or a matter feined it is not like being recorded in so many histories and authenticall writers That Martinus Polonus did first report this matter no man hath reason to beléeue séeing the same so plainely set downe in Radulphus Flauiacensis Marianus Scorus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis Baronius sayth that Marianus Scotus was the first brother of it Neither was Martinus Polonus so simple a fellow as is pretended being the Popes penitentiary and a writer in that kind equall to the best of his ranke That y e fauourers of the Emperour should brute this matter abrode to defame the Pope is a méere fiction For it cannot be shewed that any Emperour in the contention betwixt the Emperours and the Popes did euer cast out any such matter against the Pope Rob. Parsons his arguments brought forth to proue this history to be a fable are like his owne head that is brutish and blockish For first it is no good argument to conclude from the authority of two or thrée of the Popes parasites negatiuely viz. that they omit a matter tending to the Popes defame ergo no such matter was done Secondly he alledgeth a counterfet author called Audomarus He may do well to shew who he was being neither mentioned by Baronius nor Bellarmine where they talke of this matter Thirdly it is ridiculous to inquire of our country writers of matters done at Rome or to thinke that they would speake any thing tending to the disgrace of the Pope whose sworne slaues they were Beside that the author of Fasciculus temporum sheweth that this woman-pope was not forgotten but of purpose omitted by the writers of histories because of the slander that might thereof redound to the sea of Rome Fourthly no man can tell whether Alphred knew any such matter or not Nay it is not very certaine that either he or his father were in Rome about the time of Pope Ioans deliuery But had they bene at Rome about this time yet might they well know Pope Iohn to be English although not a woman Fiftly if in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis this history be not found it is plaine that the agents of the Romish Church men infamous for falsitie haue razed the same out And that may appeare first by the testimonie of Fasciculus temporum who sheweth the cause of the blotting out of Pope Ioans name next by ancient manuscript copies and last by the testimonie of Baronius who maketh Marianus Scotus the first deuiser of this matter So hard is it for lyars and forgers to consent together Sixthly it may be a question whether the letters of Leo the 9. to Michael be counterfet or not But were they written by him as is reported yet raylers oftentimes obiect the same crimes one to another Finally there is no such discordance in the circumstances of the history but that there are farre greater in matters which the Romanists beleeue to be most true Letters and names and places and times may be easily mistaken and yet the matter reported may prooue most true Likewise it is no strange thing for one person to be called of two places both Anglicus and Maguntinus That Athens then was a place famous for studie it may be gathered out of Gréeke histories no one writer certes holdeth the contrary The Popes therefore of this time if they please may be successors of Pope Ioane whom we haue manifestly demonstrated to haue béene Pope but the successors of Peter and Eleutherius and other godly ancient Bishops of Rome they cannot iustly terme themselues CHAP. IX That the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meanes of triall of the truth BEllarmine lib. de not Eccles. ca. 8. would gladly haue the succession of the Romish Bishops to be a marke of the Church And Rob. Parsons doth estéeme the same a matter of great importance for triall of true religion and prooueth it in the best sort he can Part. 2. Ch. 1. How much they are abused these reasons may declare First the succession of Popes is of no greater force or vertue then the succession of the priests of the law For from them they borrow diuers titles and prerogatiues But the high priests of the Iewes did oftentimes withstand the Prophets of God and Vria the high priest in the time of Achaz as we reade 4. Kings 16. erected a strange altar in the Temple Finally they condemned Christ and his Apostles and all their doctrine Secondly the Apostles in their time could not trie their religion by the succession of Bishops nor was succession then a marke of the Church For neither did the Apostles succéed the high priests or sacrificers of the Iewes nor as yet had the Apostle Peter any successor But the marks and properties of the Church are always the same Neither can we looke for better triall and proofe of religion then that which the Apostles had Thirdly the Church of Rome when Paule wrote his famous epistle vnto it had no succession of Bishops Yet was it then the true Church Neither néede we to make question but that the same had all conuenient meanes for the triall of truth 4. The succession of Bishops in the Church of Antioch Hierusalem and Alexandria neither was a certaine marke of the Church nor a meanes to try the truth And this I thinke our aduersaries will not deny But if they should it may easily be prooued for that Ecclesiasticall histories teach vs that the Bishops of those seas haue fallen into diuers grosse heresies and are now condemned for heretikes by the sea of Rome 5. The Churches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople to this day shew the Catalogues of their Bishops Likewise Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonit Cap. 34. sheweth the successors of Simon Magus for diuers ages Likewise doth Epiphanius haeres 34. shew who for diuers yeares succéeded Valentinus Yet Parsons will not grant that either Valentinus or Simon Magus or their followers were true Catholikes neither will the Papists confesse that the Greeks of the Churches of Constantinople or the people of Antioch or Alexandria are the true Church or that by the succession of their Bishops truth may be tried 6. If by succession of Bishops either the Church or the truth might certeinly be discerned and tried then could not Bishops erre or teach peruersely But histories teach vs that diuers great Bishops haue grossely erred as Liberius and Honorius the first in Rome Macedonius and Nestorius in Constantinople And this the Apostle speaking to the Bishops assembled at Miletus Act. 20. doth clearely shew Of your owne selues saith he shall men arise speaking peruerse things to draw disciples after them Finally the aduersaries themselues sometimes confesse that succession is no certaine marke of the Church Lyra in his postill vpon the 16. of Matth. sayth that the chiefe Bishops haue bene found to haue departed from the faith But what triall is to be had by succession if Bishops may depart from the faith
