like the moderne Masse or that he worshipped the crosse or the image or planted them in the Church Bede mentioneth no such matter where he mentioneth them If by Masse he meane a dimission of the people and by the vse of images vnderstandeth an historicall vse of them he reléeueth his cause nothing For neither do we contend about words nor deny all historicall vse of images To help the matter a little he sayth that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in procession with a crosse and image of our Sauiour in a banner But Beda conuinceth him oflying who sayth he brought Christes image in a table Veniebant sayth he crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam imaginem Domini Saluatoris in tabula depictam For proofe that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth vs Pa. 8. 9. to the Magdeburgians Cent. 2. cap. 4. de doctr But his proofe is weake and witlesse For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius or Clement Secondly albeit we should graunt that Eleutherius consented with all those that liued in that age in their erroneous or incommodious spéeches which notwithstanding we haue no reason to beléeue yet can it not thereby be prooued that he consented with Clement the 8. or Clement with him For albeit we reade in Ignatius this phrase Offerre and Sacrificium immolare and like phrases in Irenaeus Cyprian Tercullian and Martialis who mentioneth also Altars yet it foloweth not that the Romish sacrifice of Christs body and bloud for quick and dead or the moderne Canon of y e Masse or Transubstantiation and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were knowne to these ancient Fathers For all those termes which the Fathers vsed being taken and meant spiritually and being vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices make nothing either against vs or for our aduersaries Masses or massing formes Thirdly although the Magdeburgians in these times complaine of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men which Parsons grossely interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine yet they taxe but few men and say not that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yéeld let them yeeld for themselues we do not in all points take ourselues bound to allow their sayings nor finde any such inconuenience in these termes as the Fathers vnderstood them as the Magdeburgians pretend Finally Rob. Parsons must speake of more then one point of consent or else he will shew himselfe vnwise to parallele Clement the 8. with his triple Crowne to the humble martyr of Christ Eleutherius This testimony therefore out of the Magdeburgians maketh little for his purpose But therein he doth properly bewray his owne folly For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen Dom. where he neuer wrote any such booke and did not vnderstand the Magdeburgians who vse these words Tertullianus de coena loquens in lib. de culiu foeminar Lastly the words inclinatio Doctrinae he translateth the falling away of Christian doctrine as if euery thing that did decline did fall away or else as if doctrine might be sayd properly to fall away and not rather men to decline from the sinceritie of doctrine Afterward Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth vs how Cyprian epist. 45. glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa and all other the Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of christian faith from Rome as from their mother and that he calleth the Roman Church matricem ceterarum omnium And that Tertullian saith that the authority of his church came from Rome And lastly that Augustine in Psal. contr partē Donati had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholike then to say that they were daughters childrē of the church of Rome But first this maketh nothing for his purpose which should proue that y e doctrine of the moderne church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome Secondly most grossely doth he either mistake or belye these Fathers for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say that his church of Carthage and all churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution fió Rome Nor doth he once mention Rome but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margent where it is plaine he speaketh of the generall Catholike Church Further he doth not say that Mauritania Numidia were vnder Carthage for they are prouinces entire of themselues and diuided from Carthage as Caesar Baronius might haue informed him All which also is made cleare by y e words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem agnoscerent tenerent saith he Sed quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra prouincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritaniam cohaerentes Tertullians words are these Vnde nobis quoque authoritas praestò est statuta That is from whence we haue testimony at hand and not as this beetlehead interpreteth from whence the authority of our Church came S. Augustine in Psalmo contr part Donati neither saith that Hippo and other Churches were the daughters of Rome nor mentioneth Hippo. It appeareth therefore that Rob. Parsons had ouerwatched himselfe when he wrote these fooleries Pag. 101. he goeth about to refell our argument concluding that there was not in Rome the same faith in the dayes of Eleutherius that is now because then there was no mention or knowledge either of the vniuersall authority of the bishop of Rome or of the name or vse of Masses or of sacrifice propitiatory for quick or dead or of Transubstantiation or worship of Images But first he marreth our argument by adding and detracting To the bishop of Rome he adioyneth the Church leaueth out our exception against the doctrine of the Masse and worship of Images and putteth downe only the name and vse of masses and vse of images in churches But to forbeare to censure him for his iugling let vs sée what exception he maketh to our argument If saith he this consequence should be admitted then would it follow that the name and doctrine of the blessed Trinity the two distinct natures and one person in Christ his two distinct wils the virginity of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Sonne as from the Father should not be admitted But the fellow sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also most blasphemous to compare such false wicked impious doctrines as Papists now maintaine to the principall and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity and Christs two natures and the proceeding of the holy Ghost For who kneweth not that these articles are plainly proued out of Scriptures and declared in Councels receiued by most ancient Fathers but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse for quick dead of the Monarchy and vniuersall
