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
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
endeuoreth to proue by S. Peters words Act. 15. that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles But S. Paul Galat. 2. sheweth that the Gospel ouer the circumcision was committed to Peter and the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision to himselfe Act. 15. he saith nothing but that God appointed that the Gētiles should by his mouth heare the word of the Gospel But that may be true in case any number of the Gentiles should heare him preach the Gospell The words of Peter certes do not exclude others Pag. 441. rehersing y e words of Daniel c. 2. he applieth them to y e Church of Rome as if y e church were that kingdome that shal neuer be dissipated and shall cōsume weare out all other kingdoms but by y e sequel of y e text it appeareth that they are to be vnderstood of the vniuersall Church and kingdome of Christ and not of any one particular congregation much lesse of the synagogue of Rome that is now begun to be dissipated by the true preachers of Gods word on one side and is greatly straited by the Turke on the other side He doth also fraudulently leaue out these words in his quotation Et regnum eius alteri populo non dabit least he should thereby declare that euery particular city and people is excluded from the claime of the right of the vniuersall kingdome of Christ. And with this faith he citeth other Scriptures CHAP. XIIII A Catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other Authors committed by Rob. Parsons IN ciuill causes to deale vntruly it is but falsity But in matters of faith to vse false dealing doth beside falsity imply impiety He therefore that was not afraide to force Scriptures will not spare to forge and falsifie the Fathers and other Authors as may appeare by the practise of Rob. Parsons To proue that S. Augustine said That Christians ought to trauaile by sea and land countries and kingdomes to seeke out the truth and certeinty of Catholike Religion he citeth in his Preface first Possidonius in vita Augustini and next Augustine himselfe lib. 4. 5. Confess But in the first place there is not one word for his purpose In the second there is not that which he surmiseth Nay it is not like that S. Augustine would write as he affirmeth seeing to find true Catholike religion and the certeinty thereof we néede neither to passe the Sea nor to trauaile to Hierusalem or Rome but are rather to search the bookes of holy Scripture which teach the same sufficiently He saith that S. Augustine lib. de morib Eccles. c. 17. and Chrysostome in a certaine Homily reprehend greatly the sluggishnes of diuers men in their dayes that seeing sects and heresies to arise and diuersities of religion in almost euery country did not bestirre themselues to try out the truth But he abuseth both these holy Fathers whereof the first hath no such words or reprehension The second talketh not of the diuersities of religions but only exhorteth Christians to embrace the Christian faith earnestly The which doth concerne Popery nothing which hath béen sowne in Gods field long after the first planting of the Christian faith Augustine tractat 73. in Ioan. hath these words Haec est laus fidei si quod creditur non videtur To these words Parsons addeth the word merit and translateth thē thus The praise or merit of faith stands in this that the thing be not seene which is beleeued He should haue said thus Herein consisteth the prayse of faith if that be beleeued that is not seene And this ouerthroweth the doctrine of the Papists that teach that the Catholike Church which we beléeue in our Créede is visible He maketh Ambrose to say thus lib. 1. de Abraham ca. 3. If a graue honorable person in this life especially if he be of high authority and our superior will take it in disdaine to be asked a proofe for that he affirmeth how much more ought God to be credited when he proposeth vnto vs a matter aboue our reach or capacitie But therein he sheweth himselfe neither graue nor honorable to impute his owne sayings to so graue a Father S. Ambrose sayth only How vnworthy a matter were it to beleeue the testimonies of men concerning others and not to beleeue Gods oracles concerning himselfe Quam indignum vt humanis testimonijs de alio credamus dei oraculis de se non credamus This also toucheth the Papists very néere who will not beléeue holy Scriptures which are Gods oracles without the testimony of the Pope Pag. 3. he saith That Eleutherius conuerted King Lucius and his subiects by the preaching of Damianus and his fellowes and for proofe alledgeth Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 17. 18. But Bede in these two Chapters doth not so much as once mention any such matter And ca. 4. where he speaketh of Eleutherius and Lucius he doth not once name Damianus or his fellowes or speake of the conuersion of Lucius his subiects Furthermore it is absurd to say that Eleutherius did conuert the Britains by Damianus For if Damianus preathed vnto them then did he conuert them and not Eleutherius Pag. 7. alledging Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 34. he maketh him say that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in Procession with a crosse and the image of our Sauiour in a banner But first he misseth the chapter alledging the 34. for the 26. Next he speaketh more then his author doth warrant him for he neither speaketh of procession which was a later deuice nor of the image of our Sauiour in a banner Crucem pro vexillo ferentes argēteam saith he imaginem Domini saluatoris in tabula depictam that is carying a siluer crosse for an ensigne and an image of our Lord Sauiour painted on a table So it appeareth they neither louged a crucifixe with them nor prayed to the crosse nor worshipped Christes image Pag. 9. citing Cyprians testimony lib. 2. epist. 