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
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
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
Africans to the Easterne Church or the Frizelanders or Germains to the English Is it not then a mad conceit of Parsons to suppose because for many ages past it is reported that the ancient Britains and Saxons were conuerted by preachers sent from Rome that the Church of England should be subiect to the Pope or Church of Rome Fiftly the Church of Rome as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. adners haeres cap. 3. was founded by Peter and Paule Neither néede we make any question but that they came from Hierusalem Diuers stories also say that Peter for some time sate Bishop of Antioch Eusebius saith He was 25. yeares Bishop at Antioch If then the Church of Rome do yéeld no subiection either for matters of faith or gouernment to the Church of Hierusalem or Antioch from whence the Papists cannot deny but that the first founders of the Church of Rome did come Parsons is but a simple fellow to vrge this matter of Conuersion so much séeing the Romanists themselues and their holy Fathers the Popes of Rome regard it not one strain Finally if our owne Bishops to whom we owe subiection in the Lord should teach any other Gospell then that which was preached by the Apostles of our Sauiour Christ we are not to follow them Nay we are to pronounce them Anathema Though we saith the Apostle Gal. 1. or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached vnto you let him be accursed But the Pope aud his adherents preach vnto vs otherwise and publish doctrines in their Decretals and acts of the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent not onely diuers from the Apostles preaching but also contrarie vnto it as partly we haue shewed and also shall be readie to auerre to Parsons his face though neuer so much steeled with impudencie Had they then any right to teach or gouern vs as they haue not yet by the Apostles rule we are to pronounce them Anathema And as for Parsons we are to suppose him a weake fellow that hath spent the quintessence of his silly learning and vnderstanding to proue that which profiteth him nothing If we owe any thing to the Romaines it is to those if any such were that tooke paines to teach vs the faith of Christ. As for the moderne Romanists that seeke to turne vs from true religion nay that séeke to blow vs vp we owe them nothing Furthermore as well may it be concluded that the Pope and his adherents the Iebusites are to be subiect to the great Turke that now ruleth at Hierusalem or to his Mufti or chiefe Bishop there because from thence came the preachers that first founded the Church of Rome as that we are to be subiect to the Church of Rome or the Pope because the auncient Britains and Saxons were first conuerted by preachers that came from Rome For the Turkes Mufti is as good a Bishop as the Pope and the Popes religion is not much lesse corrupted in many points then that of the Turke Howsoeuer it is the Turkes call themselues Musulmans or True beléeuers as the Papists call themselues Catholikes Finally I cannot better compare Parsons that concludeth subiection and obedience of this pretended Conuersion to any then to him that would inferre that the Pope is Lord of the whole world because sometime Rome was mistris of the world or that the Romains haue obligation to the Turkes of Asia because they possesse the citie and country of Troy from whence it is said the auncient Romains are descended But saith Parsons pa. 28. Irenaeus Tertullian de Praescript Cyprian lib. 4. cap. 8. Augustine and others are wont to vrge greatly against Heretikes that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome then ought it to runne to her in all doubts and difficulties of faith But first no one of these Fathers speaketh one word in the places quoted of our Church Secondly they do not affirme this of any other Church Why then doth he not bring foorth his testimonies that hath bene so often taken halting in false alledging the Fathers Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres saith that euery Church ought to haue respect to the Church of Rome then for her eminent principality And others regarded her when she florished in pietie But what is this to the moderne Church of Rome that is departed from the faith pietie and vertue of the auncient Church of Rome Againe if other Churches in old time had no great respect to Rome professing the faith no Church is now bound to hearken to her being departed from the faith Finally albeit in ancient time other Churches did consult in matters of difficultie with the Church of Rome yet this prooueth not that in matters of faith or ceremontes they were to adhere to her or that they ought to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their Monarch Doth it not then appeare that Parsons his worke is as fraile as a Spiderwebbe and as full of foolerie as frailtie vndertaking to proue matters which he could not performe and which being proued do rather make against him then for him CHAP. VII That the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation GLadly would Parsons haue concluded if he durst that the English being first conuerted to the faith by the Romains are now to be subiect to the Pope both in matters of doctrine