THE SVBVERSION OF ROBERT PARSONS His confused and worthlesse worke ENTITVLED A treatise of three Conuersions of England from Paganisme to Christian Religion 1. Tim. 1. Conuersi sunt in vaniloquium They are turned vnto vaine iangling LONDON Printed for IOHN NORTON 1606. TO THE RIGHT HOnorable the Lord Ellesmere Lord Chancellor of England THE shew of antiquity in matters of religion being so plausible to the multitude and so sorcible to perswade the simple I maruell not my good Lord if our aduersaries the Papists who shew themselues also aduerse to truth do both commonly and willingly entitle their erroneous doctrines concerning the worship of Saints and Images the Popes indulgences Purgatory and all their traditions and trash though neuer so new the Old Religion Your Lordship also well knoweth what paines Parsons the Iebusite hath taken in his bookes of Three Conuersions to prooue that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted to that religion which is now professed and taught at Rome not doubting but if he can prooue it so ancient that the same will soone be admitted as true as being deriued from the Apostles and most ancient and sincere Bishops of Rome Hauing therefore commiseration of the ignorance of seduced Papists and willing to consirme good Christians in the truth and to arme the weake against the assaults of such seducers I haue vndertaken to examine his whole discourse concerning the three supposed conuersions of England wherein Parsons indeuoureth to prooue the antiquitie of Popish religioÌ„ within this Iland seeking from the true religion professed here to bring vs back to the haeresies and captiuitie of Rome more odious farre then that of Babylon And this I vndertake not because he deserueth to receiue any long or curious answer but rather to shew his consorts that he bringeth nothing which cannot easily be answered Some do esteeme the booke very much in regard of the strangenesse and noueltie promising not only a narration of the planting of religion in England by Austin the Monke but also a confirmation of the history of King Lucius and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and new tidings of a new conuersion of Brittaine wrought by S. Peter himselfe matters of which many will be glad to heare But he that diligently peruseth what he hath written shall soone lose all his longing For whether we consider the subiect of this discourse or the manner of handling the same there is nothing that can any way satisfie the reader The proofes stand vpoÌ„ coniectures The authors stile is harsh and vneuen His rehearsals thick and tedious His purpose fond foolish Three things he striueth to prooue First that this land was thrise conuerted to religion by preachers sent froÌ„ Rome viz. by S. Peter Eleutherius and Austin Secondly that the same was conuerted to no other religion then that which is now preached and mainteined at Rome And thirdly that therefore we are now to learne religion and to receiue direction and gouernment from thence But the first is very euill performed For of the first conuersion by S. Peter he is scarce able to bring any coniecture The second seemeth fabulous The third concerneth not the whole land but only a few Saxons In the second he hath altogether failed not being able to prooue either his Tridentine or Decretaline doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse the seauen Sacraments the worship of saints and idols and such like matters in question out of the histories of those tiâ—â—s In the third point he trauaileth in vaine For why should England be more subiect to Rome for receiuing the Christian faith from thence then Rome to Hierusalem from whence the sound of the Gospell went into all lands In the second part of his three Conuersions he seemeth to make great inquirie for our Church and religion in former times But when he cannot deny but we hold all the Christian faith either taught expressely by the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church or explaned in the sixe generall Councels and do only condemne the corruptions of later time brought in by the Decretals and Schoolemens frapling disputes he sheweth himselfe a blinde searcher that can neither see nor sinde our faith and Church before these late dayes Physitions say that melancholike men are much subiect to dreames Melancholici saith one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth therefore that Parsons writing this booke of three Conuersions wherin so many dreames and fancies are conteined did ouerflow with melancholy But writing the second part of his treatise it seemeth that he was in a dead sleepe and had his senses so bound that he could neither feele nor see any thing In time past they say he was able to write well but now his bookes are like the coynes of which one in Plautus talketh The last are the worst And this I doubt not to make to appeare in this my answere the which I make bold to present to your Lordship as a testimoniall of my thankefulnesse and a pledge of my affection loue And the rather for that as your Lordship hath bene a principall helper to free me of my troubles so you may first taste of the fruite of my trauailes It is more then a yeare since I first framed this treatise but could not publish it by reason of my other occasions and disturbances But now that your bountifull fauours haue giuen me some time of breathing I thought I could not better employ my life and breath then in the common defence of the truth Vouchsafe therefore my good Lord to accept of this small present and to take both the gift and giuer into your protection And so I shall be more free to do God seruice and more willing to employ my selfe for his Church and alwayes rest Your Lordships most readie to be commanded Matthew Sutcliffe The Praeface to the Christian Reader IT is an old trick of heretikes Christian Reader to grace their leud opinions with faire titles Sub falso praetextu specie pietatis saith Constantine speaking to heretikes semper delinquentes omnia contagione vestra contaminatis So Parsons albeit he talketh of popish religion which is nothing else but a mixture of Iudaisme Paganisme and Heresie yet doth he giue out that he contendeth for Christian religion Againe albeit the Masse wherein the whole seruice of God according to the opinion of Papists consisteth be but a late patchery and their popish opinions meere nouelties and strange fancies yet would he make men beleeue that the Masse was instituted by Christ and that these new doctrines were taught by Peter and the rest of the Apostles of our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus In his Epistle Dedicatory he calleth the English Papists the off-spring and children of the first professors of Christianitie in this Iland And yet no children could further degenerate from their ancestors then the moderne Papists from the ancient Christians as by many particulars may be demonstrated Their faith concerning the foundations of Christian religion concerning Christs office and humane nature concerning the Church and Sacraments concerning the ministery and policy of the Church nay coÌ„cerning the Law and the Gospell is altogether different from that faith which the first Christians of this Iland professed And
no. IN this controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs about the first conuersion of the ancient Britains and Saxons to Christian religion thrée points are principally to be considered resolued First whether the Britains were first conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke Secondly whether these thrée or any one of them taught that faith which now the Pope and his adherents professe and we refuse And thirdly what the moderne Church of Rome can challenge of vs by any fauour done to our auncestors by them Robert Parsons boldly affirmeth that the ancient Britains were conuerted to the faith first of all by S. Peter and next by Eleutherius a Bishop of Rome And thirdly that Austin sent by Gregory the first did first preach the faith to the Saxons But the first cōuersion supposed to be wrought by Peter we deny Of the second we haue cause to doubt Of the third our aduersaries haue no cause to boast He impudently auoucheth that these thrée taught the same doctrine which the church of Rome now holdeth and which we refuse We wonder at his impudency and laugh at his folly that attempteth to prooue any such matter Thirdly vpon these supposed conuersions he concludeth that England and Englishmen haue particular obligation to the church of Rome aboue other nations He would haue said if he durst for shame that therefore we are to be subiect to the Romish church and to receiue her doctrine trash I would say traditions We say that we owe nothing but hatred to the Popes and later church of Rome hauing receiued nothing from thence but wrongs and disgraces and losse If any thing we owe it is to those which tooke paines to preach the true faith among vs and not to the Romanists and their agents that now go about to turne vs from the faith and to destroy his Maiesty and our countrey by treason That S. Peter neuer preached the Gospell in Britaine these reasons are sufficient to perswade vs. First it is apparent Galat. 2. that the preaching of the Gospell to the vncircumcised was committed vnto Paul and the preaching of the same to the circumcised to Peter The direction also of the first epistle of S. Peter sent to the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus Galatia Asia and Bithynia doth prooue it true How then is it likely that S. Peter leauing the circumcision committed to his charge should preach to the vncircumcision committed to others charge Or how could he that preached to them in Asia spare so much time as to make a iourney to preach to them in Britaine Againe can any man thinke if he had preached to the Britains at the time of the writing of the first and second epistle that he would not as well haue mentioned them as the Easterne nations That the second epistle was written to the same persons to whom he had directed y e first it appeareth by these words 2. Pet. 2. This second epistle I write to you Baronius also confesseth that he wrote this epistle a litle before his death It cannot therfore be surmised that he preached to the Britains after the writing of this epistle nor that he would neglect them more then others if at any time he had preached to them Secondly if Peter preached the Gospell in Britaine either he preached in Claudius the Emperour his dayes or vnder the reigne of Nero. And so some of our aduersaryes say he preached vnder the reigne of Claudius as Baronius some vnder the reigne of Nero as Eisengrenius in his Cēturics But Eusebius in Chronico sayth that after his comming to Rome he preached the Gospell there and cōtinued Bishop 25. yeares vbi Euangelium praedicans sayth he 25. annis eiusdem vrbis Episcopus perseuerat Baronius anno Christi 58. relateth how Peter being expulsed out of Rome by Claudius preached to the Westerne nations But Onuphrius in annotat ad vit am Petri sayth that being expulsed by Claudius out of Rome he went not westward but eastward and returned first to Hierusalem where he was present at the Councell at Hierusalem and afterward sate 7. yeares Bishop of Antioch Ibidem sayth he 7. annis vsque ad Claudij obitum Neronis imperium permansit The report also of his 25. yeares continuance in Rome is imprebable For if he were martyred as some say the 13. as others the 14. yeare of Nero then could he not be Bishop there 25. yeares Paule being conuerted to Christ some yeare or more after Christes passion and afterward abiding in Arabia three yeares and 14. yeares after finding Peter at Hierusalem as may be gathered out of the words of the Apostle Galat. 