alone then not in the Popes traditions 16. None of them did euer speake vnreuerently of Scriptures or call them a killing letter or a matter of strife or a nose of waxe or a shipmans hose or such like as do our aduersaries 17. None of them did make the Latine translation of the Bible more authenticall then the originall Tert. Nay Peter albeit he had the gift of tongues yet did he not write in Latine but in Greeke 18. Neither did Eleutherius or Gregorie call himselfe the spouse or rocke of the Church or Christs Vicar or substitute Nor did either S. Peter or Austin allow such proud titles 19. Neither did Gregorie the first nor any before him call himselfe King of Kings or Supreme Monarch of the Church Nay Gregorie rather delighted in the name and title of seruant of seruants and the rest of the bishops of Rome in ancient time were humble men and detested these proud titles 20. In the times of Gregory and Austin neither the number of Sacraments nor those formes rites which now the Synagogue of Rome vseth were established If Parsons will maintaine the contrary let him make proofe that the words vsed in the popish sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Vnction were knowne practised in those times Let him also shew that Priests were then appointed to sacrifice for quick dead Now if he cannot find these formes in the time of Gregory he will be much more puzzeled to find them in the daies of Eleutherius or Peter 21. The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist 11. confesseth frankly that he knoweth not whether the conuersion in the Eucharist be substantial or not Qualis sit illa conuersio sayth he an formalis vel substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio Much more difficultie then shall Parsons find to prooue his Transubstantiation out of the doctrine of Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter 22. S. Peter knew no other Priesthood but that which was common to all Christians neither did he acknowledge any sacrifices of Christians but spirituall Neither Eleutherius nor Gregory nor Austin euer heard that a Masse-priest did either offer vp Christs body and bloud really or as we reade in the Canon of the Masse take vpon him to be a mediator for Christes body and bloud 23. It is impious to thinke that either Peter or Gregory or any in those times beléeued that hogges and dogges eating consecrated hoasts did with their mouthes eate and swallow downe into their belly the body of Christ as the Schoolemen and most Papists now teach 24. S. Peter neuer put the Sacrament in pixes nor adored it as his Lord and God Neither do we find that either Elcutherius or Gregory practised any such matter For it was first ordred by Honorius the third that y e Sacrament should be kept in pixes and worshipped after the moderne fashion 25. In the Romish ordinall we finde no prayers for the dead nor any priuat masses nor masses for warre peace plagues or for hogges and horses and such like vses If then the same be thought to haue procéeded for the most part from Gregory and from others that succéeded him it is certaine that these abuses came in after his time 26. The forme of hosts and singing cakes not much bigger then a counter and the image of the crucifixe vpon them and the idolatrous worship of Latria giuen to them was vtterly vnknowne in Gregories time and long after 27. The old ordinall of Rome doth shew that the confession of penitents was not made to Saints or Angels in Gregories time or before him 28. Neither in Gregories time nor before him do we find that any godly Bishop commanded that the publike Liturgie of the Church should be sayd in Latin or Gréeke or other language not vnderstood by the common people or that he suffred the Sacraments to be administred in tongues not knowne of the vulgar sort Nay the Apostle Paule 1. Cor. 14. sheweth plainely that praiers in a tongue not vnderstood are fruitlesse which doctrine no question antiquitie much respected 29. Now the Romanists will haue all Churches to follow Rome as their Mistresse in all rites and ceremonies But Gregory as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. gaue Austin liberty to chuse out of all Churches what rites he thought most conuenient Ex singulis quibusque Ecclesijs saith he quae pia quae religiosa quae recta sunt elige 30. Neither did Austin nor Gregory consecrate a Paschal lambe at Easter after the Iewish manner or hallow water to driue away diuels and for remission of venial sinnes as is now practised by the Papists 31. The law of auricular confession and the necessity and forme thereof was first established by Innocent the third c. Omnis vtriusque sexus de poenit remis It is not therfore likely that y t same should be practised in Gregories time or before 32. Gregory would not haue Saints images broken or defaced in Churches yet did neither he nor any Bishop of Rome before him allow the worship of them Quòd ea adorari vetuisses omnino laudauimus saith he lib. 9. epist. 9. ad Serenum speaking of images of Saints And again Si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare verò imagines omnibus modis deuita that is if any will make images foibid them not but by all meanes auoid the worship of images But Peter and Eleutherius neither worshipped images nor suffered them to be made in Churches None of them certes nor Austin himselfe did thinke or teach that the crosse or crucifixe is to be worshipped with Latria Austin comming to Canterbury had a crosse of siluer and the image of our Sauiour painted in a table as Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 26. reporteth but he sayth not that either the crosse or image was worshipped with Latria or otherwise either by him or by others 33. Both Gregory and Austin vsed Letanies But neither did they pray to the virgin Mary nor to Peter nor Paule nor to other Saints Austins Letany as we may reade in Bede hist. Angl. lib. 1. ca. 16. was nothing but a praier directed to God 34. Gregory and Austin estéemed much the reliques of Saints yet did neither of them digge their bodies out of the graues and put them in shrines to be worshipped as is the fashion of papists of our time 35. Neither did Gregory take vpon him to canonize or vncanonize Saints or to appoint Masses to be said or holidayes to be kept in their honor And if this will not be prooued of Gregory much lesse will it be shewed that either Eleucherius or Peter euer taught or allowed any such canonization of Saints or Romish worship giuen them 36. Gregory allowed Purgatory as it seemeth for small faults yet did he not beléeue that men did satisfie in Purgatory for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor that the bishop of Rome by his indulgences could deliuer men out of Purgatory As for