and Ecclesiasticall gouernment But well he vnderstood that the consequent was leud and foolish He doth now therefore say onely That England and English men haue particular obligation to the sea of Rome leauing it to euery mans priuate supposall what that obligation is But we do no more yeeld to this then to the former conclusion For whereas the inhabitants of England are descended either of the auncient Britains or Saxons or Danes or Normans and Frenchmen first the auncient Britains and their ofspring do owe nothing either to Austin or Gregorie For when as the Bishops of the Britains came to conferre with Austin most proudly he sate in his chaire and would not receiue them with any signe of humanitie or reuerence Factum est saith Bede lib. 2. histor Anglor cap. 2. vt venientibus illis sederet Augustinus in sella He confesseth also that the Britaine Bishops noted his pride And it appeareth manifestly in this that ambitiously he sought to be the Archbishop of England and to rule ouer the Britains Againe when the Bishops of Britaine refused him as their Archbishop and would not submit themselues to his commandements he animated the Saxons and stirred them to warre against the Britains Austin being refused of the Bishops saith Thomas Grey in his Chronicle and others the learned of the Britains made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert king of Kent that foorthwith he leauied his power and marched against them and flue them in most cruell wife hauing no more mercie on them then a Wolfe vpon a sheepe
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
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
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
concerning Christs office and humane nature concerning the Church and Sacraments concerning the ministery and policy of the Church nay cōcerning the Law and the Gospell is altogether different from that faith which the first Christians of this Iland professed 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
ciuill and artificiall building situate in one place and belonging to one family or sort of people Secondly seuerall points of doctrine are rudely compared to seuerall parcels ofland which are corporeall and may be translated from one to another whereas points of Christian doctrine are matters spiritual and cannot be held truly professed but by the members of the true Church In like sort the Arians by their grosse similitudes depraued such matters as were well spoken as sayth Athanasius orat 4. contr Arian Incorporalia sayth he corporaliter excipientes quae probè dicta erant deprauarunt Thirdly neither shall he euer prooue that the right of the Church belongeth to the Pope and his adherents nor shall he exclude vs from the precincts of the true Church howsoeuer in his Luciferian pride he do here despise and scorne vs. His marks of Antiquitie and Succession are neither the proper notes of the Church nor were they so to be taken can he if by succession he meane discent of true doctrine either take them from vs or giue them to the Popes adherents who rather belong to the synagogue of Sathan then to the Church of God In the latter end of his Praeface he taketh vpon him the person of a Doctor and layeth downe foure points of consideration about matters of faith The first is that our articles of faith are aboue mans reason The second that they haue sufficient arguments of credibility The third is that it behooueth vs to haue a pious affection The fourth is that some articles of our faith may be demonstrated and knowne by force of humane reason But first he sheweth himselfe a vaine and arrogant companion that in matters where he is party taketh on him to be a Doctor not distinguishing betwixt a barre a Doctors chaire Secondly all thèse schoole-points are matters far distant from the argument of Three Conuersions which he vndertaketh to handle For I hope he will not affirme that his Three Conuersions be matters of faith Thirdly his first and last point contradict one another For if all the articles of our faith are aboue mans reason as he sayth handling the first point then are not some articles of faith demonstrable by force of reason which is also the doctrine of the Apostle who sheweth vs that the naturall man vnderstandeth not the things of the spirit of God Fourthly by pious affection he absurdly vnderstandeth a good opinion of the Pope and his slaues the Iebusites and Masse-priests But how can Christians haue a good opinion of them whom holy Scriptures declare to be false teachers and vpholders of the kingdome of Antichrist and experience declareth to be professed enemies of piety and godlinesse Fiftly he concludeth very absurdly because some matters of faith are demonstrable by reason that he hath so discussed matters in his treatise of Three Conuersions as that all matters thereby may be cleared For neither doth his treatise properly concerne matter of faith nor hath he done such glorious acts as he braggeth of Finally these points do little relieue Parsons For if we are to talke of matters of religion with great reuerēce and submission then are the writings of the Schoolemen scādalous that dispute pro and contra in all matters of religion Parsons also dealeth very lewdly who attributeth more to Philosophical demōstrations then to arguments inducing vs to beleeue matters of religion Next if there be matters sufficient in religion to induce vs to beleeue then are not the articles of Popery to be beleeued we hauing more inducements to reiect them then to beleeue them Thirdly if matters are to be scanned before they be receiued as Parsons inferreth then most blind are the Papists that beleeuing the Pope and his adherents to be the Church drinke vp all the abhominations which the whore of Babylon doth present vnto them without all examination whether they be consonant to holy Scriptures the faith of the ancient Fathers or not Fourthly if matters are to be examined with serenitie of mind why are Papists forbidden to reade our bookes to heare our reasons nay without licence to reade the Scriptures Why do