authority of the Pope of Transubstantiation and popish worship of Images is not only not to be prooued but also to be disproued by holy scriptures The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels and authority of Fathers as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments We only will alledge some few First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed receiued and not to be offered vp for quick and dead Next to holy Scriptures and Fathers that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall Finally if Christes body be not really present nor the bread wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick dead But that is proued by the words of the institution bread and wine being named after consecration by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words hoc est corpus meum figuratiuely by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne and by diuers other arguments For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority there is no one word in scripture nay scriptures shew that all the Apostles were called and authorized alike and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl praelat Furthermore the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory as I haue shewed condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian neither can it be shewed that y e Pope either made lawes or ordeined bishops or iudged all causes throughout the whole church vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body and supposeth it neither to be visible nor palpable repugneth to the words of institution and common cōsent of Fathers that declare bread wine to remain after consecration taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches The worship of images is contrary to the law of God Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels to y e doctrine of Fathers and abolisheth all true religion God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes to the intent to worship it or to bow downe to it The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls The 2. Councel of Nice though it allow some worship done to images yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images Epiphanius tore downe a vaile that had an image of Christ or some Saint painted on it Gregory as before I haue shewed vtterly condemned the worship of Images Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin c. 19. saith plainely There is no religion where there is an image Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe the one as he calleth it negatiue and the other affirmatiue and by them he vanteth that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly For what can be supposed more absurd then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue by a negatiue or contraxiwise and yet such is Parsons his wisdome that he offereth vs this abuse Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe where he talketh of negatiue proofes For albeit he standeth vpon his denial and resolueth to put vs to proue yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe His meaning is that we are not able to shew that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time after or that they came into the church afterward And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy the Romish masse Transubstantiation and the worship of Images the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church and that long after Eleutherius his time The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added we may sée in Walafridus Strabo Platina Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited vntill the late conuenticle of Trent nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority nor beléeueth transubstantiation or receiueth the Popes masse or popish purgatory or his doctrine of Images Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent and the Emperour protested against y e Synod Little therefore doth Augustine help but to confound Parsons his cause albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church But sayth Parsons Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran as these words Consubstantiall Trinity and the like in the first Councell of Nice yet the substance of the article viz. concerning transubstantiation was held from the beginning And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose lib. 4. 5. 9. de Sacramentis and out of these words Non valebit sermo Christi vt species mutet elementorum And againe Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erat But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures
Dominicke and other begging societies were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes or that Friers were to be called religious men or members of the Church 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin to Saints and the founders of Monkish orders as now they do in the Romish Church 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries liue asunder Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth that man is not to separate that which God hath ioyned together rather then the Pope 24. The Papists beléeue that the vowes of Chastity Pouerty and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen then works commanded by Gods law But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope with two swords and a guard of Switzers of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes of shauen Masse-priests Monks and Friars and of a multitude of ignorant people that subiect theÌ„selues to the Pope and cry Miserere nobis But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares Let Parsons therefore take heed least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests Non radent caput neque barbam sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras We reade also that this shauing and whipping or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal and from the Gentiles We are not therefore to thinke that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses rontrary to Gods word In the Church of England such shauing and lashing and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more was not commonly receiued nor practised 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading and what visible Church it was that allowed it 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time nor had he the patrimony of Peter as it is called till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy Doth it not then appeare that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine and partly of lawes But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1â—00 and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time Doth it not then follow necessarily that the Church of Rome that now is hath risen vp out of the earth and that but of late time 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis S. Dominike or other Saints They are therefore of a late stampe that beléeue this 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares The true Church euer abhorred them 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine 34. The Missals breuiaries and offices that now are receiued by the Popish Church were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent The Church of England vsed other formes in former times 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpoÌ„ Saints in publike Letanies Neither did this or any other church in old time say Masses offices in honor of Angels Saints and the blessed virgin Mary 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs and to make holy water to driue away diuels was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more In England Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego BereÌ„garius dist 2. de Consec was the first that taught his Romish adherents that Christs flesh was handled with hands and torne with téeth 38. The first that taught that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly was Alexander Hales Part. 4. sum q. 53. memb 2. and qu. 45. memb 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum q. 80. art 3. doth second him And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests their folowers do hold the same opinion contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued that Christians were eaters of mans flesh and Canibals But the moderne Romish Church holdeth that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne 41. The same man did first ordeine that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church confessing her sinnes in the priests eare 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice before the time of the conuenticle of Trent Who then would not maruell that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance From thence therefore
meanes yet most of them were conuerted by others Laurentius baptized the sonne of Ethelbert that was a pagan The king of Northumbers marying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert by her perswasion was christened by Paulinus Erpwald the king of the Castangles receiued the faith by the perswasion of king Edwine Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptized in Scotland Many Northerne Saxons were also conuerted to religion by the meanes of king Oswald and Finan a Scot. Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua conuerted the West-Saxons Sigbert was baptized in France and raigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion Peda king of Middleangles was baptized also by Finan a Scot. Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris conuerted to Christ the Southsaxons And all this is testified by Henry of Huntington With him also agrée for the most part Beda William of Malmesburie and diuers other Chroniclers It is therefore euident that Austin performed either litle or nothing those conuersions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death Fourthly it is most apparent that neither the French nor Britains of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons were conuerted by Austin Not the French for that Austin was not sent vnto them and for that they had receiued Christianitie long before Not the Britains for that Austin was sent to Saxons and not to Britains Secondly the Britains were Christians long before Austins coming into England neither did Christianitie after their first conuersion euer faile amongst them as is euident by the testimonie of Bede Capgraue and others Not long before the arriuall of Augustine many Britains about the time of Caster being newly baptized went out with the rest vnder the conduct of Germanus to fight against the Picts and Saxons and obtained a great victorie as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Councell assembled by Austin and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared diuers Bishops of the British nation Thirdly the Britains as Beda writeth refused to subiect themselues to Austins iurisdiction and to accept his orders Finally it appeareth that Austin did rather worke the subuersion then the conuersion of the Britains animating the Saxons to destroy them Fiftly Austin shewed extreame cowardire in coming towards England and hardly was perswaded to set forward as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speake one word of English nor to preach vnlesse it were by his interpreter Lastly he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles at the commandement of Gregorie But first such feare or cowardice beséemeth no Apostolike man Secondly faith cometh by hearing and vnderstanding and not by commission or outward signes It séemeth therefore that Austins Interpreters did rather conuert the Saxons then Austin himselfe Finally what power had either the bishop of Arles or Gregorie to appoint Archbishops in England And how cometh it to