authority of the Pope of Transubstantiation and popish worship of Images is not only not to be prooued but also to be disproued by holy scriptures The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels and authority of Fathers as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments We only will alledge some few First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed receiued and not to be offered vp for quick and dead Next to holy Scriptures and Fathers that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall Finally if Christes body be not really present nor the bread wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick dead But that is proued by the words of the institution bread and wine being named after consecration by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words hoc est corpus meum figuratiuely by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne and by diuers other arguments For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority there is no one word in scripture nay scriptures shew that all the Apostles were called and authorized alike and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl praelat Furthermore the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory as I haue shewed condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian neither can it be shewed that y e Pope either made lawes or ordeined bishops or iudged all causes throughout the whole church vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body and supposeth it neither to be visible nor palpable repugneth to the words of institution and common cōsent of Fathers that declare bread wine to remain after consecration taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches The worship of images is contrary to the law of God Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels to y e doctrine of Fathers and abolisheth all true religion God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes to the intent to worship it or to bow downe to it The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls The 2. Councel of Nice though it allow some worship done to images yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images Epiphanius tore downe a vaile that had an image of Christ or some Saint painted on it Gregory as before I haue shewed vtterly condemned the worship of Images Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin c. 19. saith plainely There is no religion where there is an image Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe the one as he calleth it negatiue and the other affirmatiue and by them he vanteth that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly For what can be supposed more absurd then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue by a negatiue or contraxiwise and yet such is Parsons his wisdome that he offereth vs this abuse Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe where he talketh of negatiue proofes For albeit he standeth vpon his denial and resolueth to put vs to proue yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe His meaning is that we are not able to shew that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time after or that they came into the church afterward And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy the Romish masse Transubstantiation and the worship of Images the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church and that long after Eleutherius his time The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added we may sée in Walafridus Strabo Platina Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited vntill the late conuenticle of Trent nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority nor beléeueth transubstantiation or receiueth the Popes masse or popish purgatory or his doctrine of Images Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent and the Emperour protested against y e Synod Little therefore doth Augustine help but to confound Parsons his cause albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church But sayth Parsons Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran as these words Consubstantiall Trinity and the like in the first Councell of Nice yet the substance of the article viz. concerning transubstantiation was held from the beginning And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose lib. 4. 5. 9. de Sacramentis and out of these words Non valebit sermo Christi vt species mutet elementorum And againe Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erat But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures
Bellarmine de not is Eccles. ca. 8. sayth that we cannot conclude necessarily that the Church is there where is succession of Bishops Non colligitur necessariò sayth he ibi esse Ecclesiam vbi est successio But were they resolued to stand vpon this succession yet would the same draw with it the ruine of the Popes cause For neuer shall they be able to shew a number of Bishops professing or holding the doctrine of the Popes Decretals and of the late conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent vntill of late yeares But saith Parsons Part. 2. Ch. 1. Augustine was held in the Church by the succession of Bishops And Tertullian de Praescript aduers. haeretic doth challenge heretikes to this combat of succession And Irenaeus proueth by the succession of Roman Bishops the true succession and continuation of one and the selfe same Catholike faith Likewise hée alledgeth Hierome who in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith We are to abide in that Church which being founded by the Apostles doth indure to this day And Augustine lib de Vtil credend ca. 17. that sheweth how we are not to doubt to rest in the lap of that Church which notwithstanding the barkings of heretikes about it by successions of Bishops from the Apostles seate hath obteined the height of authority Finally he telleth vs Pag. 283. how 70. Archbishops of Canterbury were all of one religion But first we must vnderstand that the ancient Fathers talking of succession neuer speake of the externall place and bare succession of Bishops without respect to the truth of doctrine Irenaeus lib. 4. Ch. 43. would haue those Bishops harkned vnto which succeede the Apostles which with the succession of their Bishoprick haue receiued the certaine gift of truth according to the will of the Father Tertullian lib. de Praescript aduers. haeret sheweth that the persons are to be approued by their faith and not faith by the persons Non habent haereditatem Petri saith Ambrose lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. 6. quifidem Petrinon habent That is they haue not right to succeed Peter or Peters inheritance that hold not the faith of Peter Nazianzen de laudib Athanasij saith that they are partakers of the same chaire or succession that hold the same doctrine as they that hold contrary doctrine are to be counted aduersaries in succession Qui eandem fidei doctrinā profitetur saith he eiusdē quoque throni particeps est Qui autem contrariam doctrinam amplectitur aduersarius quoque in throno censeri debet Whatsoeuer then y e Fathers speake of succession it concerneth as well succession in doctrine as in place externall title of office Unlesse then this Iebusite can shew that y e moderne Popes are true Bishops and hold y e same faith which Peter the first Bishops of Rome did the testimonies of the Fathers which he alledgeth wil make against him Secondly y e Fathers do alledge y e succession of other churches as wel as Rome Irenaeus li. 3. aduers. haeres c. 3. appealeth as wel to the Churches of Asia namely to that of Ephesus Smyrna as to Rome albeit for auoiding prolixity he citeth only y e names of the Roman Bishops Testimonium his perhibent saith he quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui vsque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo Likewise in the end of the Chapter he citeth the testimony of the Church of Ephesus Tertullian de Praescript aduers haeret maketh