they condemne them whose cause they refuse to heare or know Lastly this his treatise of Three Conuersions is not such a braue peece of worke as he imagineth nor shall he gaine any one iote ofhis cause thereby For first it is either false that the ancient Britains were conuerted by S. Peter and Eleutherius or else very doubtfull Likewise it is a matter questionable whether Austin the Monke or some other did first conuert the Saxons to the Christian faith Secondly admit the ancient Britans had bin conuerted by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke yet this maketh nothing for Pope Clement the 8. or Paule the fift that is no more like to Peter nor Eleutherius then a Cheshire cheese to the bright Sunne Peter was a holy Apostle and fed Christes sheepe Eleutherius was a godly Bishop and preached the Gospell which Clement and Paule the fift doth not Againe Clement and Paule the fift challenge two swords and haue a temporall Kingdome which those two neuer had nor challenged This Clement and Pope Paule mainteine many hereticall doctrines established in the Popes Decretals and late Popish conuenticles which neither S. Peter nor Eleutherius nor Austin euer heard of Finally neither are the Romans subiect to the Bishops of Hierusalem although the Gospell first came to them from thence nor owe we ought to Rome albeit those that first conuerted the Britains and Saxons had come from thence To those that first taught vs we are obliged to render thanks But Parsons like a foolish logician would thereof inferre that we are now to yeeld obedience to the Pope because Peter preached first in Britaine He might as well inferre that the Romans are to be subiect to the Turke that sitteth at Hierusalem for that the Gospell came first to them from thence Thirdly those exceptions which he taketh to vs and our Religion are most vaine and friuolous as the discourse ensuing shall declare Wherefore as we haue already ripped vp his rude and ragged epistle aduertisement and preface so now Godwilling I purpose to discouer the vnsufficiencie and foolery of the rest of his frapling discourse I do not thinke thou shalt finde a booke of that bulke so void of all proofe or good matter vnlesse it be some that proceedeth from the same author Reade therefore I beseech thee both our writings with indifferency and iudge according to equity and so shalt thou hereafter be made more wary in esteeming such huge volumes fraught with nothing but idle tales grosse lyes loose collections and to say all in one word Iebusiticall and Popish vanity and foolery and learne to discerne shadowes from substance and errors from truth The Subuersion of Rob. Parsons his Babylonicall Tower entitled A Treatise of three Conuersions CHAP. I. Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or
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
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
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
Bellarmine de not is Eccles. ca. 8. sayth that we cannot conclude necessarily that the Church is there where is succession of Bishops Non colligitur necessariò sayth he ibi esse Ecclesiam vbi est successio But were they resolued to stand vpon this succession yet would the same draw with it the ruine of the Popes cause For neuer shall they be able to shew a number of Bishops professing or holding the doctrine of the Popes Decretals and of the late conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent vntill of late yeares But saith Parsons Part. 2. Ch. 1. Augustine was held in the Church by the succession of Bishops And Tertullian de Praescript aduers. haeretic doth challenge heretikes to this combat of succession And Irenaeus proueth by the succession of Roman Bishops the true succession and continuation of one and the selfe same Catholike faith Likewise hée alledgeth Hierome who in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith We are to abide in that Church which being founded by the Apostles doth indure to this day And Augustine lib de Vtil credend ca. 17. that sheweth how we are not to doubt to rest in the lap of that Church which notwithstanding the barkings of heretikes about it by successions of Bishops from the Apostles seate hath obteined the height of authority Finally he telleth vs Pag. 283. how 70. Archbishops of Canterbury were all of one religion But first we must vnderstand that the ancient Fathers talking of succession neuer speake of the externall place and bare succession of Bishops without respect to the truth of doctrine Irenaeus lib. 4. Ch. 43. would haue those Bishops harkned vnto which succeede the Apostles which with the succession of their Bishoprick haue receiued the certaine gift of truth according to the will of the Father Tertullian lib. de Praescript aduers. haeret sheweth that the persons are to be approued by their faith and not faith by the persons Non habent haereditatem Petri saith Ambrose lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. 6. quifidem Petrinon habent That is they haue not right to succeed Peter or Peters inheritance that hold not the faith of Peter Nazianzen de laudib Athanasij saith that they are partakers of the same chaire or succession that hold the same doctrine as they that hold contrary doctrine are to be counted aduersaries in succession Qui eandem fidei doctrinā profitetur saith he eiusdē quoque throni particeps est Qui autem contrariam doctrinam amplectitur aduersarius quoque in throno censeri debet Whatsoeuer then y e Fathers speake of succession it concerneth as well succession in doctrine as in place externall title of office Unlesse then this Iebusite can shew that y e moderne Popes are true Bishops and hold y e same faith which Peter the first Bishops of Rome did the testimonies of the Fathers which he alledgeth wil make against him Secondly y e Fathers do alledge y e succession of other churches as wel as Rome Irenaeus li. 3. aduers. haeres c. 3. appealeth as wel to the Churches of Asia namely to that of Ephesus Smyrna as to Rome albeit for auoiding prolixity he citeth only y e names of the Roman