3. for proof of his massing sacrifice he cutteth out these words out of the midst of the sentence qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur Which argueth that the popish Balamite priests offer no right sacrifice digressing from Christes institution Pag. 11. out of Eusebius he saith That Peter sate Bishop of Rome for 25. yeares together And out of Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglor c. 3. that there began to be such war in Britany that Claudius resolued to go thither with the admiration of the whole world But neither doth Eusebius in his story nor any other good author say y t Peter sate Bishop of Rome 25. yeres together neither doth Bede in y e place mētioned speak of wars in Britany or of the admiratiō of the world in regard of his iourney Pag. 12. rehersing the words of Malmesburiensis in fastis an Christi 86. he addeth these words and brought into a perfect forme of prouince which is both a notorious
this leasing is plainely confuted by the Calendars of the Easterne and African Churches that neuer knew any such Saint and Molanus signifieth that this Saints feast was only kept in England In Anglia saith he natalis Vlfridi But now the reformed Church hath blowne away these superstitious festiuals and condemneth the Popes claime in canonizing his disciples Rehersing the report of Lucius his conuersion out of Baronius pag. 77. he addeth lyeth and forgeth like a forging falsary That which he telleth of Lucius hating the Romans for their old religion and how he knew that the fountaine of religion was at Rome is both added and false That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conuersion and Marcus Aurelius his fauor and of Fugatius and Damianus who as he saith were Romans is false and not to be iustified by any good author That Wicleffe and Husse taught that Kings are no Kings longer then they rule well as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a méere calumniation Their bookes conteine contrary doctrine Pag. 103. he saith The article of the Trinity and Christes two natures were as little or perhaps lesse specified in the first two hundred yeares after Christ then the popish doctrine of the Popes authority of the Masse and of Images Matters not only false but blasphemous The doctrine of the Trinity and Christes two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse and Images being contrary to Scriptures Pag. 147. speaking of the Magdeburgians he saith They accuse openly and by name S. Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Prudentius Epiphanius and Ephrem for the error of praying to Saints But he that shall reade the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary The same is also to be proued by reason For what néeded they to accuse the Fathers when neither the writings mentioned are certainely theirs nor any matter is in those writings contained that cannot probably be defended and be wrested out of the hands of our aduersaries that by them would proue prayers to Saints Pag. 152. he beareth his reader in hand that we cannot say that the faith of Rome in the time of Gregory the first was any other then that which is now in Rome And for further proofe he referreth vs to Srapleton his translation of Bede and his Fortresse of faith But first the translation is wicked and corrupt and his fortresse of perfidye and heresie is ouerthrowne by D. Fulke of worthy memory Secondly that which he affirmeth that we cannot say that we both say and prooue and thereof haue giuen diuers particulars in our former answere Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weake fortresse are neither the most materiall points in controuersie betwixt vs nor any way proued by him substantially Pag. 153. he telleth how by all meanes we can deuise we discredit Gregory and Austin But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great vntruths for we do neither discredit them nor wrong them but only report as we find Nay we doubt not but in diuers great points of controuersie to ouerthrow our aduersaries by the testimonie of there two Pag. 192. he sayth that S. German prayed largely to S. Albane But Bede vpon whose credit this report is made saith not so as we may reads hist. Anglor lib. 1. c. 18. Pag. 205. he affirmeth that Dinothus was punished by the sword of Ethelfred after the death of S. Austin Yet Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor c. 3. sheweth after this execution done vpon the innocent Britans how Austin ordeined two Bishops which he could not well do being dead Pag. 227. he telleth how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to breake King Henry the 8. his last will and that he conspired to put downe and destroy