all Churches founded by the Apostles equall and citeth as well the testimony of the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus as Rome But the succession of these Churches is no certaine marke of the Church or triall of the truth S. Augustine contr epist. fundament c. 4. reckneth diuers things ioyntly with the succession of Bishops which reteined him in the Church and among the rest sincerissimam sapientiam the sincere wisdome of Christian doctrine But Parsons must proue that the succession of Bishops only is a sufficient argument of truth Likewise Augustine in his booke de Vtilit credendi ca. 17. talketh not of the Romish Church but of the Catholike Church whose authority notwithstanding he placeth after the primary foundations of Scriptures Likewise Hierome speaketh of the Catholike Church not of the particular Church of Rome Finally neuer shal it be proued nor is it likely the later Bishops of Canterbury before the reuerend Father most glorious Martyr Bishop Cranmer receiuing y e new Decretals of the Pope the decrées of y e conuenticles of Lateran Constance and Florence but that their faith differd much frō the first Bishops of Canterbury which liued before the times of these conuenticles that authorized these new corruptions If then Rob. Parsons haue no better argumēt in his booke then this of the externall succession of the Popes of Rome it is likely he meaneth fraud and for the true Church commendeth vnto vs the synagogue of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon rather shunning then seeking any lawfull and certaine triall of truth CHAP. X. That the Church of England is the true Church of God and holdeth the Apostolike and Catholike faith AS Esau hated Iacob because of his fathers blessings as we reade Gen. 27. so Rob. Parsons the more it hath pleased God our heauēly Father to blesse y e Church of England the more hatred doth he shew against his countrymen and brethren In the first part of his treatise of Three Conuersions he endeuoureth to make thē slaues to the Pope In the second he raileth at them as vagrant persons and strangers frō Gods Church and people without succession of teachers from the Apostles and deuoid as he saith of all demonstrations and euidences to proue themselues to be Christes Church But if those be Gods true Church which heare his word with attention and beléeue it and receiue the Sacraments according to Christs institution and séeke to worship God with true deuotion and to liue after their Christian profession then is the Church of England Gods true Church For although Bellarmine and others do spend much time in taking exceptions against our doctrine practise in Gods worship and manners yet can none of them either proue any error in the doctrine which we teach or the administration of Sacraments which we practise or in the rules concerning Gods worship or common manners which we follow Secondly those Christians which professe and beléeue all the Apostolike faith and condemne all those errors and false doctrines which the Apostles condemned and endeuour vnfeinedly to liue according to their profession are the true Church For that is a property of Christes shéep to heare his voice not to follow strangers as we reade Iohn 10. The Apostle also sheweth Ephes. 2. that the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone But the Church of England beléeueth and professeth all the Apostles faith and condemneth whatsoeuer is contrary to the same
forgery falsity Pag. 19. he alledgeth a coūterfet Decretal vnder the name of Innocentius where he affirmeth most falsely that all the Churches of Afrike and diuers other countries there named were cōuerted by S. Peter or his successors To this counterfet epistle Parsons also addeth these words or his schollers therein declaring himselfe to be a master in forgery Pag. 25. he alledgeth out of Cyprian Epist. 45. That he glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa and all the other Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of Christian faith from Rome as from their mother But the words of Cyprian are gloriously corrupted by him And that may in part appeare by Pamelius his edition of Cyprian but more clearely by older copies Neither can Parsons himselfe make these words good out of any other place of Cyprian Pag. 26. where Tertullian li. de Praeser aduers. Haeret. vseth the testimonie of diuers Churches as well as of that of Rome he onely mentioneth Rome and concealeth the authoritie of other Churches There also he saith that S. Augustine in Psal. contr part Donati had no better way to defend his Church of Hippo and other of those countries to be truly Catholike then to say they were daughters and children of the Church of Rome But it séemeth he dreamed when he wrote these things if not then he lyed of mere malice For in that place neither these words nor any such matter is to be found Pag. 28. he saith That Irenaeus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Augustine and others are wont to vrge this consequent against Heretikes to wit that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome then ought it to runne to her in all doubts difficulties of matters of faith Thus doth he write this he affirmeth with one breath belying diuers Fathers And that shall himselfe perceiue if he list to alledge their words We may easily imagine the same to be true for that y e consequent is so absurd For if all Churches were to haue recourse to their mother Church for decision of controuersies concerning the faith then were the Church of Rome and all others to deriue their decisions concerning matters of faith from Ierusalem But this Parsons himselfe will not grant Pag. 30. he telleth a tale of one Beatus a Briton who being conuerted to the faith as he saith was sent by Ioseph to Rome to S. Peter the head of the Apostles to be better instructed and confirmed And this he deliuereth to his reader as testified by B. Rhenanus lib. 3. rerum Germa sub Hello and Pantaleon de viris German part 3. But he doth grossely abuse his reader in telling grosse vntruths vpon the credit of these witnesses who onely mention this Beatus but report no such matter of him Further Rhenanus doth no otherwise accompt of this report then as of a Monkish fable and thereupon saith That he findeth small helpe from the Chronicles of Monkes to furnish his storie Pag. 33. he telleth vs that few of the Britains obserued Easter after the manner of the Easterne Church and fathereth this fable vpon Bede in diuers places But Bede himselfe lib. 2. hist. Anglor cap. 2. refuteth his foolish tale shewing that Austin obiected this obseruance to al the Bishops of Britaine and how they refused to leaue the same Pag. 42. he vrgeth an Epistle set out vnder Innocents name and saith That the British Churches are put among the rest But neither are they there once mentioned nor is this Decretall Epistle to be estéemed being plainely counterfeit Pag. 43. he citeth Orosius hist. lib. 2. and saith that he calleth Innocentius an holy Father But there is neither holinesse nor honestie in fathering lies vpon holy Fathers Pag. 45. and in diuers places he citeth Eusebius his Chronicles yet he is simple that perceiueth not that those Chronicles were neuer written by Eusebius and shall be much intricated if he confesse all therein written to be true and perfect There it is said That S. Peter sate 25. yeares at Antioch which Parsons will not confesse In the margent against the yeare 146. it is said Hîc omissa est linea de Pio. Parsons for the 146. yeare after Christ alledgeth the 144. yeare Pag. 46. for proofe that the kéeping of Easter contrarie to the Romane vse was condemned as an heresie and so held in all ages after he quoteth Bede hist. Angl. lib. 3. cap. 19. and Eusebius lib. 3. de vita Constant. cap. 17. 