Bishops Testimonium his perhibent saith he quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui vsque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo Likewise in the end of the Chapter he citeth the testimony of the Church of Ephesus Tertullian de Praescript aduers haeret maketh all Churches founded by the Apostles equall and citeth as well the testimony of the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus as Rome But the succession of these Churches is no certaine marke of the Church or triall of the truth S. Augustine contr epist. fundament c. 4. reckneth diuers things ioyntly with the succession of Bishops which reteined him in the Church and among the rest sincerissimam sapientiam the sincere wisdome of Christian doctrine But Parsons must proue that the succession of Bishops only is a sufficient argument of truth Likewise Augustine in his booke de Vtilit credendi ca. 17. talketh not of the Romish Church but of the Catholike Church whose authority notwithstanding he placeth after the primary foundations of Scriptures Likewise Hierome speaketh of the Catholike Church not of the particular Church of Rome Finally neuer shal it be proued nor is it likely the later Bishops of Canterbury before the reuerend Father most glorious Martyr Bishop Cranmer receiuing y e new Decretals of the Pope the decrées of y e conuenticles of Lateran Constance and Florence but that their faith differd much frō the first Bishops of Canterbury which liued before the times of these conuenticles that authorized these new corruptions If then Rob. Parsons haue no better argumēt in his booke then this of the externall succession of the Popes of Rome it is likely he meaneth fraud and for the true Church commendeth vnto vs the synagogue of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon rather shunning then seeking any lawfull and certaine triall of truth CHAP. X. That the Church of England is the true Church of God and holdeth the Apostolike and Catholike faith AS Esau hated Iacob because of his fathers blessings as we reade Gen. 27. so Rob. Parsons the more it hath pleased God our heauēly Father to blesse y e Church of England the more hatred doth he shew against his countrymen and brethren In the first part of his treatise of Three Conuersions he endeuoureth to make thē slaues to the Pope In the second he raileth at them as vagrant persons and strangers frō Gods Church and people without succession of teachers from the Apostles and deuoid as he saith of all demonstrations and euidences to proue themselues to be Christes Church But if those be Gods true Church which heare his word with attention and beléeue it and receiue the Sacraments according to Christs institution and séeke to worship God with true deuotion and to liue after their Christian profession then is the Church of England Gods true Church For although Bellarmine and others do spend much time in taking exceptions against our doctrine practise in Gods worship and manners yet can none of them either proue any error in the doctrine which we teach or the administration of Sacraments which we practise or in the rules concerning Gods worship or common manners which we follow Secondly those Christians which professe and beléeue all the Apostolike faith and condemne all those errors and false doctrines which the Apostles condemned and endeuour vnfeinedly to liue according to their profession are the true Church For that is a property of Christes shéep to heare his voice not to follow strangers as we reade Iohn 10. The Apostle also sheweth Ephes. 2. that the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone But the Church of England beléeueth and professeth all the Apostles faith and condemneth whatsoeuer is contrary to the same
in the externall conspicuous succession of Bishops and Councels but rather in those which following the Apostolike Church and faith kept themselues from common corruptions of others But not they did dissent but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport For all of vs do affirme that the vniuersall Catholike Church is inuisible because it containeth all the members of Christs Church of all times and all ages Likewise all of vs beléeue that particular Churches are alwaies visible albeit not so that euery one is able to discerne which is the true Church which not For that is a matter of reason and discourse and not of sense and that being true all heretikes and infidels would discerne which is the true Church and cease to persecute it Likewise we say that the true Church is not alwaies in peace and prosperitie Nay oftentimes the same is persecuted and driuen to hide it selfe as it did in the Apostles time and during the times of the first persecutions vntill the raigne of Constantine and as the Scriptures do foretell it should do in the persecution vnder the raigne of Antichrist Ridiculously therfore doth he alledge Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church For they neither speake of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth all Christians nor of the glorie of the Church in all times He doth also proclaime either his owneignorance not setting downe what we hold nor knowing how we distïnguish or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to stander it and to cauill with his aduersaries Finally he doth leudly and contumeliously speake of Christs Church hiding it selfe in time of persecution tearming it A companie of few obscure and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadowes and darknesse and knowne to few or none Pag. 294. he cauilleth at M. Foxes words where he saith that commonly none see it but such onely as be members and partakers thereof For his meaning is that none can see it to be the true Church but such as are members thereof Although all those that persecute it do see the men that belong to the Church His similitude also of the truth and true Church agréeth well For albeit men be visible yet this point Which is the true Church is not a matter of sense but of the vnderstanding and the Church as it is Christs body is mysticall