all the Kings children and was put to death for heresie and treason Matters certes most grossely deuised and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretike and traytor For first King Henries will if any such were was not cancelled by him but by the popish prelates in Quéene Maryes time and of that the lay Papists brag in their petition to the King an 1064. Secondly not Archbishop Cranmer but the bloody Papists had determined not only to breake his will that they might conuey the Crowne to strangers but also to burne his body if they had not béen preuented by Quéene Maryes death Thirdly that graue Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Quéene Mary albeit many Papists did it and she to requite his kind dealing cruelly persecuted him to the death Lastly he dyed for defence of true Religion and not for heresie And albeit matters of treason were obiected to him yet neuer came he to his arraignement for them as no question Rob. Parsons should if he might be caught Pag. 239. he sayth Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristow but this is not only false but also improbable for the good old man was most méeke and peaceable Pag. 241. he writeth that the Abbots of Glastenbury Whalley and Reading and D. Forest and Powell gaue their bloud for defence of Catholike vnitie But the acts of their triall shew that diuers of them were executed for plaine rebellion and all for treason And if any Abbots or Iebusites should make the like stirres abrode against the Pope or the King of Spaine it would auaile them but little to pretend Catholike vnity Forest and his fellowes vnder pretence of this Catholike vnity sought to reuoke and call backe into England the Popes tyranny Pag. 243. he shameth not to say that the King gaue Bishop Gardiner speciall commission to procure a reconciliation with the Pope But his impudent lying may be refuted both by his commission and instructions yet extant wherein no such matter is signified but rather the contrary Parsons therefore may do well to shew by what commission he lyeth thus shamefully Pag. 283. he sayth that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion vntill Cranmers time But hardly shall he prooue that all of them had in them any religion at all And by no meanes can he deny but as the church of Rome changed her faith so her louers likewise changed The faith of the conuenticle of Trent none of them euer knew Pag. 287. he alledgeth these words as out of Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. § 3. We are forced to beleeue the Church to be inuisible and to be seene only by the eyes of God But he that hath any eyes at all may sée this fellowes impudent lying In that place he hath no such words but rather teacheth contrary Likewise doth he belye Luther affirming that he teacheth the Church to be inuisible Pag. 296. and 297. he saith that we doubt that the Church is fayled and that Master Foxe contradicteth former writers and that we hold that all is not true which the Church held But we make no doubt but that Parsons doth grossely lye and faine For neither do we say that the vniuersall
ciuill and artificiall building situate in one place and belonging to one family or sort of people Secondly seuerall points of doctrine are rudely compared to seuerall parcels ofland which are corporeall and may be translated from one to another whereas points of Christian doctrine are matters spiritual and cannot be held truly professed but by the members of the true Church In like sort the Arians by their grosse similitudes depraued such matters as were well spoken as sayth Athanasius orat 4. contr Arian Incorporalia sayth he corporaliter excipientes quae probè dicta erant deprauarunt Thirdly neither shall he euer prooue that the right of the Church belongeth to the Pope and his adherents nor shall he exclude vs from the precincts of the true Church howsoeuer in his Luciferian pride he do here despise and scorne vs. His marks of Antiquitie and Succession are neither the proper notes of the Church nor were they so to be taken can he if by succession he meane discent of true doctrine either take them from vs or giue them to the Popes adherents who rather belong to the synagogue of Sathan then to the Church of God In the latter end of his Praeface he taketh vpon him the person of a Doctor and layeth downe foure points of consideration about matters of faith The first is that our articles of faith are aboue mans reason The second that they haue sufficient arguments of credibility The third is that it behooueth vs to haue a pious affection The fourth is that some articles of our faith may be demonstrated and knowne by force of humane reason But first he sheweth himselfe a vaine and arrogant companion that in matters where he is party taketh on him to be a Doctor not distinguishing betwixt a barre a Doctors chaire Secondly all thèse schoole-points are matters far distant from the argument of Three Conuersions which he vndertaketh to handle For I hope he will not affirme that his Three Conuersions be matters of faith Thirdly his first and last point contradict one another For if all the articles of our faith are aboue mans reason as he sayth handling the first point then are not some articles of faith demonstrable by force of reason which is also