18. But in the place alledged out of Bede there is not so much as any colour of this matter By Eusebius in the place quoted and Bede lib. 3. cap. 25. we may gather that an order was appointed for vniforme obseruation of Easter But neither of them affirmeth them to be heretikes that did not obserue that order Nor is it to be reputed heresie not to obserue all Canons that concerne such ceremonies Nay it cannot be proued that Vlfride saith That this error might be tolerable in them that liued so distant from the sea Apostolike in a corner of the world albeit this glozing parasite of the sea Apostatike of Rome do affirme it pag. 48. Pag. 49. he belyeth Marianus Scotus Prosper Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor cap. 19. and other authors making them to say That Celestine sent Patritius and Palladius to conuert the Irish and Scots For neither do the authors mentioned speake of more then one of these two nor can he make his assertion good by the testimonie of other authors Pag. 50. he saith that Pelagius crept into many learned and godly mens loue and friendship and aboue others with Paulinus and S. Augustine And for proofe he quoteth S. Augustines Epistle 105. and lib. 2. de Bon. Perseueran cap. 20. But in neither place is there any such matter to be found In the second place it is said that Pelagius talked with a fellow Bishop of S. Augustines but it is also said that he disliked his talke Ferre non potuit Pag. 52. he falsifieth Eusebius lib. 3. de vit Constant. ca. 18. making Constantine there to say That the greater part of the East held the Romane vse viz. for the time of Easter His words are onely these Nonnullae quae in locis ad Orientem spectantibus habitant Pag. 53. out of Nicephorus hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 36. he affirmeth That the calculation of the Romane vse was hard But he forgeth a deposition which his witnesse will neuer agnize Pag. 112. he maketh Ambrose to say That the substance of one bodie is changed into another But that holy Father hath no such words as this falsarie hath reported out of his writings Pag. 117. boldly he affirmeth that in the writings of Athanasius Hilarie Optatus Basil Nazianzen Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Epiphanius Cyrill and other more auncient Fathers there is euery where mention made of the doctrine which Papists maintaine concerning the Pope the Masse Transubstantiation and Images
man knoweth that there is no such Bishop in England The records of the storie might also direct his iudgement in this matter but that he vseth to looke vpon no records Pag. 269. He nameth a certaine sect of Heretiks Massilians as if they of Massilia were Heretikes But he should say if he were not grossely ignorant Messalians Pag. 282. Hierome is cited Dial. vlt. contr Lucifer Whereas it is apparent that he wrote onely one Dialogue against the Luciferians He is also alledged for proofe of succession of Bishops albeit he speake onely of the foundation and succession of the Church Pag. 387. He taxeth M. Foxes words against Pope Ioane as blasphemous Yet it is very absurd to account all to be blasphemie that is vttered against the Pope Pag. 444. and 445. in a matter of controuersie concerning Innocent the third he produceth Blondus and Genebrard two poore parasites of the Pope to speake in his cause Likewise he alledgeth Platina and Sabellicus as witnesses for Hildebrand For him also he quoteth Sigebert and Auentine that speake against him and an Epistle of Anselme that is not extant But what is more absurd and foolish then to vse the testimonie either of hired parasites or of such as speaks against the purpose of him that vseth them or of records no where extant But what should we néed to séeke for more arguments of Parsons ignorance and foolerie when his whole discourse is nothing but a packe of errors and fooleries CHAP. XVII A note of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall IF a man would respect termes he might percase somtimes estéeme Rob. Parsons to be a man not altogether exorbitant from Religion and loyaltie But if we looke into the whole course of his writing we shall hardly find in so finall a volume more aguments of impietie and disloyaltie In his Epistle Dedicatorie he applyeth these words of the Euangelist Exurgens imperauit ventis mari which belong properly to Christ to the Pope as if he were able to command the winds and sea In his Preface speaking of arguments of credibilitie for Christian Religion and naming the sayings of Prophets miracles and testimonie of eye witnesses he saith that neither they nor such like are so euident as philosophicall demonstrations As if philosophicall arguments were more cleare and euident then the lightsome word of God or Gods miracles or else as if euery one were better able to vnderstand philosophicall arguments knowne only by the light of naturall reason then the truth of Scriptures and Religion proued by the light of Gods holy Spirit most certaine miracles eye witnesses and diuers other arguments There also he affirmeth that there are like arguments of credibilitie for the points of Popish Religion now in controuersie as are for the Articles of Christian Religion But this is sufficient to ouerthrow all pietie and Religion For what man can beléeue the articles of the faith if we had no better ground for them then for the Popish doctrine of Purgatorie Indulgences the Popes Monarchie and infallible iudgement the popish worship of Angels and Saints and Images the eating of Christs bodie by brute beasts eating the Sacrament and other vnwritten Popish traditions Pag. 102. he compareth the doctrine of the Trinitie of Christs two natures and one Person of the procéeding of the holy Ghost and such like substantiall and necessarie points of the Christian faith to the wicked and corrupt doctrine of the Popes vniuersal authoritie of the popish Masse of Transubstantiation worship of Images and such like taught by the Church of Rome as if the one were as easily and directly to be proued as the other But what can be deuised more impious then to match the hereticall doctrine of schoolemen either deuised by Popes or conceiued by philosophicall deductions with the faith of Christ not onely proued by diuine Scriptures but also testified by Fathers and Catholike Christians of all times Pag. 111. he compareth the word Transubstantiation to the word Trinitie and Consubstantiall Which is as much as if he should deny the holy Trinitie and the Deitie of the Sonne of God if he cannot proue his Transubstantiation a matter that passeth his capacitie to proue Pag. 104. he alloweth the donation of Ethelwolph that gaue lands to God the blessed Virgin and all the Saints But what is more impious then to match creatures with the Creator to honor Saints the Mirgin Mary as Gods Likewise doth he shew himselfe disloy all to his Prince In his Epistle Dedicatorie speaking of obedience due to Princes he taketh from them all authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall causes esteeming that he doth them fauor in giuing