2. It is not likely also that he could suddenly go frō Hierusalem to Rome being sent to preach to all natiōs The best witnesse of Peters being Bishop of Rome 25. yeares is Eusebius his Chronicle but he testifieth also that he sate 25. yeares at Antioch which is a plaine contradiction to all stories of that matter Thirdly Peter preached in no place but he there ordeined Bishops and teachers and founded Churches But in Britaine we do not reade that either he ordeined Bishops or founded Churches or left any memoriall of his being there Fourthly the tradition of the church which is a part of the word of God as the Papists beleeue ascribeth the first conuersion of Britaine to Ioseph of Arimathaea and his fellowes Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph affirmeth that they preached the word of God in Britaine with great confidence and this he sayth they did the 63. yeare from Christs incarnation Anno sayth he ab incarnatione domini 63. fidem Christi fiducialiter praedicabāt Which disprooueth Caesar Baronius his tradition of Peters first preaching in Britaine anno Domini 58. Fiftly no one English Chronicle doth so much as once mention the comming of Peter into Britaine Is it then probable that Simeon Metaphrastes the writer of the Greeke legend liuing in Greece or Caesar Baronius the calculator of Romish traditions and legends singing Masses at Rome should better know what was done in Britaine then the ancient Chroniclers of the Britaine nation Sixthly of ancient writers of Ecclesiasticall histories no one sayth that Peter the Apostle first preached to the Britains Neither doth any ancient father of the church mention any such matter but rather ascribe that labour either to Paule as doth Theodoret in commentar in epist. ad Timoth. lib. 9. de curandis Graec. affect and Sophronius in serm de natiu Dom. and Venantius Fortunatus or to Simon Zelotes as Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. and Dorotheus in Synopsi or to Aristobolus as doth the same Dorotheus and some late writers But if Peter had first founded the Church of Britaine it is not likely that all authors would either haue concealed so glorious an action or else haue attributed the same to others Finally the aduersaries themselues for the most part confesse that Ioseph of Arimathaea did
and not by the Popes Decretals Finally he sheweth pag. 475. out of S. Augustines 48. Epistle ad Vincentium that the Church is sometime shadowed and obscured which plainely ouerthroweth the Popish doctrine concerning the illustrious and perpetuall visibilitie of the Church of Christ. If then any simple Papist heretofore haue bene seduced by this fabulous discourse of Rob. Parsons to beleeue that the inhabitants of this land haue bene thrice conuerted to that faith which now is professed at Rome or to giue credit to the hereticall doctrine of the Romanists let him reforme his opinion and beware how he admit such trifling bookes wherein Scriptures are so wickedly abused and Fathers so corruptly alledged and lyes so commonly interlaced And if he loue Rob. Parsons let him admonish him hereafter to haue more care what he writeth and to desist from wresting and abusing Scriptures from falsisying and corrupting the testimonie of Fathers from Thrasonicall bragging and yet beggarly crauing matters in controuersie from his impious spéeches against God and disloyall termes against his Prince and finally from lying slandering and impertinent babling Otherwise as his faults and errors appeare many and grieuous so it will manifestly appeare that it is Gods iudgement that so wicked a cause should be defended so weakly leudly and wickedly God giue him grace to repent him of his inueterate malice against true Christians and confirme all Christians in the truth that they giue no eare to the fabulous tales and leasings of such leud wicked and malitious companions FINIS The Contents of the Discourse precedent THe Praeface conteineth a briefe examination of Robert Parsons his Epistle Dedicatorie of the addition to it and of his Praeface The 1. Chapter disputeth this question Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or no. The 2. Chapter sheweth what we are to thinke of the pretended Conuersion of Lucius King of Britaine and of the Britains to Christian Religion by Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and his Agents The 3. Chapter resolueth vs of Austin the Monkes coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here In the 4. Chapter is proued that the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by S. Peter Eleutherius Gregory and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them The 5. Chapter conteineth a briefe answer to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to proue that the faith now professed in Rome is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past The 6. Chapter discouereth the vanitie and foolerie os Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England The 7. Chapter bringeth euident demonstrations that the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation The 8. Chapter containeth proofes concluding that the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane The 9. Chapter sheweth that the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meane of triall of the truth The 10. Chapter proueth the Church of England to be the true Church of God and to hold the Apostolike and true Catholike faith The 11. Chapter refuteth Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward The 12. Chapter sheweth that the moderne Church of Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England Chap. 13. therein is declared how litle conscience Parsons maketh to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures The 14. Chapter containeth a catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other authors committed by Parsons The 15. Chapter exhibiteth certaine examples of Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question The 16. Chapter alledgeth arguments of Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries The 17. Chapter containeth a Table of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall The 18. Chapter containeth a Table of Parsons his lies calumniations and false allegations The 19. Chapter sheweth how Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause FINIS a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca. 62. a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Part. 1. ca. 1. pa. 19. a In Eleutherio 1 Part. 1. cap. 4. a Part. 1. p. 80 a Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26. a Pag. 113. a Pag. 123. a Mallb 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 22. a In Chronico a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Pag. 333. and pages following
Hares insult ouer dead Lyons If he had not bene a renegate Christian and fugitiue traytor he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant Neither if he had bene wise would he haue mentioned these two examples himselfe in apostacie being like the one and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine And yet not many yeares since in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him and his whole house Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note singing that only which maketh for his profit Modo palliatus modo togatus Now he playeth Dolman now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius vnum portentum est duo nomina that is one monster two titles Yet such is the folly of this parasite that thinking to praise the King he doth greatly dishonor him comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie and implying that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation yet may we probably suppose that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty and the subuersion of the realme as appeareth by a publike edict against them In commending the Kings booke he condemneth his religion as if any could be more dishonored then by imputation of want of religion Againe he contradicteth himselfe cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God and godlinesse and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity and inanity of sects and heresies where no ground no head no certaine principle no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion which his Maiesty professeth or cleanly auoyd in that sect which he followeth being a pack of impieties blasphemies heresies nouelties vncerteinties contradictions absurdities and fooleries The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion wherein we declare that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it and full of sincere wisedome but also approoued by Councels Fathers consent of nations miracles yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse of the Sacraments of the Pope of Purgatory Indulgences works of supererogation and such like For what more impious then to say that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist What more blasphemous then to giue Gods honor to stocks stones and to Antichrist What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature and office and to worship Angels Saints and Images What more new then the doctrine of Constance Florence Trent concerning the massing sacrifice the communion vnder one kind the subsisting of accidents without substance indulgences and such like What more vncertaine then popish religion that dependeth vpon the Popes determination a man oftentimes blind vnlearned and variable What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible aboue and below dead and aliue at one time What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome or to say with the Donatists that it is perished out of the whole world saue in one corner of the Romish church Finally what more foolish then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches and such like superstitious ceremonies In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue that man is mutable by his owne example that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions But that is little for his credit or the credit of his cause For what if he turne like a weather-cocke and renounce religion would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe Truth also is constant and alwayes like it selfe But falsehood varieth and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas sayth Hilary to Constantius The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite who being vncertaine in his resolution and leauing matters formerly purposed brought forth matters neuer designed for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion condemneth the sluggishnes of them that are carelesse in this behalfe But his words are contrary to the Romish practise that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion Much certes it were to be wished that men would do as he sayth for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists and see that popery is not Catholike as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke nor darkenes continue when light appeareth To preuent perillous courses and to giue light where certeinty of religion lyeth he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions But alas the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion as the East is from the West For what assurance can he haue of religion who doth beleeue neither Propheticall nor Apostolical writings nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes Surius Baronius and other fabulous writers and vaine and vncertaine traditions of which he hath no certeinty Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history and not matter of faith or doctrine Lastly he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon then to keepe them from any danger Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised In this preface I confesse he compareth the Church to a mansion house and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same promising that he will make proofe that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons But first there is great difference betweene the Church and a mansion house the Church being a mysticall body and being scattered here and there and not being appropriated to any family city or nation and a mansion house being a
