 30 Masses to be said for one dead. And cap. 55. he telleth of two deliuered out of the paines of Purgatorie by his Masse. wherof 30. Masses were sayde for one of them by his owne apointment. Thirdly S. Greg. Masse was 3 said in honor of Martyrs, as is alredy [Page 146] shewed, and offered for the dead as is euident; and Reinolds loc. cit. confesseth, 4 but so is not their communion. Fourthly Ba [...]. cent. 1. cap. 68. saith that Greg. ordered the ceremonies of the Masse and made vp the Canon therof. And Ibib. telleth what parts he added to the Masse. Again Kemnit. in Examen. pag. 826. 827. confesseth Masse as it is now, to haue bene finished in S. Greg. time. But now it is far different from Protestants communion. And it is euident that nothing since his tyme is added to the Canon, which includeth the 5 substance of the Masse. Finally Fox Acts pag. 130. saith that about the yeare 780. Pope Adrian ratified and confirmed the order of S. Greg. Masse, At what tyme (saith he) this vsuall Masse of the Papists began to be vniuersal, and vniforme and generally receaued in all Churches Loe he confesseth that our vsual Masse came from S. Greg. and telleth the tyme when it began generally to be receaued in all Churches, To wit about 900. yeares agoe.

Protestāts confesse S. Greg. to haue bene a Papist.6. Lastly I will proue S. Greg. to haue bene a Roman Catholick by the open confession of our Aduersaries, Fulk. in Apoc. 6. saith, Greg. was superstitious in reliques And 2. Thessal. 2. Greg. was a great worker and furtherer of the See of Antichrist, Fulk. and of the mystery of iniquitie. Io. 21. Gregorie gathered [Page 147] some thing for Peters Primacie. Ib. VVe go not about to clear Gregorie from all vsurpation of Iurisdiction more than to his See appertained. He thought to highly of his See And Math. 4. Gregorie alowed of Images Hebr. 11. Allowed Images to be in Churches Acts. 17. Greg. alowed Images to be lay mens bookes Math. 16. and 1, Cor. 3. Gregorie granteth Purgatorie. Sutclif. Sutclif Subuers. cap. 4. Greg. vsed litanies, allowed Purgatorie, esteemed much reliques of Saintes. Whitak. cont Dur. pag. 480. Greg. Purga­torium vt certum dogma tradidit. VVhita­ker. Fulk 1. Timoth. 4. Gregorie indeed willeth holy water to be made and to he sprinkled in the Idols Temples, Altars to be built, and reliques to be layd vp. Gregorie indeede did send many superstitious tokens, as a littel Key from of S. Peter for his blessing. Math. 16. Greg. fauoreth the supremacy of S. Peter. Bale Cent. 1. cap. 68. Greg. burdened the Church and Religion of God more then all, Bale. with more than Iewish Ceremonies. He ordered the rites of Masse, commanded Masses to be said ouer the Dead bodies of the Apostles, S. Greg. described to haue bene a profest Papist. deuised Letanies, and Procession, permitted the Image of the blessed Virgin to be caried about, confirmed Pilgrimage to Images by Indulgences for the peoples deuotion; he was a Maintainer of Pardons, S. Greg. granted indulgen­ces. granted Indulgences to those that visit Churches on certain dayes, made four bookes of Dialogues for strengthning Purgatorie. Admitted adoration of the Crosse, and Masses for the dead, Called the [Page 148] English men to Romish rites by Austin the Monk. And much more there. And cap. 70. Gregorie brought in Ceremonies, Procession, Suffrages, adoration, Masses, trust of mens works. Item. After Greg. tyme puritie of doctrine de­creased & the Inuocation of dead Saints together with sale of Masses increased, and the Mysterie of the Eucharist began to be offered for the dead. Bishops also from the doctrine of faith, fled to trust to mens works, and human satisfactions, which (saith he) is manifest of Gregorie. Item. Greg. sent Austin to the English men that he might bring in not Christ, but the Roman Religion stuffed with the commandements, and traditions of men. And finally cap. 71. he saith in plain termes that Greg. brought Papistrie into England. Also Doct. Humfrey Iesuitismi part. 2. rat. 5. pag. 626. 627. Greg. and Austin brought into the Church a burden of Ceremonies, Humfrey. The Bishops Pal to vse onely at Masse, Purgatorie, Oblation of the holsom host, prayers for the dead, Reliques, Transubstan­tiation, Transub­stātiation. new halowing of Churches. Of all which what other proceeded but that Indulgences, Monkerie, Poperie, and the rest of the Masse of Popish superstition should be builded thervpon. Ansvver to the Examinat. printed at Geneua 1566. pag. 45. And all these things did Austin a great Monk being taught of Gregorie a monk, bring into England. Who will see more of S. Greg. confessed Papisme by Protestants may read Osiander cent. 6. pag. 288. But what we haue cited out of English Protestants will [Page 149] suffice I hope to perswade any in diffe­rent man that S. Greg. was a Papist. Who will see more out of S. Greg. himself may read lib. 7. epist. 53. and 109. lib. 9. epist. 71. lib. 12. cap. vlt. lib. 1. epist. 25. 33. lib. 8. epist. 22.

CHAP. XV. That Saint Austin and his fellowes were Roman Catholicks, proued by their own deedes and Doctrine.

1. FIrst Saint Austin was a Benedictin Monk, Ansvv. to D. Bish. pag. 197. or (as Doctor Abbots calleth him of the colour of his habit) a black Monk, 1 Which kind of Monks Bale cent. 13. cap. 4. accounteth one of the hornes of the beast, so he termeth the Pope; And cent. 1. cap. 100. saith they filled all with superstition, and Idolatry. And Fox lib. 3. pag. 153. condemneth these kinde of Monks as superstitious, tyed to a pre­script forme of dyet, apparrel, and other things, and forbidden to marry. Secondly he was a Romish 2 Priest and Romish Archbishop as Doct. Abbots calleth him pag. 198. And Romish Legat as Bilson termeth him lib. de Obed. pag. 114. And what masse or seruice of God, a Romish Priest vseth euery one knoweth. [Page 150] Thirdly, when he and his fellowes came into England, they came as S. Beda lib. 1. cap. 25. and all other writers agree carrying before them in place of a banner a Crosse of siluer, and the Image of our Sauiour painted in a table, and singing the Letanies. Which Letanies (saith Bale Cent 1 pag. 62.) were supersticious. Fox lib. 2. pag. 116. saith they went in Proces­sion. Beda lib. 2. cap. 26. In Canterburie they resorted to an ancient Church built in the honor of S. Martin, made while the Romans yet dwelled in England, and began there first to say seruice, say Masse, pray, preach and Christen. cap. 27. Saint Austin was made Archbishop by the authoritie of Pope Greg. (or as S. Beda speaketh of,) at the commandement of S. Gregorie. He enquireth of Gregorie how offerings at the Altar should be distributed, what Ceremonies he should vse at Masse, and the like cap. 29. He receaued from Gregorie all such things as were necessarie for the furni­ture, and ministrie of the Church. As holy vessels, Altar clothes, Ornaments for Churches, apparrel for Preists, and Clergie, and a Pal to were onely when he sayd Masse & authoritie to institute 12. Bishops vnder him and 12. vnder a Bishop of York, and superioritie ouer all the Priests of Britanie cap. 30. S. Austin is apointed by Gregorie not to pul downe the Temples of Idols, Holie vvater. but to make holy water, and sprinkle about the same Temples, to build Altars, [Page 151] and place reliques in them. cap. 33. Saint Austin builded a Monasterie in which King Ethelbert through his aduise built a nevv Church in the honor of S. Peter and Paul lib. 2. cap. 2. Saint Austin exacted of the Britons to celebrat Easter, and administer baptisme after the maner of the holy Roman Church. And cap. 35. Beda speaking of the Church of the Austins in Canter­bury saith, This Church hath almost in the midst of it an Altar dedicated in the honor of S. Greg. Pope, on the vvich Altar euery Saterday their memories are solemly celebrated by the Priest of that place. cap. 4. S. Paulin vsed an Altar of stone. And cap. 20. a great goulden Crosse and a goulden Chalice consecrated for the ministrie of the Altar.