albeit it consist of visible men Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth vs How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdome and how Cyprian inueigheth against the Martyrs of the Nouatians and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists But to what purpose God knoweth vnlesse he would either put vs in mind of the false traiterous Massepriests and Iebusites that being put to death in England for felonie and treason as in the end the secular Priests themselues confesse are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this vngodly comparison that suffered death for the testimonie of truth in Q. Maries bloudie raigne Which if he do then he is as farre guiltie of their bloud as the wolues that shed it and is rather to expect the vengeance of God then any answer from man In the same Chapter he endeuoureth to shew some differences bewixt the Martyrs of the primitiue Church and vs as for example that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lambe vpon the altar That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice and Laurence his Deacon to dispence the Lords bloud and that as Prudentius saith The holy bloud did fume in siluer cuppes That Cyprian said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi sacrificium Deo Patri offerre But first the difference if any be is in termes and not in matters of faith Secondly we do not disallow these termes simply if they be rightly vnderstood as the auncient Fathers meant them Thirdly the words of S. Andrew are drawne out of the Legend Bernard in Serm. de S. Andrea is quoted for them yet in neither of his Sermons hath he them Fourthly the words of Prudentius must néedes be vnderstood figuratiuely vnlesse they will haue their sacrifice to be bloudie Lastly these words do make more for vs then for the Papists For that sacrifice which Andrew and Cyprian do speake of for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrewes Legend doth signifie onely the representation of Christs sacrifice in bread and wine Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice vnderstandeth bread and wine and not Christs body and bloud really present Panem calicem mixtum vino saith he obtulit And againe Sed per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis vini sed altaris Apostolorum facit mentionem Furthermore the same shew that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cuppe to the people which Papists now admit not Lastly Sixtus suffering for the confession of Christ is liker to Bishop Ridley then to the triple-crowned Pope Clement who suffereth not but rather persecuteth such Bishops as professe Christ. The reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offered for quicke and dead out of these words cannot be proued Afterward he telleth vs p. 310. how Constantine built foure Churches in Rome dedicating them to our Sauiour to Saint Iohn Baptist S. Peter S. Paule and S. Laurence adorning them with Images c. And hauing told his tale he runneth out into a discourse of the glorie of that Church and in great pride asketh vs where our poore obscure and troden downe Church as he calleth it was at this time and for 300. yeares before But vpon such small victories he sheweth himselfe a vaine fellow to make such triumphes This tale of foure Churches dedicated to Saints and adorned with Images is borrowed out of the Legend and is repugnant to the Fathers doctrine Lactantius saith There is no religion where there is an Image or simulachrum Saint Augustine saith that temples are not erected to Saints but that their memories are there honored The same Father lib. de vera Relig. cap. 55. speaketh both against Images and religious worship of Saints Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus And againe Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum As for the spreading and splendor of Christs Church in Constantines time the same argueth that the Church is gouerned and beautified by godly Princes such as Constantine was rather then by godlesse Popes such as Clement was To his question I answer that the Church in Constantines time was that Church with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate and from which the Romanists are departed subiecting themselues not to such godly Princes as Constantine was but to the Pope and to his vngodly Decretaline and prophane schoole doctrine which is diuers from the faith of those times as God willing we
But it is a bald course to say euery where when neither himselfe nor Bellarmine a farre better disputer then he is able any where to find the Pope to be supreme iudge of controuersies and Christs Uicar generall and that he cannot erre or that Christs body and bloud is offered in the Masse by the Priest for quicke and dead and in honor of Saints or that the substance of bread and wine is turned into Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist or that any Images are to be worshipped with Latria and such like popish doctrines Blushed he not then to bely so many Fathers in so many matters and all with one breath Pag. 128. rehearsing certaine words of the Magdeburgians concerning factions and opinions he addeth these words Among them that professe the Gospell which they haue not He taketh also the word Communicationem from their sentence concerning the presence of Christs body Pag. 129. in the allegation out of Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres cap. 3. he choppeth off the beginning of his sentence which declareth that the tradition of other Churches was as well to be respected as that of Rome He maketh him also to say That all Churches must agree to the Church of Rome which he neuer thought Lastly by tradition he giueth his reader to vnderstand that Irenaeus speaketh of traditions not contained in Scriptures where expresiy he mentioneth the Articles of the faith most plainly contained in holy Scriptures Pag. 177. to shew that there was conformitie of Religion throughout Christendome except onely in some places of the world where were certaine reliques of Pelagians and Eutychians and other Heretikes for the first he alledgeth Gregory lib. 5. Epist. 