own faction began now to hold y t in euery seuerall church there ought to be but one bishop Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well vnderstand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist 8. For indéede he speaketh not of the Romane church but of the vniuersall church The like may be sayd of Cyprians booke de simplic Praelat Finally if Parsons vpon the words of Cyprian or Origen can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope he shall well deserue a Cardinals hat But in the meane while he must content himselfe with a garland of Fore tayles for his insignious fopperie that by such weake surmises thinketh to proue the faith of Eleutherius Clement the 8. to be all one He should also haue alledged the testimonie of the Magdeburgians as yeelding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Masse for transubstantiation the worship of images but therein he faileth Onely he talketh idlely of certaine frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of Frée-will Iustification Repentance Good workes Fasts Uirginitie kéeping of Holy dayes Martyrdome inuocation of Saints Purgatorie Traditions Monasticall life Reliques and such like points But all this is nothing to the purpose For neither are we bound to performe and make good euery priuate mans singular opinions nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference betwixt themselues and the Fathers nor do they alwaies gather their sentences out of the authenticall writings of the Fathers neither do they meane and comprehend all as oft as they speake against one or two nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from vs that either al the Fathers make against vs or that all most or any do ioyne with the Papists Robert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends to leaue this vaine and roauing discoursing and scholerlike to conclude somewhat against that religion which he hath forsaken and we do professe and beleeue to be most Catholike and auncient and Apostolicall For proofe that the religion now professed in Rome is the same which was brought into England by Austin the Monke he referreth vs p. 152. to Stapletons Fortresse of faith as he called it But he should remember that the same fortresse was taken and ouerthrowne by M. Doctor Fulke of worthie memorie and that in such sort that the builder and author of that foolish fortresse durst neuer vndertake to repaire the ruines thereof Furthermore he is to vnderstand that Stapletons discourse containeth a briefe recapitulation of certaine ceremonies and abuses in doctrine which were in practise about the coming in of Augustine into England But neither were they matters of any importance nor were they generally receiued nor were they agreable to the formes now receiued and vsed in the Church of Rome Part. 1. ch 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gregorie and Austin and rayling against M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead And Chap. 9. and 10. endeuoureth to proue that Austin brought into England no other religion then that which the Church professed during the times of Eleutherius But first we haue no speciall quarrell either against Gregorie or Austin If Parsons will needes vrge vs to speake against the Monke Austin he shall heare what he was anone Secondly these good men M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead it is no maruell though they be rayled on by such wicked fellowes Vpright and good men as the Wiseman sheweth vs Prou. 29. are an abhomination to the wicked Thirdly we do not so much contend about the corruptions brought in by Austin the Monke as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust vpon vs. Parsons therfore ought to shew that now the same religion is professed ' in Rome which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britaine and England and not so much to prate of the times betwéene Eleutherius and Austin Howbeit it appeareth that euen in these times superstition and false doctrine began to créepe into some corners of the Church contrarie to that forme which was receiued from the Apostles and vsed in Eleutherius his times Some began to talke doubtfully of Purgatorie others to pray priuatly to Saints In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised diuers from Apostolicall orders Of Fréewill and of Workes some began to talke philosophically others to aduance mans merits Churches were built in honour of Saints and their Reliques worshipped Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table and a siluer crosse and began to chaunt Letanies which Rob. Parsons albeit all the Iebusites in Rome should helpe him with their suffrages will neuer proue to haue bene knowne or practised in Eleutherius his time Pa. 181. he proueth altars in Britaine out of Chrysostome and afterward altars of stone and sacrifices and vowes and othes made to Saints out of Gildas He alledgeth also Optatus and Augustine for proofe of altars and y e Masse But neither doth the name of Masse or altars or sacrifices or vowes prooue the Romish Masse altars sacrifice vowes or the Romish doctrine of these points as at large hath bene declared in my bookes De Missa and De Monachis against Bellarmine nor do we stand vpon names or termes nor are these the principall points of Romish religion which we impugne nor is the testimonie of Gildas authenticall Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth vs of a Church built in the honor of Saint Martin where Austin song prayed and said Masses of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his prayer and application of reliques of a prayer made to Saint Alban of honoring Martyrs sepulchers of Alleluia and the obseruance of Lent out of Bede But therein he spendeth his labour in vaine For neither were the Masses then said nor the honor then done to Saints reliques nor their obseruances like to those which the Church of Rome now practiseth Beside that Bede speaketh of things past after the manners of his time and reporteth many things by heare-say Parsons also to helpe the matter translateth these words of Bede lib. 1. hist. cap. 18. Beatum Albanum Martyrem auctori Deo per ipsum gratias petierunt thus They went to the sepulcher of S. Alban prayed to the Saint largely But there is no such meaning to be forced out of the words Finally these points are not great in regard of the rest of the Romish religion which we refuse Out of Galfridus Monumetensis he gathereth that Dubritius was the Legate of the Apostolike sea and that there were Procession Organs and singing in the Church Out of M. Bale M. Foxe Trithemius and others that before Austins time there were diuers learned men and preachers among the Britains whereof some were instructed at Rome some were sent from Rome some built Monasteries some were Monkes But neither doth that make any thing for proofe
command the seruice to be said in Latine Gréeke and Hebrew which languages the common people vnderstand not But such a Church and so malignant and enuious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seene in the world before the assembly of Trent 4. For a thousand yeares after Christ and longer it was lawful for laymen and all Christians to dispute argue and reason of matters of Christian Religion And so long this Popish Church was not seene in the world that prohibiteth laymen so to do 5. The moderne Papists teach that Christs naturall bodie is both in heauen and earth and vpon euery altar where any consecrated host is hanged where he is neither felt seene nor perceiued and all at one time But the Church vntill the times of the Trent conuenticle euer beleeued that Christ had a solide visible and palpable bodie And certes very strange it were if the Catholike and mysticall bodie of Christ shold be visible not his natural body 6. They teach that Christ was a perfect man at the first instant of his conception and that he knew all things and was omniscient as man both then and alwaies But this neither the Church of England nor other Christian Church as yet could euer beleeue or comprehend 7. They teach that Christians are not to beléeue the Scriptures to be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope tell them so They say also that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs doth depend vpon the Church that is as they say vpon the Pope Cardinals Masse-priests Monkes and Friars But the true Church hath alwaies taken this to be derogatorie to the Maiestie of God and of holy Scriptures 8. They teach that the Pope hath two swords and a triple crowne as King of Kings and Lord of Lords But the Church of England for a thousand yeares after Christ neuer saw nor beléeued any such thing Nay the English know wel y t Greg. the 7. was y e first y t took vp arms against y e Emperor 9. They teach that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to assoile subiects from their oaths of obedience But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. sheweth to haue vin reputed a nouelty if not an heresie The Church of England neuer saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King Iohns time and then the same did not beléeue it or allow it 10. The moderne synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head foundation and spouse of Christes Church But no visible Church euer taught this vntill of late time the Church of England neuer held it nor beleeued it 11. Now they thinke it lawfull to suborne the subiects against their Prince and to hire priuie murtherers assassinors to cut y e throte of Kings excommunicate as appeareth by the excōmunications of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soueragine Quéene Elizabeth and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorismes Nay of late they haue attempted by gunpowder to blow vp the King and his Sonne albeit not excommunicated and to massacre murther the most eminent men in this kingdome and wholy to ouerthrow the state But y e Church of England euer taught obedience to Princes and disliked this damnable doctrine 12. They teach that the Pope is aboue all generall Councels But no Church euer beleeued this for a thousand foure hundred yeares The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decréed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian. 13. They teach that the Pope is supreme iudge of all matters of controuersie in religion But the Church of England euer thought it a matter absurd to make a blind man iudge of colours or an vnlearned irreligious fellow to be iudge of matters of learning and religion Now who knoweth not that most Popes are such Of Benedict that liued in the Emperour Henry the 2. his daies Sigebertus in ann Do. 1045. writeth that he was so rude ignorant that he