that they either held that religiō which Eleutherius taught or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth Finally he affirmeth that the religion taught by Austin was catholike and confirmed by miracles and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times But that which is the point in controuersie viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time is the same that was preached by Austin the Monke the wise disputer doth scarce mention and no way proueth Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents and by Austin we are to renounce all those heresies false doctrines and abuses which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church Secondly that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence nor transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead nor halfe Communions nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie nor his Indulgences nor the worship of Images nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused to haue bene preached by those that first planted Christian religion in this countrie CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood who will needes beare the Reader in hand that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome but also to that faith which now the Pope and his adherents do professe Now therfore it resteth that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope Two things it séemeth he aymeth at in this worke The first is to bring the King the Cleargie the Nobles and people of England vnder the Popes obedience and into the captiuitie of Babylon The second is to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon But to effect this purpose this labour is wholy vnsufficient For first no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion or rule ouer Gods people as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples The Princes of nations saith he beare rule ouer them and afterward but it shall not be so with you Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage Neque dominantes in Cleris saith he Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius applieth this to him and sheweth that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination and Lordlinesse Planum est saith he lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences Not saith he that we haue dominion ouer your faith but we are helpers of your ioy Finally our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi or Maister and sheweth that this is Pharisaicall Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop and reason sheweth that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master or teacher of the whole Church Secondly the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie Stand fast saith the Apostle Gal. 5. in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage And againe Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of mind and worshipping of Angels aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind Which words do directly belong to the Pope who pretending humilitie and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels and telling newes out of Purgatorie and strange things which he neuer saw affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope who ruleth in their consciences and marketh them for his slaues as we reade Apocalyps 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie He made all both small and great saith Iohn rich and poore free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand and in their foreheads But let such beware how they continue in this bondage and let others that are frée take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast and his image and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads or in their hands shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Thirdly experience teacheth vs that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem and from thence went foorth into all lands And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles Act. 1. saith They shall be witnesses to him both in Hierusalem and in all Iudaea and to the vttermost part of the earth Yet neuer did either the Bishops or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge where they say Peter preached and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations then the Church of Hierusalem where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached and from whence as we reade Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world and to teach all nations Fourthly we reade in histories that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine For so Capgraue writeth citing Freculphus for his author It is said also that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France and that Iames coming from Ierusalem preached first in Spaine S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers that came out of the East country Finally our histories do teach vs that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine and that the Frizelanders and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria nor the English to the French or the French to the bishops of Athens or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem or the
as appeareth by the discourse written of his life first stirred vp her subiects and when that serued not he animated both Spaniard and French against her and her people Gregorie the 13. by his Legate Sanders stirred the Irish to take armes against our nation The same man when force serued not animated the assassinor and murtherer Parry to lay violent hands vpon her person not omitting withal any course to hurt or trouble her subiects In the end by the procurement of Sixtus quintus the Spanish Armada supposed and ridiculously called inuincible came vpon vs with a full intention to depose the Quéene to destroy her true subiects and to marke the rest for slaues And can any man thinke well of the Pope so long as any memorie of this action remaineth It is no maruell then if the Pope set on that traiterous companion Allane to speake all the dishonor he could both against the Prince and her nation seeing he intended the totall destruction of the kingdome and her subiects But if we search all histories we shal neuer find a more bloudie and sauage enterprise then that which the Papists of late attempted resoluing to extinguish the Kings line to destroy the King his Nobles and the commons in Parliament assembled and vtterly to subuert the state Our nation then hath great obligation to the Popes of Rome and their adherents but it is to hate them and detest them and resist them as most bloudie and malitious enemies of our nation for many yeares But saith Parsons in his Ward-word Our nation hath bene twise conuerted by the labour and industrie of that sea And since he saith The same hath bene thrise conuerted from Paganisme to Christian Religion So absurdly doth he confound himselfe in his owne deuise But neither can he proue his Conuersions nor should we grant them could he win any thing at our hands but hatred and indignation against the late Popes of Rome which are so degenerated that they seeke to destroy both the bodies and soules of those whose auncestors auncient Bishops of Rome are said to haue gained to Christ. And this may serue to answer Parsons his patcherie talking of the obligation which England and English men owe to Rome Now because the same man euery where telleth vs of the succession of Romish Bishops and gladly would smoother the fame of Pope Ioane albeit the same be somewhat impertinent to the matter of Three Conuersions yet shall we examine the title of the Popes succession turning a litle out of the way to obserue our aduersaries exorbitant procéeding CHAP. VIII That the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane MUch doth Robert Parsons boast of the succession of Popes especially Part. 2. cap. 1. and giueth out that it is of great importance for triall of true Religion Bellarmine De not is Eccles. and diuers others his consorts estéeme it a principall marke of the Church But when the matter shall be throughly discussed he shall well perceiue that he hath no cause so much to boast of these conceits séeing neither the Popes are successors to Peter or the auncient Bishops of Rome nor the succession of Popes is any marke of the Church or proper triall of true religion The first is proued by these arguments First no man can claime right of succession but either by right of testament or proximitie of bloud or some law or laudable custome For that is the opinion of all Lawyers where they talke of successions But Clement the 8. and his predecessors for diuers ages can neither produce any Will made by S. Peter declaring the moderne Popes to be his successors nor any law or custome grounded on the old or new testament Neither can they shew that they are of his kindred or affinitie whereby they may seeme to haue right of succession The like also we may say of Eleutherius Secondly all successors either do succéed as heires in the whole right or as Legataries in some special bequest of land goods or right or else as executers of any office or charge But if Clement the 8. should claime to be Saint Peters heire or a Legatarie then must he shew some testament or will or lawe made in his fauour If he claime to succéed him in office then must he shew both records how he holdeth his office and also acts which may declare him to haue truly executed Saint Peters office Likewise if he claime to be Eleutherius his successor he must both shew a lawfull title and declare that he hath executed Eleutherius his function But neither can he exhibite any proofe for hïs title of Apostolicall or Episcopall function neither doth it appeare either that he worketh miracles or teacheth all nations as did Saint Peter or that he preacheth or baptizeth as did Eleutherius Wherein then haue Clement and his predecessors employed themselues Forsooth in stopping the preaching and procéeding of the Gospell and in murthering the Saints of God and maintaining the kingdome of Antichrist None of them certes can shew any title either from Peter or Eleutherius or other godly Bishop Thirdly the Popes claime to be Vniuersall Bishops and heads and spouses of the Vniuersall Church But that neuer came into the head of Peter or Eleutherius Nay Gregory lib. 4. epist. 