in the externall conspicuous succession of Bishops and Councels but rather in those which following the Apostolike Church and faith kept themselues from common corruptions of others But not they did dissent but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport For all of vs do affirme that the vniuersall Catholike Church is inuisible because it containeth all the members of Christs Church of all times and all ages Likewise all of vs beléeue that particular Churches are alwaies visible albeit not so that euery one is able to discerne which is the true Church which not For that is a matter of reason and discourse and not of sense and that being true all heretikes and infidels would discerne which is the true Church and cease to persecute it Likewise we say that the true Church is not alwaies in peace and prosperitie Nay oftentimes the same is persecuted and driuen to hide it selfe as it did in the Apostles time and during the times of the first persecutions vntill the raigne of Constantine and as the Scriptures do foretell it should do in the persecution vnder the raigne of Antichrist Ridiculously therfore doth he alledge Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church For they neither speake of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth all Christians nor of the glorie of the Church in all times He doth also proclaime either his owneignorance not setting downe what we hold nor knowing how we distïnguish or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to stander it and to cauill with his aduersaries Finally he doth leudly and contumeliously speake of Christs Church hiding it selfe in time of persecution tearming it A companie of few obscure and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadowes and darknesse and knowne to few or none Pag. 294. he cauilleth at M. Foxes words where he saith that commonly none see it but such onely as be members and partakers thereof For his meaning is that none can see it to be the true Church but such as are members thereof Although all those that persecute it do see the men that belong to the Church His similitude also of the truth and true Church agréeth well For albeit men be visible yet this point Which is the true Church is not a matter of sense but of the vnderstanding and the Church as it is Christs body is mysticall albeit it consist of visible men Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth vs How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdome and how Cyprian inueigheth against the Martyrs of the Nouatians and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists But to what purpose God knoweth vnlesse he would either put vs in mind of the false traiterous Massepriests and Iebusites that being put to death in England for felonie and treason as in the end the secular Priests themselues confesse are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this vngodly comparison that suffered death for the testimonie of truth in Q. Maries bloudie raigne Which if he do then he is as farre guiltie of their bloud as the wolues that shed it and is rather to expect the vengeance of God then any answer from man In the same Chapter he endeuoureth to shew some differences bewixt the Martyrs of the primitiue Church and vs as for example that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lambe vpon the altar That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice and Laurence his Deacon to dispence the Lords bloud and that as Prudentius saith The holy bloud did fume in siluer cuppes That Cyprian said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi sacrificium Deo Patri offerre But first the difference if any be is in termes and not in matters of faith Secondly we do not disallow these termes simply if they be rightly vnderstood as the auncient Fathers meant them Thirdly the words of S. Andrew are drawne out of the Legend Bernard in Serm. de S. Andrea is quoted for them yet in neither of his Sermons hath he them Fourthly the words of Prudentius must néedes be vnderstood figuratiuely vnlesse they will haue their sacrifice to be bloudie Lastly these words do make more for vs then for the Papists For that sacrifice which Andrew and Cyprian do speake of for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrewes Legend doth signifie onely the representation of Christs sacrifice in bread and wine Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice vnderstandeth bread and wine and not Christs body and bloud really present Panem calicem mixtum vino saith he obtulit And againe Sed per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis vini sed altaris Apostolorum facit mentionem Furthermore the same shew that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cuppe to the people which Papists now admit not Lastly Sixtus suffering for the confession of Christ is liker to Bishop Ridley then to the triple-crowned Pope Clement who suffereth not but rather persecuteth such Bishops as professe Christ. The reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offered for quicke and dead out of these words cannot be proued Afterward he telleth vs p. 310. how Constantine built foure Churches in Rome dedicating them to our Sauiour to Saint Iohn Baptist S. Peter S. Paule and S. Laurence adorning them with Images c. And hauing told his tale he runneth out into a discourse of the glorie of that Church and in great pride asketh vs where our poore obscure and troden downe Church as he calleth it was at this time and for 300. yeares