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
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
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