82. speaking of Peter and other Apostles saith they are not heads but members of the Church vnder one head Sub vno capite sayth he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Likewise in the title of Decumenicall or Vniuersall Bishop he sheweth that the Pope doth rather follōw Lucifer then Peter or any godly Bishop Quis sayth he speaking of the title of vniuersall Bishop in hoc tam peruerso vocabulo nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere He sayth also that none of the Prelates of that sea would euer be called by so prophane a title The Apostle Paule sheweth that there is but one head and spouse of the Uniuersall Church that is Christ Iesus Fourthly our Sauiour Christ forbad S. Peter and his Apostles so to beare rule ouer Christians as temporall Kings did ouer nations Neither do we find that S. Peter or Eleutherius did transgresse Christes commandement If then the Pope doth rule not as Princes ouer nations but as King of Kings challengeth power to depose Kings then is he not S. Peters or Eleutherius his successor S. Bernard sayth the Pope cannot both beare this rule and succeed Peter in his Apostleship Plane ab alterutro prohiberis si vtrumque similiter habere voles perdes vtrumque And againe forma Apostolica haec est dominatio interdicitur indicitur ministratio Fiftly Peter exhorted Christians 1. epist. 2. to obedience to Kings and gouernours and Eleutherius no question did follow his exhortation Where either of these perswaded Christians to take armes against their superiors
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
be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope and Romish Church do tell them so These words Iohn 5. verse 44. How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another and seeke not the honor that commeth of God alone And that which is said by Parsons concerning pious affection required as a key to open the gate to true faith most fitly may be applied against Parsons and his consorts for they seeke for glory one of another and all for preferment from the Pope and Cardinals They séeke also the honor of Angels and Saints But neither do they seeke for Gods glory alone nor do they desire so much the prayse of God as of men Further how can they pretend pious affection and the keyes to open the gate to true faith when by fraud treachery violence and bloody massacres of Christians they séeke to mainteine not the faith but heresie not the truth of Christ but the false and erroneous doctrine of Antichrist Lastly Parsons where he maketh pious affection a key to open the gate to true faith sheweth himselfe either impious in placing piety before true faith or hereticall that with Pelagius supposeth a man may be pious before faith by force of fréewill Pag. 9. for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse he bringeth a testimony out of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres ca. 32. which quite ouerthroweth the popish sacrifice of the Masse For there he speaketh of the sacrifice of Christians and calleth it primitias creaturarum the first fruites of Gods creatures But the Papists in their Masse suppose that the Priest offereth not the first fruites of Gods creatures but the very body and blood of Christ. Pag. 14. he standeth much vpon the testimonies of Gildas Nicephorus Theodoret and Sophronius which name diuers that preached the Gospell in Britaine But all this tendeth to the ouerthrow of Parsons his discourse who in that place vndertaketh to proue that S. Peter and not other preachers did first conuert the Britans to the Christian faith Pag. 59. he sheweth how Wilfride conuerted the Southsaxons which is as far from his purpose as the North from the South For in all this dispute he vndertaketh to prooue that the Britans were first conuerted to the Christian faith by Romans and not by Frenchmen or Britans Pag. 67. out of Tertullian he goeth about to prooue that Blastus was condemned as an heretike for that priuily with his obseruance of Easter he sought to bring in ludaisine And Pag. 73. he affirmeth that Constantine did authorize and publish the decrées of y e Nicen Councell Both which points directly make against our aduersaries For while they rigorously stand vpon the obseruance of Easter and offer paschal lambs they do after a sort renew and call back into vse the ceremonies of the Iewes and while they ascribe to the Pope all authority to confirme and publish the acts of Councels they do abrogate the authority of Christian Princes in fauour of Antichrist Pag. 97. he alledgeth diuers texts and testimonies to proue that temporall Princes are Gods vicars and substitutes within their realmes But if that be so then the Pope is the diuels substitute and vicar of hell that oftentimes goeth about to remoue Gods substitutes from their gouernment and to kill them Pag. 106. S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism c. 24. is produced as a witnesse to proue that what the vniuersall Church doth hold and euer hath held and was not instituted by Councels hath come from the Apostles But this witnesse ouerthrowed the whole cause of popery if he may be credited For neither the doctrine of the Popes vniuersall monarchy in the visible Church and in Purgatory nor of the popish sacrifice in honor of Saints and Angels and for the benefit of quick and dead nor of the worship of images nor the rest of the vnwritten traditions of the Romish Church haue béen alwayes held by the vniuersall Church nor are at this day held by the same Further it is manifest that the worship of images was first established in the second Councell of Nice and the doctrine of transubstantiation and auricular confession in the Councell of Lateran vnder Innocent the third the carnall reall presence in a Councell at Rome vnder Nicholas the 2. and other popish heresies in the Councels of Constance Florence and Trent Are they not then ashamed to call their traditions Apostolicall Pag. 145. he alledgeth an Epistle of Ignatius ad Heronem where he saith Virgines custodi tanquam sacramenta Christi But this ouerthroweth the practise of the Romish Church which is nothing curious in kéeping of these Sacraments nor so watchfull in looking to them but that they are often gotten with child by the Masse-priests Monks and Friers Furthermore this sheweth that there are more Sacramēts then 7. which no Papist dare affirme vnlesse he will encurre the thundring curse of the connenticle of Trent Pag. 159. he reherseth an Epistle of Gregory condemning them that worship stocks or stones Do we then thinke that either Gregory or Austin did conuert the English to the worship of these things He doth also wickedly translate Gregories Epistle leauing out these words à Germaniarum Episcopis which conteine a contradiction to the words of Bede who saith that Austin was ordred by a French Bishop and not a German Bishop Pag. 229. he alledgeth these words of Augustine epist. 165. in illum ordinem Episcoporum c. that is If any traytor should haue crept into that order of Roman Bishops it should not haue preiudiced the Church of God or innocent Christians But he cutteth off the middest of the sentence and some words in the latter end least that holy Fathers opinion might appeare too cléerely And yet it appeareth thereby sufficiently that Roman Bishops may be false traytors and that the succession of the Popes is no marke of the Church seeing Augustine doth say the Church may stand notwithstanding their falshood and trecherie Pag. 280. he citeth the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres c. 4. commending Succession with the gift of truth What is then the bare succession of Popes or Turkes without truth Pag. 295. he confesseth That the truth of this question whether this or that be the true Church is a matter of vnderstanding Out of this grant therefore we conclude that we cannot discerne with our eyes which is the true Church nor know it by the succession of Popes or such like sensible markes Pag. 307. He produceth the example of S. Laurence dispensing the cup of Christs bloud from the altar Do not the Masse-priests therefore shame to drinke all alone and to refuse to dispense the cup from the Lords table Pag. 360. He alledgeth diuers orders concerning doctrine life and the ceremonies of the Church But all are repugnant to the ceremonies of the Romish Synagogue Pag. 372. He telleth vs how the Gospell was laid in the midst of Bishops sitting in Councell But this sheweth that matters there ought to be decided by the word of God