before But vpon such small victories he sheweth himselfe a vaine fellow to make such triumphes This tale of foure Churches dedicated to Saints and adorned with Images is borrowed out of the Legend and is repugnant to the Fathers doctrine Lactantius saith There is no religion where there is an Image or simulachrum Saint Augustine saith that temples are not erected to Saints but that their memories are there honored The same Father lib. de vera Relig. cap. 55. speaketh both against Images and religious worship of Saints Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus And againe Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum As for the spreading and splendor of Christs Church in Constantines time the same argueth that the Church is gouerned and beautified by godly Princes such as Constantine was rather then by godlesse Popes such as Clement was To his question I answer that the Church in Constantines time was that Church with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate and from which the Romanists are departed subiecting themselues not to such godly Princes as Constantine was but to the Pope and to his vngodly Decretaline and prophane schoole doctrine which is diuers from the faith of those times as God willing we
doth differ from the Church of Christ from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor and Gregorie the first he alledgeth first that M. Foxe speaketh nothing of these thrée ages nor of the Doctors that then flourished in the East or West Church and in Britaine it selfe or of their doctrine And all this he supposeth to haue bene omitted because it made much against him and nothing for him Otherwise he thinketh he would haue set downe somewhat vndertaking to set foorth at large the whole race course of the Church from Christ to our times Next he saith that the Magdeburgians in their fourth fift and sixt Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the thrée ages from Constantine downward find nothing for themselues but rather against themselues as for example in the matter of Free-will where they say in the 4. Centur. c. 4. that almost all the Doctors of that age speake confusedly and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture and in the Paragraffe of repentance where they say it is handled by the Doctors of this 4. age thinly and coldly And likewise in the matter of the reall presence where they cite the Fathers abundantly saue in the matter of the sacrifice where they reprehend them and finally in the controuersie of Good-workes satisfaction inuocation of Saints and concerning ceremonies where they reprehend the Fathers But all this brabblement about M. Foxe and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose For first what if either they should haue omitted or spoken any thing which they should not It is a vaine thing to imagine that all this should be imputed to vs. Secondly the reason why M. Foxe speaketh so litle of the 4. 5. and 6. ages and of the Fathers then flourishing was for that we acknowledge that faith which was then professed and adioyne ourselues to that Church What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages when the same is euery where apparent in the Fathers of that age whose faith if we might haue restored without the leauen of the Church of Rome lately brought in the controuersie betwixt vs and our aduersaries would soone be ended Furthermore it was not his purpose to handle controuersies and therefore no maruell if in euery question he did not set downe y e sentences of the Fathers Thirdly the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-wil repentance the sacrifice good-works inuocation of Saints and such like mislike some of the Fathers But he is a very simple ideot that therefore would conclude that they ioyne with the Papists in their moderne heresies Likewise they alledge the Fathers for proofe of a certaine reall presence But it is not that corporall and carnall presence of the body and bloud of Christ of which the Papists dreame Finally albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians taxe some one or two of the Fathers or rather those authors which haue published counterfeit books vnder the name of the Fathers yet in the matters of greatest moment they shew the true Fathers to make for vs. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons if leauing his bangling about these small aduantages he list to deale with vs in any substantial point of controuersie In the 4. chapter of his second part and diuers chapters following he handleth the discent of times from Gregorie the first vnto the preaching of Iohn Wicleffe and therein spendeth much vaine talke to small purpose For although in those times the tyranny of the Pope increased and Monkish life began to be in request and the worship of Images and Saints departed together with diuers friuolous ceremonies by litle and litle entred and Priests were separated by the Popes practises from their lawful wiues yet the substance of Christian Religion remained still in the Church of England all this while and the corruptions that then began to enter were nothing in comparison of that which followed afterward nor generally receiued In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Uniuersall Church nor did he vndertake to depose Kings before Gregorie the 7. or to ouerrule all Churches The Bishops of England tooke not themselues to be subiect vnto the Pope vnder paine of damnation nor did he much encroch vpon them before the times of Henry the second King of England The doctrine of the carnall reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud in the Masse of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria and of Images with the same worship that is due to the Original of the seuen Sacraments and of the degrées of merits of workes and workes of supererogation of the force of fréewill in iustification of the Popes two swords and superioritie ouer generall Councels and his power in Purgatory and in granting Indulgences and such like was not then knowne in England but was deuised afterward by schoolemen and Canonists and established