2. Besides Pope Boniface 3. was by the Emperor Phocas declared to be the true 4 Oecumenical Patriarch, S. Austin aliue vvhen the Pope (as Protest: say) be­came An­tichrist. or head of the Church as all writers Protestants and Catholicks do agree which was done in the yeare 605. as some say, or 606. as Baron. And this Pope Boniface therby (as generally all Protestants affirme) be­came the first Pope and Archbishop of Rome. Whitak. cont Dur. pag. 501. I affiirme (saith he) that in the tyme of Boniface 3. Antichrist openly placed his Throne in the Church of Rome. Fulk Answer to a Counter Cath. pag. 72. The Popes from Boniface 3. were all blasphemous Hereticks and Antichrists. And in [Page 152] 1. Ioan. 2. Boniface 3. went manifestly out of the Church and became Antichrist. Fox lib. 2. pag. 120. Rome euer since Boniface 3. hath houlden maintamed and defended his Supremacie. The same hath Cooper Chron. An. 611. The like hath Bale Cent. 1. pag. 69. 70. Downham of Antichrist, and generally all Protestants. But S. Austin was both in this Popes time, for he subscribed to the Charter of king Ethelbert made An. 605. and after. For as Bale saith Cent. 13. cap. 1. He dyed. 608. or as Malmsb. in fastis saith 613. and yet is he not found but to haue obeyed this Pope Boniface as he did obey Gregorie. Which he would neuer haue done if he had thought it Antichristian for the Pope to be head of the Church. S. Mellits commu­nion vvith a Pope vvhome Protestāts account the second Antichrist. Yea S. Mellit one of his fellowes and Successors went to Rome about the yeare 610. to commune saith Beda lib. 2. cap. 4. and counsel with the Apostolick Pope Boniface 4. the immediat successor of Boniface 3. for necessarie causes of the English Church, sat in a Councel with him, subscribed to what was decreed of that Councel, and brought the Precepts to be obserued of the English Church. And cap. 7. S. Beda writeth, Also S. Iustus. that this S. Mellit and S. Iustus (an other of S. Austins companions and successors) receaued eftsons exhorting Epistles from this Boni­face. And cap. 8. he saith that Iustus receaued [Page 153] also authoritie to ordain Bishops from the high Bishop Boniface and a Pal. And cap. 17. and 18. that S. Paulinus and S. Honorius receaued also their Pals from Pope Honorius. And S. Paulin, and S. Honorius. Which Pal was giuen by Popes to Metropolitans as a token of agreement in faith. And therfor Pope Pelagius Predecessor to S. Greg. decreed D. 100. That what Metropolitan so euer after three monthes of his Consecration shall not send to Rome to declare his faith and receaue his Pal shall leese his Dignitie. This we see how S. Austin and his fellowes by their life and deedes professed their agree­ment and faith euen with those Popes, whome Protestants account the first Antichrists. But besids this, we haue also the testimonie of the Popes of that tyme, and of S. Austins own fellowes. Popes vvhom Protest. account Anti­christs ap­proued S. Austins doctrine. For Pope Boniface 5. writing to S. Iustus aforsaid in Bed. lib. 2. cap. 8. saith thus. After vve had read the letters of our deere sonne King Edbald we vnderstood vvith vvhat great learning and instruction of holy scripture yovv haue brought him to the beleefe of the vndoubted faith. Loe this Pope aproued the doctrine and faith of S. Iustus, which he could neuer haue done vnles S. Iustus had allowed the Supremacie. And S. Laurence, Mellit and Iustus writing to the Scottish Bishops in Beda lib. 2. cap. 4. professe, that it was the customable maner of the See of Rome euen in their [Page 154] tyme to send preachers into all places of the world. Which custome they could neuer haue accounted lawful, vnles they had thought that See to haue Iurisdiction, and gouernment in the whole world. S. Austin calleth the Pope Father of all Chri­stendom. Yea S. Austin in his speech to King Ethelbert in Capgraue calleth S. Greg. totius Christiani­tatis Patrem, the Father of all Christendom. And thus much of S. Austin and his fellowes deedes, and doctrine out of Chatholick writers. S. Austins acts of Pa­pistrie out of Prote­stants. Now let vs come to Protestants. 3. Bilson and Abbots a [...] is aforsaid call S. Austin a Romish Monk, a Romish Priest, a Romish Legat. Which names shew of what Religion they account him. Abbots. Godwin in vit. Aug. saith, S. Greg. being made Pope sent Austin hither, Godvvin. vnto whome he apointed 40. other that should aide him in this holy work. Ib. he testifieth that S. Greg. sent him a pal, and Church ornaments. That he dedicated a Mona­sterie to S. Peter and Paul, that he claimed authoritie ouer all this Iland Entred the place of Counsel with his Banner and his Crosse, and with singing Procession. Fox. Fox Acts. pag. 116. They went with Procession to Canterburie singing Alleluyae with the Letanie. Sutclif. Sutclif Subuersion, cap. 5. Austin brought in an Image of Christ, and a siluer Crosse, and began (saith he) to chant Letanies. Now wh [...]ther these be signes of Prote­stancie or Papistrie I leaue to euerie one to iudge. Holins­head. Also Holinshed descript. Brit. [Page 155] testifieth (as before we heard out of Saint Beda) that S. Austin came with a siluer Crosse and Image of our Lord and Sauiour painted in a table, singing Litanies. And that in Canter­burie they accustomed to pray, say Masse, preach and baptize in S. Martins Church. And that S. Greg. sent to Austin a Pal, which (saith he) was the ornament of an Archbishop. And that Masse and Letanie was at that tyme in France. Again that Lawrence with his fellow Bishops wrote letters to the Britons to conform them in the Vnitie of the Roman faith. Item Mellitus solemnizing Masse distributed &c. Now what Masse it was that Romish Priests, Romish Monkes, Romish Legats as Bilson and Abbots call them, sayde, I leaue to euery one to iudge. And if any body should doubt, Fulk. Fulk in Hebr. 10. may put him out of doubt. For ther he writeth S. Beda sayd that, English men in his time vnder­stood the holsome sacrifice (of Masse) auailed to redemption both of body and soule. Which Fulk calleth superstitious, and vndoubtedly meaneth the Masse. And thus much of S. Austins Papistry by his owne deedes both out of Chatholick and Protestant writers.

CHAP. XVI. That Saint Austin was a Roman Catholick, prooued by the con­fession of learned Pro­testants.

D. Abbots 1. DOctor Abbots in his late answer to Doct. Bishop pag. 197. calleth S. Austin a black Monk. pag. 20. The Italian Monk, brought new obseruations from Rome, and the English receaued the same. pag. 198. A Romish Priest, required the British Bishops to be subiect to his Romish authoritie. A Romish Arch­bishop brought in nouelties and superstitions, and did contaminat the faith of Christ, Mellitus, Lau­rentius, Iuel. Iustus, all of Austins company and condition Iuel Art. 3. Diu. 21. It is thought of many that Austin corrupted the Religion that he found here vvith much filth of superstition. D. Fulk. Fulk 1. Cor. 4. Austin did not beget the Nation of the English men to Christ by the pure Gospel, but vvith the mixture of Traditions. And that Christian Reli­gion vvhich he found in the Britons he labored to corrupt vvith Romish inuentions. 1. Cor. 15. Austin did not in all points teach the true faith to the Saxons. 2. Cor. 12. Aust. brought in corruption. Syr Francis Hastings in his Wast word [Page 157] once or twise saith, that Austin brought in the Romish Religion. Osandes. Osiander Epit. Hist. cent. 6. Aust. thrust Roman rites and customs vpon the English. To vvit Altars, Vestements, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, Candlesticks, Censars, Banners, holy Vessels, holy vvater, and bookes of Roman customs. B. Bale. See Magdeburgenses cent. 6. Bale cent. 1. pag. 19. After Austins Apostleship (saith he) vnder the English Saxons there followed an other kind of Monkes which corrupted all with most filthy superstitions & Idolatries. And cent. 1. cap. 70. Austin entred not with the Gospel (of Luther) of Christian peace, but with the banner of his Apostleship, with a siluer Crosse, Letanies, Procession, Images, painted Pictures, Reliques, and ritual bookes. And cap. 72. Aust. made Elbald drinck of the cup of the whore, cap. 73. King Ethel­bert first of all English men receaued of Greg. 1. Bishop of Rome by Austin the opinions of the Roman Religiō with all (saith he) the imposture or deceit, and dyed the one and twentith yeare of his receaued Papisme. And pag. 73. he calleth our primitiue church a carnal Synagogue. And yet further cent. 8. cap. 85. Austin (saith he) brought in Popish Monkerie, & besides the Popes traditions (o filthie and blasphemous mouth) brought no thing but mans dung. Cent. 13. c. 1. Austin the Roman brought hither Romish rites without sound doctrine. The King receaued Romanisme with the anexed Idolatries. He brought in Monkes, Altars, Vestements, Images, Masses, Chalices, Crosses, [Page 158] Candlesticks Banners, holy (as they call them) Vessels, holy water, and bookes of Roman customs. Their cheeffest studies were about the oblations of Masses. And finally Cent. 14. cap 31. he saith, Austin disposed all things in England to the forme of the Sinagogue of Rome, and made English men honorers of the Pope. Thus plainly is S. Austins Roman Religion confessed by Bale who was both as earnest a Protestant and as skilful in antiquities as euer [...]nglish Pro­testant was. Holins­head. Holinshead also Descript. Brit. cap. 27. saith The Inhabitants of Britanie receaued the Doctrine of Rome brought in by Austin and his Monks. Ib. Austin indeed conuerted the Saxons from Paganisme but imbued them with no lesse hurtful superstition than they did know before. For besides the name ef Christ and external contempt of their pristinat Idolatrie, he taught them nothing at all, but rather made an exchange from grosse to subtil trecherie, from open to secret Idolatrie, and from the name of Pagans to the bare Title of Christians. So far were these men from thincking S. Austin to haue bene a Protestant, or to haue agreed with them as Fulk would 2. Cor. 12. in the cheefe and most essential points of faith.

CHAP. XVII. That S. Austin was a Roman Ca­tholick, proued by the Doctrine and faith of the Engilsh Church which he founded.