14. and for the second Greg. lib. 10 in lob cap. 29. Whereas in the first place he onely mentioneth Pelagian booke and in the second doth not so much as speak one word of the Eutychians and in neither hath any word concerning the vniformitie of Religion throughout Christendome Pag. 188. to proue the word Masse he alledgeth Augustines Serm. 237. and 251. de Tempore Concil Mileuit cap. 12. Epiphanius haeres 5. Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. and vit Constant. lib. 3. cap. 17. and Concil Carthag 4. cap. 84. But first Eusebius and Epiphanius are grossely belyed For how could they writing in Gréeke speake of the Latine Masse Secondly the two Sermons ascribed to S. Augustine as the rest also De Tempore are counterfeit And yet nothing is therein concerning the Popish Masse Thirdly the Councel of Mileuis speaking of Missae or dimissions of the people by certaine blesings and the fourth Councell of Carthage by the word Missa vnderstanding the dimission of the Catechumeni maketh nothing for the Popish Masse These authors therefore are fondly and falsely alledged Pag. 201. he telleth how Patritius was sent to the Scots after Palladius and for euidence bringeth foorth Prosper contr Collator and Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 13. but neither of them hath one word of Patritius Pag. 228. he saith that Irenaeus accompteth the enumeration of the Bishops of Rome a full proofe against Heretikes But he abuseth this holy Father and belyeth him For of this full proofe he hath not one word Further he speaketh of Churches not only of the Church of Rome and with the succession of Bishops ioyneth the tradition of the faith kept in Churches Lastly by the tradition which he mentioneth he meaneth the faith contained in holy Scriptures Pag. 278. he alledgeth a place out of S. Augustine lib. cont Epist. fundam cap. 4. touching succession as if he made that a principall motiue to embrace the Christian faith and a proper marke of the Church whereas that holy Father reckoneth that among and after others and no way accompteth it a marke of the Church Pag. 282. S. Augustine lib. de Vtilit cred c. 7. is alledged for proofe of the succession of the Church of Rome but falsly For he speaketh of the successions of diuers Bishops in the whole Christian Church which ouerthroweth the pretended prerogatiue of the Romish Church Pag. 291. S. Augustine in Psal. 44. 47. lib. 2. contr liter Petil. and other Fathers are alledged to proue the Church to be so visible that euery one may sée it and know it But it seemeth our aduersarie cited them at all aduenture For in some of these places litle mention is made of the Church and in none of them is his intention proued Pag. 305. To proue these words found in the Legend to haue bene vttered by S. Andrew Ego omnipotenti Deo qui vnus verus est immolo quotidiè c. He quoteth Bernard Sermon de S. Andrea and Lanfranc lib. contr Berengar But that Sermon is counterfeit and in neither of the authors are these words to be found Pag. 383. Bedes testimonie lib. 3. hist. cap. 27. is alledged to proue the sending of Willibrord with eleuen companions towards the conuersion of Germany But the Chapter being read doth confute our aduersaries falshood Pag. 401. To proue that Athens had no schooles of learning in it when that woman that was afterward Pope called Iohn the eight is reported to haue studied there Zonaras and Cedrenus in vita Michael Theod. Anno Christi 856. are produced for witnesses but falsly and absurdly For no such matter is to be gathered out of them Pag. 472. He maketh S. Augustine lib. 1. quaest Euang. q. 38. and Tractat. 2. in Epist. Ioan. to say that it is as easie to see in all ages where the true visible Church goeth as to see the Sunne at noone time when it shineth clearest But this is a tricke of his false dealing For in the first place he saith onely That the Church is rightly called Lightning because it breaketh out of the clouds which sheweth that the Church is sometime darkened with cloudes and not séene And in the second he hath nothing but these words of the Psalme in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum Which do plainely demonstrate the Church being like to the Sunne that the same may be hidden or darkened as the Sunne is hidden in the night and in the day time obscured with clouds And such is the mans honest dealing with other Fathers CHAP. XV. Certaine examples of Robert Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question COmmonly we find by experience that the greatest braggers performe least If no man else yet Rob. Parsons doth verifie it by his example For albeit he boasteth much yet when it cometh to performance he beggeth matters in question rather then prooueth them In his Epistle dedicatoris he braggeth of vndoubted Charters Enrolments Euidences writings and witnesses which he saith he will bring foorth for proofe of the Romish religion and giueth out great words of his future doughtie déedes Yet when we come to the examination of his best proofes we find that his witnesses depose either nothing for him or much against him that his euidences are euident
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