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
first conuert the Britains to the faith of Christ. So sayth Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph So sayth Sanders in his preface to his sclanderous booke of schisme Britannos sayth he ad fidem Christi primus conuertisse primamque Ecclesiam in illa natione crexisse perhibetur Iosephus ab Arimathaea Lastly Parsons himselfe in his late Ward-word knew no more but of the two conuersions as he calleth them of England the first vnder Eleutherius the second vnder Gregory the first Wherefore either now or then he vttred vntruth The arguments and testimonies produced by Parsons to prooue S. Peters preaching in Britaine are weake and friuolous First saith he of S. Peter himselfe to haue bene in England or Britany and preached founded Churches and ordeined Priests and Deacons therein is recorded out of Greeke antiquities by Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian But first it may be a question how he knoweth that Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian sayth so and that out of Gréeke antiquities seeing he poore idiot vnderstandeth no Gréeke nor hath read any Greeke antiquities he quoteth therefore Metaphrastes apud Surium 23. Iuny but Caesar Baronius in his Annales quoteth Metaphr 29. Iuny Secondly he wrōgeth both Metaphrastes Surius adding to their words Thirdly albeit he had reported their words truly yet neither are we to giue credit to Metaphrastes a lying pedant liuing in Constantinople some 700. yeares agone and writing more lyes then leaues nor to Surius a superstitious Monke and a professed enemy of the truth Finally neither doth Metaphrastes nor Surius name one Church founded or one Bishop ordeined by Peter nor is Parsons able to name them His second reason is deriued from the testimony of Innocentius in his epistle to Decentius in the chapt Quis nesciat dist 11. But first there is no mention in that epistle made of Britaine neither can the same be well vnderstood by the Ilands lying betwixt Italy France Spaine Africa and Sicilia but rather some Ilands of the Mediterranean sea Secondly this epistle is euidently counterfet and conteineth a most notorious vntruth For he saith that none did institute Churches or teach in Italy France Spaine Afrike Sicily and the Ilands betweene them but S. Peter and his successors which is clearely refuted by the preaching of Paule in Italy of Iames in Spayne of Philip and Dionysius in France and is conuinced not only by the testimony of histories and fathers but also by the infallible authority of scriptures which testifie of Paules preaching in Rome and other places of Italy that receiued no authority frō Peter The Glosse therfore to salue this sore and to help this lye by alius in that Chapter vnderstandeth contrarius As if Innocent had said that none did preach contrary to Peter in all those places And Parsons to adde some weight to his light argument addeth these words vnto Innocentius or his schollers falsifying the deposition of his owne witnesse Finally these words of Innocentius do not imply that Peter preached in Britaine but some of his successors The third testimonie brought for proofe of this first conuersion is taken out of one William Eisengrene his first Centurie But it is of no more weight then the testimonie of Isegrime the wolfe in the booke of Reinard the foxe the fellow being a weake author and a party in this cause Furthermore he plainely contradicteth Caesar Baronius For where he saith that Peter preached in Britaine in the raigne of Claudius Sir Isegrime writeth that he founded Christian Churches in England vnder Nero if Parsons say truly So lyars confound themselues like Cadmus his broode one contending against another and each cutting his fellowes throte Parsons his fourth testimonie is out of Gildas de excid Britanniae where he saith the priests of Britaine did vsurpe S. Peter the Apostles seate with impure fecte But this sheweth that al bishops teaching S. Peters doctrine do sit after a sort in S. Peters chaire rather then that S. Peter placed a speciall chaire and sate as Bishop in Britaine of which neither Gildas nor other authenticall author giueth the least signification Saint Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 30. teacheth vs that these words spoken to Peter Louest thou me feede my sheepe belong to all Bishops Cùm ei dicitur saith he ad omnes dicitur Amas me pasce oues meas Cyprian Hierome Optatus and other Fathers call all Bishops the Apostles successors albeit the Apostles did not there sit or teach where the Bishops haue their sea which are tearmed their successors Fiftly he alleadgeth the testimonie of Alred Rienual a Cistercian Monk recorded by Surius 5. lanuarij who about 500 yeares agone as he saith wrote that S. Peter appearing to a holy man shewed him how he preached himselfe in England But neither can Parsons name this holy man vpon whose credit this report dependeth nor is any credit to be giuen to Surius or to his legends or to such fained dreames and reuelations as he reporteth In the meane while the Papists if they be not wilfully blind may sée how Parsons gulleth them with lyes and fables out of Simeon Metaphrastes and Surius and discerne what a braue péece of worke his treatise of thrée Conuersions is that is founded vpon dreames reuelations and fables testified onely by authors of legends fat crammed Monkes and professed enemies of the truth Finally in the same Chapter he discourseth of the preaching of Paule Simon Zelotes Aristobolus and Ioseph of Arimathaea in Britaine He collecteth also some suspitions out of Gildas Nicephorus and others as if the Britains were conuerted by some Romaines which being Christians went with Claudius the Emperor against the Britains But what maketh all this to proue that the Britains were first conuerted by Peter We are hereof to conclude the contrarie rather For if mention be made of Simon Zelotes and Aristobolus and others of more obscure note for preaching in Britaine it is not like that the preaching of Peter here in this Iland should haue bene suppressed in silence if there had bene any such thing Parsons surmiseth that those that went with Claudius into Britaine were sent thither by Peter But that is his owne foolish conceit and vaine imagination No auncient Writer doth testifie any such thing Thus then we may sée that all Parsons his discourse concerning the conuersion of Britaine by S. Peter is subuerted and brought to nothing Let vs therefore consider what is to be thought of the other two supposed conuersions CHAP. II. Of the pretended conuersion of Lucius king of Britaine and of the British nation to Christian religion by Eleutherius bishop of Rome and his agents The report of the conuersion of the Britains and their king Lucius vnto the faith of Christ although beléeued by Parsons and the Romanists as an article of their conuertible faith yet for many iust respects may well be called into question First the name of Lucius séemeth rather to sauour of the Latine then of the British language Neither can it be said
for the writers of Scriptures when we faithfully beleeue that the holy Ghost was the author of the booke Quis haec scripserit saith he valdè superuacuè quaeritur cùm tamen author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur Which is as much as if he should say that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs proceedeth not from the writer much lesse from the teacher or propounder but from the holy Ghost 3. Now the Romanists teach that the books of the Machabees and such like are canonicall Scriptures and equall to other books of the old Testament But S. Peter 2. Ep. 1. where by the word of y e Prophets he vnderstandeth y e Scriptures excludeth from the ranke of Scriptures of y e old Testament al books not written by Prophets of which sort are the books of the Machabees being written long after the times of Malachy the last of the Prophets Gregor lib. 19. moral c. 17. doth say plainly that y e books of the Machabees are not canonical 4. Now they affirme that the Pope is the foundation head of the Church But the Apostle Paul sheweth vs that Christ is the head of the Church and that the same is built vpon the Apostles and Prophets Christ being the chiete corner stone and we may not thinke that the Apostle Peter taught any other doctrine Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 82. naming Peter and other Apostles saith they were not heads but members of the Church Sub vno capite saith he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Neither is it credible that Eleutherius or Austin taught any other doctrine 5. When Cornelius as we reade Act. 10. did fall at Peters feet and adored him Peter would not suffer it And Gregory and Eleutherius were far from admitting men to kisse their slippers But now the Romanists giue the bastonata to those that wil not worship the Pope and ordinarily the Pope requireth adoration and suffereth great Princes to kisse his feete Of late some are said to haue disputed that Latria is due to the Pope 6. Now also the bishops of Rome haue giuen ouer preaching and feeding the flocke But the Apostle Peter exhorteth all Bishops and Elders to feed the flocke that dependeth on them And Greg. in pastor p. 2. saith That all bishops take on them the office of a Preacher or Cryer Praeconis officium suscipit saith he quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit 7. Now the Popes carry themselues as Lords ouer their flocke and entitle themselues Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishops But Peter 1. Epi. 5. forbiddeth Elders to beare themselues as Lords ouer Gods heritage And Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 78. 