by the Popes Decretals and wicked conuenticles assembled by their commandement Nay albeit the Popes by all meanes sought to subdue Christian Kings and to bring all Ecclesiasticall preferments to their owne disposition and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wiues yet could they not do this but in long time and after great contradiction of many Of this discourse then two things may be gathered direct against Rob. Parsons his cause The first is that the Church of England from the time of Gregorie the first to Alexander the thirds time was not subiect to the Pope nor had receiued the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Popes late Decretals and deuised in the Conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and published in the prophane disputes of schoolemen The second is that the tyrannie of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England increased by litle and litle vntill King Henry the eight his raigne and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entred into England after his time Of which two points we may conclude that the Church of England from the time of Austin vntill the time of Alexander the third in fundamentall matters of faith did communicate with vs and not with the moderne Papists whose principall corruptions haue entred since In the 9. 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarrelleth with Master Foxe for building the Church vpon M. Wicleffe Sir Iohn Old-castle Husse M. Luther M. Caluin Zuinglius and others holding as he saith many dangerous points of doctrine and differing from themselues from vs and many of thē noted of diuers great crimes But while he quarelleth with others he bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downeward or to affirme that there was no Church in the world for certaine ages before Wicleffe but rather to shew that the Church in diuers places and by little and little being corrupted since the time of the Fathers by the pride and false doctrine of the Popes began much to
Dominicke and other begging societies were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes or that Friers were to be called religious men or members of the Church 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin to Saints and the founders of Monkish orders as now they do in the Romish Church 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries liue asunder Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth that man is not to separate that which God hath ioyned together rather then the Pope 24. The Papists beléeue that the vowes of Chastity Pouerty and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen then works commanded by Gods law But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope with two swords and a guard of Switzers of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes of shauen Masse-priests Monks and Friars and of a multitude of ignorant people that subiect theÌ„selues to the Pope and cry Miserere nobis But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares Let Parsons therefore take heed least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests Non radent caput neque barbam sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras We reade also that this shauing and whipping or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal and from the Gentiles We are not therefore to thinke that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses rontrary to Gods word In the Church of England such shauing and lashing and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more was not commonly receiued nor practised 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading and what visible Church it was that allowed it 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time nor had he the patrimony of Peter as it is called till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy Doth it not then appeare that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine and partly of lawes But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1â—00 and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time Doth it not then follow necessarily that the Church of Rome that now is hath risen vp out of the earth and that but of late time 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis S. Dominike or other Saints They are therefore of a late stampe that beléeue this 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares The true Church euer abhorred them 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine 34. The Missals breuiaries and offices that now are receiued by the Popish Church were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent The Church of England vsed other formes in former times 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpoÌ„ Saints in publike Letanies Neither did this or any other church in old time say Masses offices in honor of Angels Saints and the blessed virgin Mary 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs and to make holy water to driue away diuels was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more In England Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego BereÌ„garius dist 2. de Consec was the first that taught his Romish adherents that Christs flesh was handled with hands and torne with téeth 38. The first that taught that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly was Alexander Hales Part. 4. sum q. 53. memb 2. and qu. 45. memb 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum q. 80. art 3. doth second him And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests their folowers do hold the same opinion contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued that Christians were eaters of mans flesh and Canibals But the moderne Romish Church holdeth that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne 41. The same man did first ordeine that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church confessing her sinnes in the priests eare 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice before the time of the conuenticle of Trent Who then would not maruell that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance From thence therefore