could not reade his breuiary but was inforced to choose another to do it Benedictus saith he qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. inuaserat cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit 14. They now fall downe before the Pope and kisse his féet and when he list to goe abrode they cary him like an idoll vpon mens shoulders But no Church for aboue a thousand yeares after Christ did euer kisse the feet of Antichrist or adore him Nay the Church of England did alwayes know full well that S. Peter a farre holier and honester man then Clement the 8. or Paule the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lye at his feet or to worship him 15. They now call the Pope God and acknowledge him to be their good Lord and God as appeareth by the Chapter Satis dist 96. and the glosse vpon Iohn the 22. his Extrauagant cum inter nonnullos de verb. signif Commonly the Canonists honor him as a God on the earth But no Church did euer abase it selfe so low as to vse these high termes to so base a fellow The Church of England though patient in bearing the Popes iniuries did neuer vse any such slauish formes of flattery 16. They beléeue that the Pope can change kingdomes and take a kingdome from one and giue it to another Potest mutare regna saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 6. atque vni auferre atque alteri conferre But this no Church of God euer beléeued The Church of England certes when King Iohn would haue made his Kingdome tributary to the Pope disallowed and detested the fact and when the Pope would haue deposed King Henry the eight manfully resisted him So did the French likewise oppose themselues against Iulius the 2. that went about to wrest the Scepter out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth 17. They beléeue that Abbots and Friars may by priuilege of the Pope giue voices in Councels and that an Abbot may ordeine Clerks as appeareth by the practise of their late conuenticles and by the priuileges granted to the Benedictines But all ancient Councels declare that Councels are assemblies not of Monks Friars but of Bishops and all Churches according to the Canons of y e Apostles as they are called acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops not to blockish statues called Popes 18. They beléeue that Cardinals only now haue voyce in the election of the Bishop of Rome But this no Church beleeued for a thousand yeares after Christ. The Church of England euer held rather the ancient Canons that gaue the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people then these late humorous Canons and Decretals of Popes 19. They beléeue that Monks are Clergy men and necessary members of the Church But no Church for a thousand yeares after Christ euer beléeued it 20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and
were not the difference so great as we find it yet what needed this babling fellow to search antiquitie for proofe of his three imagined conuersions of the ancient inhabitants of our countrey to Christian religion Let him shew that the doctrine of popery which we refuse is Christian religion and that it was first taught by Saint Peter in Britany or otherwhere and that will suffice without more adoe But herein the poore fellow faileth most grossely Nay where he needed not blindly he plungeth himselfe into diuers difficulties offering to prooue that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted vnto Christian religion by S. Peter Eleutherius and the Monke Austin matters farre beyond the reach of his abilitie and impertinent For neither doth he prooue that the Britaine 's were thrise by them conuerted nor would it aduantage his cause being prooued seeing the decretaline and wicked doctrine of Popes which all true Christians refuse is of a late and different note from that faith which those three taught and professed and which was of ancient time planted in this Iland The which that it may euidently appeare I haue for thy better satisfaction thought good to examine this whole treatise of three Conuersions in volume big in value small in discourse idle in proofes weake and simple and altogether vnworthy any long answere were it not that some men suppose that he hath sayd somewhat where God wot his whole treatise is nothing but vaine talking and tedious discoursing to no purpose Eadem atque eadem saepe dicit sayth Augustine epist. 86. of such an idle writer aliud non inueniendo quod dicat nisi quod inaniter ad rem non pertinens dicit But with better reason may this be sayd of this pratling Iebusite which repeating the same things often yet findeth nothing to serue his purpose but that which ouerthroweth the purpose of the author In his Epistle Dedicatory he giueth the title of Catholikes to English Masse-priests and their consorts But that is the point in question He calleth them also the worthy children of the first professors of the Christian faith in this land But the testimonie of a bastard shall neuer make bastard professors true Christians Further it is not like but his prouision will faile him before the end of his iourney that beginneth so impudently to beg at his first setting forth and so presumptuously to take for granted matters in controuersie Finally vnder the name of the Christian catholike faith he goeth about to commend the corruptions and trash of the Romish church as the Macedonian heretikes did their hereticall poyson Venenum melle illitum nempe catholico nomine superinducto propinabatur sayth Athanasius ad Serap He sheweth reasons of his dedication but all false For neither shall he euer prooue that Papists professe the Christian catholike faith first planted in England nor deriue their pedegree from the first Christian Britains or Saxons His best reason is either forgotten or ouerslipped viz. that such patcheries are most properly due to such patrons Against true Christians he inueigheth with open mouth as if they were heretikes and intruders on the right of the catholike church But that is a common practise of men of his sort to fall to rayling and lying when by truth they cannot stand Hierome in his 2. apology against Russine speaking of Heretikes conuicti de perfidia sayth he ad maledicta se conferunt And Constantine directing his words to heretikes chargeth them with vaine lyes Cognoscite sayth he quibus mendacijs vestrae doctrinae inanit as implicata teneatur In fauour of the Papists he braggeth that he hath produced the sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world to wit the determination of all the highest ecctesiasticall tribunals But if by Parliaments he meane generall Councels he abuseth his clients and all the world For it were great simplicitie if vpon his word they should suppose either that Popery is authorized by ancient generall Councels or that the late conuenticles of Laterane Constance Florence and Trent ordered by the Popes directiō were lawfull Coūcels He doth also erre grossely if he affirme it Finally he contradicteth his owne holy fathers pleasure if he affirme the Councell to be aboue the Pope and the highest tribunall on earth The words of the Apostle Philip. 1. he applieth to such Papists as haue bene of late time called in question for treason and felony as if they did not only beleeue in Christ but also suffer for him Whereof the second is euidently false as publike records testifie the first is doubtfull seeing heretikes cannot be counted true beleeuers Likewise he abuseth other scriptures 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thess. 1. and Isa. 1. like the Valentinians endeuouring to wrest the sacred word of God to his owne fancies and fabulous discourses Aptare volunt sayth Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres ca. 1. fabulis suis eloquia Dei Saint Paule 1. Cor. 11. and 1. Thess. 1. speaketh of true Christians that followed Christ Iesus and his Apostles this Iebusite talketh of such as follow Antichrist and hearken to the Ieud perswasions of the false Apostles of Satan That which the Prophet Isay chap. 1. speaketh of purging the Church of God the same he applieth to the rusty followers of Antichrist whom he seeketh to continue in their disorders and errors Neither could he conceale the stirres that haue bene in England betweene the secular priests and the Iebusites although good it were for him that they were neuer remembred he being conuinced by the testimonie of his owne followers in diuers discourses written of this argument to be a Machiauelian 2 traytor and a diuell Here also he applieth the words meant of our Sauiour Matth. 8. to Antichrist the destroyer as if he rising vp could cōmand winds seas and cause calmes who indeede rather causeth stormes then calmes warres then peace and is the firebrand of troubles throughout all Christendome Further he entitleth him Christes substitute But his outragious persecutions of Gods saints shew him to be Christes aduersary rather then substitute Commission or act of substitution he sheweth none But of the other we find diuers argumēts Dan. 8. and 11. 2. Thess. 2. Apocalyp 13. and 17. which in my bookes de pontif Rom. are at large declared In an addition to his epistle he triumpheth ouer Queene Elizabeth of pious memory and raileth at her as a persecutor whose clemencie her greatest enemies cannot chuse but acknowledge and he among the rest if he were not vngratefull But herein the heathen Philosophers do accuse him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayth Homer odyss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And another de mortuis nil nisi bonum Herein therefore the prouerbe is verified that
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
that he receiued this name in baptisme For he is so called before he was baptized as well as after neither doth any Author mention this change of name Secondly about this time when Lucius is said to haue raigned king of Britaine and long before the Romaines as histories report had brought the whole countrie vnder subiection and into the forme of a prouince which admitteth no king Beda de gestis Anglor lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Claudius the Emperor saith that in few dayes he brought most of the Iland vnder his subiection Intra paucissimos dies saith he plurimam insulae partem in deditionem recepit Afterward in the same booke and 11. chapter he sheweth how the Romans dwelt possessed all vnto the banke cast vp vpon the frontiers of Scotland by Seuerus Neither is it materiall that after this the Britains endeuored to recouer their auncient libertie For vnder the raigne of Commodus as Capitolinus testifieth all the stirres in Britanny and other countries were pacified In Britannia Germania Dacia saith he imperium eius recusantibus Prouincialibus omnia per duces sedata sunt In the times also of Domitian and Adrian which liued not long before Lucius his supposed raigne we read in Spartianus that the Britains liued in subiection to the Romaines How then could Lucius in this time rule all the Iland of Britaine as is supposed by the authors of this fabulous conuersion vnder king Lucius Baronius annal tom 2. anno 183. answereth that Lucius raigned beyond the wall But that sheweth plainely that this report as it is recorded by Bede and Geffrey of Momoutb is vtterly false For the one reporteth that the Britaine 's vnder Lucius were conuerted the other that all Britanny was conuerted from Paganisme and not a few Britains onely beyond the wall of Seuerus as Baromus is driuen to confesse Thirdly no authenticall authors make mention of this storie The first spreaders of this report séeme