80. condemneth this title of Uniuersall and Oecumenicall bishop as proud and Antichristian 8. Now they that take vpon them to curse kings and to raise rebellion against them and to thrust them out of their royall seates as appeareth by the wicked Buls of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. of England of Pius the 5. Sixtus the 5. against Q Elizabeth and the wicked Decretais of Greg. the 7. against Henry the 4. and of Gregorie the 9. and Innocent the 4. against Friderick the 2. But the Apostle Peter neuer cursed Nero albeit he was a most cursed fellow nor went about to depose him Nay contrariwise he exhorteth all Christians to submit themselues to kings and gouernors Likewise Eleutherius Gregorie were obedient to temporall Princes Greg. li. 4. ep 78. calleth the Emperor his most pious Lord and submitteth himself euen in an Ecclesiastical cause to his order Pijssimi Domini scripta suscepi saith he vt cum fratre consacerdote meo debeam esse pacificus 9. Now they teach that the reprobate wicked men professing the Romish faith are true members of the Catholike Church as appeareth by Bellarmines discourse de Ecclesia militante They include the same also within the precincts of the Romish Church But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. sheweth that it consisteth of the elect according to Gods foreknowledge dispersed in Pontus Galatia and other countries Gregorie in Cantic 4. saith that the holy Church is called hortus conclusus that is a garden walled round about because it is of euery side so enuironed with a wall of charitie that no reprobate person may come within the number of the elect Likewise in the 28. book of his Morals he concludeth all the elect within the measure of the Church Neither doth it appeare that either Eleutherius or Austin did teach otherwise 10. They now teach vs to doubt of our election and saluation But S. Peter exhorteth vs 2. Epist. 1. to make our calling and election sure Which were a most vaine exhortation and request if no man could assure himself of his saluation Neither did Eleutherius or Gregory or Austin in this dissent from him 11. They now teach priests to offer for quicke and dead and Christians to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kind But Peter kept Christs institution inuiolably which sheweth that the Sacrament is to be receiued vnder both the kinds of bread and wine and not to be offered for quick and dead Gregory also homil 22. in Euang. sheweth that the people receiued both kinds Quid sit sanguis Agni saith he speaking to the people iam non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis 12. They make their followers beleeue that Christs naturall bodie is really vnder the formes of bread and wine although it cannot be felt nor séene there But Peter knew that Christ had no other body but such a one as might be felt and séene And Gregorie lib. 14. moral c. 31. 32. imputeth this as an heresie to Eutychius that mens bodies after the resurrection should be impalpable and inuisible 13. They giue out that we may redéeme our sins with siluer and gold buying and procuring Indulgences and with our owne satisfactions both in this life and in Purgatorie But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. saith expresly We are not redeemed with siluer and gold but by the precious bloud of Christ. Gregorie likewise in Psal. 5. Peenit saith that our Redeemer is called excelsus or high because none beside God could redéeme vs out of the hands of our enemies And lib. Moral 9-cap 30. Non valent virtute propria saith he ab humano genere supplicia sequuturae mortis expleri that is No man by his owne power can satisfie for the paines in the world to come 14. Now in celebration of the holy Eucharist they haue added a number of prayers for quicke and dead and prayers and confessions to Saints Angels But the Apostles as Gregorie testifieth lib. 7. Epist. 63. did consecrate saying onely the Lords prayer And in his time and long after the formes now vsed were not receiued 15. Neither Saint Peter nor Eleutherius nor Gregorie nor Austin did make the traditions of the Church equall to the word of God written Nay Gregorie vpon the Canticles cap. 2. saith that in Christ alone we find wholesome meate But if in Christ
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
Another old English Chronicle testifieth That Augustine went with the army to the warre and that such of the Britains as were sent to intreat for peace were killed without pitie That Augustine was the cause of this warre and murther we may probably also gather out of Bedes historie For he doth not onely shew that the greatest slaughter was made of the Monkes of Bangor that resisted Austin and gaue counsell against him but also that Austin did threaten them and foretell them that they should haue warre Augustinus saith he lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. fertur minitans praedixisse quòdsipacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi Neither is any cause alledged of this warre against the Britains but that Augustine was by them reiected Is not then Austin to be taken as a braue Apostle and conuerter of nations to the faith that came with Pagans against Christians with fire and sword because they would not vndergo his yoke To excuse this matter they alledge the words of Bede as they pretend who speaking of this murther saith That Austin was dead long before But a man of meane iudgement may see that these words are thrust into Bede by some falsarie For how could Austin be dead long before that after this warre as Bede reporteth ordained Iustus and Melitus Bishops Do dead men reuiue againe to ordaine Bishops Furthermore these words of Austins death before the murther of the Britains are not found in the Saxon translation of Beda made by King Alured Finally both the Chronicles of Peterborough and Flores historiarum do witnesse that Austin died three yeares after the execution done vpon the Britains The Britains therefore are not bound to Rome that sent this proud and cruell man amongst them Neither is the same much obliged to Eleutherius if he did as is said send Preachers into Britaine The reasons I haue before alledged As for the Danes Normans and French and their discendants they are cleare also from this obligation For the Romanists albeit they séeke out all colours to beautifie the Popes chaire yet say not that preachers from Rome did conuert them to the faith It resteth then that all the weight of this obligation to Rome which Parsons aduanceth so magnifically must rest vpon a few Saxons or English But this cannot be great as I haue shewed seeing the Saxons were not then the greatest part of the inhabitants of this land nor generally conuerted by the Romaines as hath bene declared But were the auncient English beholding in times past to Gregorie or Austin yet the inhabitants of England for this sixe hundred yeares and vpward haue bene litle beholding to the Popes of Rome and their adherents For first they haue vsed all force and fraud to plant their false hereticall and idolatrous Religion in England as their sending of Legates Agents Archpriests Iebusites and Masse-priests when they durst openly and now of late priuily and the rebellions and warres stirred vp by them against the Kings and Princes of England do declare If then we are neither to hearken to false Prophets nor dreamers of dreames nor to spare them or fauour them that would draw vs from the seruice of God to Idolatrie then are we to detest the Pope and his idolatroùs Agents whose massing Religion and worship of Saints and Images is nothing else but refined paganisme and grosse Idolatrie Againe If we are to marke them and auoid them that cause diuision and offences contrarie to the doctrine which we haue receiued from the Apostles as Saint Paule exhorteth vs Roman 16. then are we to haue no communion nor fellowship with the Pope which indeuoureth to diuide vs from the Catholike Church and to draw vs from Apostolicall doctrine to his leude Decretaline Heresies and Traditions Secondly they haue by their cunning engines drawne infinite treasure out of England impouerishing both the Kings and people of this Iland by their manifold exactions Matthew Paris doth in sundrie