1. IN this Chapter I will first set downe what Catholicks haue written of the faith of our Primitiue Church, and after 1 what Protestants. First therfor our Pri­mitiue English Christians sayd Masse, Masse in honor of Saints. and that in honor of Saints. Beda lib. 4. cap. 14. Let them say Masses and giue thanks that their prayer is heard, and also for the memorie of King Oswald. Likwise they sayd Masse for the dead, and consequently beleued it to be propitiatorie for sinnes. Masse for the dead. Ibid. cap. 22. Tuna a Priest and Abbot did often times cause Masse to be saide for his (brothers) soule Item lib. 5. cap. 13. and lib. 3. cap. cit. They erected Monasteries that dayly praier might be made for 2 the dead. Offered to god the pretious bodie and blood of Christ. Secondly they did beleeue that they offered to God the pretious body and blood of Christ as we beleeue we do at Masse. Beda lib. 5. cap. 22. All Christian [Page 160] Churches throughout the world should prepare bread and wine for the mystery of the flesh and precious blood of the immaculat lambe, and when all lessons, prayers, rites, and ceremonies vsed in the solemn feast of Easter were done, should offer the same to God the Father, in hope of their redemption to come. lib. 4. cap. 28. S. Cutbert offered the host of the holsome Sacrifice to God. 3 Thirdly, Cōfession of sinnes and pen­nance for them. they confessed their sinnes to Priestes, and they enioined pennance. lib. 4. cap. 25. Adaman in his youth had commit­ted a certain greiuous sinne, resorting therfor to a Priest confessed his sinne to him. The Priest when he had heard his sinne, said, a great wound requireth a great cure and medecin, therfor giue thy self to fasting, and prayer as much as thou art able. And lib. 4. cap. 27. He telleth how Saint Cutbert heard mens confessions, and enioined them pennance. Miracle for con­fession. And lib. 5. cap. 14. He telleth a dreadful punishment inflic­ted by God on one, because in time of sicknes he would not confesse his sinnes. 4 Fourthly, Priests could not marry. their Clergy after holy orders takē could not marry. S. Greg. in Beda. lib. 1. cap. 27. If ther by any in the Clergy out of holy orders that can not liue chast, they shall take wiues. The same hath S. Beda l. 5. c. 22. Fift­ly, Dirige & Masse for the dead. 5 they song dirige ouer night, and in the morning sayd Masse for the dead. Beda lib. 3. cap. 2. The religious men of Hagstal­den haue of long time bene accustomed to come [Page 161] euery yeare the eue and the day that S. Oswald was slayne to keepe Dirges there for his soule and in the morning solemnly to offer for him the sacrifice of the holy Oblation. Sixtly they vsed holy 6 water and consecrating Churches. Holie vvater, candels. Crosses, holie oile &. Beda lib. 5. cap. 4. The Bishop (S. Iohn) sent the sick Lady some of the holy water which he had halo­wed in the Dedication of the Church, and also candles lighted, Crosses, and holy oyle as we do now as is euident by Malmsb; lib. 2. Pont. pag. 235. and Ealred in vit. Edwardi. Seuenthly, they blessed them selues with 7 the signe of the Crosse. Blessing vvith the signe of the Crosse. Beda lib. 4. cap. 14. Cednam blessing him selfe with the signe of the holy Crosse layd down his head on the Boulster, and so falling a little in a slumber ended his life in quiet. And lib. 5. cap. 22. Euery congregation of faithful men accustometh to beare the signe of the Crosse on their forheads, that by the Diuin power of the same they may be defended from all assaults of the Diuel. Eightly, their Priests and 8 Monks vsed round shauen crownes. Priests haue shauen crovvnes. Beda lib. 5. cap. 22. It behoueth them which being either made by vow Monkes or by profession of the Clergie to binde them selues more strictly with the bridle of continencie for Christs sak, to bear in their head by clipping, the forme of a crovvne. Ibid. All Priests and Religious men had their heads shauen round after the true shape of a crowne. But as Bale saith Cent. 14. pag. 194. Tonsura est Romanae Bestiae character. Ninthly they 9 [Page 162] erected many Altars in one Church with Martyrs reliques, Manie al­tar Sinono Church. vsed lights and other ornaments as Catholicks doe Beda lib. 5. cap. 21. Acca imployed his diligence to gather together out of all places the holy Apostles and Martyrs reliques to the end he might in honor of them build certain Altars aparte by them selues in little Chappells made for the same purpose, within the precinct and walls of the same Church. Morouer he prepared holy vessels lights and other necessaries to the better adorning of the Church of God. And lib. 3. cap. 6. They worshiped 10 Reliques. Tenthly to omit many more certain Markes of Roman Religion. S. Peters suprema­cie bele­ued. They accounted S. Peter Primat and head of the Apostles Beda lib. 5. c. 22. I desire with all my hart to follow the stepps of Blessed S. Peter head of the Apostles. Ibid. They were reduced to the order of S. Peter Primat and head of the Apostles, and committed as it were to his Patronage and protection. The Pope high B. ouer the vvhole vvorld. They accounted the Pope high Bishop ouer the whole world. So in plaine ter­mes S. Beda calleth S. Greg. Pope l. 2. c. 1. Accounted the Church of Rome the Ca­tholick and Apostolick Church. lib. 3. c. 25. And l. 4. cap. 23. Going to Rome, counted a thing of great vertue and deuotion. And l. 3. c. 25. Held without all controuersie that these vvords (vpon this Rock I vvill build my Church) vvere principally spoken vnto Peter, and that vnto him the keies of the Kingdome of heauen were giuen. And the Bishops being [Page 163] depriued of their Bishopricks both by the King and by other Bishops appealed to Rome: Beda lib. 5. cap. 20. Appeal [...] from the Bishop [...] and king to the Pope. VVilfrid the vertuous Bishop of York appealing to the See Apostolick for his cause and by that ful authoritie absolued &c. Item. Fiue yeares after he was accused of King Alfrid and many other Bishops and depriued of his Bishoprick wherin vpon repairing again to Rome and obtayning licence to plead his owne defence before his accusers, Pope Iohn and many Bishops sitting in Iugdment, It was by their Definitiue Sentence concluded, that in some parte his accusers had falsly forged surmises, The Pope wrote to the Kings of England requiring them to see him restored. Protestāts confesse the Rom. faith of our pri­mitiue Church. Fox. And thus much out of Catholick writers: now let vs see what Protestants write of the faith of our Primitiue church. 2. Fox in his protestation before his Acts. After the coming of Austin and his fellowes from Rome Christian faith began to enter and spring among the Saxons after a certain Romish sorte. Acts. pag. 154. Good vvorks done for clensing from sin. The causes why solenm Monaste­ries were first founded in England by Kinges Queenes and Kings daughters and rich Consuls are these, pro remedio animae meae &c. For remedy of my soule, for remission of my sinnes, Founda­tion of Protestan­cie vn­knovvne to our primitiue Church. for the safty of my Kingdoms and people which are vnder my gouernment, In honor of the most glorious Virgin. Whervpon afterward pag. 170. he concludeth that the doctrine of Iustification by onely faith, (which pag. 840. he calleth [Page 164] the foundation of their Church) was then vnknown. Bale. Bale Cent. 1. cap. 72. saith. English men after Austin did dedicat their Churches to dead Saints. Our first Christian K. a per­fect Papist. And cap. 73. King Ethelbert receaued the Roman Rites and doctrine with all the imposture. and Cent. 14. cap. 54. saith that the two Hewalds (who were the first English martyrs) passi sunt pro Papismo, papistici Martyres. Our first Martyrs suffer for Papistrie. Bilson. Papistical Martyrs suffered for Papistrie. Bilson of Obed pag. 321. The Saxons were soone entreated to receaue the Bishop of Rome for their Patriarch. Stovv. Stow pag. 77. citeth this Charter of King Ethelbert. King Ethelbert by inspiration of God gaue to Bishop Mellit for remedie of his soule, the Land which is called Tillingham for the Monastery of S. Paul, which kind of giuing goods is quite opposit to Protestancie, Honor of S. Peter counted signe of Christia­nitie. Reinolds. as yow may see more hereafter. And pag. 78. saith: King Sebert to shew him selfe a Christian built a Church in honor of S. Peter. Reinolds Confer. pag. 12. This imagination of the key and Porter and opinion of power to shut and open committed to Peter onely (ouer all the Church as it includeth also the Apostles) King Oswie conceaued, Keys gi­uen one­ly to Pe­ter. and all his Clergie did agree vnto it. And of S. Beda the principal Doctor of our Primitiue Church, Osiander. Osiander Epit. Cent. 7. pag. 331. saith thus. He was wrapped in all the Popish errors and articles in which we disagree this day from the Pope. S. Beda a perfect Papist. Wherby we [Page 165] may see how perfect a Papist S. Austin was. Fulk in Hebr. 10. Fulk. Beda liued in a super­stitious time (yet liued he 80. yeares after S. Austin) long after Antichrist did shew him self. Beda sayd that men vnderstod that the helthful sacrifice (of masse) auailed to the redemption of the body and soule euerlasting. And in 1. Pet. 3. Beda was caryed away with the errors and corruptions of his tyme. And thus I hope I haue sufficiently proued the Roman Catholick faith of our first Apostle S. Austin by the faith of his maister S. Greg. by his owne deedes and doctrine, by Confession of Protestants, and finally by the doctrine of our Primitiue Church which he founded, and how it was that Christian Religion which was first founded in our Nation, and our English Ancestors imbraced when they forsooke Paganisme. Now it remaineth to shew that the same Religion hath continewed also constantly vnto this late lamentable reuolt to Protestancy in all our Nation both in the Clergie and Laitie, which I will declare in all the Archbishops of Canterburie who were the cheefe of the one order, and in the Kings who were heads of the other. And by the way I will name in euery Kings time some of the notable men who successiuely haue con­firmed it by their holy life and miracles.