them obedience in all worldly affaires But if he were further examined what obedience is due to Princes excommunicated by the Pope it is not to be questioned but he would deny them obedience in temporall affaires also and defend the rebellions of subiects against their Princes In an addition following his Epistle he insulteth ouer the late Queene hearing of her death and rayleth at her calling her an old persecutor The which argueth not only a disloyall affection towards his Prince but also an inhumane malice against the dead And this reward Princes reape that shew fauour to these Scorpions There also he prayseth the King for his learning iudgement and zeale But if he were either good Christian or true subiect he should haue commended his piety and not haue sought to make him subiect to the Pope Againe if he had loued the King he would not haue plotted his destruction Pag. 136. he imputeth the burning of Foster Freese and Tewkesbury thrée godly Martyrs in King Henry the 8. his dayes to the King and yet were the Romish persecutors the causers of their death Likewise he saith that others were burned by the Kings authority So all the fault is laid vpon the King although the principall agents in these murthers were Romish prelates Pag. 252. he prooueth that Kings are subiect to the Pope by the best reasons he could deuise Can he be thought then loyall to his Prince that extolleth strangers and debaseth Kings Pag. 257. he laugheth at King Edward the sixth as a child King as if the children of Kings were not to succéede their Fathers in their Kingdomes and Pag. 260. he scorneth Proclamations set forth in his name Percase it would greatly please him if all matters were ordred by the Decretals of the Pope But what néede we other arguments to conuince this fellow of disloyaltie when his booke of titles is extant wherein he doth not only oppugne the Kings title to the Crowne of England but also giueth both the Pope and people authority ouer Kings And if that will not serue yet when we remember the horrible treason of Percy and his consorts animated no doubt by Parsons we may plainely sée that he is a Cardinall traytor CHAP. XVIII A particular of Parsons his lyes calumniations
first conuert the Britains to the faith of Christ. So sayth Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph So sayth Sanders in his preface to his sclanderous booke of schisme Britannos sayth he ad fidem Christi primus conuertisse primamque Ecclesiam in illa natione crexisse perhibetur Iosephus ab Arimathaea Lastly Parsons himselfe in his late Ward-word knew no more but of the two conuersions as he calleth them of England the first vnder Eleutherius the second vnder Gregory the first Wherefore either now or then he vttred vntruth The arguments and testimonies produced by Parsons to prooue S. Peters preaching in Britaine are weake and friuolous First saith he of S. Peter himselfe to haue bene in England or Britany and preached founded Churches and ordeined Priests and Deacons therein is recorded out of Greeke antiquities by Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian But first it may be a question how he knoweth that Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian sayth so and that out of Gréeke antiquities seeing he poore idiot vnderstandeth no Gréeke nor hath read any Greeke antiquities he quoteth therefore Metaphrastes apud Surium 23. Iuny but Caesar Baronius in his Annales quoteth Metaphr 29. Iuny Secondly he wrōgeth both Metaphrastes Surius adding to their words Thirdly albeit he had reported their words truly yet neither are we to giue credit to Metaphrastes a lying pedant liuing in Constantinople some 700. yeares agone and writing more lyes then leaues nor to Surius a superstitious Monke and a professed enemy of the truth Finally neither doth Metaphrastes nor Surius name one Church founded or one Bishop ordeined by Peter nor is Parsons able to name them His second reason is deriued from the testimony of Innocentius in his epistle to Decentius in the chapt Quis nesciat dist 11. But first there is no mention in that epistle made of Britaine neither can the same be well vnderstood by the Ilands lying betwixt Italy France Spaine Africa and Sicilia but rather some Ilands of the Mediterranean sea Secondly this epistle is euidently counterfet and conteineth a most notorious vntruth For he saith that none did institute Churches or teach in Italy France Spaine Afrike Sicily and the Ilands betweene them but S. Peter and his successors which is clearely refuted by the preaching of Paule in Italy of Iames in Spayne of Philip and Dionysius in France and is conuinced not only by the testimony of histories and fathers but also by the infallible authority of scriptures which testifie of Paules preaching in Rome and other places of Italy that receiued no authority frō Peter The Glosse therfore to salue this sore and to help this lye by alius in that Chapter vnderstandeth contrarius As if Innocent had said that none did preach contrary to Peter in all those places And Parsons to adde some weight to his light argument addeth these words vnto Innocentius or his schollers falsifying the deposition of his owne witnesse Finally these words of Innocentius do not imply that Peter preached in Britaine but some of his successors The third testimonie brought for proofe of this first conuersion is taken out of one William Eisengrene his first Centurie But it is of no more weight then the testimonie of Isegrime the wolfe in the booke of Reinard the foxe the fellow being a weake author and a party in this cause Furthermore he plainely contradicteth Caesar Baronius For where he saith that Peter preached in Britaine in the raigne of Claudius Sir Isegrime writeth that he founded Christian Churches in England vnder Nero if Parsons say truly So lyars confound themselues like Cadmus his broode one contending against another and each cutting his fellowes throte Parsons his fourth testimonie is out of Gildas de excid Britanniae where he saith the priests of Britaine did vsurpe S. Peter the Apostles seate with impure fecte But this sheweth that al bishops teaching S. Peters doctrine do sit after a sort in S. Peters chaire rather then that S. Peter placed a speciall chaire and sate as Bishop in Britaine of which neither Gildas nor other authenticall author giueth the least signification Saint Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 30. teacheth vs that these words spoken to Peter Louest thou me feede my sheepe belong to all Bishops Cùm ei dicitur saith he ad omnes dicitur Amas me pasce oues meas Cyprian Hierome Optatus and other Fathers call all Bishops the Apostles successors albeit the Apostles did not there sit or teach where the Bishops haue their sea which are tearmed their successors Fiftly he alleadgeth the testimonie of Alred Rienual a Cistercian Monk recorded by Surius 5. lanuarij who about 500 yeares agone as he saith wrote that S. Peter appearing to a holy man shewed him how he preached himselfe in England But neither can Parsons name this holy man vpon whose credit this report dependeth nor is any credit to be giuen to Surius or to his legends or to such fained dreames and reuelations as he reporteth In the meane while the Papists if they be not wilfully blind may sée how Parsons gulleth them with lyes and fables out of Simeon Metaphrastes and Surius and discerne what a braue péece of worke his treatise of thrée Conuersions