this leasing is plainely confuted by the Calendars of the Easterne and African Churches that neuer knew any such Saint and Molanus signifieth that this Saints feast was only kept in England In Anglia saith he natalis Vlfridi But now the reformed Church hath blowne away these superstitious festiuals and condemneth the Popes claime in canonizing his disciples Rehersing the report of Lucius his conuersion out of Baronius pag. 77. he addeth lyeth and forgeth like a forging falsary That which he telleth of Lucius hating the Romans for their old religion and how he knew that the fountaine of religion was at Rome is both added and false That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conuersion and Marcus Aurelius his fauor and of Fugatius and Damianus who as he saith were Romans is false and not to be iustified by any good author That Wicleffe and Husse taught that Kings are no Kings longer then they rule well as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a méere calumniation Their bookes conteine contrary doctrine Pag. 103. he saith The article of the Trinity and Christes two natures were as little or perhaps lesse specified in the first two hundred yeares after Christ then the popish doctrine of the Popes authority of the Masse and of Images Matters not only false but blasphemous The doctrine of the Trinity and Christes two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse and Images being contrary to Scriptures Pag. 147. speaking of the Magdeburgians he saith They accuse openly and by name S. Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Prudentius Epiphanius and Ephrem for the error of praying to Saints But he that shall reade the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary The same is also to be proued by reason For what néeded they to accuse the Fathers when neither the writings mentioned are certainely theirs nor any matter is in those writings contained that cannot probably be defended and be wrested out of the hands of our aduersaries that by them would proue prayers to Saints Pag. 152. he beareth his reader in hand that we cannot say that the faith of Rome in the time of Gregory the first was any other then that which is now in Rome And for further proofe he referreth vs to Srapleton his translation of Bede and his Fortresse of faith But first the translation is wicked and corrupt and his fortresse of perfidye and heresie is ouerthrowne by D. Fulke of worthy memory Secondly that which he affirmeth that we cannot say that we both say and prooue and thereof haue giuen diuers particulars in our former answere Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weake fortresse are neither the most materiall points in controuersie betwixt vs nor any way proued by him substantially Pag. 153. he telleth how by all meanes we can deuise we discredit Gregory and Austin But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great vntruths for we do neither discredit them nor wrong them but only report as we find Nay we doubt not but in diuers great points of controuersie to ouerthrow our aduersaries by the testimonie of there two Pag. 192. he sayth that S. German prayed largely to S. Albane But Bede vpon whose credit this report is made saith not so as we may reads hist. Anglor lib. 1. c. 18. Pag. 205. he affirmeth that Dinothus was punished by the sword of Ethelfred after the death of S. Austin Yet Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor c. 3. sheweth after this execution done vpon the innocent Britans how Austin ordeined two Bishops which he could not well do being dead Pag. 227. he telleth how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to breake King Henry the 8. his last will and that he conspired to put downe and destroy all the Kings children and was put to death for heresie and treason Matters certes most grossely deuised and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretike and traytor For first King Henries will if any such were was not cancelled by him but by the popish prelates in Quéene Maryes time and of that the lay Papists brag in their petition to the King an 1064. Secondly not Archbishop Cranmer but the bloody Papists had determined not only to breake his will that they might conuey the Crowne to strangers but also to burne his body if they had not béen preuented by Quéene Maryes death Thirdly that graue Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Quéene Mary albeit many Papists did it and she to requite his kind dealing cruelly persecuted him to the death Lastly he dyed for defence of true Religion and not for heresie And albeit matters of treason were obiected to him yet neuer came he to his arraignement for them as no question Rob. Parsons should if he might be caught Pag. 239. he sayth Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristow but this is not only false but also improbable for the good old man was most méeke and peaceable Pag. 241. he writeth that the Abbots of Glastenbury Whalley and Reading and D. Forest and Powell gaue their bloud for defence of Catholike vnitie But the acts of their triall shew that diuers of them were executed for plaine rebellion and all for treason And if any Abbots or Iebusites should make the like stirres abrode against the Pope or the King of Spaine it would auaile them but little to pretend Catholike vnity Forest and his fellowes vnder pretence of this Catholike vnity sought to reuoke and call backe into England the Popes tyranny Pag. 243. he shameth not to say that the King gaue Bishop Gardiner speciall commission to procure a reconciliation with the Pope But his impudent lying may be refuted both by his commission and instructions yet extant wherein no such matter is signified but rather the contrary Parsons therefore may do well to shew by what commission he lyeth thus shamefully Pag. 283. he sayth that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion vntill Cranmers time But hardly shall he prooue that all of them had in them any religion at all And by no meanes can he deny but as the church of Rome changed her faith so her louers likewise changed The faith of the conuenticle of Trent none of them euer knew Pag. 287. he alledgeth these words as out of Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. § 3. We are forced to beleeue the Church to be inuisible and to be seene only by the eyes of God But he that hath any eyes at all may sée this fellowes impudent lying In that place he hath no such words but rather teacheth contrary Likewise doth he belye Luther affirming that he teacheth the Church to be inuisible Pag. 296. and 297. he saith that we doubt that the Church is fayled and that Master Foxe contradicteth former writers and that we hold that all is not true which the Church held But we make no doubt but that Parsons doth grossely lye and faine For neither do we say that the vniuersall
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