CHAP. XVIII. That all the Archbishops of Canter­burie from S. Austin to our tyme were Roman Catholicks, proued by generall reasons.

1 1. FIrst, because there is no mention or memorie in any Chronicle of England, No record that anie Archb: vvas Pro­test: befor this time. in any writer domestical or forrein, no record or monument of antiquitie that til Cranmer any of the Archbishops varied from the faith of his Predecessors. Therfor to affirme the con­trary, is ether to professe to know things past by reuelation, or to affirm that which 2 nether him self knoweth, nor any man euer tould him. Secondly because all the Archbishops vnto S. Odo his tyme (which was An. 958.) had bene Monks as S. Au­stin was, which Odo himselfe testifieth in Malmesb. lib. 1. Pontif. pag. 200. And Fox lib. 3. pag. 151. where he saith. All the Archb. of Cant. Monks til S. Odo. This Odo was the first from the coming of the Saxons til his tyme which was Archbishop of Canterburie being no Monke, all the other before his tyme were of the [Page 167] profession of monkes. And therfor he could not be perswaded to accept the Arch­bishoprick vntil he had professed him selfe a Monke. In a ma­ner all monks til An. 1184. And after that vnto Arch­bishop Baldwin an. 1184. in a manner all the Archbishops were Monks, as Godwin a Protestant yet liuing (which shall suffice to aduertise the Reader of now because herafter I shall often allegd him) testifieth in the life of Archbishop Hubert. And what kind of Monkes these were and what vndoubted Catholicks, hath 3 bene shewed before. Thirdly, Archb: vvere cho­sen by Monks. they were elected by the Monks of Christ-church in Canterburie where were Monks (saith Malmsburie lib. 1. Pont. p. 203) euer since the tyme of S. Laurence successor to S. Austin as is euident by the epistle of Pope Boniface to King Ethel­bert Ibid. pag. 208. and appeareth both by their liues in Godwin, and by the iudgment of Pope Innocent 3. in Paris pag. 287. Who, when the Bishops of England challenged right in the election of the Archbishop, the Pope hearing both parties gaue sentence that Monachi legittimè probauerunt &c. That the Monks had lawfully proued, that the [...]or and Couent of the Church of Canterbury haue for long times past elected Bishops in their Chapter without the Bishops euen vnto this time, and haue obtained their election [Page 168] to be confirmed of the See Apostolick. And Fox Acts pag. 232. writeth that the practice of the Monks was first to keepe the election in their own hands as much as they could, and secondly either to giue the election to some Prior or Monke of their owne house, or to some Abbot or Bishop which some tyme had bene of their company. And Ibid. he addeth that the Archbishop of Canterburie was commonly set vp by the Pope, especially since the Conquest. And pag. 349. that it hath bene alwaies the practice of the Church of Rome euer to haue the Archbishops of their owne setting vp, or such a one as they might be sure of on their side. And this election of Archbishops by Monkes continewed till Cranmers time. For (as Godwin writeth) Archbishop Deane who was the last but one before him, was elected by them. And the same he in­timateth of Bishop Warham who was the very last befor Cranmer. Now of what religion they were whome Monkes did 4 chuse euery one knoweth. All the Archb. confirmed by the Pope. Fourthly they were all confirmed by the Pope: this is manifest by Godwin in their liues. And no maruel, for before S. Austins tyme Pope Pelagius Predecessor to S. Greg. made a law, Vt quisquis Metropolitanus vltra tres Menses consecrationis suae ad fidem suam exponendam, & Pallium suscipiendum ad Aposto­licam sedem non miserit, commissa sibi careat dignitate. Whervpon Reinolds Confer. [Page 169] 458. saith that Pelagius lest he should rashly giue consent to the allowing of any Metropolitan that were not sound in faith, required them to make profession of their faith and so to send for the Pal, that is to say to send for his consent wherof the Pall was a token. Yea pag. 543. speaking generally of the Popes of the last 200. yeares after Christ, saith they required the confirmation of the Metropolitans by their consent. And besides this profession of faith, it was after decreed by Pope Alexander 3. saith Fox pag. 229. An. 1179. in the Councel of Lateran, that no Arch­bishop should receaue the Pal vnles he did sweare this oath I. N. Bishop of N. from this houre forward wil be faithful and obedient to blessed S. Peter, the holy Apostolick Roman Church and my Lord Pope N. and his successors Canonically entring. The oath of Bishops to the Pope. I will neuer by Counsel con­sent or deed be in cause that they loose life member or be wrongfully imprisoned. And what so euer they shall commit to me ether by them selues or their messengers I will neuer wittingly reueale to their preiudice to any person. VVith due respect to my vocation I will aide them in the houlding and defence of the Roman Papacie and S. Peters regalities against all men. I wil giue honorable entertainment to the Legat of the See Apostolick in his going and returne and assist him in his need. Being called to a Synod I will come vnles I be stayed by some Canonical let. I will yearly visit [Page 170] the Court of Rome if it be on this side the Alpes, or euery second yeare when it is beyond the mounts vnles I be dispensed withal by the See Apostolick. I wil nether sel giue nor pawn nor farm out a new nor any way alien the Lands and liuings belonging to my Bishoply maintenance without the priuitie of the Pope of Rome. So God me help. &c. And the like Oath did S. Boniface the Apostle of Germanie in his Consecration sweare to Pope Gregorie in the yeare 723. and the Pal was deliuered to him with these wordes. Speech at the deli­uerie of the Pall. To the honor of Almightie God the blessed Virgin Mary and the blessed Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul and my Lord Pope N. and the holy Church of Rome, as also the holy Church of N. committed to yow: VVe deliuer a Pal taken from the body of blessed S. Peter, that is the fulnes of Pontifical function, to the intent yow vse the same on certain dayes expressed in the Priuiledges granted to it by the See Apostolick &c. Now that our Archbishops did receaue their Pal from the Pope is manifest and con­fessed by Godwin almost in euery one of their liues, and shalbe more plainly shewed hereafter, and is acknowledged by Fox lib. 3. pag. 152. and lib. 4. pag. 172. 5 Therfor there can be no more doubt that our Archbishops were perfect Papists than the Popes were Popes. Our Archb. vvere the Popes legats. Fiftly, our Archbishops were euer the Popes Legats in England. The Archbishops of Canterbury [Page 171] were (saith Camb. Brit. pag. 296.) Legats of the Bishop of Rome, and as Vrban 2. sayd, as it were Popes of an other world. And Pope Iohn 12. in his letter to S. Dunstan: We fully confirm thy Primacie in which thou oughtest according to the custom of thy Predecessors to be Legat of the See Apo­stolick as it is knowne that Austin and his Successors Bishops were. And can we think that the Pops Legats were not Papists. Finally diuers of them haue bene canonized by the Pope, Hovv manie Archb: of Canterb: canonized and their memo­ries in the Roman Martyrologe. To wit. S. Austin, S. Laurence, S. Mellit, S. Iustus, S. Honorius, S. Theodor, S. Dunstan, S. Anselm, S. Thomas, S. Edmund, S. Elpheg, to whome Godwin addeth S. Eadsin, which would neuer haue bene done if they had not bene known Roman Catholicks.

CHAP. XIX. That euery one of the Archbishops of Canterburie from S. Austin, to the time of the Conquest of England were Roman Catholicks, proued in particuler.

CHAP. XXI. That all our Christian English kings to king Henrie 8. time were Ro­man Catholicks proued by general reasons.

1 No record that anie of our old christian Kings vvas Pro­testant.1. FIrst because (as I said of the Arch­bishops) ther is no script, no scrole, no record, no monument, to testifie that our former Christian kings were of any other religion than king Henrie 8. was before he began the change. Therfor they that affirme the contrarie either know it by reuelation, or speake without booke. Besides it is impossible that ther should be an alteration in religion which is the most markablest thing in a Common welth, and that there should be no men­tion therof; and altogether incredible in England, where we see the first alteration from Paganisme to Christia­nitie, and now lately from Papistrie to Protestancie recorded in all Histories. yea priuat mutations made by kings in some Churches from Priests to monks or contrary wise. And can we thinck that a mutation from Protestancie to Papistrie [Page 243] (if any such had bene) would haue bene omitted and forgotten. 2. All the Arch­bishops of Canterburie were Roman Catholicks as is before shewed, 2 All their Archb. vvere Ca­tholicks. and yet none of them trobled by the kings of former times for his religion▪ yea most of them greatly honored by them, and diuers made Archbishops by their kings procurment. 3 They suf­fered Archb. to be conse­crat of the Pope. &c. 3. They suffered the said Ar­chbishops to go to Rome (where diuers of them were consecrated of the Pope) to receaue their Pal, to be his legat, and take their forsaid oath of fidelitie to the Pope, which if they had bene Protest. and not perfect Roman Catholick they would neuer haue permitted. yea some of the kings procured Pals for their Archb: Kings procure palls from the P. for their Archb. as King Edwin for S. Paulin in Beda lib. 2. cap. 17,. King Alfwald for Archbishop Eanbald, Florent. An. 779. Huntington lib.. 3. king Rufus for S. Anselm, Fox Acts. pag. 185. 4. Nine of the ancient kings left their Kingdomes and became monks, 4 Manie ancient Kings became Monks. as Fox confesseth Acts. pag. 133. whose names are these, king Kinegilfus, K. Ced­walla, king Ina, king Ethelred, king Sige­bert, king Coenred, king Offa, king Ed­bert, Monks vovved chastie pouertie and obe­dience. to whome pag. 131. he addeth king Kenred. Now mōkes in that time vowed chastitie as is euident in S. Beda lib. 5. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 25. lib. 3. cap. 25. And [Page 244] Pouertie lib. 1. cap. 25. And obedience. lib. 4. cap. 5. And how Papistical this is, and contrary to Protestancie euery one knoweth. Beside as Fox saith pag. 115. most like they did this for holines sake, thincking in this kind of life to serue or please God better, or to merit more which Kinde of act or ende of theirs is plain Papistical, and quite opposit to Protestancie. And therfore Fox saith, that these Kings were far deceaued. To these Kings we may adioin 19. Queenes and Kings daughters whome Fox also pag. 134. confesseth to haue left their royall estate, Manie ancient Queenes and K. Daughters nunnes. and becommen Nunnes. Yea pag. 137. he citeth out of an ancient Chronicle, That in the Primitiue Church of England Kings, Deuotion of English to mon­kish life. Princes, Dukes, Earles, Barons, and Rulers of Churches incensed with a desire of heauen, laboring and striuing among them selues to enter into Monkerie into voluntarie exile and solitarie life, forsooke all and followed the Lord. The same hath Huntington. lib. 5. Houed. and others. Is this thinck we a proceding of Protestants or rather of earnest and deuout Roman Catholicks?