is that is founded vpon dreames reuelations and fables testified onely by authors of legends fat crammed Monkes and professed enemies of the truth Finally in the same Chapter he discourseth of the preaching of Paule Simon Zelotes Aristobolus and Ioseph of Arimathaea in Britaine He collecteth also some suspitions out of Gildas Nicephorus and others as if the Britains were conuerted by some Romaines which being Christians went with Claudius the Emperor against the Britains But what maketh all this to proue that the Britains were first conuerted by Peter We are hereof to conclude the contrarie rather For if mention be made of Simon Zelotes and Aristobolus and others of more obscure note for preaching in Britaine it is not like that the preaching of Peter here in this Iland should haue bene suppressed in silence if there had bene any such thing Parsons surmiseth that those that went with Claudius into Britaine were sent thither by Peter But that is his owne foolish conceit and vaine imagination No auncient Writer doth testifie any such thing Thus then we may sée that all Parsons his discourse concerning the conuersion of Britaine by S. Peter is subuerted and brought to nothing Let vs therefore consider what is to be thought of the other two supposed conuersions CHAP. II. Of the pretended conuersion of Lucius king of Britaine and of the British nation to Christian religion by Eleutherius bishop of Rome and his agents The report of the conuersion of the Britains and their king Lucius vnto the faith of Christ although beléeued by Parsons and the Romanists as an article of their conuertible faith yet for many iust respects may well be called into question First the name of Lucius séemeth rather to sauour of the Latine then of the British language Neither can it be said
vs but fauouring the sea of Rome and such as no man can note of partialitie in this behalfe That Iohn the 8. or as some number the Popes the 7. was a woman first Radulphus Flauiacensis in his Chronicle doth testifie This man was a Monke of Benets order and liued about the yeare of our Lord 930. as Trithemius reporteth Secondly Marianus Scotus doth report the same Anno Domini 854. saith he anno Lotharij 14. successit Leoni Ioannes mislier He sheweth also that she sate two yeares fiue moneths and foure dayes Our third witnesse is Sigebertus who speaking of this Pope sayth that the fame went that this Iohn was a woman and being begot with child by her seruant was deliuered being Pope These two testimonies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis our aduersaries now of late haue razed out of all those copies which now are printed But this doth nothing relieue their credit but rather blot them both with the infamy of this whoredome and also with corruption and falsity Their owne consciences must néedes herein witnesse against them séeing they know that these words are found as well in printed bookes as in ancient manuscript copies Martinus Polonus our fourth witnesse telleth plainely that this woman desguised in mans apparell went with her louer to Athens proued learned returned to Rome was chosen Pope begotten with child and deliuered neere S. Clements Church and that for this cause all Popes afterward shunned this way Our fift witnesse is Martin a Minorite in his booke entitled Flores temporum printed at Vlme in Dutch anno Domini 1486. This Minorite telleth how Pope Ioane coniuring a Diuell to tell when he would depart out of the body of one possessed receiued answere that he would declare this when the Pope would tell when a Pope should be deliuered of child Papa pater patrum saith he papissae pandito partum Et tibi tunc edam de corpore quando recedam Our sixth witnesse is Francis Petrarch who in an Italian booke printed at Florence anno Dom. 1478. sayth that a woman was made Pope and deliuered of child The seauenth witnesse is Antonine Archbishop of Florence who in the second part of his history tit 16. ca. 1. § 7. doth report this history of a woman-pope as others do and addeth that an image representing the Popes deliuery of child was erected in the place where she trauailed of child and dyed and thereupon exclaimeth ô the depth of the wisdome and knowledge of God! The eight witnesse is Iohn Boccace in his booke De Foeminis illustribus who in the whole report agréeth with Antonine and his other contestes The ninth is Iacobus Gulielmus of Egmond a Monke in the rimes following Papacadit panditur improbis Ridendi norma puer nascitur In vico Clementis Wernerus Rolewinke maketh the tenth who in his booke called Fasciculus temporum speaking of this Pope sayth That being gotten with child and afterward going in Procession she died in trauaile and therefore was not put into the catalogue of Popes The same history is recorded by him that wrote the Annales of Auspurg anno Domini 855. he therefore filleth the eleuenth place The full iury is made vp by Raphael Volateran who in his Cosmograph consenteth with the rest Unto these for a supply we may adde Platina in Ioanne 8. Sabellicus Aenead 9. Bergomensis and Palmerius in their Chronicles Trithemius in Catalog Pontif. Albert Crantz Baptista of Mantua Iohn Lucidus Iohn Stella Nauclerus in Generat 29. Iohn Henaldus and Peter Messias in Silua var. lect Finally least any man might forget a matter so memorable the same report was represented in imagery both in the stréete of S. Clement at Rome and in the Cathedrall Church of Siena and that might haue béen yet sene of euery man but that Pius the 5. ashamed of the lechery and whoredome of his predecessor caused the statue of marble representing this Tragicall accident to be throwne into Tiber. Finally no man euer denyed or contradicted this report vntill the time of Onuphrius a hungry parasite of the Pope and a lying Friar who to win some fauour of the Pope began first to call this history into question and desperatly to face out the matter If then Rob. Parsons and his consorts had not faces of proofe they would haue béene ashamed being but late vpstarts and contemptible fellowes to haue opposed their bare credits against the authority of so many authenticall and vnpartial witnesses in matters done so long before they came out of the bottomlesse pit They answere and deuise what they thinke most fitting to discredit the report or to help their cause But all is but like dust cast into the ayre that falleth on the heads of them that cast it and blindeth their owne eyes Parsons pag. 389. answereth and saith that albeit some such thing had hapned yet it had not preiudicated the Church of Christ. But had any such thing hapned then had he no reason so stiffly to deny it Againe albeit the Catholike Church be not preiudiced by the intrusion of men or women incapable of Ecclesiasticall function yet the same would wholy ouerthrow the discent and succession of Romish Bishops vpon which the Romanists do so much depend For if heretikes and men or women vncapable of Ecclesiasticall function do thrust into the line of Bishops then is the line of true Bishops interrupted But of heretikes S. Augustine giueth vs knowledge epist. 