to be Damasus in his pontificall and Bede in his storie de gestis Anglorum and Ado. Whereof the first deserueth litle credit among the papists The second reporteth too many things by heare-say The third is a fabulous Writer From them it seemeth Galfridus Monumetensis Martinus Polonus Platina and others haue borrowed this fable The matter as y e first authors report it is no way probable Malmesburiensis in fastis speaking of Lucius saith he receiued the faith with the whole nation of the Britains But that is altogether improbable for at that time the Romaines professing paganisme ruled almost all Britaine Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 4. ca. 19. saith that the preachers sent by Eleutherius did abolish paganisme almost throughout all the Iland Cùm per totam ferè insulam saith he paganismum deleuissent A matter repugnant to all authenticall histories which testifie that the Romans that then ruled in Britaine and a great part of the world besides professed and maintained paganisme vntil the raigne of Constantine The same man saith further that in the whole Iland there were 28. Flamines or principall priests and thrée Archiflamines and that king Lucius in the place of Flamines appointed Bishops and for Atchistamines substituted Archbishops But these are also matters neuer before heard of For neither had Lucius power ouer the whole I le as before is declared nor had the Britains any such Flamines or Archiflamines nor among the Romaines that had Flamines were any Archiflamines appointed ouer Flamines This historie therefore of king Lucius may well be paragoned with the tales of king Arthur Sir Tristram and Lancelot du lac or of Gregorie the Pope de gestis Romanorum ca. 81. or of Rowland and Oliuer in the legend of Romish Saints Fourthly there is great variance betwirt the reporters of this narration especially concerning the time when it should be done Baronius saith Lucius was conuerted during the raigne of Commodus the Emperor of Rome anno Dom. 183. Beda saith it was vnder Marcus Antonius Verus anno 156. Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 5. cap. 1. saith Lucius died the yeare of our Lord 156. So that he must néeds be conuerted some time before Martinus Polonus writeth that he was baptized anno Christi 188. Marianus Scotus accompteth it done anno Christi 177. Lilly referreth this act to the yeare of Christ 181. And Lanquet to the yeare 180. an old Chronicle written in the Saxon language and found in the archiues of Peterborough saith that Lucius wrote to Eleutherius anno Christi 167. To conclude Nennius saith that Lucius wrote to Euaristus anno 164. and maketh no mention of Eleutherius Likewise some report how the king was conuerted without mentioning the conuersion of his people as Beda Others testifie that the whole Iland was then almost cleared from paganisme as Galfridus Monumetensis lib. 4. hist. Brit. cap. 19. Sanders in his preface to his rayling libel de schismate Anglicano saith a great part of the people was then conuerted Platina telleth vs how in stead of 25. Flamines there were so many Bishops created in Britaine and in the place of three Archiflamines thrée Archbishops were substituted But Galfridus setteth downe 28. bishops and 3. Archbishops made for so many Flamines and Archiflamines Some report that Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus to Lucius as Platina in Eleutherio Others name none as Damasus in Pontificali and Beda lib. 1. hist. Anglor cap. 4. Others name Fugatius and Donatianus and say that Elnanus and Meduinus were sent in ambassage to Eleutherius as Baronius tom 2. anno Dom. 183. Galfridus hist. Brit. lib. 4. cap. 19. saith Eleutherius sent Faganus and Duuanus and with him consenteth Ponticus Virunnus Malmesburiensis lib. de antiq Glaston Eccles. calleth these messengers Phaganus and Deruianus The historie of Landaffe calleth the Doctors sent by Eleutherius Eluanus and Meduinus and with him consenteth Caius lib. 1. de antiq Acad. Cantabrig If then truth cannot dissent nor vary from it selfe how can we beleeue the narration concerning Lucius to be true that is so diuersly reported Againe if the king onely or some few with him were conuerted to Christianitie in the time of Eleutherius then was religion rather continued and enlarged by his agents then restored being lost Which appeareth also in this that the king heard of the persecution of Christians of Christian religion before he sent to Eleutherius But suppose that Lucius was indéed conuerted to Christian religion about the time reported in the storie yet it seemeth that those that conuerted the king were rather Britains then Romaines That is apparent first by the testimonie of the Annales of Burton cited by Caius lib. 1. de antiq Acad. Cantabrig which affirme that diuers Doctors of Cambridge were baptized anno 141. But what should they need to send for Romains when they had Christian Doctors among themselues Secondly the same is proued by the historie of Landaffe alleaged likewise by Caius which testifieth that Eluanus and
historie of Christs passion and of other high points of our religion to the fable of the conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius Wo were we if we had no better assurance of Christs passion and other matters of Christian religion then Parsons hath of his supposed conuersion of Britaine vnder Lucius Furthermore it is one thing to varie about the times of things authentically testified in holy Scripture to haue passed though the certaine day and time be not expressed and to varie about the times of things of which there is no authenticall assurance Thirdly there is no materiall controuersie about the time of Christs passion but it may well be decided out of holy Scriptures The like we may say of the Infants put to death by Herod and of the coming of the Magi. But about the time of the supposed conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius his agents there are manifest contradictions insomuch as not onely the time but the report it selfe is made very doubtfull He answereth further and saith that if it were granted that the Brittaines obserued Easter after the fashion of the East church and that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospell in England yet it proueth not that the faith of Britanny came not from Rome As if it were likely that schollers in such a ceremonie would dissent from their first maisters or else that Simon Zelotes were either sent from Rome or did not ayde the Britains in their first conuersion Finally he spendeth many idle words in cauilling with the Magdeburgians and M. Foxe of reuerent memorie But for asmuch as he neither proueth nor refelleth any thing materiall we should wrong ourselues and the reader if we should follow the gosling wandring vp and downe that hath lost himselfe in the Labyrinth of his owne fancies and fooleries CHAP. III. Of Austin the Monke his coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here FOr the sending and preaching of Austin the Monke to the Saxons our aduersaries haue some better colour of reason then for the sending of any Romaines by Eleutherius to the Britains For neither is it denyed that Gregorie did send or that Austin came to Ethelbert king of Kent But what is all this to the purpose For neither can the modern Romaines vant of the acts and prowesse of Gregorie or Austin nor doth any aduantage redound to the moderne synagogue of Rome by their merits as we shall declare anone Furthermore neither is Gregorie to be tearmed the Apostle of the inhabitants of this Iland nor are the Papists to make any great crackes for any thing done either by Gregorie the first or by his Legate Austin That Gregorie the first was our Apostle as in Bede to flatter the Romanists he is called it cannot be proued For first he cannot say as the Apostle did Galat. 1. Not of man nor by man For he was not called immediatly by Christ as were the Apostles but was ordained by bishops and chosen by the Cleargie and people of Rome as the agents of Rome themselues confesse Secondly it was not sayd to him as to Christs Apostles Matth. 28. Go teach all nations Nor did he presume to take vpon him that charge Nay expresly he condemned the title of Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishop But he was onely called and ordained to gouerne the Church of Rome and happie is he if he did approue himselfe faithfull in his calling Thirdly he had no grace of working miracles or prophecie as Christs Apostles had nor could he speake with tongs as the Apostles did Nay it is apparent that he was very vnskilfull both in the Gréeke and Hebrew tongues which notwithstanding Saint Augustine for the vnderstanding of Scriptures accompteth necessarie Fourthly he neither preached himselfe nor sent Austin to preach to the Britains or to the French or other nations beside Saxons onely of all which notwithstanding the inhabitants of this countrie are descended Finally he preached not himselfe to the Saxons nor séemed to be sent vnto them but abiding quietly at Rome sent Austine and other Italian Monkes to preach vnto them How then is he tearmed the Apostle of the English to whom he was neither sent nor came nor preached That neither he nor Austin deserue great praise for the conuersion of the Saxons or English it is proued first for that Gregorie himselfe did nothing but send and command others who notwithstanding were not the first conuerters of the Saxons For it were absurd to thinke that the Saxons hauing so many Christian Britains liuing both among them and neare vnto them had no notice of Christian religion vntill the coming of Austin That the Britains liued among the Saxons the practise of conquerors doth shew who do not kill such as submit themselues but rule them and command them So did the Romaines in time past conquering Spaine and Gallia and other countries So did the Normans entring into England And so did the Saxons also deale with the Britains Malmesburie lib. 1. de gest Angl. ca. 2. speaking of the Saxon king Cerdic testifieth that the men of the countrie being once ouercome did willingly yeeld to obey him In eius iura volentes concessêre saith he Likewise lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Hengists Captaines Cum Prouincialibus saith he congressi profligatisque qui resistendum putauerunt reliquos in sidem acceptos placidae quietis gratia mulcebant Now let any reasonable man esteeme how it is possible that the pagan Saxons conuersing daily with Christian Britains and séeing the practise of their Rites and Religion shold neither be conuerted to Christian Religion nor haue any notice of it Further we reade that Berta Ethelberts wife was a Christian woman and had with her a Christian Bishop named Luidardus by whom the king and his people could not chuse but receiue some notice and tincture of Christian Religion This is plainely related by Beda hist. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 26. Antea ad eum saith Beda speaking of Ethelbert fama Christianae religionis peruenerat vipote qui vxorem habebat Christianam de gente Francorum nomine Bertam quam ea conditione à parentibus acceperat vt ritum fidei ac religionis suae cum Episcopo quem ei fidei adiutorem dederant nomine Luidardo inuiolatam seruare licentiam haberet Capgraue in the legend of Lethardus containing diuers traditions of the Romish Church speaking of this matter calleth him Austins precursor and saith that he prepared him a way and an entrance into the country Praecursor saith he ianitor venturi Augustini And againe Parauit ei viam ingressum locum Wherefore as the Britains liuing among the Saxons shewed them a light of Christian religion so Luidardus and Berta were the first that prepared the heart of Ethelbert king of Kent to receiue Christian religion and not Augustine whose language he litle vnderstood and whose person he accepted no question for his Quéenes sake and at the perswasion of Luidardus Thirdly although some Saxons were conuerted by Austins