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
that they either held that religiō which Eleutherius taught or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth Finally he affirmeth that the religion taught by Austin was catholike and confirmed by miracles and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times But that which is the point in controuersie viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time is the same that was preached by Austin the Monke the wise disputer doth scarce mention and no way proueth Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents and by Austin we are to renounce all those heresies false doctrines and abuses which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church Secondly that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence nor transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead nor halfe Communions nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie nor his Indulgences nor the worship of Images nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused to haue bene preached by those that first planted Christian religion in this countrie CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood who will needes beare the Reader in hand that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome but also to that faith which now the Pope and his adherents do professe Now therfore it resteth that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope Two things it séemeth he aymeth at in this worke The first is to bring the King the Cleargie the Nobles and people of England vnder the Popes obedience and into the captiuitie of Babylon The second is to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon But to effect this purpose this labour is wholy vnsufficient For first no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion or rule ouer Gods people as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples The Princes of nations saith he beare rule ouer them and afterward but it shall not be so with you Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage Neque dominantes in Cleris saith he Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius applieth this to him and sheweth that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination and Lordlinesse Planum est saith he lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences Not saith he that we haue dominion ouer your faith but we are helpers of your ioy Finally our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi or Maister and sheweth that this is Pharisaicall Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop and reason sheweth that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master or teacher of the whole Church Secondly the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie Stand fast saith the Apostle Gal. 5. in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage And againe Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of mind and worshipping of Angels aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind Which words do directly belong to the Pope who pretending humilitie and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels and telling newes out of Purgatorie and strange things which he neuer saw affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope who ruleth in their consciences and marketh them for his slaues as we reade Apocalyps 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie He made all both small and great saith Iohn rich and poore free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand and in their foreheads But let such beware how they continue in this bondage and let others that are frée take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast and his image and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads or in their hands shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Thirdly experience teacheth vs that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem and from thence went foorth into all lands And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles Act. 1. saith They shall be witnesses to him both in Hierusalem and in all Iudaea and to the vttermost part of the earth Yet neuer did either the Bishops or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge where they say Peter preached and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations then the Church of Hierusalem where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached and from whence as we reade Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world and to teach all nations Fourthly we reade in histories that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine For so Capgraue writeth citing Freculphus for his author It is said also that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France and that Iames coming from Ierusalem preached first in Spaine S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers that came out of the East country Finally our histories do teach vs that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine and that the Frizelanders and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria nor the English to the French or the French to the bishops of Athens or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem or the