5 Out anci­ent Kings desire the P. to con­firme their Charters.2. Fiftly. They desired the Pope to con­firme their Charters which they made. This you may see of King Ethelbert the first Christian King, in Malmsb: lib. 1. Pont. pag. 208. Of King Coenred and King Offa in Capgraue in vita Egwin. [Page 245] Of King Egbert in Florent. Chron. An. 676. of King wulfer in Ingulf. pag: 884. Of an other King Offa in Paris An. 794. Of King Edgar in Malmsb. lib. 2. Reg. pag. 57. 6. They suffered appeals to Rome from them selues. 6 Kings suffer ap­peals to Rome. This is euident in King Egbert and King Alfred in Beda lib. 5. cap. 20. 7. They beleeued S. Peter to be Prince of the Apostles as is to be seene in King Offa his Charter in Cambden in Brit. 7 Our Kings beleeue S. Peters su­premacie. pag. 613. and S. Peter to be higher in degree than S. Paule, as is to be seene in King Ina his verses there pag. 193. and Peter onely to haue had the keies. to witt of all the Church, as Reinolds confesseth Confer. pag. 12, And finally the Church of Rome in their time to be the Catholick and Apostolick Church, as Beda testifieth lib. 3. cap. 29, at what time the Protestants ac­count the Roman Church the who are of Babilon, and the Pope Antichrist. 8 Manie of our Kings canonized by the Pope. 8. Seuen of these our English Kings are Canoni­zed by the Roman Church in the Marti­rologe, to wit, Ethelbert, Richard, Oswald, Sebbi, Edmund, Edward martir, Edward Confessor, 9 Our ancient Kings knovv not iustifica­tion by onely faith. which would neuer haue bene done if they had not bene Roman Ca­tholicks.

9. Our ancient English Kings could be no Protestants therfore they were Ro­man Catholicks. For no others challenge [Page 246] them for theirs. That they could be no Protestants is most manifest. First because the opinion of iustification by onely faith is accounted of Protestants the foundation, VVhat is the foun­dation and soul of Prote­testancie Luther. head, and cheefest point and soule of their Doctrin and Church, It is (saith Luther Prefat. in Ionam) the head of Christian Religion, the summe of the scriptures. Prefat: ad Galath: If the article of Iustification (by onely faith) be once lost, then is all true Christian doctrin lost. And as many as hould not that doctrin are Iewes Turks Papists or hereticks. Item. By this onely doctrin the Church is built and in this it consisteth. And in cap. 1. Galath. If we neglect the Arti­cle of Iustification we leese all together. And in cap. 2. It is the principal Article of all Christian doctrin all other Arcicles are comprehended in it. Fox Acts. Fox. pag. 840. saith It is the foundation of all Christianitie, Chark. And pag. 770. the onely principal origen of our saluatian. Chark in the Tower disputation saith. It is the soule of the Church. And the same say all other Prote­testants. But this foundation, this head, this soule of Protestancie, our ancient Kings knew not, as Fox plainly confes­seth in these wordes pag. 170. The Doctrin of Iustification (by onely faith) was then vnknown. And pag. 133. writeth thus of our antien­test Christian Kings. Our Kings knevv not the Prote­stant Gospel. They lackt the doctrin and knowledg in Christs Gospel espetially (saith he) in the Article of free Iustification by faith [Page 247] and therfor (saith he) they ran the wrong way. Loe he granteth that they were ignorant espetially of that which Protest: esteeme the especiallest point of Protestancie. And Ibid. speaking of our ancient Chri­stian Kings hath these wordes: How great the blindnes and ignorance of these men was who wanting no zeale wanted knowledg, seeking their saluation by their meritorious deedes, which I write (saith he) here to put vs in mind how much we at this present are bound to God for the true sinceritie of his truth hidden so long before to our fforancestors, and opened now to vs. A plaine confession that none of our Anceitors vvere Pro­testants. This onely lamenting to see them haue such works and want our faith, and vs to haue right faith and want their workes. Could he say more plainly that our Ancient Princes and Christian Ancestors knew not so much as the foun­dation of Protestancy, and wanted their faith? And with what face then can any man challeng them for Protestants. And heere I challeng Abbots or what minister so euer, VVhat must be shevved of mini­sters that saie our Anceitors vvere Pro­testants. to shewe one ancient English man, Woman, or Child that held this forsaid foundation, head, and soule of their religion; And if they can not (as indeede they can not) let them confesse, that there was neuer ancient English Pro­testant, vnles they will make Protest: without head or or soule.

3. Moreouer to build or indow Reli­gious [Page 248] houses (as Doc. Abbots saith Answer to D. pag. 100. Bishop) for redemption of their sinnes and purchase of their soules health proceeded of the wāt of the sight of the sunne of righteousnes. For vvhat end our Kings built and endevved mona­steries. And Fox. pag. 133. saith it is contrary to the rule of Christs Gospel. But the same Fox Ibid. testifieth that our first Christian kings built monasteries seeking for merit with God, and remedie of their soules and remedy of their sinnnes, and prooueth it by a Charter of King Ethelbald, which he might haue proued by as many Charters of those ancient kings as are extant. One of King Ethelbald I will cite out of Ingulph. made to free monks from taxes the third yeare of his Reigne which was 718, some what more than a hunderd yeares after S. Austin. Ego Ethelbald &c, I Ethel­bald King of marchland for the loue of the cele­stical Contry, Good vvorks done to free the soul from bond of sin. and for the redemption of my soule haue prouidently decreed to free it by good worke from all bond of sinne. King Ethelbert also Pro animae suae remedio &c, for the good of his soule gaue to Mellit Bishop the land called Tillingham out of Stow Chron. pag. 77. And so of the rest. Our first Christian K. gaue land to Churches for help. of his soule. Again Fox pag. 154. The causes why solemn Monasteries were first founded by Kings, Queenes, Kings daughters, and rich Consuls, are these, Pro remedio animae meae, pro remissione peccatorum meorum, pro redemptione peccatorum meorum, & pro salute Regnorum [Page 249] meorum quique subiacent regimini populorum in honorem gloriosae virginis. For the redemption of my soul for the redeeming of my sinnes and for the saftie of my Kingdoms and people subiect to my gouernment to the honor of the glorious Virgin. And therfor by D. Abbots his verdict, and by euident inference our auncient Princes wanted the sunne of Protestants righteousnes. 10 10. And lastly I proue it by the plain confes­sion of Protest. For Fox Acts. pag. 132. saith our first Christian Kings were deuout to Church men, espetially to the Church of Rome. Which was, in the opinion of Protestāts, Our Kings de­uour to the P. vvhen he vvas in opinion of Prote­stants. Antichrist when the Pope was known Antichrist, That is, in Boniface. 3. time, and since. Bale Cent. 1. cap, 73, saith of king Ethelbert our first Christian king that He receaued the doctrin of the Roman Religion with all the im­posture therof, and died the 21. yeare of his recea­ued Papistrie, Could he speake more plain­ly? And Cent. 13. cap. 5, Felix saith he con­uerted the East parte of England to Papistrie. A Plaine confessiō of Prote­stants that our nation vvas first conuerted to papi­strie. And Ibid cap. 4. he saith that Birin vnder colour of the Gospel taught the VVest saxons Papi­sticam fidem Papistical faith. The same con­fesse diuers other Protestants, as hath bene shewed before when we proued that S. Greg. and S. Austin were by the con­fession of Protestants plain Rom. Catho­licks.