meanes yet most of them were conuerted by others Laurentius baptized the sonne of Ethelbert that was a pagan The king of Northumbers marying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert by her perswasion was christened by Paulinus Erpwald the king of the Castangles receiued the faith by the perswasion of king Edwine Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptized in Scotland Many Northerne Saxons were also conuerted to religion by the meanes of king Oswald and Finan a Scot. Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua conuerted the West-Saxons Sigbert was baptized in France and raigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion Peda king of Middleangles was baptized also by Finan a Scot. Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris conuerted to Christ the Southsaxons And all this is testified by Henry of Huntington With him also agrée for the most part Beda William of Malmesburie and diuers other Chroniclers It is therefore euident that Austin performed either litle or nothing those conuersions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death Fourthly it is most apparent that neither the French nor Britains of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons were conuerted by Austin Not the French for that Austin was not sent vnto them and for that they had receiued Christianitie long before Not the Britains for that Austin was sent to Saxons and not to Britains Secondly the Britains were Christians long before Austins coming into England neither did Christianitie after their first conuersion euer faile amongst them as is euident by the testimonie of Bede Capgraue and others Not long before the arriuall of Augustine many Britains about the time of Caster being newly baptized went out with the rest vnder the conduct of Germanus to fight against the Picts and Saxons and obtained a great victorie as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Councell assembled by Austin and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared diuers Bishops of the British nation Thirdly the Britains as Beda writeth refused to subiect themselues to Austins iurisdiction and to accept his orders Finally it appeareth that Austin did rather worke the subuersion then the conuersion of the Britains animating the Saxons to destroy them Fiftly Austin shewed extreame cowardire in coming towards England and hardly was perswaded to set forward as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speake one word of English nor to preach vnlesse it were by his interpreter Lastly he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles at the commandement of Gregorie But first such feare or cowardice beséemeth no Apostolike man Secondly faith cometh by hearing and vnderstanding and not by commission or outward signes It séemeth therefore that Austins Interpreters did rather conuert the Saxons then Austin himselfe Finally what power had either the bishop of Arles or Gregorie to appoint Archbishops in England And how cometh it to passe that now more Archbishops are here then one if his order had any force That these exceptions are true Beda will witnesse Percussi timore inerti saith he lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potiùs quà m barbaram feram incredulamque gentem cuius ne linguam quidem nossent adire cogitabant Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant And againe cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interpretes And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem ciuitatis iuxta quod iussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est Whatsoeuer then was done by Austin the same concerned none but a few Saxons of Kent and such as were baptized by him Neither did he deserue more then is due to euery minister of Gods word and Sacraments that by preaching and baptizing gaineth soules vnto Christ Iesus The Normans and Northern and West Saxons are nothing beholding to him The Britains haue cause to detest his memorie and to thinke hardly of him for his pride and barbarous crueltie If therefore Rob. Parsons meane to gaine any thing by the labours of Gregorie or Austin he must proue first that these two did preach to the auncient Saxons Britains French and other inhabitants of England Next that the present Pope is like vnto Gregorie the malignant race of Masse-priests and Iebusites to Austin Thirdly that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations are to subiect themselues to the Churches and Bishops that sent them And finally if he will haue vs to kéepe vnitie with the moderne Church of Rome he must proue that the same is neither departed from Christ nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregorie If not he doth but cast feathers against the wind and both tire himselfe with writing and vexe his reader with examining his fooleries and idle imaginations CHAP. IIII. That the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by Peter Eleutherius Gregorie and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them BUt what would it aduantage Rob. Parsons if he could proue that either the auncient Britains were conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and Eleutherius or the ancient Saxons by Gregorie and Austin séeing the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which is now reiected was either oppugned by them or at the least neuer knowne vnto them Now the Romanists prohibite holy Scriptures to be read publikely in vulgar tongues as dark and vnprofitable and condemne those that reade them translated into vulgar tongues without licence But the Apostle S. Peter 1. Epist. 2. exhorteth all Christians though newly regenerate to desire the sincere milke of the word And 2. Epist. 1. sheweth That they do well that take heede to the words of the Prophets as to a light shining in a darke place Neither néed we doubt but that all Peters true successors maintaine the same doctrine Gregorie in Ezechiel homil 10. doth commend Scriptures as meate and drinke and lib. 2. Moral as a glasse It is not likely therefore that he would prohibite Christians to eate and drinke and to behold themselues in a glasse that thereby they may learne to informe themselues in matters of faith and to reforme their manners 2. Now they teach that the holy Scriptures to vs are not authenticall nor canonicall vnlesse the Pope deliuer them and consigne them And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith that the Scriptures do depend vpon the Church and of Stapleton in his booke written in defence of the authoritie of the Church But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith that the word of the Prophets is most sure vnto vs. We haue saith he a most sure word of the Prophets And Gregorie in his preface vnto his Commentaries vpon Iob saith that in vaine we search
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
as appeareth by the discourse written of his life first stirred vp her subiects and when that serued not he animated both Spaniard and French against her and her people Gregorie the 13. by his Legate Sanders stirred the Irish to take armes against our nation The same man when force serued not animated the assassinor and murtherer Parry to lay violent hands vpon her person not omitting withal any course to hurt or trouble her subiects In the end by the procurement of Sixtus quintus the Spanish Armada supposed and ridiculously called inuincible came vpon vs with a full intention to depose the Quéene to destroy her true subiects and to marke the rest for slaues And can any man thinke well of the Pope so long as any memorie of this action remaineth It is no maruell then if the Pope set on that traiterous companion Allane to speake all the dishonor he could both against the Prince and her nation seeing he intended the totall destruction of the kingdome and her subiects But if we search all histories we shal neuer find a more bloudie and sauage enterprise then that which the Papists of late attempted resoluing to extinguish the Kings line to destroy the King his Nobles and the commons in Parliament assembled and vtterly to subuert the state Our nation then hath great obligation to the Popes of Rome and their adherents but it is to hate them and detest them and resist them as most bloudie and malitious enemies of our nation for many yeares But saith Parsons in his Ward-word Our nation hath bene twise conuerted by the labour and industrie of that sea And since he saith The same hath bene thrise conuerted from Paganisme to Christian Religion So absurdly doth he confound himselfe in his owne deuise But neither can he proue his Conuersions nor should we grant them could he win any thing at our hands but hatred and indignation against the late Popes of Rome which are so degenerated that they seeke to destroy both the bodies and soules of those whose auncestors auncient Bishops of Rome are said to haue gained to Christ. And this may serue to answer Parsons his patcherie talking of the obligation which England and English men owe to Rome Now because the same man euery where telleth vs of the succession of Romish Bishops and gladly would smoother the fame of Pope Ioane albeit the same be somewhat impertinent to the matter of Three Conuersions yet shall we examine the title of the Popes succession turning a litle out of the way to obserue our aduersaries exorbitant procéeding CHAP. VIII That the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane MUch doth Robert Parsons boast of the succession of Popes especially Part. 2. cap. 1. and giueth out that it is of great importance for triall of true Religion Bellarmine De not is Eccles. and diuers others his consorts estéeme it a principall marke of the Church But when the matter shall be throughly discussed he shall well perceiue that he hath no cause so much to boast of these conceits séeing neither the Popes are successors to Peter or the auncient Bishops of Rome nor the succession of Popes is any marke of the Church or proper triall of true religion The first is proued by these arguments First no man can claime right of succession but either by right of testament or proximitie of bloud or some law or laudable custome For that is the opinion of all Lawyers where they talke of successions But Clement the 8. and his predecessors for diuers ages can neither produce any Will made by S. Peter declaring the moderne Popes to be his successors nor any law or custome grounded on the old or new testament Neither can they shew that they are of his kindred or affinitie whereby they may seeme to haue right of succession The like also we may say of Eleutherius Secondly all successors either do succéed as heires in the whole right or as Legataries in some special bequest of land goods or right or else as executers of any office or charge But if Clement the 8. should claime to be Saint Peters heire or a Legatarie then must he shew some testament or will or lawe made in his fauour If he claime to succéed him in office then must he shew both records how he holdeth his office and also acts which may declare him to haue truly executed Saint Peters office Likewise if he claime to be Eleutherius his successor he must both shew a lawfull title and declare that he hath executed Eleutherius his function But neither can he exhibite any proofe for hïs title of Apostolicall or Episcopall function neither doth it appeare either that he worketh miracles or teacheth all nations as did Saint Peter or that he preacheth or baptizeth as did Eleutherius Wherein then haue Clement and his predecessors employed themselues Forsooth in stopping the preaching and procéeding of the Gospell and in murthering the Saints of God and maintaining the kingdome of Antichrist None of them certes can shew any title either from Peter or Eleutherius or other godly Bishop Thirdly the Popes claime to be Vniuersall Bishops and heads and spouses of the Vniuersall Church But that neuer came into the head of Peter or Eleutherius Nay Gregory lib. 4. epist. 