passe that now more Archbishops are here then one if his order had any force That these exceptions are true Beda will witnesse Percussi timore inerti saith he lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potiùs quà m barbaram feram incredulamque gentem cuius ne linguam quidem nossent adire cogitabant Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant And againe cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interpretes And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem ciuitatis iuxta quod iussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est Whatsoeuer then was done by Austin the same concerned none but a few Saxons of Kent and such as were baptized by him Neither did he deserue more then is due to euery minister of Gods word and Sacraments that by preaching and baptizing gaineth soules vnto Christ Iesus The Normans and Northern and West Saxons are nothing beholding to him The Britains haue cause to detest his memorie and to thinke hardly of him for his pride and barbarous crueltie If therefore Rob. Parsons meane to gaine any thing by the labours of Gregorie or Austin he must proue first that these two did preach to the auncient Saxons Britains French and other inhabitants of England Next that the present Pope is like vnto Gregorie the malignant race of Masse-priests and Iebusites to Austin Thirdly that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations are to subiect themselues to the Churches and Bishops that sent them And finally if he will haue vs to kéepe vnitie with the moderne Church of Rome he must proue that the same is neither departed from Christ nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregorie If not he doth but cast feathers against the wind and both tire himselfe with writing and vexe his reader with examining his fooleries and idle imaginations CHAP. IIII. That the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by Peter Eleutherius Gregorie and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them BUt what would it aduantage Rob. Parsons if he could proue that either the auncient Britains were conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and Eleutherius or the ancient Saxons by Gregorie and Austin séeing the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which is now reiected was either oppugned by them or at the least neuer knowne vnto them Now the Romanists prohibite holy Scriptures to be read publikely in vulgar tongues as dark and vnprofitable and condemne those that reade them translated into vulgar tongues without licence But the Apostle S. Peter 1. Epist. 2. exhorteth all Christians though newly regenerate to desire the sincere milke of the word And 2. Epist. 1. sheweth That they do well that take heede to the words of the Prophets as to a light shining in a darke place Neither néed we doubt but that all Peters true successors maintaine the same doctrine Gregorie in Ezechiel homil 10. doth commend Scriptures as meate and drinke and lib. 2. Moral as a glasse It is not likely therefore that he would prohibite Christians to eate and drinke and to behold themselues in a glasse that thereby they may learne to informe themselues in matters of faith and to reforme their manners 2. Now they teach that the holy Scriptures to vs are not authenticall nor canonicall vnlesse the Pope deliuer them and consigne them And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith that the Scriptures do depend vpon the Church and of Stapleton in his booke written in defence of the authoritie of the Church But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith that the word of the Prophets is most sure vnto vs. We haue saith he a most sure word of the Prophets And Gregorie in his preface vnto his Commentaries vpon Iob saith that in vaine we search
like the moderne Masse or that he worshipped the crosse or the image or planted them in the Church Bede mentioneth no such matter where he mentioneth them If by Masse he meane a dimission of the people and by the vse of images vnderstandeth an historicall vse of them he reléeueth his cause nothing For neither do we contend about words nor deny all historicall vse of images To help the matter a little he sayth that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in procession with a crosse and image of our Sauiour in a banner But Beda conuinceth him oflying who sayth he brought Christes image in a table Veniebant sayth he crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam imaginem Domini Saluatoris in tabula depictam For proofe that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth vs Pa. 8. 9. to the Magdeburgians Cent. 2. cap. 4. de doctr But his proofe is weake and witlesse For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius or Clement Secondly albeit we should graunt that Eleutherius consented with all those that liued in that age in their erroneous or incommodious spéeches which notwithstanding we haue no reason to beléeue yet can it not thereby be prooued that he consented with Clement the 8. or Clement with him For albeit we reade in Ignatius this phrase Offerre and Sacrificium immolare and like phrases in Irenaeus Cyprian Tercullian and Martialis who mentioneth also Altars yet it foloweth not that the Romish sacrifice of Christs body and bloud for quick and dead or the moderne Canon of y e Masse or Transubstantiation and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were knowne to these ancient Fathers For all those termes which the Fathers vsed being taken and meant spiritually and being vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices make nothing either against vs or for our aduersaries Masses or massing formes Thirdly although the Magdeburgians in these times complaine of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men which Parsons grossely interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine yet they taxe but few men and