the doctrine of the Apostle who sheweth vs that the naturall man vnderstandeth not the things of the spirit of God Fourthly by pious affection he absurdly vnderstandeth a good opinion of the Pope and his slaues the Iebusites and Masse-priests But how can Christians haue a good opinion of them whom holy Scriptures declare to be false teachers and vpholders of the kingdome of Antichrist and experience declareth to be professed enemies of piety and godlinesse Fiftly he concludeth very absurdly because some matters of faith are demonstrable by reason that he hath so discussed matters in his treatise of Three Conuersions as that all matters thereby may be cleared For neither doth his treatise properly concerne matter of faith nor hath he done such glorious acts as he braggeth of Finally these points do little relieue Parsons For if we are to talke of matters of religion with great reuerēce and submission then are the writings of the Schoolemen scādalous that dispute pro and contra in all matters of religion Parsons also dealeth very lewdly who attributeth more to Philosophical demōstrations then to arguments inducing vs to beleeue matters of religion Next if there be matters sufficient in religion to induce vs to beleeue then are not the articles of Popery to be beleeued we hauing more inducements to reiect them then to beleeue them Thirdly if matters are to be scanned before they be receiued as Parsons inferreth then most blind are the Papists that beleeuing the Pope and his adherents to be the Church drinke vp all the abhominations which the whore of Babylon doth present vnto them without all examination whether they be consonant to holy Scriptures the faith of the ancient Fathers or not Fourthly if matters are to be examined with serenitie of mind why are Papists forbidden to reade our bookes to heare our reasons nay without licence to reade the Scriptures Why do they condemne them whose cause they refuse to heare or know Lastly this his treatise of Three Conuersions is not such a braue peece of worke as he imagineth nor shall he gaine any one iote ofhis cause thereby For first it is either false that the ancient Britains were conuerted by S. Peter and Eleutherius or else very doubtfull Likewise it is a matter questionable whether Austin the Monke or some other did first conuert the Saxons to the Christian faith Secondly admit the ancient Britans had bin conuerted by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke yet this maketh nothing for Pope Clement the 8. or Paule the fift that is no more like to Peter nor Eleutherius then a Cheshire cheese to the bright Sunne Peter was a holy Apostle and fed Christes sheepe Eleutherius was a godly Bishop and preached the Gospell which Clement and Paule the fift doth not Againe Clement and Paule the fift challenge two swords and haue a temporall Kingdome which those two neuer had nor challenged This Clement and Pope Paule mainteine many hereticall doctrines established in the Popes Decretals and late Popish conuenticles which neither S. Peter nor Eleutherius nor Austin euer heard of Finally neither are the Romans subiect to the Bishops of Hierusalem although the Gospell first came to them from thence nor owe we ought to Rome albeit those that first conuerted the Britains and Saxons had come from thence To those that first taught vs we are obliged to render thanks But Parsons like a foolish logician would thereof inferre that we are now to yeeld obedience to the Pope because Peter preached first in Britaine He might as well inferre that the Romans are to be subiect to the Turke that sitteth at Hierusalem for that the Gospell came first to them from thence Thirdly those exceptions which he taketh to vs and our Religion are most vaine and friuolous as the discourse ensuing shall declare Wherefore as we haue already ripped vp his rude and ragged epistle aduertisement and preface so now Godwilling I purpose to discouer the vnsufficiencie and foolery of the rest of his frapling discourse I do not thinke thou shalt finde a booke of that bulke so void of all proofe or good matter vnlesse it be some that proceedeth from the same author Reade therefore I beseech thee both our writings with indifferency and iudge according to equity and so shalt thou hereafter be made more wary in esteeming such huge volumes fraught with nothing but idle tales grosse lyes loose collections and to say all in one word Iebusiticall and Popish vanity and foolery and learne to discerne shadowes from substance and errors from truth The Subuersion of Rob. Parsons his Babylonicall Tower entitled A Treatise of three Conuersions CHAP. I. Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or