82. speaking of Peter and other Apostles saith they are not heads but members of the Church vnder one head Sub vno capite sayth he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Likewise in the title of Decumenicall or Vniuersall Bishop he sheweth that the Pope doth rather follōw Lucifer then Peter or any godly Bishop Quis sayth he speaking of the title of vniuersall Bishop in hoc tam peruerso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere He sayth also that none of the Prelates of that sea would euer be called by so prophane a title The Apostle Paule sheweth that there is but one head and spouse of the Uniuersall Church that is Christ Iesus Fourthly our Sauiour Christ forbad S. Peter and his Apostles so to beare rule ouer Christians as temporall Kings did ouer nations Neither do we find that S. Peter or Eleutherius did transgresse Christes commandement If then the Pope doth rule not as Princes ouer nations but as King of Kings challengeth power to depose Kings then is he not S. Peters or Eleutherius his successor S. Bernard sayth the Pope cannot both beare this rule and succeed Peter in his Apostleship Plane ab alterutro prohiberis si vtrumque similiter habere voles perdes vtrumque And againe forma Apostolica haec est dominatio interdicitur indicitur ministratio Fiftly Peter exhorted Christians 1. epist. 2. to obedience to Kings and gouernours and Eleutherius no question did follow his exhortation Where either of these perswaded Christians to take armes against their superiors
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
demonstrations of his owne weaknesse vanitie and that in his owne writings he hath enrolled himself a bragging foole in great letters There also he telleth vs further how he produceth the iudgements censures sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world to wit the determination of the highest Ecclesiasticall Tribunals in fauour of his consorts the Papists of England But this shamelesse bragge is refuted by the whole course of his worthlesse worke For neither doth he handle any one principall point of faith in controuersie nor doth he produce the Canons of lawfull generall Councels which haue soueraigne authoritie in externall gouernment to proue the doctrine of the Papists but onely prateth idlely of counterfeit Decretals and mentioneth forged instruments suborned witnesses and most weake surmises not woorth one chip Furthermore where he calleth Councels the highest Tribunals of the Church he doth as it were with his putatiue Fathers sledge batter the Popes chaire in péeces Thirdly he vanteth of the honorable course of true obedience to God in matters of the soule and loyall behauiour towards temporall Princes in al worldly affaires held by Papists And this he saith is glorious both before God and man But the mans notorious vanitie deserueth to be hated both of God and man For how can they be thought to hold a right course of obedience toward God that prohibite the reading of Gods word in the Church in tongues vnderstood And how may they seeme carefull in matters of the soule that bring in new and strange worships of God and for Christ serue Antichrist The disloyaltie of Papists is too too apparent not onely in the rebellions of England and Ireland and their trecherous plots against his Maiestie and his predecessors but also in their doctrine teaching and professing that Kings are the Popes vassals and that he hath power to take away their Crownes and to assoile subiects from their obedience But if any doubted of their loyaltie before now he may be resolued not onely by their trecherous plot to blow vp the Parliament house but also by their open rebellion in Warwikeshire Speaking of the fact of Pope Clement commanding his vassals in England to kéepe silence he boasteth of it as of a miracle But it is no maruell to sée the slaues of Antichrist obedient to his command It were rather miraculous if they should follow the lawes of God and submit themselues to their lawfull Princes and renounce the abhominations of Antichrist In the latter end of his Epistle he braggeth That supposing Christ to be Christ and his promises true he wil forsooth by his doughtie discourse of Three Conuersions decide all the controuersies betwixt vs and the Papists and that as he professeth with certaine sequele of argument and necessarie demonstration But his blustring bragges are passed without effect and his clients rest more doubtfull then before Nay his arguments are so ridiculous that indifferent men do scorne them and his demonstrations so lousie that it appeareth plainely that he is better affected to Antichrist then to Christ and groundeth his faith rather on the Popes Decretals then holy Scriptures Pag. 114. he beareth his reader in hand that really and substantially he is able to proue our doctrine to be hèresie and to shew the beginnings and authors thereof But his shews are declared to be shadowes and the substance of his discourse is disproued as a packe of reall and grosse fooleries Sooner shall he transubstantiate himself into a messe of Mustard then either maintaine the masse of Popish heresies or disproue the substance of our doctrine Neither doth he more insolently boast of his owne doughtie déedes then childishly beg and take matters in question as granted In the Epistle Dedicatory and diuers other places Papists are still called Catholikes and Popish superstitioÌ„ couered and dignified by the name of Catholike Religion Matters by all true Christians vtterly denyed and by infinite particulars disproued and apparently false For how can they be truly esteemed Catholikes that embrace the particular faith of the Church of Rome neither taught by the Prophets nor Apostles of Christ nor knowne to y e ancient Fathers of the Church Or how can a particular hereticall superstitious idolatrous Religion be reputed Catholike There also he supposeth the auncient monuments of the Church to be charters and euidences for the moderne Romish Religion A matter alwaies contradicted by vs and neuer proued by our aduersaries and yet boldly affirmed by this babling discourser Let him therefore cease to beg this at our hands and orderly deduce the doctrine of the Romish Masse Popes tyrannical rule and the rest of their vnwritten traditions out of the ancient monuments of y e Church Pag. 7. He telleth vs That the Masse and Images were in vse in Gregory the 1. his time And no question but he vnderstandeth the Masse now vsed and the worship of Images by the Church of Rome defended But these are matters in questioÌ„ not impudently to be affirmed but seriously to be proued Pag. 311. he nameth the Popes of Rome head Bishops of the Catholike Church But this would rather be soundly proued and so he should do the Pope a great fauour then dissolutely passed ouer and boldly begged For wise men do but admire his folly and scorne such loose dealing It were an easie matter to specifie his impudencie in this kind by infinit particulars But what néed more proofes in matters so euident CHAP. XVI Arguments of Rob. Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries AMong his followers Robert Parsons they say is holden a profound Doctor But his pitifull failes and errors in mistaking both his authors and their words and meaning declare the contrarie In the addition following his Epistle he telleth vs how Constantine the great entred into the Empire next after Dioclesian But Ecclesiasticall histories shew that Constantius and Galerius succéeded Diocletian and that Constantine succéeded his father Constantius And if he will not beléeue vs yet let him see what Baronius saith in his second and third Tome of Annales who putteth thrée yeares betwéene Dioclesian and Constantine and others betweene them two There also he saith that Constantine being of a different religion when he entred became a Christian by his pious mother Helena But the Legend of Siluester saith that Helena was a Iew in Religion and endeuoured to draw her sonne that way And Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles. hist. cap. 26. sheweth that from the beginning of his raigne he was a follower of his father in pious affection towards our Religion Se paternae pietatis erga nostrae Religionis disciplinam aeâ—eulum imitatorem ostendit saith he Further he mistaketh the historie of Maxentius affirming That he fained himselfe a Christian when he heard of Constantines coming toward Rome whereas Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles hist. cap. 26. saith he fained Christianitie in the first entrance of his raigne His words are In ipso imperij ingressu Speaking of S. Martin S. Nectarius
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
and false allegations NOw we enter into a large field But it shall be sufficient for vs if of many impudent lyes calumniations and false allegations of authors we reherse some part and giue you a tast of his false dealing in the whole For thereby you may coniecture how this child of the father of lies hath dealt in the rest In a certain addition following his Epistle he telleth how it was foretold that S. Martin Nectarius Ambrose and Augustine should be conuerted to Christian Religion long before it came to passe But if he vouch not his authors we may boldly auouch that he hath forged this lye on his owne head without truth or authority In the same place he affirmeth that he knoweth most certainely how the Papists desired his Maiesties aduancement before all others But he that readeth his booke of titles set out vnder the name of Dolman and considereth not only the practises of Brooke Watson and Clerke against the King and the State but also the matters obiected by the Secular priests against the Iebusites and their faction concerning this point and especially the attempt of the gunpowder papists and vnderminers of the Parliament house will say that neither Parsons nor the popish faction shewed themselues very zealous of the Kings aduancement And as for the King of Spaines pentioners it were great simplicitie to thinke that taking his money they promised or intended his Maiesties aduancement and honor There also he telleth tales of the readinesse and forwardnesse of Papists in aduancing his Maiesties present admission to the Crowne The vntruth whereof is not only testified by their owne consciences but also by secret conuenticles after the late Quéenes death and by open practises to the contrary True it is that when they saw their owne weakenesse then they came on forward but with great sorrow and heauinesse of hart appearing in their countenances and rather to saue themselues then to helpe the King He addeth somewhat of his Maiesties Mother and the loyaltie of Papists towards her But his glauering leasing may be refuted first by the history of Sammier a Iebusite that was the principal