places complaine of the oppressions made by the Pope and his Agents and in Henrico tertio saith That England by the Pope was made like a vine left to the open spoile of euery one that passed by Thirdly for the most part they haue concurred with our enemies and by all meanes oppugned our nation Matthew Paris writing Harolds life sheweth that Alexander the Pope sent a Standard to William the conqueror when he came with fire and sword against the English nation Papa saith he vexillum Willelmo in omen regni transmisit And call you this a fauour to ioyne with him that came to conquer our countrie and to cut the Englishmens throats In the dayes of Henry the 2. the Pope fauoured both the Kings disloyall subiects and open enemies as appeareth by the discourse of matters passed betwixt him and Thomas Becket Innocentius the 3 excommunicated King Iohn and sought to depriue him of his kingdome By his malitious courses the King lost Normandie and was forced to surrender his Crowne into his Legats hands Matthew Paris testifieth that he gaue the English for slaues to the French Sententialiter definiuit saith he vt Rex Anglorum Ioannes à solio regni deponeretur He committed the execution of this sentence to the French King and for his labour determined that he and his successors should perpetually enioy the kingdome of England Vt ipse successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent And may we thinke that any is so brutish as to dispute that we are beholding to the Pope that giueth vs as a prey vnto our enemies Certes vnlesse we had read it in Parsons the Popes parasite we could hardly haue beleeued it In the end albeit he could not bring vs into seruitude yet he wanted not much to make our King and country tributary That noble and victorious Prince King Edward the third found none that more ouerthwarted him and disturned the course of his victories in France then the Pope as his letters menaces and practises reported in Histories declare To forbeare to speake of ancient wrongs done to our Princes and nation by other Popes see I beséech you the indignities offered to king Henry the 8. and his subiects by that impious Pope Paule the third and to his daughter Q. Elizabeth of famous memorie and her people by that lousie friar Pius the fift Gregorie the 13. and Sixtus the fifts seditious rayling and outragious Buls Paule the third rayleth on the King interditeth the kingdome depriueth his subiects of trade and giueth them as slaues to those that could take them Prohibet commercium cum Anglis saith Sanders in his Glosse vpon the Popes Bull foedera cum Henrico dissoluit Henrici sequaces tradit in seruitutem Looke what rage or malice can deuise that he vomiteth out both against the King and our nation And will Parsons haue our nation to submit themselues to such monsters or can any find in their hearts to yéeld to such tyrants Against Queene Elizabeth Pius Quintus
vs but fauouring the sea of Rome and such as no man can note of partialitie in this behalfe That Iohn the 8. or as some number the Popes the 7. was a woman first Radulphus Flauiacensis in his Chronicle doth testifie This man was a Monke of Benets order and liued about the yeare of our Lord 930. as Trithemius reporteth Secondly Marianus Scotus doth report the same Anno Domini 854. saith he anno Lotharij 14. successit Leoni Ioannes mislier He sheweth also that she sate two yeares fiue moneths and foure dayes Our third witnesse is Sigebertus who speaking of this Pope sayth that the fame went that this Iohn was a woman and being begot with child by her seruant was deliuered being Pope These two testimonies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis our aduersaries now of late haue razed out of all those copies which now are printed But this doth nothing relieue their credit but rather blot them both with the infamy of this whoredome and also with corruption and falsity Their owne consciences must néedes herein witnesse against them séeing they know that these words are found as well in printed bookes as in ancient manuscript copies Martinus Polonus our fourth witnesse telleth plainely that this woman desguised in mans apparell went with her louer to Athens proued learned returned to Rome was chosen Pope begotten with child and deliuered neere S. Clements Church and that for this cause all Popes afterward shunned this way Our fift witnesse is Martin a Minorite in his booke entitled Flores temporum printed at Vlme in Dutch anno Domini 1486. This Minorite telleth how Pope Ioane coniuring a Diuell to tell when he would depart out of the body of one possessed receiued answere that he would declare this when the Pope would tell when a Pope should be deliuered of child Papa pater patrum saith he papissae pandito partum Et tibi tunc edam de corpore quando recedam Our sixth witnesse is Francis Petrarch who in an Italian booke printed at Florence anno Dom. 1478. sayth that a woman was made Pope and deliuered of child The seauenth witnesse is Antonine Archbishop of Florence who in the second part of his history tit 16. ca. 1. § 7. doth report this history of a woman-pope as others do and addeth that an image representing the Popes deliuery of child was erected in the place where she trauailed of child and dyed and thereupon exclaimeth ô the depth of the wisdome and knowledge of God! The eight witnesse is Iohn Boccace in his booke De Foeminis illustribus who in the whole report agréeth with Antonine and his other contestes The ninth is Iacobus Gulielmus of Egmond a Monke in the rimes following Papacadit panditur improbis Ridendi norma puer nascitur In vico Clementis Wernerus Rolewinke maketh the tenth who in his booke called Fasciculus temporum speaking of this Pope sayth That being gotten with child and afterward going in Procession she died in trauaile and therefore was not put into the catalogue of Popes The same history is recorded by him that wrote the Annales of Auspurg anno Domini 855. he therefore filleth the eleuenth place The full iury is made vp by Raphael Volateran who in his Cosmograph consenteth with the rest Unto these for a supply we may adde Platina in Ioanne 8. Sabellicus Aenead 9. Bergomensis and Palmerius in their Chronicles Trithemius in Catalog Pontif. Albert Crantz Baptista of Mantua Iohn Lucidus Iohn Stella Nauclerus in Generat 29. Iohn Henaldus and Peter Messias in Silua var. lect Finally least any man might forget a matter so memorable the same report was represented in imagery both in the stréete of S. Clement at Rome and in the Cathedrall Church of Siena and that might haue béen yet sene of euery man but that Pius the 5. ashamed of the lechery and whoredome of his predecessor caused the statue of marble representing this Tragicall accident to be throwne into Tiber. Finally no man euer denyed or contradicted this report vntill the time of Onuphrius a hungry parasite of the Pope and a lying Friar who to win some fauour of the Pope began first to call this history into question and desperatly to face out the matter If then Rob. Parsons and his consorts had not faces of proofe they would haue béene ashamed being but late vpstarts and contemptible fellowes to haue opposed their bare credits against the authority of so many authenticall and vnpartial witnesses in matters done so long before they came out of the bottomlesse pit They answere and deuise what they thinke most fitting to discredit the report or to help their cause But all is but like dust cast into the ayre that falleth on the heads of them that cast it and blindeth their owne eyes Parsons pag. 389. answereth and saith that albeit some such thing had hapned yet it had not preiudicated the Church of Christ. But had any such thing hapned then had he no reason so stiffly to deny it Againe albeit the Catholike Church be not preiudiced by the intrusion of men or women incapable of Ecclesiasticall function yet the same would wholy ouerthrow the discent and succession of Romish Bishops vpon which the Romanists do so much depend For if heretikes and men or women vncapable of Ecclesiasticall function do thrust into the line of Bishops then is the line of true Bishops interrupted But of heretikes S. Augustine giueth vs knowledge epist. 165. that they may enter among y e Romish Bishops where he saith What if a traytor in those times should haue crept in Of persons incapable the story of Dame Ioane the Pope giueth testimony He correcteth therefore his first answere and vpon better aduice sayth that this whole story of Pope Ioane is a meere fable deuised first by Martinus Polonus a simple man that telleth many things by heare-say and continued by those that fauoured the German Emperours contending against the Pope And to proue this he alledgeth first that Anastasius Audomarus Luitprandus Regino Hermannus Contractus Lambertus Schafnaburgensis Otho Frisingensis and Vrspergensis after Leo the 4. place Benedict the third and next that William of Malmesbury Henry Huntington Roger Houeden Florentius Vigorniensis and Matthew of Westminster make no mention of this woman-pope And thirdly that Alphred liuing in Rome when Pope Leo died or thereabout must needes haue knowne that one of his owne countrey had beene Pope if any such matter had then fallen out Fourthly that in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus this story is not set downe Fiftly that Leo the 9. in the contention betwirt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople obiected to Michael Bishop of Constantinople that diuers Eunuches had béene Bishops there and as is sayd a woman also which it is not likely he would haue done if the same might truly haue béene sayd of the sea of Rome And lastly that the story conteineth diuers improbabilities and contradictions But that the story should be fabulous
