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
Hares insult ouer dead Lyons If he had not bene a renegate Christian and fugitiue traytor he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant Neither if he had bene wise would he haue mentioned these two examples himselfe in apostacie being like the one and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine And yet not many yeares since in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him and his whole house Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note singing that only which maketh for his profit Modo palliatus modo togatus Now he playeth Dolman now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius vnum portentum est duo nomina that is one monster two titles Yet such is the folly of this parasite that thinking to praise the King he doth greatly dishonor him comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie and implying that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation yet may we probably suppose that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty and the subuersion of the realme as appeareth by a publike edict against them In commending the Kings booke he condemneth his religion as if any could be more dishonored then by imputation of want of religion Againe he contradicteth himselfe cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God and godlinesse and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity and inanity of sects and heresies where no ground no head no certaine principle no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion which his Maiesty professeth or cleanly auoyd in that sect which he followeth being a pack of impieties blasphemies heresies nouelties vncerteinties contradictions absurdities and fooleries The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion wherein we declare that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it and full of sincere wisedome but also approoued by Councels Fathers consent of nations miracles yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse of the Sacraments of the Pope of Purgatory Indulgences works of supererogation and such like For what more impious then to say that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist What more blasphemous then to giue Gods honor to stocks stones and to Antichrist What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature and office and to worship Angels Saints and Images What more new then the doctrine of Constance Florence Trent concerning the massing sacrifice the communion vnder one kind the subsisting of accidents without substance indulgences and such like What more vncertaine then popish religion that dependeth vpon the Popes determination a man oftentimes blind vnlearned and variable What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible aboue and below dead and aliue at one time What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome or to say with the Donatists that it is perished out of the whole world saue in one corner of the Romish church Finally what more foolish then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches and such like superstitious ceremonies In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue that man is mutable by his owne example that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions But that is little for his credit or the credit of his cause For what if he turne like a weather-cocke and renounce religion would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe Truth also is constant and alwayes like it selfe But falsehood varieth and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas sayth Hilary to Constantius The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite who being vncertaine in his resolution and leauing matters formerly purposed brought forth matters neuer designed for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion condemneth the sluggishnes of them that are carelesse in this behalfe But his words are contrary to the Romish practise that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion Much certes it were to be wished that men would do as he sayth for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists and see that popery is not Catholike as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke nor darkenes continue when light appeareth To preuent perillous courses and to giue light where certeinty of religion lyeth he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions But alas the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion as the East is from the West For what assurance can he haue of religion who doth beleeue neither Propheticall nor Apostolical writings nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes Surius Baronius and other fabulous writers and vaine and vncertaine traditions of which he hath no certeinty Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history and not matter of faith or doctrine Lastly he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon then to keepe them from any danger Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised In this preface I confesse he compareth the Church to a mansion house and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same promising that he will make proofe that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons But first there is great difference betweene the Church and a mansion house the Church being a mysticall body and being scattered here and there and not being appropriated to any family city or nation and a mansion house being a
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
authority of the Pope of Transubstantiation and popish worship of Images is not only not to be prooued but also to be disproued by holy scriptures The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels and authority of Fathers as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments We only will alledge some few First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed receiued and not to be offered vp for quick and dead Next to holy Scriptures and Fathers that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall Finally if Christes body be not really present nor the bread wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick dead But that is proued by the words of the institution bread and wine being named after consecration by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words hoc est corpus meum figuratiuely by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne and by diuers other arguments For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority there is no one word in scripture nay scriptures shew that all the Apostles were called and authorized alike and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl praelat Furthermore the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory as I haue shewed condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian neither can it be shewed that y e Pope either made lawes or ordeined bishops or iudged all causes throughout the whole church vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body and supposeth it neither to be visible nor palpable repugneth to the words of institution and common cōsent of Fathers that declare bread wine to remain after consecration taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches The worship of images is contrary to the law of God Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels to y e doctrine of Fathers and abolisheth all true religion God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes to the intent to worship it or to bow downe to it The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls The 2. Councel of Nice though it allow some worship done to images yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images Epiphanius tore downe a vaile that had an image of Christ or some Saint painted on it Gregory as before I haue shewed vtterly condemned the worship of Images Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin c. 19. saith plainely There is no religion where there is an image Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe the one as he calleth it negatiue and the other affirmatiue and by them he vanteth that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly For what can be supposed more absurd then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue by a negatiue or contraxiwise and yet such is Parsons his wisdome that he offereth vs this abuse Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe where he talketh of negatiue proofes For albeit he standeth vpon his denial and resolueth to put vs to proue yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe His meaning is that we are not able to shew that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time after or that they came into the church afterward And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy the Romish masse Transubstantiation and the worship of Images the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church and that long after Eleutherius his time The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added we may sée in Walafridus Strabo Platina Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited vntill the late conuenticle of Trent nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority nor beléeueth transubstantiation or receiueth the Popes masse or popish purgatory or his doctrine of Images Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent and the Emperour protested against y e Synod Little therefore doth Augustine help but to confound Parsons his cause albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church But sayth Parsons Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran as these words Consubstantiall Trinity and the like in the first Councell of Nice yet the substance of the article viz. concerning transubstantiation was held from the beginning And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose lib. 4. 5. 9. de Sacramentis and out of these words Non valebit sermo Christi vt species mutet elementorum And againe Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erat But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures
that they either held that religiō which Eleutherius taught or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth Finally he affirmeth that the religion taught by Austin was catholike and confirmed by miracles and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times But that which is the point in controuersie viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time is the same that was preached by Austin the Monke the wise disputer doth scarce mention and no way proueth Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents and by Austin we are to renounce all those heresies false doctrines and abuses which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church Secondly that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence nor transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead nor halfe Communions nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie nor his Indulgences nor the worship of Images nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused to haue bene preached by those that first planted Christian religion in this countrie CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood who will needes beare the Reader in hand that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome but also to that faith which now the Pope and his adherents do professe Now therfore it resteth that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope Two things it séemeth he aymeth at in this worke The first is to bring the King the Cleargie the Nobles and people of England vnder the Popes obedience and into the captiuitie of Babylon The second is to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon But to effect this purpose this labour is wholy vnsufficient For first no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion or rule ouer Gods people as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples The Princes of nations saith he beare rule ouer them and afterward but it shall not be so with you Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage Neque dominantes in Cleris saith he Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius applieth this to him and sheweth that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination and Lordlinesse Planum est saith he lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences Not saith he that we haue dominion ouer your faith but we are helpers of your ioy Finally our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi or Maister and sheweth that this is Pharisaicall Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop and reason sheweth that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master or teacher of the whole Church Secondly the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie Stand fast saith the Apostle Gal. 5. in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage And againe Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of mind and worshipping of Angels aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind Which words do directly belong to the Pope who pretending humilitie and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels and telling newes out of Purgatorie and strange things which he neuer saw affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope who ruleth in their consciences and marketh them for his slaues as we reade Apocalyps 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie He made all both small and great saith Iohn rich and poore free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand and in their foreheads But let such beware how they continue in this bondage and let others that are frée take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast and his image and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads or in their hands shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Thirdly experience teacheth vs that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem and from thence went foorth into all lands And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles Act. 1. saith They shall be witnesses to him both in Hierusalem and in all Iudaea and to the vttermost part of the earth Yet neuer did either the Bishops or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge where they say Peter preached and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations then the Church of Hierusalem where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached and from whence as we reade Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world and to teach all nations Fourthly we reade in histories that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine For so Capgraue writeth citing Freculphus for his author It is said also that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France and that Iames coming from Ierusalem preached first in Spaine S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers that came out of the East country Finally our histories do teach vs that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine and that the Frizelanders and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria nor the English to the French or the French to the bishops of Athens or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem or the
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