motiue to bring her into trouble Next by the practises of the Pope Frenchmen and Spaniards that vsed her name as a pretence for their owne ambition And lastly by the practises of the Spanish pentioners and namely of Parsons for other titles In his Preface he saith that Master Foxe in his booke of Acts and Monuments treateth of the principall pillars of his religion whereof he maketh some Martyrs and some Confessors and distributeth them in a certaine Ecclesiasticall Calendar according to the dayes of euery moneth wherein their festiuals are to be kept But in these few lines he telleth many vntruths For first Master Foxe neuer accounted these Martyrs the principall pillars of his religion founding himselfe and his religion principally vpon the Prophets and Apostles Secondly not Master Foxe but their death and sufferings for Christes faith made these holy men and women Martyrs and Confessors Thirdly not M. Foxe but the Corrector of the print distributed them in the Calendar according to his pleasure Fourthly this Calendar was not made for the Church of England which abhorreth the abuses of popish Calendars but for a direction to those that shall desire to know the order and times of their martyrdome and sufferings that are named in the story Lastly M. Foxe neuer presumed to appoint festiuall dayes for the memorials of these holy men nor had he presumed so farre could he haue done it But in this point both he and we condemne the arrogancy presumption of the Pope that challengeth this power to himselfe In his argument before his first booke he giueth out that the church of Rome frō the times of S. Peter vntill our dayes hath alwayes mainteined and taught one faith without change or alteration of any one substantiall article or point of beliefe And this is the maine post whereon turneth his windmil-like discourse Who then doth not sée y t his whole discourse is founded vpō vntruth That this is a notorious vntruth it appeareth by the great alterations of Religion made partly by the Schoolemen and partly by the Popes Decretals and not least by the decrees of the conuenticles of Rome Lateran Constance Florence and Trent wherein I hope Parsons will not deny but that substantiall points of Religion haue béen discussed Pag. 9. he maketh the Centuriasts Centur. 2. 3. 4. to say that Christian doctrine fell away in the time of the Doctors But his report is false and slanderous For they speake only of a decay or declination in some points of doctrine and in some Doctors and not of any falling away or corruption in all the Doctors or in all points of their doctrine Pag. 23. he saith that some hold that Ioseph of Arimathaea was sent into Britaine by S. Peter A matter of no moment yet falsely affirmed by him y t careth not what vntruth he speake Pag. 40. speaking of Ieffrey of Mommouth he affirmeth that lib. 11. ca. 12. there is not one word of not acknowledging the Popes supremacy And his reason is for that Austin was not sent to the Britains but to the Saxons and for that they had their Archbishops iurisdiction reserued But his assertion conteineth a manifest vntruth For Austin Gregories Legat required subiection of them which they could not deny without impugning Gregories authoritie He caused them also most cruelly to be murthered which he would not haue done vnlesse he had thought his authority to be vniustly resisted His reason is most ridiculous and not only false For neither is there any mention made of any reseruation of iurisdiction in Austins story nor do y e Popes Legates spare to vsurp all iurisdiction where they can do it Furthermore it is a vaine thing to talke of Gregories reseruation of Archiepiscopall iurisdiction in Britaine when before his time no Bishop of Rome was euer heard to appoint either Bishop or Archbishop in Britaine Pag. 57. he saith the Lutherans reiect Hester S. Iames his epistle and the Apocalyps from the canon of Scriptures But their bookes and acts declare the contrary They only make a difference betwixt some Chapters of Hester S. Iames his Epistle and y e Apocalyps and other canonicall Scriptures which neuer haue been doubted of or called in question Pag. 58. he saith that Luther lib. de Concil did perswade the German Princes to obserue Easter day as an immoueable feast But either he wilfully forgetteth or slothfully dreameth For in his booke of Councels he saith only that it had bin better to haue left the law of Moyses concerning Pase dead and buried Quanto fecissent consultiùs saith he pag. 26. si legem Moysis de Paschali festo reliquissent ibi iacêre mortuam sepultam so farre was he from making it an immoueable feast Pag. 64. he telleth how Vlfrides festiuall is kept by the vniuersall Church vpon the 12. day of October But
Church faileth or so erreth that none holdeth the truth nor doth Master Foxe either so teach or contradict former authenticall writers Pag. 308. he telleth vs how the Centuriasts Centur. 3. ca. 4. reprehend Cyprian sharply for speaking of offring sacrifice But he abuséth his reader and mistaketh the whole matter For they do not mislike him for speaking of offring sacrifice but for attributing too much to the priest In the same place thinking that he hath found out a lease of priests Lo heere saith Parsons three massing priests and yet is there not one word in that place of the Masse True it is that Cyprian speaketh of a sacrifice but his sacrifice was not the massing popish sacrifice but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Pag. 310. he saith that Constantine built 4. goodly Churches within the city of Rome caried earth to their first foundation and adorned them with Images Thrée lyes no where found but in the fabulous legends calculated by Friers and Masse-priests vnder the shadow of a glasse of wine Nay the legends themselues are not so false as Parsons his discourse of Three Conuersions For they place S. Pauls Church without Rome whereas he by his cunning masonry hath placed it in Rome Pag. 316. he chargeth vs with Symbolizing with the Manicheyes But if to agrée with heretikes is to symbolize with them then doth Parsons symbolize with heretikes We do anathematize both the Manicheyes and all other heretikes Pag. 318. and 319. he telleth diuers lyes of the Centuriasts making them to condemne diuers Fathers for inuocation of Angels whereas it doth not appeare that either those Fathers which are there mentioned prayed to Angels or that the Centuriasts do simply condemne them for writing as they did Pag. 354. he saith Charles the great was made Emperour of the West by Leo the third which is a ridiculous and vain-glorious lye For next to God his owne sword and the consent of the people of Rome and Italy made him Emperour of that countrey the rest of his Empire he had by his owne right As for Leo the third he had nothing to giue but only by certaine ceremonyes was appointed to declare the Emperours titles and the peoples voluntary submission Pag. 373. he giueth out that the sixth generall Councell was called by Pope Agatho But vnlesse he bring proofe it will appeare that he is nothing scrupulous in giuing out lyes Pag. 378. he saith the Councell of Laterane vnder Innocent the third was holden an 1115. But he miscounteth a hundred yeares as his own Chroniclers may informe him He saith also that all Councels were holden by order of the Bishop of Rome and confirmed by him and none held for lawfull without his confirmation But these are matters méerely forged For first not the Bishops of Rome but the Emperours called the first generall Councels Secondly albeit the Bishop of Rome should haue withstood them yet should their acts haue passed neither néeded these Councels any confirmation from the Bishop of Rome Thirdly diuers things passed in the sixt Councell of Aphrike in the Councell of Chalcedon and the sixt Synode maugre the Bishop of Rome albeit yet a Bishop and not the head of Antichrists kingdome as the Pope prooued afterward To conclude lyes are as rife with Parsons as lice were in Aegypt when they came vpon man and beast as we reade Exod. 8. CHAP. XIX Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause HE is a simple Fencer that hurteth himselfe with his owne weapons and in the common opinion of men they are accounted vnwise that bring forth furniture into the field that doth better serue the enemy then themselues Yet this is the wisdome of Parsons throughout his discourse The point of his allegations doth commonly serue to pierce himselfe and no better allegations néede we then those which he bringeth to ouerthrow that cause which he defendeth In his Epistle Dedicatory he alledgeth these words out of the Psalme 118. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam non est illis scandalum But what could be leuelled more directly against the cause of Papists For first they regard not holy Scriptures nor the law of God Next their whole confidence is in the Pope and in his dispensations and indulgences Thirdly they séeke not for peace but with warres and seditions trouble the Christian world No maruell therefore if the whole world be scandalized by the Popes Cardinals Monks Friers and their superstitions idolatries barbarous cruelties perfidious dealing wickednes In his Preface he citeth S. Augustine de morib Eccles. Cath. c. 17. and Chrysostome homil 14. inc 24. Matth. but both make against him Crassas omnino mentes corporeorum simulachrorum pestifero pastu morbidas ad diuina iudicanda defertis saith that holy Father and so we may likewise say to the Papists You bring with you grosse minds and distempred with the pestilent norriture of materiall images to iudge of diuine matters And this is the reason why they worship Saints and other creatures and make grosse similitudes of the Trinity and diuine persons Chrysostome speaketh of Christian Religion and not of the Popes monarchy or of the idolatrous popish Masse or of Purgatory or Indulgences or such popish trash Out of the 〈◊〉 of Saint Matthew he citeth Christs words foretelling that false Prophets should arise and say lo here is Christ or there is Christ. But this text doth directly prooue the Masse-priests to be false Prophets and seducers For one saith lo here is Christ pointing to this Altar or that Crucifixe another pointing to another Pixe or Crucifixe saith lo there is Christ. Chrysostome is alledged homil 43. operis imperfect in Matth. as speaking against men negligent in trying out the truth of doctrine Yet will not popish prelates permit Christians to heare Scriptures publikely read in vulgar tongues nor do they giue liberty to Christians to iudge of the false doctrine of Masse-priests and Friers Finally they do not like that Christians should be too busy in trying out the truth in disputing of matters of Religion He telleth vs further that many of our country this day perswade themselues that either matters of religion perteine not greatly vnto them or that they go well as they are But if this be a fault then are the Papists herein most faulty For in Italy and Spayne they are forbidden to talke of matters of Religion as things perteining to Priests and Friers and doubt not but that the Pope and his Cardinals together with inferior Prelates haue ordred all this businesse excellently well And this is the error of all the Popes puppy followers Ambrose is there alledged to shew that God will be beleeued on his word What indignity were it saith he lib. 1. de Abraham ca. 3. if beleeuing the testimonies of men concerning others we shall not beleeue the oracles of God concerning himselfe Do not then Papists offer a great indignity to God that will not beléeue Scriptures to