Neither can the aduersary iustly charge vs that we allow any false worship of God or breach of his holy ordonances Thirdly the Church of England for matters of Faith Sacraments Gods worship and seruice beléeueth followeth whatsoeuer is either expressely commanded in holy Scriptures or out of them deduced in ancient generall and lawfull Councels condemning also whatsoeuer is by ancient Councels or Fathers declared to be contrary to the same Fourthly Christes true Church is a diligent and wary keeper of doctrines committed to her and changeth nothing at any time deminisheth nothing addeth nothing cutteth not off things necessary nor addeth things superfluous looseth not her owne nor vsurpeth things belonging to others as saith Lirmensis Commonit ca. 32. Likewise ca. 34. he saith it is the property of Catholikes to keepe the doctrine of the Fathers committed to them in trust and to condemne prophane nouelties Who can then deny the name of Catholikes vnto vs but such as are false Catholikes Fiftly all Churches that belong to Christes body which is gathered and gouerned by his word nourished and preserued by his holy Sacraments and inspired and led by his holy spirit and grace belong to Christes Catholike Church But nothing can be alledged by the aduersaries but that these properties belong to the Church of England and the members thereof and those which communicate with it Sixthly the Church of England doth in all things cōmunicate with the Catholike Apostolike Church that is spred ouer all nations hath continued frō the beginning shall cōtinue to the end which hath a most certaine succession of true Bishops which adhereth to Christ only to his word and whose faith is confirmed with miracles and most inuincible testimonies If Parsons will deny this let him cease his railing against vs and his vaine babling about impertinent matters and forbeare to impute vnto vs the names of factions which we renounce and the faults of particulars which we defend not proue somewhat substātially Seuenthly the Church of England is iustified by the confession of our aduersaries for with them we professe one faith in all articles conteined in ancient Creedes with them we receiue the same Scriptures with them we allow the sacrament of the Eucharist Baptisme with them we admit the most anciēt generall Councels and finally whatsoeuer was deliuered by the Apostles to be obserued that we obserue What is then the differēce Forsooth they haue added to the Apostles faith to Christes Sacraments Scriptures Apostolike doctrine lawes and that we refuse for that it is aboue and beside yea sometime contrary to the Canon of Scriptures which is the perfect rule of faith Unlesse therfore our aduersaries will stubbornly reiect the Apostolike faith the canon of Scriptures the Sacraments and the ancient formes of Ecclesiastical gouernment condemne the same they cannot deny y t Church of England to be y e true Church Finally all those exceptions which either Bellarmine or Bristow or Stapleton or Hill or any of their consorts haue takē to our doctrine or manners are cleared so answered that still the aduersary though neuer so full of words resteth silenced Parsons in y e second part of his treatise of Three Conuersions of England by him pretended goeth about to shew that the Church of England is no part of the Church vniuersally dispersed and that hath continued throughout all ages But his arguments are so vaine that I make this an argument to iustifie the cause of our Church For if he and his consorts can take no iust exception either to the faith or manners of the Church of England then doth it follow that the same is the true Church of Christ Et inimici nostri iudices and our enemies therein iudge against themselues CHAP. XI Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and discent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward is examined refuted IT is a simple part according to the common prouerbe in the midst of a riuer to aske where is water or in a forrest of trées to enquire for wood Yet Parsons séemeth not much wiser who in the Scriptures and writings of ancient Fathers euery where finding the Apostolike and Catholike Church with the which y e Church of England holdeth cōmunion doth notwithstanding still enquire where our Church was in y e Apostles time the ages after But it séemeth he was vnwilling to sée y t which he was loth to find His search certes and manner of procéeding and whole dispute about this matter as it is tedious and full of words so it is fond foolish and void of substance and concludent argument In the 2. Part of his turning Treatise chap. 1. he alledgeth diuers testimonies out of Irenaeus Tertullian Hierome and Augustine concerning the succession of Bishops and the force thereof But what I pray you doth that make against vs who do well allow of that faith which was taught and maintained by those Bishops succeeding one another in diuers Churches which they mention Nay if Parsons talked of no other faith or doctrine then that which those holy Fathers speake of and did not hide in this catalogue of good Bishops a multitude of false teachers and Heretikes much vnlike to the former the controuersie betwixt vs wold soone be ended Furthermore where he will not allow them to be the true Church which in all points of faith consent with the Apostles and ancient Fathers and disagrée in nothing but will néeds exact a discent of our faith by a catalogue of Bishops we want not therein an answer sufficient For the Bishops of Britaine and England that haue continued since the first plantation of Religion by Ioseph of Arimathaea and other Apostolike men haue still retained the Apostolike faith and the Sacraments instituted by Christ. True it is they retained them but yet with many corruptions although nothing so many as are now established in the Church of Rome since the wicked conuenticle of Trent Although then the Church of England haue purged away certaine abuses yet the substance of doctrine and Sacraments we haue not changed therein varying in nothing from the Apostles or auncient Bishops of Christs Church for many hundred yeares after Christ. But the Popes of Rome and their adherents within these fiue hundred yeares haue brought in a new Scholasticall Decretaline doctrin especially since the conuenticle of Trent which neither the Apostles nor auncient Bishops euer knew nay which is opposite to their doctrine and faith It appeareth therefore that this argument of succession doth rather make for vs then for our aduersaries Secondly he beareth vs in hand that Luther and Caluin being pressed with this argument of Succession did make the Church inuisible And that Melancthon and the Magdeburgians dissenting from them and ouercome with proofes concerning the visibilitie of the Church did grant it to be visible yet so as it did consist not
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
degenerate in the adherents of the Church of Rome Which Wicleffe and his followers in England and the Valdenses and Albigenses in France and some in Germanie beganne at length to discouer But in our times the same by Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other godly men was both more openly discouered and Christianly reformed Secondly it is no maruell if Wicleffe and Husse and others that first beganne to discouer the abuses of Poperie did not see all For God had appointed a certaine time when the man of sinne should be reuealed and no man is so cleare sighted that he can see into all the abuses of Heretikes without helpe and direction of many Neither is this to be ascribed more vnto Wicleffe and such as haue laboured in the reformation of the Church then to others which haue their singular opinions and by their errors declare themselues to be men Furthermore by this we collect that we are to build our faith vpon none but the Apostles and Prophets which by speciall direction of the holy Ghost haue declared vnto vs the will of God Thirdly many heresies are falsly imputed both vnto Wicleffe and vnto Iohn Husse and vnto euery one that hath opposed himselfe against the Romish faction As for example they say that Wicleffe taught That God must obey the Diuell and that Iohn Husse added a fourth Person to the Trinitie matters contrarie to the whole forme of their doctrine Diuers errors also they haue ascribed to the Valdenses Albigenses and Bohemians Neither may we maruell if they haue slandered the dead seeing they spare not the liuing making their credulous followers beleeue That we make God the author of sinne and speake vnreuerently of Christ. They haue also laid most false imputations