say not that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yéeld let them yeeld for themselues we do not in all points take ourselues bound to allow their sayings nor finde any such inconuenience in these termes as the Fathers vnderstood them as the Magdeburgians pretend Finally Rob. Parsons must speake of more then one point of consent or else he will shew himselfe vnwise to parallele Clement the 8. with his triple Crowne to the humble martyr of Christ Eleutherius This testimony therefore out of the Magdeburgians maketh little for his purpose But therein he doth properly bewray his owne folly For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen Dom. where he neuer wrote any such booke and did not vnderstand the Magdeburgians who vse these words Tertullianus de coena loquens in lib. de culiu foeminar Lastly the words inclinatio Doctrinae he translateth the falling away of Christian doctrine as if euery thing that did decline did fall away or else as if doctrine might be sayd properly to fall away and not rather men to decline from the sinceritie of doctrine Afterward Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth vs how Cyprian epist. 45. glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa and all other the Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of christian faith from Rome as from their mother and that he calleth the Roman Church matricem ceterarum omnium And that Tertullian saith that the authority of his church came from Rome And lastly that Augustine in Psal. contr partē Donati had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholike then to say that they were daughters childrē of the church of Rome But first this maketh nothing for his purpose which should proue that y e doctrine of the moderne church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome Secondly most grossely doth he either mistake or belye these Fathers for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say that his church of Carthage and all churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution fió Rome Nor doth he once mention Rome but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margent where it is plaine he speaketh of the generall Catholike Church Further he doth not say that Mauritania Numidia were vnder Carthage for they are prouinces entire of themselues and diuided from Carthage as Caesar Baronius might haue informed him All which also is made cleare by y e words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem agnoscerent tenerent saith he Sed quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra prouincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritaniam cohaerentes Tertullians words are these Vnde nobis quoque authoritas praestò est statuta That is from whence we haue testimony at hand and not as this beetlehead interpreteth from whence the authority of our Church came S. Augustine in Psalmo contr part Donati neither saith that Hippo and other Churches were the daughters of Rome nor mentioneth Hippo. It appeareth therefore that Rob. Parsons had ouerwatched himselfe when he wrote these fooleries Pag. 101. he goeth about to refell our argument concluding that there was not in Rome the same faith in the dayes of Eleutherius that is now because then there was no mention or knowledge either of the vniuersall authority of the bishop of Rome or of the name or vse of Masses or of sacrifice propitiatory for quick or dead or of Transubstantiation or worship of Images But first he marreth our argument by adding and detracting To the bishop of Rome he adioyneth the Church leaueth out our exception against the doctrine of the Masse and worship of Images and putteth downe only the name and vse of masses and vse of images in churches But to forbeare to censure him for his iugling let vs sée what exception he maketh to our argument If saith he this consequence should be admitted then would it follow that the name and doctrine of the blessed Trinity the two distinct natures and one person in Christ his two distinct wils the virginity of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Sonne as from the Father should not be admitted But the fellow sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also most blasphemous to compare such false wicked impious doctrines as Papists now maintaine to the principall and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity and Christs two natures and the proceeding of the holy Ghost For who kneweth not that these articles are plainly proued out of Scriptures and declared in Councels receiued by most ancient Fathers but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse for quick dead of the Monarchy and vniuersall
with the article of transubstantiation that is so repugnaÌ„t to Scriptures faith authority and common sence Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist in the times of darkenes Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the article of the Trinity Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impudently where he saith the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning For I haue shewed before that the Master of Sentences knew it not And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose make nothing for Parsons For he will not deny but that species or formes remaine where as Ambrose saith they are changed Againe Ambrose will not haue any other change in the elements then is wrought in our regeneration or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. and de Sacrament lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such that the things still remaine Vt sint quae erant in aliud commuteÌ„tur The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread Tu sayth he quia accipis panem diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignoraÌ„ce or negligence that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sacramentis where he wrote but sixe