[Page 250]4. To all these particuler proofes I ad a general one vz the English names which our ancient Kings and people gaue to their seruice and their Pastors; See in Ingulph. hovv antient Knights vvere vvont to goe to confession before they vvere knighted. also their Churches Tombs and Epitaphes and finally all their ancient Monuments do testifie and proclame their Catholick Ro­man religion. For their seruice of God they called Masse, Nether can it be shewed, that euer they called it other wise, and of it haue they tearmed the cheefe feasts of the yeare, as Christmasse, Candlemasse, Michelmas, Name of Masse. Martin masse. As likwise they haue tearmed Shreuetide of their Shre­iuing and confessing them selues before they began their lent Fast, Palmesonday of the Palmes which they caried on that day, as Catholicks at this day doe; Ember dayes of the Catholick fast of Quator tēpora corruptly pronouncing the last word. of Priests. Their cheefe Doers of their seruice they termed Priestes. That is (as Protest. con­fesse) Sacrificers, and therfor their ministers abhor the name. Reinold conf. pag. 466 467. Their cheefe Churches they built in forme of a Crosse. The cheefe Altar therin on high and toward the East, Forme of Churches. and diuers Altars in little Chap­pells about; erected therin a Roodloft with the Roode or Crosse of Christ vp­pon it, adorned their Chappells euen the very glasse windowes with Pictures. In [Page 251] like sort they buried their dead with Crosses as was seene on the tombe of King Arthur, Buriall of dead. and their Bishops with Chalices as in the Tombe of S. Birin, and vsually on the Epitaphs desire men to pray for the soule of the dead. Epitaphs. And where I pray yow was the Protestant Commu­nion when our first Christian Ancestors termed their cheefe seruice of God, Masse, and therof named their principall feasts in the yeare? where were their Ministers when they termed their Pastors. Priests and sacrificers. Wher were their Churches when all the Cathedrall Churches were built in forme of a Crosse, with one high Altar, and diuers little Altars in the Church about; where were they them selues when our Ancestors euen dead did by Crosses wher with they were buried, and the Epitaphs of their Tombes pro­fesse the Roman Catholick religion.

CHAP. XXII. Certayne obiections of Ministers that our auncient Kings were not Romane Catholiques disproued.

1. ALbeit euery one of iudgment will easely see that what can be obiected against this so cleare, D. Doue of Recu­sancie vvil haue Bellarm: to be a Protest: or no perfect Catholik. and by the Aduersaries confessed truth, is but cauils which want not against almost the euidenst truth that is: yet for satisfaction of all sorts of people, we wil propose what D. Abbots in his Answer to D. Bishops epistle pag. 199. lately hath col­lected for proofe that our ancient Kings were Protestants, or at least not perfect obiec∣tion. 1 Roman Catholicks. First he saith that our antient Kings had the supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall. Ansvver. This is euidently false by what hath bene said in the 5. 6. and 7. proofe of the former Chapter. To which I add that (as it shalbe shewed herafter) King Edward 3. whome Protestants account to make most for them, professed it to be a sauor of heresie to deny the Popes supremacie in causes ecclesiasticall. [Page 253] 2. Abbots saith that the kings founded Bishopricks and inuested them at their obiec∣tion. 2 pleasur, as did Edward Confessor the Bishoprick of Exester. Ansvver. That in S. Austins time or long after the King founded Bishopricks and inuested Bishops is appa­rantly false. For it is euident in Beda lib. 1. cap. 29. That S. Greg. at his owne pleasure apointed two Archbishopricks, & vnder each of them twelue Bishopricks to be erected in England. And lib. 2. cap. 4. That S. Austin by his authoritie founded the Archbishoprick of Canterburie, and the Bishopricks of London and Rochester, Our an­cient Kings tooke not vpon them to erect Bishop­riks. and that the King then did onely build them Churches, indow the Bishopricks with lands and giue them (saith Beda lib. 1. cap. 28.) Possessions necessarie for their mainte­nance. And aboue 800. yeares agoe when King Offa would alter the Bishoprik of Lichfeild in to an Archbishoprick, K Ethel­bert. he took not vpon him to doe it by his owne authoritie or of the Bishops of his realm, K. Offa. but procured Pope Adrian to send two legats for that purpose. Malmsb. lib. 1. Reg. cap. 4. K Edvvard Sen. And▪ 700. yeares agoe mhen King Edward Senior erected fiue Bishopricks in the West Contrie, it was done by the expresse commandement of Pope For­mosus. Malmsb. 2. Reg. cap. 5. K VVilli [...] Conq. And about 500. yeares agoe, when King William [Page 254] Conqueror would haue some English Bishops deposed, and Bishopricks tran­slated from litle Tounes to greater Citties, he procured Pope Alexander. 2. to send a Legat hither to doe it. Malmsb. 1. Pont. But yet we grāt that a while before the Conquest, and somwhat after, Kings tooke vpon them to inuest Bishops and Abbots as appeareth in Ingulp. pag. 806. But this fact of theirs done of som igno­rantly as must be thought of King Edred and others before the Conquest who were perfect Catholicks in faith (as shall appeare herafter) and also vertuous in life; of others perhaps presumptuously and couetously against the order of the Church, proueth no more that they were no Catholicks, than worse facts of theirs against the law of Christ proueth them to haue bene no Christians. For if Prin­ces maye by euery fact of theirs be iudged of what religion they are, they would sometimes seeme no Christians nor yet to haue a God. As for S. Edward he might wel doe what he did, for he was apointed by the Pope to be his Vicegerent and as it were Legat as we shall shewe in his life. obiec∣tion. 3 2. Thirdly, they made (saith Abbots) lawes for the order and gouernment of the Church, as is to be seene in the lawes of Edward, of Alfred, of Ethelstan, and Canutus in Fox Volum. 1. in fine, [Page 255] and by many laws made since the Conquest against intrusions of the Pope, as is to be seene in Syr Edward Cookes reports part 5. Ansvver. Touching the lawes of the Christian Kings before the Conquest, I answer that they are not Ecclesiasticall lawes such as define any thing as a point of faith, or prescribe any thing concerning Religion and worship of God, but are meere commandements partly for execution of former Ecclesia­sticall lawes, partly for procurement and conseruation of externall peace, quietnes, and order of the Church, which kinde of lawes Princes may make, as is to be seene in Stapleton Relect. Controu. 2. q. 5. Ar. 1. See sta­pleton. Besides that, Christian Princes apoint thus some times things in ecclesiasticall matters not of authoritie, but vpon zeale, and not to dispose of faith and religion. As for the lawes made since the Conquest which may seeme preiudiciall to the Popes authoritie, the cheefest Authors of them, were Edward 3. and Richard 2. who (as shall appeare heerafter) plainly pro­fessed the Popes Supremacie. And therfor what lawes they made, were no way to denie his authoritie, but to restrain the execution therof in some cases: because as the Apostle saith Omnia licent sed non omnia expediunt. All things are lawfull but all things are not expedient. So they thought [Page 256] that some execution of his authority in some matters would be preiud [...]ciall to their temporall state, and therfor thought it not expedient that in those cases it should be practised. As for Cookes reports they haue bene so answered as I thinck neither him self nor any for him will obiec∣tion. 4 replie. Fourthlie, saith Abbots Then were the scriptures in foure seuerall languages of so many seuerall Nations, besides the Latin tongue common to them all Beda lib. 1. cap. 1. This is vntrue, Ansvver. and Beda rather saith the contra­rie. His words are these. This Iland at this present to the number of the 5. bookes of Moises, doth studie and set forth the knowledg of one perfect truth, that is with the language of the English, the Britons, the Scotts, the Picts, and the Latin which by studie of the scripture is made common to all the rest. In which words he saith, that the Inhabitants preached and published Christs truth in fiue seueral languages, but the scripture they studied onely in Latin, and therby it, became common to all the Inhabitants. And be­fore in the life of Theodor, we shewed by the confession of diuers Protestants, that masse was in his tyme, (which was before S. Beda) in Latin onely. But admit that the scripture were then in Latin and in English too, how proueth that, that English men then were no Catholicks. [Page 257] Haue not English Catholicks now the scripture in English? Fiftlie, saith Abbots, obiec∣tion. 5 Then were they in Monasteries commanded to be exercised in the reading of scriptures, and euery one was required to learn the Lords prayer and Creede in the English tongue. This is not worth the answering. Ansvver. For what doth the Monks reading scripture, or the peoples learning the Lords prayer and Creed in English make against Catholick Religion?

3. Sixtly, saith Abbots, Then was the Com­muniō obiec∣tion. 6 ministred in both kindes as Paris in Heral­do and Rafo reporteth of some soldiers. Ansvver. What Paris saith of soldiers I knowe not. For at this present I haue him not at hand. But that English men in our Primitiue Church communicated onely with form of bread, appeareth by Beda. lib. 2. cap. 5. Wher Pagans say to S. Mellit, VVhy dost thou not giue vnto vs of that white bread which thou didst giue to our Father Seba, and dost yet giue to the people in Church? But if S. Mellit had communicated people in both kinds, it is lykly they would haue demanded both. Besids that Beda expoundeth that place of Luke: ( Cognouerunt eum in fractione panis (where mention is of one onely kinde) of sacramental communion: Therfor he (and consequently our En­glish Church then) alowed communion [Page 258] in one kinde. But whether they commu­nicated in both or one kinde, maketh little to proue that they were not Catho­lick [...], because til lay people were forbid­den, it was lawful for them to communi­cate Obiec∣tion. 7 in both kindes.