vpon Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other our teachers Further we are not to maruell if they haue charged Sir Iohn Oldcastle and diuers others the followers of Wicleffes doctrine with treasons and rebellions and other enormous crimes For so did the heathen deale with the first Christians as appeareth by the Apologies of Tertullian Arnobius and others And now they cease not to exclaime against our doctrine as if the same were enemie to the Magistrates authoritie the which is not more troden vnder foot by any then by the Popes of Rome and their agents Fourthly the Papists themselues haue many singular opinions in diuers points of doctrine Why then should they impute vnto vs the dissentions of priuate men And why may not all be good Christians holding the substantial points of Christian faith and varying in nothing from the grounds of true doctrine concerning the holy Trinitie Christs incarnation the Sacraments Gods worship and manners Finally as errors did not altogether enter into the Church so neither can they be all at one time and by one man or one age reformed In all the principall points concerning the abuses of Poperie both the Churches of England Scotland France Germany and other nations not subiect to the yoke of Antichrist do very well agree And we doubt not by the grace of God to sée Antichrist confounded with the spirit of Gods mouth shortly by a generall vnion in the rest Finally in his last chapter he compareth M. Foxe to a craftie Broker that vseth fraud in selling of his wares whereas the Romanists sell like royall Merchants He deliuereth also to his reader three differences betwixt the Papists vs saying first That we contemne the Church next y t we define it falsly thirdly y t we assigne common obscure markes thereof whereas the Papistes do all contrarie But of this comparison because it is his owne he may boldly take both parts to himselfe and not without iust cause For as the Pope selleth Religion and all diuine matters in grosse and like a royall Merchant so Parsons and such like pedlars and palterers fell as they may by retayle now bargaining for one part of the Church then for another now selling one sinne and then another In assigning his differences he differeth not from himselfe but as alwayes so now also he belyeth his aduersaries For neither do we make so litle estimation of the Church as he reporteth nor do we giue such a definition of the Church as he imagineth nor are our markes giuen out of the Church either common or improper On the other side they value not the Church one rush making the same a slaue to Antichrist nor do they define the Church aright not touching the life and soule of it but onely certaine outward qualities nor do they bring other markes then those that may fit the Pagans and Turks better then the Papists as the name Catholike vniuersality continuance succession vnitie prosperitie and such like do shew If Parsons will maintaine the contrarie let him answer a booke of mine De Ecclesia written against Bellarmine wherein this is declared at large If not that yet let him leaue his idle wandring discourse and come to a point and then we doubt not but to make his pedlarie ware knowne And thus an end of this woodden constables search Of which we may conclude that it will be a hard matter to find out a more idle searcher or foolish search CHAP. XII That the Church of moderne Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England THe Church of Christ saith Hierome in Psalm 133. consisteth not in walles but in the truth of doctrine There is the Church where is true faith So likewise euery Church is to be estéemed according to the doctrine which it teacheth and of the Church of Rome we are to make accompt not according to the walles of the Churches there but according to the doctrine which now that Church professeth If then there cannot be shewed a Church in the world for a thousand yeares professing that faith and doctrine which now the Church of Rome holdeth and professeth we may boldly say that the Church of Papists as now it standeth was not visible for a thousand yeares after Christ. Nay it is plaine that such a Church as the Papists now haue was neuer yet planted in England So farre is Parsons from his accompt when he supposeth that the faith and Church of Rome that now is hath alwaies continued since the first preaching of the Gospell and bene visible in England That we say true it appeareth first for that no Church did euer esteeme traditions and holy Scriptures with like affection before the decree of the conuenticle of Trent ratified by Pius the fourth Anno Domini 1564. The Church of England before that time neuer had any such conceit of traditions as to beleeue them to be the word of God and equall to Scriptures Secondly no Church in the world did make the old Latine vulgar translation of the Bible authenticall before y t time Thirdly the moderne Papists forbid men to reade the Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence and
Decretals and corruptions of former times But the holy Scripture sendeth vs to the Prophets Patriarks and the people of God which were eye witnesses of Gods speciall fauour towards his people Both the places do vtterly ouerthrow Parsons his cause that hath neither help of antiquity nor testimony of the Fathers of the Church In his Epistle he applieth these words Philip. 1. To you it is giuen not only to beleeue in him but also to suffer for him to his complices the Papists But he leaueth out these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is for Christ. Percase his conscience told him that in England none of his consorts suffer for Christ but rather for Antichrist Further most of them are so ignorant that they neither know what Christ is nor what it is to beléeue in Christ holding it sufficient to beléeue as the Pope doth who for the most part beléeueth no more then the great Turke Where the Apostle Philip. 1. saith Ut vincula mea manifesta fierent in Christo in omni praetorio he changeth his words and maketh him to say Vincula vestra manifesta siunt in Christo in omni praetorio making the Apostle to speake an vntruth and applying his words to the Papists who neuer suffered for Christ nor were euer called before any barre for his sake but rather for treason and rebellion and mainteining the faction of Antichrist to whose seruice they haue consecrated themselues He doth also mistake the Apostles meaning vtterly where he saith The Apostle gloried of himselfe and his fellowes For he doth not once mention his fellowes nor glory of himselfe or his bonds as this glorious fellow surmiseth The Apostle 1. Thess. 1. commendeth them for that they became followers of Christ and of the Apostles and receiued the word of God with ioy in the holy Ghost in great tribulation But Parsons applieth these words to the Papists Let indifferent men therefore iudge how madly he applieth and biolētly wresteth holy Scriptures to serue his leud purpose For Papists follow not Christ nor his Apostles but Antichrist his false apostles the Masse-priests and Iebusites The word of God in vulgar tongues they receiue not to be read publikely nor do they ioy so much in the holy Ghost as in their owne diuelish practises treacheries and murthers They suffer no tribulation nor affliction of mind or body but liue in all delights pleasures of the world rather following the sect of the Epicures then the piety of Christians Neither can it be shewed wherein y e Papists of England may be resembled in any thing to the Christians of Macedonia vnlesse it be in that they be enemies of the crosse of Christ and make a god of their belly as the Apostle saith speaking of some Macedonians Philip. 3. Finally the place is not so euil applied but it is worse translated for to the text he addeth these words published euery where throughout the world and leaueth out these that we need not to speake any thing These words of God by his Prophet Isay chap. 1. I will turne my hand vpon thee and purge away thy drosse till thou be made pure and will take away thy tinne are so absurdly applied to his consorts that professe a religion full of drosse and superstition a religion most impure and full of hereticall corruption a religion full of base mettall and that teacheth her clients to worship Images of tinne lead y e while he endeuoreth to praise the Papists he doth vtter words that do vtterly confound both them their drossy Religion Intus pugnae foris timores saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 7. But Parsons to shew that he mainteineth a peruerse Rèligion turneth his words contremont making him to say Foris pugnae intus timores It may be he was much ashamed to acknowledge that there is such a faction diuision betwixt y e Secular Priests and the Iebusites throughout England Further if vnity be a marke of the Church as his consorts pretend then did he well perceiue that such diuided companies as the Secular Priests Iebusites cannot belong to the Church and therefore thought it best to corrupt the Apostles words Matth. 