if those sixe bookes at all were his and alledgeth these two places as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis that are not there to be found but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose where he sayth he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another for he doth neither talke of the change of natures of elements nor substances To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy of the worship of images and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene alwayes beléeued in the Church he alledgeth neither authority nor reason but only saith that although we appoint certaine times when these things began yet we dare not stand to any certaine time nor can alledge the certaine authors of them But as in his owne proofes so in reporting our assertions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie For we do not say as he reporteth that the Pope challenged this supremacy which now in some countries he possesseth vnder Pope Gregory and Phocas the Emperour but that they began to encroch by litle and litle and that Boniface the 3. obteined of Phocas that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his successors The authors of the Masse and of the worship of Images both entring by degrées we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories and stand to our allegation so firmely that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied we graunt therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this exception or his negatiue proofe as he ridiculously calleth it His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better First he citeth the names of Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy fréewill merit of works the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing or else to speake against the producents cause Only he could not as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres ca. 3. beginning Maximae antiquissimae ecclesiae c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence which sheweth that y e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded then that of the church of Rome and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only not as head but for auoiding tediousnes Quoniam valde longum est saith he in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam in this sort for that vnto this church in respect of her more mighty principality it is necessary that all churches must agree haue accesse Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes dignity and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly y t because Christians did respect y e church of Rome much while it kept the faith sincere now also all churches are to respect it being departed froÌ„ the faith tyraÌ„nizing ouer all others For why should we rather respect that church then the church of Ephesus Smyrna whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected then that of Rome Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words saying lo here the principality of that church coÌ„firmed For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome or vnderstood by principality Next he vrgeth the coÌ„fession of y e MagdeburgiaÌ„s against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome True it is that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y e title of Incommodious opinions and stubble of some Doctors they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter and saying that the Church is built vpon him Likewise they taâ—â— Cyprian for some spéeches But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude that either Cyprian or Tertullian or Irenaeus or Ignatius doth hold maintaine the bishop of Romes authority which now he challengeth Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian No way certes he can be thought to vnderstand him that nameth Salonius for Sidonius and supposeth Maximus Vrbanus and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers and to haue affirmed that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church wheras these three returning from the side of schismatikes that in euery church had erected a bishop of their
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
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
endeuoreth to proue by S. Peters words Act. 15. that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles But S. Paul Galat. 2. sheweth that the Gospel ouer the circumcision was committed to Peter and the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision to himselfe Act. 15. he saith nothing but that God appointed that the Gētiles should by his mouth heare the word of the Gospel But that may be true in case any number of the Gentiles should heare him preach the Gospell The words of Peter certes do not exclude others Pag. 441. rehersing y e words of Daniel c. 2. he applieth them to y e Church of Rome as if y e church were that kingdome that shal neuer be dissipated and shall cōsume weare out all other kingdoms but by y e sequel of y e text it appeareth that they are to be vnderstood of the vniuersall Church and kingdome of Christ and not of any one particular congregation much lesse of the synagogue of Rome that is now begun to be dissipated by the true preachers of Gods word on one side and is greatly straited by the Turke on the other side He doth also fraudulently leaue out these words in his quotation Et regnum eius alteri populo non dabit least he should thereby declare that euery particular city and people is excluded from the claime of the right of the vniuersall kingdome of Christ. And with this faith he citeth other Scriptures CHAP. XIIII A Catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other Authors committed by Rob. Parsons IN ciuill causes to deale vntruly it is but falsity But in matters of faith to vse false dealing doth beside falsity imply impiety He therefore that was not afraide to force Scriptures will not spare to forge and falsifie the Fathers and other Authors as may appeare by the practise of Rob. Parsons To proue that S. Augustine said That Christians ought to trauaile by sea and land countries and kingdomes to seeke out the truth and certeinty of Catholike Religion he citeth in his Preface first Possidonius in vita Augustini and next Augustine himselfe lib. 4. 