Peter and Eleutherius they neuer thought nor taught that our sinnes are purged by other meanes then by the bloud of Christ which as the Apostle sayth 1. Iohn 1. cleanseth vs from all sinne 37. That the soules of the godly are tormented by diuels in Purgatory or that the bishops of Rome by their plenary indulgences and Buls of Iubiley could deliuer soules from thence was farre from the thought of Austin and Gregory and much more of Eleutherius and Saint Peter These are deuises of late Dopes and frapling Schoolemen as appeareth by the Decretals of Boniface the eight and Clement the sixt extr de poenit remiss and Bellarmine and Henriquez and others in their treatises of Indulgences and Purgatory 38. Neither did Gregory nor Austin nor any before them teach that the grace of God was nothing but charity or that charity is the forme of faith as do the moderne vncharitable powdermen papists and their associates 39. Farre also it was from their thought that men are predestinate to saluation or reprobated and destined to damnation for works foreseene in them For the Apostle Rom. 9. doth prooue the contrary by the example of Esau and Iacob and addeth this reason that the purpose of God might remaine according to Election not by works but by him that calleth 40. None of them euer taught that men are iustified by mariage or orders or confirmation or extreme vnction or by eating fish or such externall obseruances as our aduersaries now teach 41. Nay they beléeued not that christian men were iustified by the works of the law or that they could perfectly fulfill the whole law loue God with all their hart soule affection For as the Apostle saith Rom. 4. the Law causeth wrath Againe if man could perfectly fulfill the law then might he liue without all sinne which is the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine de haeres and Hierome aduers. Pelag. lib. 1. testifie 42. Neuer did any of these foure or other ancient Father teach that christian men were able not only to fulfill the whole law but also to do works of supererogation and more then the law requireth or else that the state of perfection did consist in beggery or pouerty forswearing of mariage and obedience to monkish rules 43. Finally because it were infinite to prosecute all the singular differences betwirt Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter of one part and the moderne Popes and the Iebusites on the other I will bring all into one briefe summe I do therefore pray Robert Parsons because he contendeth that now no other doctrine is taught in Rome beside that which in times past was deliuered by Gregory Austin Eleutherius and the holy Apostle S. Peter that he will be pleased of his Iebusiticall fauor plainely to demonstrate First that the particulars aboue mentioned were by thē knowne beléeued and taught And next that the rest of the Romish doctrine established partly in the Popes Decretals and partly in the conuenticles of Laterane of Constance of Florence and Trent and partly professed and proposed by Pius the fourth which the Church of England reiecteth and detesteth differeth nothing frō that forme of doctrine and wholsome words which they deliuered to their hearers in their time If he performe this he shall shew himselfe a great master if not his cause falleth his hope of mastership perisheth and his dreames of a Cardinals hat are at their last period CHAP. V. A briefe answere to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to prooue that the faith now professed in Rome vnder Clement the 8. is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past VNto our argumēts Rob. Parsons in his treatise of three Conuersions maketh no answere And yet he could not be ignorant that these and many more arguments are brought against his cause Nay it appeareth that it will be as easy a matter for him to turne himselfe into a woodcock as to maintaine his booke of Three Turnings Only least he should séeme silent he setteth on a brasen face and Pag. 8. desperatly promiseth to proue that the faith of Rome is and was all one vnder Eleutherius Gregory and Clement the 8. lately raigning He should haue added S. Peter also if he would haue mainteined his argument of three Conuersions But he knew that there is too maine a difference betwixt S. Peters catholike epistles and Clements vncatholike Decretals In the processe also of his discourse concerning the faith of Eleutherius and Gregory compared to the confession of Clement the 8. he runneth on confusedly and absurdly turning and winding vp and downe like a man that hath lost his way and is caried without direction he knoweth not whither In his discourse there are thrée maine faults First he doth not iustifie all those points of popery which are now holden by Clement the 8. at the least if the Pops beléeue the moderne Romish faith nor prooue them to haue béene beléeued and taught by Eleutherius and Gregory Next he neither proposeth his matters resolutely nor in proouing them proceedeth orderly Lastly he barely toucheth some points in controuersie but neither dare handle the principall matters taught by the Romanists nor can prooue that which he promiseth And this God willing we shall demonstrate out of the mans owne words folowing as well as we can the file and order of his disordred discourse Pag. 7. He threapeth kindnesse vpon vs and would beare vs in hand that we dare not deny but that both Masse and Images were in vse in Gregories time in the Romane Church and faith and so brought into England by Augustine But first he speaketh strangely where he sayth Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane faith For Masse is song or sayd at the Altar and Images are painted or made in bosse vpon walles or other places But faith is properly in the heart though declared with the mouth and consisteth neither in Imagery nor Massing foolery but in receiuing the sauing word of God Secondly if by the