But it is a bald course to say euery where when neither himselfe nor Bellarmine a farre better disputer then he is able any where to find the Pope to be supreme iudge of controuersies and Christs Uicar generall and that he cannot erre or that Christs body and bloud is offered in the Masse by the Priest for quicke and dead and in honor of Saints or that the substance of bread and wine is turned into Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist or that any Images are to be worshipped with Latria and such like popish doctrines Blushed he not then to bely so many Fathers in so many matters and all with one breath Pag. 128. rehearsing certaine words of the Magdeburgians concerning factions and opinions he addeth these words Among them that professe the Gospell which they haue not He taketh also the word Communicationem from their sentence concerning the presence of Christs body Pag. 129. in the allegation out of Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres cap. 3. he choppeth off the beginning of his sentence which declareth that the tradition of other Churches was as well to be respected as that of Rome He maketh him also to say That all Churches must agree to the Church of Rome which he neuer thought Lastly by tradition he giueth his reader to vnderstand that Irenaeus speaketh of traditions not contained in Scriptures where expresiy he mentioneth the Articles of the faith most plainly contained in holy Scriptures Pag. 177. to shew that there was conformitie of Religion throughout Christendome except onely in some places of the world where were certaine reliques of Pelagians and Eutychians and other Heretikes for the first he alledgeth Gregory lib. 5. Epist. 14. and for the second Greg. lib. 10 in lob cap. 29. Whereas in the first place he onely mentioneth Pelagian booke and in the second doth not so much as speak one word of the Eutychians and in neither hath any word concerning the vniformitie of Religion throughout Christendome Pag. 188. to proue the word Masse he alledgeth Augustines Serm. 237. and 251. de Tempore Concil Mileuit cap. 12. Epiphanius haeres 5. Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. and vit Constant. lib. 3. cap. 17. and Concil Carthag 4. cap. 84. But first Eusebius and Epiphanius are grossely belyed For how could they writing in Gréeke speake of the Latine Masse Secondly the two Sermons ascribed to S. Augustine as the rest also De Tempore are counterfeit And yet nothing is therein concerning the Popish Masse Thirdly the Councel of Mileuis speaking of Missae or dimissions of the people by certaine blesings and the fourth Councell of Carthage by the word Missa vnderstanding the dimission of the Catechumeni maketh nothing for the Popish Masse These authors therefore are fondly and falsely alledged Pag. 201. he telleth how Patritius was sent to the Scots after Palladius and for euidence bringeth foorth Prosper contr Collator and Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 13. but neither of them hath one word of Patritius Pag. 228. he saith that Irenaeus accompteth the enumeration of the Bishops of Rome a full proofe against Heretikes But he abuseth this holy Father and belyeth him For of this full proofe he hath not one word Further he speaketh of Churches not only of the Church of Rome and with the succession of Bishops ioyneth the tradition of the faith kept in Churches Lastly by the tradition which he mentioneth he meaneth the faith contained in holy Scriptures Pag. 278. he alledgeth a place out of S. Augustine lib. cont Epist. fundam cap. 4. touching succession as if he made that a principall motiue to embrace the Christian faith and a proper marke of the Church whereas that holy Father reckoneth that among and after others and no way accompteth it a marke of the Church Pag. 282. S. Augustine lib. de Vtilit cred c. 7. is alledged for proofe of the succession of the Church of Rome but falsly For he speaketh of the successions of diuers Bishops in the whole Christian Church which ouerthroweth the pretended prerogatiue of the Romish Church Pag. 291. S. Augustine in Psal. 44. 47. lib. 2. contr liter Petil. and other Fathers are alledged to proue the Church to be so visible that euery one may sée it and know it But it seemeth our aduersarie cited them at all aduenture For in some of these places litle mention is made of the Church and in none of them is his intention proued Pag. 305. To proue these words found in the Legend to haue bene vttered by S. Andrew Ego omnipotenti Deo qui vnus verus est immolo quotidiè c. He quoteth Bernard Sermon de S. Andrea and Lanfranc lib. contr Berengar But that Sermon is counterfeit and in neither of the authors are these words to be found Pag. 383. Bedes testimonie lib. 3. hist. cap. 27. is alledged to proue the sending of Willibrord with eleuen companions towards the conuersion of Germany But the Chapter being read doth confute our aduersaries falshood Pag. 401. To proue that Athens had no schooles of learning in it when that woman that was afterward Pope called Iohn the eight is reported to haue studied there Zonaras and Cedrenus in vita Michael Theod. Anno Christi 856. are produced for witnesses but falsly and absurdly For no such matter is to be gathered out of them Pag. 472. He maketh S. Augustine lib. 1. quaest Euang. q. 38. and Tractat. 2. in Epist. Ioan. to say that it is as easie to see in all ages where the true visible Church goeth as to see the Sunne at noone time when it shineth clearest But this is a tricke of his false dealing For in the first place he saith onely That the Church is rightly called Lightning because it breaketh out of the clouds which sheweth that the Church is sometime darkened with cloudes and not séene And in the second he hath nothing but these words of the Psalme in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum Which do plainely demonstrate the Church being like to the Sunne that the same may be hidden or darkened as the Sunne is hidden in the night and in the day time obscured with clouds And such is the mans honest dealing with other Fathers CHAP. XV. Certaine examples of Robert Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question COmmonly we find by experience that the greatest braggers performe least If no man else yet Rob. Parsons doth verifie it by his example For albeit he boasteth much yet when it cometh to performance he beggeth matters in question rather then prooueth them In his Epistle dedicatoris he braggeth of vndoubted Charters Enrolments Euidences writings and witnesses which he saith he will bring foorth for proofe of the Romish religion and giueth out great words of his future doughtie déedes Yet when we come to the examination of his best proofes we find that his witnesses depose either nothing for him or much against him that his euidences are euident
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