4. Seauenthlie thē (saith Abbots) was Tran­substantiation vnknowne, and when it began to be broached or not long after, Elfricus Archbishop of Canterburie contradicted it. Ansvver. How vntrue this is of Trāsubstantiation hath bene shewed before in the life of S. Greg: and S. Odo As for Elfric the Protestant Bishops them selues who published that sermon confes­se, See befor hovv Bale confesseth Archb. Alfric to haue bene a Papist, and of Transub­stant. in. S. Odo Archb. that the Author therof was no Arch­bishop of Canterbury. More likly it is to be true which Fox Acts. pag. 1148. saith that it was Elfric surnamed Bata, an He­retick, who (as S. Dunstan appearing to one in a vision said (as reporteth Osbern) attempted to disherit his Church, but I haue stop­ped him (saith S. Dunstan) & he could not pre­uaile. Albeit indeed that sermon doth more approoue Transubstantiation than disprooue it. For in that is saide, that Christ turned through inuisible might the bread to his owne body and wine to his blood. And that holy howsel is by might of Gods word truly Christs body and his blood: And that after their halow­ing, bread and wine trulye are Christs body and blood. And what other do Catholicks now [Page 259] say, but what here is said? Vz. That bread and wine are by inuisible power turned into Christs body and blood, and become after consecration truly (not figuratiuly) his body and blood. And though the Au­thor of the sermon ad, that the sacrament after consecration is not bodily but Ghostly Christs bodie, yet the word ghostly is not added to deny the word (Truly) which is absolutly affirmed, but onely to deny the word (Bodily) that is carnally and after a Capharnaitical maner which is Catho­lick doctrin. For though the Eucharist be truly and really Christs body, yet is it not Christs bodie after a carnal maner, but after a spirituall & mystical maner. Now wher he saith (which Bilson lib. of Obed. pag. 681, and Protestants vrge) that holy how­sel after bodily vnderstanding, is a corruptible and mutable creature, maketh nothing against Transubstantiation. For his mea­ning is, that the sacrament according to bodily vnderstanding, that is, according to the outward forme which with bo­dily eies we see and vnderstand, is a cor­ruptible thing, which no Catholick de­nieth. Again wher he sayeth, that there is much betwen the body that Christ suffered in, and the body that is hallowed to howsel. He neither said nor meant that ther is much betwene Christs bodie wherin he suffred [Page 260] and the bodie of the howsel. (Albeit this also be true, because Christs body when he suffered was after the maner of visible bodies, palpable, and parte in one parte of place, and parte in an other: and here it is inuisible, and after the maner of spirits, all in euerie part of the sacramēt: For which difference and lesse S. Austin lib. de symbo­lo cap. 10. said much mo [...]e, to wit, that in the resurrection shalbe no flesh and blood. In Resurrectione non iam caro erit & sanguis, because they shall be in far different ma­ner) But he said that ther is much betweene the body of Christ and the body that is halowed to housel, which is most true, for this body is the body of bread.

obiec∣tion. 8 5. Eightlie saith Abots Then the, Bishops and Princes of this Land did condemn the second Nicen Councel for worshiping of Images, out of Houeden parte. Ansvver. 1. An. 792. To this I answer, that it is no waye likly that our English Bishops would then cōdemn such hono­ring of Images as Catholiks vse, because they knew that not onely their Christia­nitie began by S. Austin with vse of Ima­ges, but also that Archb. Brithwald (as is before rehearsed out of Bale Cent. 1. cap. 99.) held a Councel in London An. 712. VVherin he commanded vpon the Decree of Con­stantine Pope of Rome that Images should be worshiped. But that which our English [Page 261] Clergie then disproued was, as Houeden writeth Imagines adorari debere, that is, ado­red or worshiped as God. which Houed: wel vnderstood when he added. Quod Ecclesiae Dei execratur, which the Church of God doth de­test. Which (he being a perfect Roman Catholick as Abbots can not denie) could neuer say of such honor as Catholicks giue to Images, but might most truly say of worshiping them as God. For this the Church of God did allwaies and doth accurse. Nether, though some Catholicks term that worship Latria which is giuen to the crosse of Christ, did euer any Ca­tholick affirm that any Image or creatur whatsoeuer, was to be worshiped as God, as I could easely shew, if it were not be­sids my purpose. But in that our English men were mis-informed of the Councel of Nice, as if it had commanded Images to be worshiped as God, which it did not, as (to omit other testimonies) testifieth D. Feild lib. 3. of the Church cap. 20. and 36. obiec∣tion. 9 6. Lastly he saith that then were tithes payd to married Priests, and so continued to Pope Hilde­brand (who liued in King William Con­querors time) and our most ancient Cathedrall Churches were places for maried Priests, Malmsb. lib. 2 Reg. cap. 7. cal­leth these Priests irregulares and vagos. Ansvver. not for Popish Votaries, as appreareth by the Records of the Church of VVorceter. That there were maried Priests or rather that Priests kept [Page 262] woemen as their wiues in Pope Hilde­brands tyme, and before we deny not. But that ther were such euer since the first Christianitie of English men till that time, or that mariage of Priests was not alwaies forbidden in England, is most vntrue, as hath bene sufficient clearly prooued in the life of S. Anselm, and by the testimonie of Protestants. Likwise most vntrue it is, that our most ancient Cathedrall Churches were places for married Priestes. For the most ancient of all is Christchurch in Canterburie, wher King Ethelbert the first Christian King of England placed monks (as Pope Boni­face in his letter to him in Malmsb. lib. 1. Pont. pag. 208. testifieth. And Malmsb. Ibid. pag. 203. addeth this: It is manifest that ther haue bene Monks at Christchurch in Canter­burie euer since the time of S. Laurence Arch­bishop who first succeded S. Austin. As for the Record of VVorceter if ther be any such ancient thing, and not forged by some Minister, it is like to haue bene deuised by some married Priest, when in King Edgar and King Edward martyrs tyme they pleaded for that Church against Monks, (who were restored to diuers Cathedrall Churches which had bene possessed of Preistes euer since the destruc­tion of England by the Danes) by the [Page 263] iudgment of S. Dunstan S. Oswald King, Edgar, & two Councels or Parliaments as yow may read in Osbern (who liued in the time of the Conquest) in the life of S. Dunstan. As for the first Cathedrall Church of Worceter, it was, (as Godwin saith in the Bishops of Worceter) a mona­sterie built by S. Egwin. I say the first, For that which is now, was long after founded by S. Wulstan Bishop of Wor­ceter, as yow may see in his life in God­win. Or if the first were built of Sex wolf (as Cambden saith in Brit. pag. 512. It is nothing likly that he would build it for married Priestes, seing (as Beda saith lib. 4 cap 6) he was a monke him selfe, and built that Monasterie which now is called Peterborough. But especially be­cause nether then, nor long after there were any maried Priestes in England, as is euident by these words of S. Beda lib. 5. cap. 22 written long after the foundation of Worster Church. It behoueth them who being ether made by vow Monks, or by profession of the Clergie, do bind them selues more strictly (then maried men) with the bridle of conti­nencie. Behould how in Bedas time Monks by vow, and the Clergie by pro­fession, did (as they do now) binde them selues more strictly to chastitie then other men did. Which in other words is [Page 264] to say, they did not marry. And thus much for the refelling of these slender obiections, which if they be compared with the former proofes wherwith wee shewed that our ancient Kings were Roman Cathol. will (I suppose) seeme to any of indifferent iudgment to deserue no answer.

CHAP. XXIII. That all the Christian Kings of England from their first Christia­nitie to the time of the Monar­chie of Englād, were Roman Catholicks, prooued in particuler.

1. VVHen S. Austin entred there were 7. English Kings in this Land. Wherof foure were conuerted by S. Austin and his companions. But partly because it were to tedious to discourse of all these Kingdoms, partly also because what is prooued of one of them, will caselie be beleeued of the rest, I will discourse onely of the Kings of the West Contrie, who in time subdued the rest, [Page 265] and whose roiall blood yet inioyeth the crown in their rightfull heire both by the English and Scottish line, His maie­stie des­cended of the VVest Saxon Kings by both the English and the Scottish line. our Souerain Lord King Iames. If any askt me why God permitted the Western Kings to conquer the rest? I will not take vpon me to haue bene of Gods counsel, yet haue I noted diuers notable things peculier to them, which whither they might moue God to blesse them with such temporall benediction or no, I leaue to the reader to iudg. The first is, First Christian K. of vvest saxons be­came a Monke. that the first Christian King of that Contrie, namely Kinegilsus left his Kingdome and became a Monk as testifieth Fox Acts. pag. 110. 134. which we read not of the first Christian Kings of the other Kingdoms. VVest saxon Kings first vvent to Rome. The second is that the kings of this Contrie, first left their Kingdoms and went on Pilgrimage to Rome. This is manifest by S. Beda lib. 5. cap. 7. in the valiant King Ceadwall. Who in the year 689. before all other kings wēt on Pilgrimage to Rome. The third is, First made their kingdom tri­butary to the See Apostol. that these kings first of all other our Prin­ces made this land tributaire to Rome for the Peter pence. This all our Chronicles write of King Ina in the yeare 726. These three notable things these Kings performed first, and therfor perhaps their Kingdom continewed longest. But now to come to the Kings in particuler.

CHAP. XXIIII. That all the Kings of England from the Monarchy to the Conquest vvere Roman Ca­tholicks, proued in parti­culer.