165. that they may enter among y e Romish Bishops where he saith What if a traytor in those times should haue crept in Of persons incapable the story of Dame Ioane the Pope giueth testimony He correcteth therefore his first answere and vpon better aduice sayth that this whole story of Pope Ioane is a meere fable deuised first by Martinus Polonus a simple man that telleth many things by heare-say and continued by those that fauoured the German Emperours contending against the Pope And to proue this he alledgeth first that Anastasius Audomarus Luitprandus Regino Hermannus Contractus Lambertus Schafnaburgensis Otho Frisingensis and Vrspergensis after Leo the 4. place Benedict the third and next that William of Malmesbury Henry Huntington Roger Houeden Florentius Vigorniensis and Matthew of Westminster make no mention of this woman-pope And thirdly that Alphred liuing in Rome when Pope Leo died or thereabout must needes haue knowne that one of his owne countrey had beene Pope if any such matter had then fallen out Fourthly that in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus this story is not set downe Fiftly that Leo the 9. in the contention betwirt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople obiected to Michael Bishop of Constantinople that diuers Eunuches had béene Bishops there and as is sayd a woman also which it is not likely he would haue done if the same might truly haue béene sayd of the sea of Rome And lastly that the story conteineth diuers improbabilities and contradictions But that the story should be fabulous
degenerate in the adherents of the Church of Rome Which Wicleffe and his followers in England and the Valdenses and Albigenses in France and some in Germanie beganne at length to discouer But in our times the same by Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other godly men was both more openly discouered and Christianly reformed Secondly it is no maruell if Wicleffe and Husse and others that first beganne to discouer the abuses of Poperie did not see all For God had appointed a certaine time when the man of sinne should be reuealed and no man is so cleare sighted that he can see into all the abuses of Heretikes without helpe and direction of many Neither is this to be ascribed more vnto Wicleffe and such as haue laboured in the reformation of the Church then to others which haue their singular opinions and by their errors declare themselues to be men Furthermore by this we collect that we are to build our faith vpon none but the Apostles and Prophets which by speciall direction of the holy Ghost haue declared vnto vs the will of God Thirdly many heresies are falsly imputed both vnto Wicleffe and vnto Iohn Husse and vnto euery one that hath opposed himselfe against the Romish faction As for example they say that Wicleffe taught That God must obey the Diuell and that Iohn Husse added a fourth Person to the Trinitie matters contrarie to the whole forme of their doctrine Diuers errors also they haue ascribed to the Valdenses Albigenses and Bohemians Neither may we maruell if they haue slandered the dead seeing they spare not the liuing making their credulous followers beleeue That we make God the author of sinne and speake vnreuerently of Christ. They haue also laid most false imputations vpon Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other our teachers Further we are not to maruell if they haue charged Sir Iohn Oldcastle and diuers others the followers of Wicleffes doctrine with treasons and rebellions and other enormous crimes For so did the heathen deale with the first Christians as appeareth by the Apologies of Tertullian Arnobius and others And now they cease not to exclaime against our doctrine as if the same were enemie to the Magistrates authoritie the which is not more troden vnder foot by any then by the Popes of Rome and their agents Fourthly the Papists themselues haue many singular opinions in diuers points of doctrine Why then should they impute vnto vs the dissentions of priuate men And why may not all be good Christians holding the substantial points of Christian faith and varying in nothing from the grounds of true doctrine concerning the holy Trinitie Christs incarnation the Sacraments Gods worship and manners Finally as errors did not altogether enter into the Church so neither can they be all at one time and by one man or one age reformed In all the principall points concerning the abuses of Poperie both the Churches of England Scotland France Germany and other nations not subiect to the yoke of Antichrist do very well agree And we doubt not by the grace of God to sée Antichrist confounded with the spirit of Gods mouth shortly by a generall vnion in the rest Finally in his last chapter he compareth M. Foxe to a craftie Broker that vseth fraud in selling of his wares whereas the Romanists sell like royall Merchants He deliuereth also to his reader three differences betwixt the Papists vs saying first That we contemne the Church next y t we define it falsly thirdly y t we assigne common obscure markes thereof whereas the Papistes do all contrarie But of this comparison because it is his owne he may boldly take both parts to himselfe and not without iust cause For as the Pope selleth Religion and all diuine matters in grosse and like a royall Merchant so Parsons and such like pedlars and palterers fell as they may by retayle now bargaining for one part of the Church then for another now selling one sinne and then another In assigning his differences he differeth not from himselfe but as alwayes so now also he belyeth his aduersaries For neither do we make so litle estimation of the Church as he reporteth nor do we giue such a definition of the Church as he imagineth nor are our markes giuen out of the Church either common or improper On the other side they value not the Church one rush making the same a slaue to Antichrist nor do they define the Church aright not touching the life and soule of it but onely certaine outward qualities nor do they bring other markes then those that may fit the Pagans and Turks better then the Papists as the name Catholike vniuersality continuance succession vnitie prosperitie and such like do shew If Parsons will maintaine the contrarie let him answer a booke of mine De Ecclesia written against Bellarmine wherein this is declared at large If not that yet let him leaue his idle wandring discourse and come to a point and then we doubt not but to make his pedlarie ware knowne And thus an end of this woodden constables search Of which we may conclude that it will be a hard matter to find out a more idle searcher or foolish search CHAP. XII That the Church of moderne Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England THe Church of Christ saith Hierome in Psalm 133. consisteth not in walles but in the truth of doctrine There is the Church where is true faith So likewise euery Church is to be estéemed according to the doctrine which it teacheth and of the Church of Rome we are to make accompt not according to the walles of the Churches there but according to the doctrine which now that Church professeth If then there cannot be shewed a Church in the world for a thousand yeares professing that faith and doctrine which now the Church of Rome holdeth and professeth we may boldly say that the Church of Papists as now it standeth was not visible for a thousand yeares after Christ. Nay it is plaine that such a Church as the Papists now haue was neuer yet planted in England So farre is Parsons from his accompt when he supposeth that the faith and Church of Rome that now is hath alwaies continued since the first preaching of the Gospell and bene visible in England That we say true it appeareth first for that no Church did euer esteeme traditions and holy Scriptures with like affection before the decree of the conuenticle of Trent ratified by Pius the fourth Anno Domini 1564. The Church of England before that time neuer had any such conceit of traditions as to beleeue them to be the word of God and equall to Scriptures Secondly no Church in the world did make the old Latine vulgar translation of the Bible authenticall before y t time Thirdly the moderne Papists forbid men to reade the Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence and