5. Confess But in the first place there is not one word for his purpose In the second there is not that which he surmiseth Nay it is not like that S. Augustine would write as he affirmeth seeing to find true Catholike religion and the certeinty thereof we néede neither to passe the Sea nor to trauaile to Hierusalem or Rome but are rather to search the bookes of holy Scripture which teach the same sufficiently He saith that S. Augustine lib. de morib Eccles. c. 17. and Chrysostome in a certaine Homily reprehend greatly the sluggishnes of diuers men in their dayes that seeing sects and heresies to arise and diuersities of religion in almost euery country did not bestirre themselues to try out the truth But he abuseth both these holy Fathers whereof the first hath no such words or reprehension The second talketh not of the diuersities of religions but only exhorteth Christians to embrace the Christian faith earnestly The which doth concerne Popery nothing which hath béen sowne in Gods field long after the first planting of the Christian faith Augustine tractat 73. in Ioan. hath these words Haec est laus fidei si quod creditur non videtur To these words Parsons addeth the word merit and translateth thē thus The praise or merit of faith stands in this that the thing be not seene which is beleeued He should haue said thus Herein consisteth the prayse of faith if that be beleeued that is not seene And this ouerthroweth the doctrine of the Papists that teach that the Catholike Church which we beléeue in our Créede is visible He maketh Ambrose to say thus lib. 1. de Abraham ca. 3. If a graue honorable person in this life especially if he be of high authority and our superior will take it in disdaine to be asked a proofe for that he affirmeth how much more ought God to be credited when he proposeth vnto vs a matter aboue our reach or capacitie But therein he sheweth himselfe neither graue nor honorable to impute his owne sayings to so graue a Father S. Ambrose sayth only How vnworthy a matter were it to beleeue the testimonies of men concerning others and not to beleeue Gods oracles concerning himselfe Quam indignum vt humanis testimonijs de alio credamus dei oraculis de se non credamus This also toucheth the Papists very néere who will not beléeue holy Scriptures which are Gods oracles without the testimony of the Pope Pag. 3. he saith That Eleutherius conuerted King Lucius and his subiects by the preaching of Damianus and his fellowes and for proofe alledgeth Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 17. 18. But Bede in these two Chapters doth not so much as once mention any such matter And ca. 4. where he speaketh of Eleutherius and Lucius he doth not once name Damianus or his fellowes or speake of the conuersion of Lucius his subiects Furthermore it is absurd to say that Eleutherius did conuert the Britains by Damianus For if Damianus preathed vnto them then did he conuert them and not Eleutherius Pag. 7. alledging Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 34. he maketh him say that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in Procession with a crosse and the image of our Sauiour in a banner But first he misseth the chapter alledging the 34. for the 26. Next he speaketh more then his author doth warrant him for he neither speaketh of procession which was a later deuice nor of the image of our Sauiour in a banner Crucem pro vexillo ferentes argēteam saith he imaginem Domini saluatoris in tabula depictam that is carying a siluer crosse for an ensigne and an image of our Lord Sauiour painted on a table So it appeareth they neither louged a crucifixe with them nor prayed to the crosse nor worshipped Christes image Pag. 9. citing Cyprians testimony lib. 2. epist. 3. for proof of his massing sacrifice he cutteth out these words out of the midst of the sentence qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur Which argueth that the popish Balamite priests offer no right sacrifice digressing from Christes institution Pag. 11. out of Eusebius he saith That Peter sate Bishop of Rome for 25. yeares together And out of Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglor c. 3. that there began to be such war in Britany that Claudius resolued to go thither with the admiration of the whole world But neither doth Eusebius in his story nor any other good author say y t Peter sate Bishop of Rome 25. yeres together neither doth Bede in y e place mētioned speak of wars in Britany or of the admiratiō of the world in regard of his iourney Pag. 12. rehersing the words of Malmesburiensis in fastis an Christi 86. he addeth these words and brought into a perfect forme of prouince which is both a notorious