CHAP. XXV. That the Kings of England from the Conquest to King Edward 3. time, were Roman Ca­tholicks proued in particuler.

1. THe 33. King of England was Wil­liam the Conqueror who entred this Land An. 1066. and reigned 21. yeares. He got the crowne of this Realm partly by dint of sword and conquest, partly by the graunt of King Edward Confessor, whose cosin German remoued he was. For as him selfe saith in his Charter, in Cambd. in Brit. pag. 111. VVhat right K. VVill. had to the Crovvne of En­gland. He got the Kingdome by the help of the graunt of God and of his cosin glorious King Edward, who apointed him his adopted heir to the Kingdom of England. And Guitmundus in oratione ad Regem, saith: He got England by the gift of God and by the freindship of Edward his Kinsman. And In­gulph who then also liued, saith. An. 1065. [Page 348] Edward chose VVilliam and sent Robert Archb. of Canterb. who should declare it vnto him. And pag. 911. In the Kindred and consanguinitie of Edward our famous King, VVilliam framed his conscience to inuade England. Paris pag. 1057. It is sayd that blessed S. Edward gaue the King­dom to VVilliam as a Legacie on his death bed. The like hath Walsing. ypodigm pag. 28. Houed. pag. 609. and others. Finally Fox Acts pag. 165. King Edward thought to make Edgar Adeling his heire, but fearing partly the mutabilitie of English men partly the malice and pride of Herold and others, perceauing therby that be should not so well bring his purpose to passe directed solemne Embassadors to the Duke of Nor­mandie assigning and admitting him to be his lawfull heire next to succeed him after to the Crowne. And King William trusting to the right of this title offered Herold (as Fox pag. 166. 167. and others write) to trye their two titles before the Pope, but Herold refusing, William neuerthelesse sent and got his title approued by the Popes iudg­ment. This King saith Hunting. lib. 6. pag. 370. was wise, Valour and ver­tues of K. VVilliam Conq. but crafty, rich but couetous, vain-glorious but louing his reputation, louing to the seruants of God, hard to this withstanders, the onely author of peace that a little girle loaden vvith gould might passe tbrough Englād vntouched. The like hath Malmsb. lib. 3. and Cooper An. 1067; Bale Cent. 2. cap. 56. addeth [Page 349] that he was of great corage and excellent in the knowledg of warlick affaires. His Rom. religion. His Roman religion is manifest. First because as Westmon. An. 1085. and others 1 write, Paris. An. 185. Euery day he vvas present at Masse heard mattins Lauds Euensong vvith the Canonicall houres, K. VVill. Conq. heard euery daie Masse mattins and Houre [...]. nether vvould he suffer euen vpon most vrgent and difficult affaires, him self to be hindred. In the meane season he ceassed not to kneele and to pray deuoutly. Secondly because as sone as he had gotten the victorie he sent Herolds Standerd to the Pope. Stow in 2 Herold, Cambd. in Brit. Thirdly he built 3 two Monasteries one at Battel in Sussex Vt orarent: that they might pray saith West­mon. An. 1067. Paris 1066. Pro ibi mortuis for the dead there. And an other at Cane in Normandie. Fourthly he made his 4 daughter Cecilia a Nonne: K. VVill. daughter a Nonne. Paris An. 1075. Stow. pag. 177. S. Osmund was so inward with this King as Bale saith Cent. 5 13. cap. 14. That he could not be absent scarce any time from King VVilliams presence. And yet as he both there saith, and Fox Acts pag. 184. Godwin in the Bishop of Salsbu­rie, this Osmund in the yeare 1076. was author of the office or maner of saying Masse mattins and administring Sacra­ments after the vse of Sarum which (saye they) was afterward in a manner receaued through all England Wales and Ireland. [Page 350] Sixtlie Pope Alexander writing to him ep. 10. saith Among the Princes and rulers of the world we vnderstand the notable forme of your religion, and writeth to him to persist in the study of most Christian deuotion. And Pope Greg. 7. whome Protest. call Hilddebrand, Loue betvvene P. Hilde­brand and K. VVilli­liam. and hate most of all the Popes lib. 1. ep. 31. calleth King William, the most louing and principall sonne of the Roman Church. And ep. 69. saith: That King William reioised in his promotion, and shewed all the affection of a good sonne from his hart. And l. 6. ep. 30. VVe loued alwaies King VVilliam peculierlie amongst the rest of that dignity. And lib 7. ep. 26. saith, that his Queene Mathildis offered him what soeuer we would haue of theirs he might haue it without delay. And lib. 7. ep. 5. saith, That the King of England although that in some things he behaued himselfe not so religiouslie, not­withstanding because he would not consent to en­ter into league against the Sea Apostolicke with some, that were enemies to the Crosse of Christ, being requested therto but compelled by oath the Priests to leaue wiues, the lay men to pay the tenths which they detayned, is praysworthie sufficientlie and more to be honored than other Kings. This thus Pope that then liued. Seuenthlie King William although he deposed almost all the old English nobilitie, yet he tooke not vpon him [Page 351] to depose anie one Bishop or Abbot but procured Pope Alexander to send down two Legats to do it. Eightlie, K. VVill. Conq. tooke not vpon him to depose Bishops or dispose of Bishop­ricks. King William preferred Lanfrank to the Arch­bishoprick of Canterburie as all know, whome the protestants confesse to haue bene a notorious Papist. Ninthlie, he 8 glorieth in his death bed (as Stow 9 Chron. pag, 171. Baron An. 1084. and an other author then present write) that he had increased 9. Abbeies of Monks, VVhat account K. VVill. made of Monaste­ries. and one of Nonne [...], and that in his dayes 17. monasteries of Monks and six of Nonnes were builded: VVith such compasse, saith he, Monaste­ries fence of Coun­tries. Normandie is fenced and all things which any noble men in Lands or Rents haue giuen to God or Saints for their spirituall health, I haue curte­ously graūted and confirmed their Charters. These studies I haue followed from my first yeares. This I leaue vnto mine heires to be kept in all times. In this my children follow me continuallie, that here and for euer before God and men yow may be honored. 10 Finallie as Stow p. 174. and the said Au­thors report, b [...]ing to giue vp the ghost, K. VVil­liams last vvords praying to our ladies with great deuotion he lift vp his eyes to Heauen, and holding abroad his hands said, I commend my soule vnto our blessed Ladie Marie Mother of God, that she [...]y her holie praiers may reconcile me to her most dere sonne our Lord Iesus Christ. And with these wordes (saith Stow) he presentlie yelded vp the [Page 352] ghost. And pag. 176. he addeth that he was buried at a Masse, and that the Preacher desired all to pray for the dead Prince. This was the ende of this victorious and vndoubted Catholick King.

Fox his confes: of the Cath. time vn­der K. VVilliam Conq. and since.2. And so Catholick these times since the Conquest haue bene, as Fox Acts pag. 167. speaking after his maner saith, Before the Conquest infection and corruption of religion vvas great, but in the times folovving it did abound in excessiue measure. Which he said onely because the histories of the ti­mes folowing are more exant & perfect, and so afforde more playne and more fre­quent testimonie of the Catholick faith than those of the former times, though they as yow see afford sufficient. Bilson also of Obed. pag. 321. saith that the Pope inforced vpon the Normans the headship of the Church. Wherin he confesseth that the Normans admitted a cheefe pointe of Papistrie. Saints in K. VVil­liams time. In this kings tyme lyued that holy Queene of Scotland S. Margaret grandchild vnto king Edmund Ironside, whose holy life is written by Tungat an English man Bishop of S. Andrews in Scotland. Who was saith Bale Cent. 2. cap. 60. oculatissimus testis Virtutum eius: a most certain eye vvitnesse of her vertues. And Fox Acts. pag. 185. calleth her vertuous and deuout ladie. And yet was she a manifest Papist. [Page 343] For being to die she called for Priests, and made her confession, Florent An. 1093. malb. l. 4. and was anoi­led and howseled, as testifie the said Tur­got, Houed. An. 1093. Hunting. lib. 7. pag. 373. and others. In her life tyme She was a maintaner of pietie, iustice, peace, Holines of Q. Margaret. frequent in prayer, who punished her body with fasting and watching▪ and of this holy Queene is his present Maiestie descended by both the Royal lines of England and Scotland. In this Kinges tyme also liued Beren­garius a French Deacon, who is the first that is named to haue denyed the real presence of Christs bodie and blood in the Eucharist, as the holy Church teacheth saith malmsb. l. 3. who liued about that time. The same denied some ancient he­reticks in S. Ignatius time as he testifieth ep: ad Smyrn. but nameth none. But they were then so fully put downe, as from thence to Berengarius (which is almost a thousand yeares) none is found to haue denyed Christs real presence in the Sacra­ment, Berengar. vvho de­nied the real pre­sence de­nied also mariage and bap­tisme of Infants. Massou. Annal. franc. lib. 3. besides such as denyed that he had any real body at all. Berengarius denied also marriag to be lawful and the baptis­me of Infants, as Durand then Bishop of Liege writeth in his epistle to Henrie then King of France tom. 3. Biblio. Sanctor. in fine. and Protestants confesse, name­ly Oecolampadius l. 3. p. 710. Crispin l. of [Page 344] the Church p. 289. But at last this Beren­garius recanted all his heresies and died a good Catholick, as the said Malm. wit­nesseth. Against him wrote our great learned Prelat Lanfranc & many others.