8. we reade how Christ arose and rebuked the winds and sea and how there followed a great calme But Parsons wickedly applieth these words to the Pope for Christ honoring Antichrist and giuing the power of God to a wretched man who is so far from calming winds and seas that he cannot appease the troubles of his owne house nor stop the ouerflowing of Tiber. Nay albeit he endeuor to stop the breaths of true preachers yet shall the sword of the word of God issuing out of their mouths lay his kingdome wast and destroy the fortresses of his Antichristian state 1. Reg. 3. Heli the priest submitteth himselfe to the will of God foretelling the certaine destruction of his house saying It is the Lord let him do whatsoeuer seemeth good in his eyes But Parsons doth impiously apply them to the Kings Maiesty disloyally as it seemeth wishing and prophecying of some such like destruction to the Kings house and lignage as hapned to Heli and his issue and this the gunpouder and vndermining Papists haue of late attempted In these words Hebrews 5. Didicit ex ijs quae passus est obedientiam Parsons leaueth out the word obedientiam and where the Apostle approprieth them to Christ he detorteth them to the King In his Preface alledging the words of Christ Matth. 24. he maketh himselfe to say That such times of heresie and contradiction should come whē one sect would say here is Christ and another there is Christ. Where we may sée manifestly that he neither speaketh of diuers sects nor of y t contradiction or heresies of diuers sects but saith indefinitely If any say here is Christ or there is Christ beleeue him not And this directly maketh against euery seueral sect of Papists who pretend that Christes body is conteined in pixes and lyeth lurking vnder the accidents of consecrated hostes and is offerd by polshorne prièsts in euery corner of their Churches Citing the words of Peter Act. 10. who saith That Christ was not manifested to all the people but to certaine witnesses before appointed by God he beareth his reader in hand that this was done to the end that their faith might be of more merit whereas we find not any mention made of merit in that place nor any suspition of any such matter Out of the words of Marke c. 16. he concludeth That we are to captiuate our vnderstanding not only to the obedience of Christ but also to those that preach vnto vs. But there is great difference betwixt the incredulity of those y t would not beleeue the Apostles teaching Christes resurrection of which Marke speaketh and the piety of such as beleeue not the Friers Monks and Masse-priests which are the false Apostles sent out by Antichrist teaching y e Popes Decretals and Romish forged traditions Pag. 21. he
S. Ambrose and S. Augustine he saith It was presumed and foretold that they would be such before they were Christians indeed But in the Legend of S. Martin it is said he was a Christian at the age of twelue yeares and nothing doth Parsons alledge wherby we may vnderstand that any prophesie was made by any of the future Christianitie of Nectarius Ambrose and Augustine In his preface speaking of the Church most ridiculously he compareth it to a mansion house and the markes thereof to charters ridiculously I say For first there is great difference betwéene a mysticall body and a naturall bodie the Church being changed albeit men continue and a mansion house not being moued although the right be translated to others Next Charters do rather shew which are the bounds and markes of lands then may be called the marks of them and are rather compared to Scriptures then to the markes assigned by Papists Lastly this similitude of a mansion house doth ouerthrow the cause of the synagogue of Rome For the mansion house of the Church is in no one particular place and the Charters of the Church are rather holy Scriptures then Popish Decretals In the same place he alledgeth Alexander Halensis 3. part q. 79. to proue That a man hath two lights whereby he may vnderstand matters of faith But in that part he hath only 69. questions and nothing of the two lights Durandus also is there cited in nu 39. but neither booke nor section noted Doth it not séeme therefore that Parsons as he hath long since lost the light of faith so is now become destitute of the light of humane reason Pag. 9. he alledgeth Tertullian de Coena Domini who neuer wrote any book De Coena Domini It may be he mistooke Tertullian for Cyprian Pag. 14. He saith Peter and Paule were put to death the 14. and last yeare of Nero. But Baronius and diuers learned men say they died in the 13. yeare of his raigne Others deny that they dyed both in one yeare Pag. 43. He citeth an Epistle of Basill Ad Innocentium But in Basils works no such Epistle is to be found And certes strange it were if Basill should write to Innocentius Bishop of Rome seeing he died twenty yeares at the least before Innocentius came to be Bishop there as Canisius in his Chronology and Baronius in his Annales to go nofurther might haue taught him Pag. 54. He alledgeth Eusebius lib. 7. hist. c. 29. where there are but 26. chapters of that booke in Christophersons version And pag. 55. he mentioneth two bookes of S. Augustine ad quaest Ianuarij which are more then he euer saw or we can find in the workes of S. Augustine Percase he meant S. Augustines 118. Epistle ad Ianuar. But there is no mention made of such mysteries concerning immoueable or moueable feasts as our dreaming aduersarie fancieth Pag. 67. He alledgeth Theodoret lib. 6. c. 9. whereas his historie containeth onely fiue bookes Pag. 77. He nameth one Photinus a Bishop of France and Ado Bishop of Treues whereas he cannot find any Photinus Bishop in the time of Irenaeus and might well know that Ado the Chronicler was of Vienna and not of Treues Pag. 104. He braggeth That he will proue the Pope the Masse Transubstantiation and the vse of Images Via negatiua Which passeth the reach of common foolerie For who euer heard of affirmatiue propositions proued by negatiues Or who is so sottish to take impudent denials for proofes Pag. 106. Where S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptis contr Donatist c. 6. speaketh of the custome of not rebaptizing Christians once baptized by Heretikes our ignorant aduersarie supposeth he talketh of the custome of baptizing of infants Pag. 111. He alledgeth the ninth booke of S. Ambrose De Sacramentis and supposeth these words Non valebit Sermo Christi c. to be found in the fourth fifth and ninth booke De Sacramentis and these words Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat c. to be in the same bookes Whereas these words are taken out of the booke De ijs qui initiantur c. and the former are onely found in one booke of Ambrose and neither make for his purpose Pag. 119. There can be no doubt thereof saith he speaking of the Popish doctrine of Sacraments And why trow you Forsooth because the conuenticle of Trent the Master of sentences and Thomas of Aquine haue taught it I would therefore pray all moderate men attentiuely to consider this fellowes either madnesse or ignorance We do by arguments out of Scriptures and Fathers refute the impious doctrine of the conuenticle of Trent Lombard and Aquinas And yet he thinketh it sufficient by the testimonie of his owne fellowes most partially deposing in their owne cause to refute our arguments grounded vpon Scriptures Fathers and other authenticall witnesses Pag. 120. He saith Popish auricular confession is in it selfe repugnant to mans sensuall nature As if it were not as natural to confesse a truth as to deny it This we find that nothing is more beneficial to Massepriests or more pleasing to man then to haue absolution after confession And by this engine the Pope doth work many wonders to maintaine his state Pag. 123. He signifieth that Irenaeus lib. 5. aduers. haeres speaketh for the supremacie of the Pope whereas the Pope is not once mentioned in that place vnlesse it be where he foretelleth that Antichrist tyrannically shall take vpon him as God Ipse se tyrannico more saith he conabitur ostendere Deum Pag. 133. And otherwhere he supposeth that we are bound to defend all the singular opinions of the Magdeburgians But if we alledge to Papists the opinions of Bellarmine Baronius Suarez Stapleton or other Popish proctors they think themselues not tyed to their particular doctrines Againe he imagineth because the Magdeburgians mislike some of the Fathers in some things y t therfore we mislike thē But neither do we in all things hold w t the Magd. nor do they condemne y e Fathers y t in some singular points dissentfrō thē Pag. 146. A Treatise De bono pudicitiae and a Sermon De natiuitate Christi is alledged vnder the name of Cyprian And yet it is méere simplicitie to suppose them to be Cyprians Pag. 165. For the title De Regularibus In sexto he alledgeth De Reg. iuris lib. 6. mistaking chalke for chéese And for the 25. Session of the conuenticle of Trent he citeth 28. whereas there are not so many in all Pag. 181. He alledgeth an Oration of Chrysostome Contra gentes with this title Quòd vnus est Deus whereas the true argument is Quòd Christus sit Deus Pag. 239. He talketh of the burning of William Tracie And yet by the acts that concerne him it appeareth he died quietly in his bed and that his religion was not discouered but by his testament after his death Pag. 268. he mentioneth the Bishop of Cardiffe whereas euery