forgery falsity Pag. 19. he alledgeth a coūterfet Decretal vnder the name of Innocentius where he affirmeth most falsely that all the Churches of Afrike and diuers other countries there named were cōuerted by S. Peter or his successors To this counterfet epistle Parsons also addeth these words or his schollers therein declaring himselfe to be a master in forgery Pag. 25. he alledgeth out of Cyprian Epist. 45. That he glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa and all the other Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of Christian faith from Rome as from their mother But the words of Cyprian are gloriously corrupted by him And that may in part appeare by Pamelius his edition of Cyprian but more clearely by older copies Neither can Parsons himselfe make these words good out of any other place of Cyprian Pag. 26. where Tertullian li. de Praeser aduers. Haeret. vseth the testimonie of diuers Churches as well as of that of Rome he onely mentioneth Rome and concealeth the authoritie of other Churches There also he saith that S. Augustine in Psal. contr part Donati had no better way to defend his Church of Hippo and other of those countries to be truly Catholike then to say they were daughters and children of the Church of Rome But it séemeth he dreamed when he wrote these things if not then he lyed of mere malice For in that place neither these words nor any such matter is to be found Pag. 28. he saith That Irenaeus Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Augustine and others are wont to vrge this consequent against Heretikes to wit that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome then ought it to runne to her in all doubts difficulties of matters of faith Thus doth he write this he affirmeth with one breath belying diuers Fathers And that shall himselfe perceiue if he list to alledge their words We may easily imagine the same to be true for that y e consequent is so absurd For if all Churches were to haue recourse to their mother Church for decision of controuersies concerning the faith then were the Church of Rome and all others to deriue their decisions concerning matters of faith from Ierusalem But this Parsons himselfe will not grant Pag. 30. he telleth a tale of one Beatus a Briton who being conuerted to the faith as he saith was sent by Ioseph to Rome to S. Peter the head of the Apostles to be better instructed and confirmed And this he deliuereth to his reader as testified by B. Rhenanus lib. 3. rerum Germa sub Hello and Pantaleon de viris German part 3. But he doth grossely abuse his reader in telling grosse vntruths vpon the credit of these witnesses who onely mention this Beatus but report no such matter of him Further Rhenanus doth no otherwise accompt of this report then as of a Monkish fable and thereupon saith That he findeth small helpe from the Chronicles of Monkes to furnish his storie Pag. 33. he telleth vs that few of the Britains obserued Easter after the manner of the Easterne Church and fathereth this fable vpon Bede in diuers places But Bede himselfe lib. 2. hist. Anglor cap. 2. refuteth his foolish tale shewing that Austin obiected this obseruance to al the Bishops of Britaine and how they refused to leaue the same Pag. 42. he vrgeth an Epistle set out vnder Innocents name and saith That the British Churches are put among the rest But neither are they there once mentioned nor is this Decretall Epistle to be estéemed being plainely counterfeit Pag. 43. he citeth Orosius hist. lib. 2. and saith that he calleth Innocentius an holy Father But there is neither holinesse nor honestie in fathering lies vpon holy Fathers Pag. 45. and in diuers places he citeth Eusebius his Chronicles yet he is simple that perceiueth not that those Chronicles were neuer written by Eusebius and shall be much intricated if he confesse all therein written to be true and perfect There it is said That S. Peter sate 25. yeares at Antioch which Parsons will not confesse In the margent against the yeare 146. it is said Hîc omissa est linea de Pio. Parsons for the 146. yeare after Christ alledgeth the 144. yeare Pag. 46. for proofe that the kéeping of Easter contrarie to the Romane vse was condemned as an heresie and so held in all ages after he quoteth Bede hist. Angl. lib. 3. cap. 19. and Eusebius lib. 3. de vita Constant. cap. 17. 18. But in the place alledged out of Bede there is not so much as any colour of this matter By Eusebius in the place quoted and Bede lib. 3. cap. 25. we may gather that an order was appointed for vniforme obseruation of Easter But neither of them affirmeth them to be heretikes that did not obserue that order Nor is it to be reputed heresie not to obserue all Canons that concerne such ceremonies Nay it cannot be proued that Vlfride saith That this error might be tolerable in them that liued so distant from the sea Apostolike in a corner of the world albeit this glozing parasite of the sea Apostatike of Rome do affirme it pag. 48. Pag. 49. he belyeth Marianus Scotus Prosper Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor cap. 19. and other authors making them to say That Celestine sent Patritius and Palladius to conuert the Irish and Scots For neither do the authors mentioned speake of more then one of these two nor can he make his assertion good by the testimonie of other authors Pag. 50. he saith that Pelagius crept into many learned and godly mens loue and friendship and aboue others with Paulinus and S. Augustine And for proofe he quoteth S. Augustines Epistle 105. and lib. 2. de Bon. Perseueran cap. 20. But in neither place is there any such matter to be found In the second place it is said that Pelagius talked with a fellow Bishop of S. Augustines but it is also said that he disliked his talke Ferre non potuit Pag. 52. he falsifieth Eusebius lib. 3. de vit Constant. ca. 18. making Constantine there to say That the greater part of the East held the Romane vse viz. for the time of Easter His words are onely these Nonnullae quae in locis ad Orientem spectantibus habitant Pag. 53. out of Nicephorus hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 36. he affirmeth That the calculation of the Romane vse was hard But he forgeth a deposition which his witnesse will neuer agnize Pag. 112. he maketh Ambrose to say That the substance of one bodie is changed into another But that holy Father hath no such words as this falsarie hath reported out of his writings Pag. 117. boldly he affirmeth that in the writings of Athanasius Hilarie Optatus Basil Nazianzen Ambrose Hierome Chrysostome Epiphanius Cyrill and other more auncient Fathers there is euery where mention made of the doctrine which Papists maintaine concerning the Pope the Masse Transubstantiation and Images