be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope and Romish Church do tell them so These words Iohn 5. verse 44. How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another and seeke not the honor that commeth of God alone And that which is said by Parsons concerning pious affection required as a key to open the gate to true faith most fitly may be applied against Parsons and his consorts for they seeke for glory one of another and all for preferment from the Pope and Cardinals They séeke also the honor of Angels and Saints But neither do they seeke for Gods glory alone nor do they desire so much the prayse of God as of men Further how can they pretend pious affection and the keyes to open the gate to true faith when by fraud treachery violence and bloody massacres of Christians they séeke to mainteine not the faith but heresie not the truth of Christ but the false and erroneous doctrine of Antichrist Lastly Parsons where he maketh pious affection a key to open the gate to true faith sheweth himselfe either impious in placing piety before true faith or hereticall that with Pelagius supposeth a man may be pious before faith by force of fréewill Pag. 9. for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse he bringeth a testimony out of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres ca. 32. which quite ouerthroweth the popish sacrifice of the Masse For there he speaketh of the sacrifice of Christians and calleth it primitias creaturarum the first fruites of Gods creatures But the Papists in their Masse suppose that the Priest offereth not the first fruites of Gods creatures but the very body and blood of Christ. Pag. 14. he standeth much vpon the testimonies of Gildas Nicephorus Theodoret and Sophronius which name diuers that preached the Gospell in Britaine But all this tendeth to the ouerthrow of Parsons his discourse who in that place vndertaketh to proue that S. Peter and not other preachers did first conuert the Britans to the Christian faith Pag. 59. he sheweth how Wilfride conuerted the Southsaxons which is as far from his purpose as the North from the South For in all this dispute he vndertaketh to prooue that the Britans were first conuerted to the Christian faith by Romans and not by Frenchmen or Britans Pag. 67. out of Tertullian he goeth about to prooue that Blastus was condemned as an heretike for that priuily with his obseruance of Easter he sought to bring in ludaisine And Pag. 73. he affirmeth that Constantine did authorize and publish the decrées of y e Nicen Councell Both which points directly make against our aduersaries For while they rigorously stand vpon the obseruance of Easter and offer paschal lambs they do after a sort renew and call back into vse the ceremonies of the Iewes and while they ascribe to the Pope all authority to confirme and publish the acts of Councels they do abrogate the authority of Christian Princes in fauour of Antichrist Pag. 97. he alledgeth diuers texts and testimonies to proue that temporall Princes are Gods vicars and substitutes within their realmes But if that be so then the Pope is the diuels substitute and vicar of hell that oftentimes goeth about to remoue Gods substitutes from their gouernment and to kill them Pag. 106. S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism c. 24. is produced as a witnesse to proue that what the vniuersall Church doth hold and euer hath held and was not instituted by Councels hath come from the Apostles But this witnesse ouerthrowed the whole cause of popery if he may be credited For neither the doctrine of the Popes vniuersall monarchy in the visible Church and in Purgatory nor of the popish sacrifice in honor of Saints and Angels and for the benefit of quick and dead nor of the worship of images nor the rest of the vnwritten traditions of the Romish Church haue béen alwayes held by the vniuersall Church nor are at this day held by the same Further it is manifest that the worship of images was first established in the second Councell of Nice and the doctrine of transubstantiation and auricular confession in the Councell of Lateran vnder Innocent the third the carnall reall presence in a Councell at Rome vnder Nicholas the 2. and other popish heresies in the Councels of Constance Florence and Trent Are they not then ashamed to call their traditions Apostolicall Pag. 145. he alledgeth an Epistle of Ignatius ad Heronem where he saith Virgines custodi tanquam sacramenta Christi But this ouerthroweth the practise of the Romish Church which is nothing curious in kéeping of these Sacraments nor so watchfull in looking to them but that they are often gotten with child by the Masse-priests Monks and Friers Furthermore this sheweth that there are more Sacramēts then 7. which no Papist dare affirme vnlesse he will encurre the thundring curse of the connenticle of Trent Pag. 159. he reherseth an Epistle of Gregory condemning them that worship stocks or stones Do we then thinke that either Gregory or Austin did conuert the English to the worship of these things He doth also wickedly translate Gregories Epistle leauing out these words à Germaniarum Episcopis which conteine a contradiction to the words of Bede who saith that Austin was ordred by a French Bishop and not a German Bishop Pag. 229. he alledgeth these words of Augustine epist. 165. in illum ordinem Episcoporum c. that is If any traytor should haue crept into that order of Roman Bishops it should not haue preiudiced the Church of God or innocent Christians But he cutteth off the middest of the sentence and some words in the latter end least that holy Fathers opinion might appeare too cléerely And yet it appeareth thereby sufficiently that Roman Bishops may be false traytors and that the succession of the Popes is no marke of the Church seeing Augustine doth say the Church may stand notwithstanding their falshood and trecherie Pag. 280. he citeth the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres c. 4. commending Succession with the gift of truth What is then the bare succession of Popes or Turkes without truth Pag. 295. he confesseth That the truth of this question whether this or that be the true Church is a matter of vnderstanding Out of this grant therefore we conclude that we cannot discerne with our eyes which is the true Church nor know it by the succession of Popes or such like sensible markes Pag. 307. He produceth the example of S. Laurence dispensing the cup of Christs bloud from the altar Do not the Masse-priests therefore shame to drinke all alone and to refuse to dispense the cup from the Lords table Pag. 360. He alledgeth diuers orders concerning doctrine life and the ceremonies of the Church But all are repugnant to the ceremonies of the Romish Synagogue Pag. 372. He telleth vs how the Gospell was laid in the midst of Bishops sitting in Councell But this sheweth that matters there ought to be decided by the word of God