vse of the Masse and Images he vnderstand the moderne doctrine and practise of the Romish Church concerning these two points he wrongeth vs and abuseth his reader saying we dare not deny that the Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane church in Greries time and so brought into England by Augustine For by the old Romish ordinall it appeareth that Gregories Masse was most vnlike the moderne Masse of the Romanists That forme ouerthroweth priuate Masses halfe Communions prayers for the dead the carnall reall presence transubstantiation the reall propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead and the whole forme and frame of the moderne Romish Canon and Masse Gregory also as we haue declared absolutely condemned the worship of Images and neuer acknowledged that the Crosse or Crucifixe was to be worshipped with Latria Finally albeit Augustine named Masses and had a crosse and an image yet it appeareth not that his Masse was
with the article of transubstantiation that is so repugnaÌ„t to Scriptures faith authority and common sence Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist in the times of darkenes Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the article of the Trinity Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impudently where he saith the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning For I haue shewed before that the Master of Sentences knew it not And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose make nothing for Parsons For he will not deny but that species or formes remaine where as Ambrose saith they are changed Againe Ambrose will not haue any other change in the elements then is wrought in our regeneration or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. and de Sacrament lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such that the things still remaine Vt sint quae erant in aliud commuteÌ„tur The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread Tu sayth he quia accipis panem diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignoraÌ„ce or negligence that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sacramentis where he wrote but sixe if those sixe bookes at all were his and alledgeth these two places as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis that are not there to be found but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose where he sayth he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another for he doth neither talke of the change of natures of elements nor substances To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy of the worship of images and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene alwayes beléeued in the Church he alledgeth neither authority nor reason but only saith that although we appoint certaine times when these things began yet we dare not stand to any certaine time nor can alledge the certaine authors of them But as in his owne proofes so in reporting our assertions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie For we do not say as he reporteth that the Pope challenged this supremacy which now in some countries he possesseth vnder Pope Gregory and Phocas the Emperour but that they began to encroch by litle and litle and that Boniface the 3. obteined of Phocas that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his successors The authors of the Masse and of the worship of Images both entring by degrées we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories and stand to our allegation so firmely that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied we graunt therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this exception or his negatiue proofe as he ridiculously calleth it His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better First he citeth the names of Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy fréewill merit of works the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing or else to speake against the producents cause Only he could not as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres ca. 3. beginning Maximae antiquissimae ecclesiae c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence which sheweth that y e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded then that of the church of Rome and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only not as head but for auoiding tediousnes Quoniam valde longum est saith he in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam in this sort for that vnto this church in respect of her more mighty principality it is necessary that all churches must agree haue accesse Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes dignity and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly y t because Christians did respect y e church of Rome much while it kept the faith sincere now also all churches are to respect it being departed froÌ„ the faith tyraÌ„nizing ouer all others For why should we rather respect that church then the church of Ephesus Smyrna whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected then that of Rome Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words saying lo here the principality of that church coÌ„firmed For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome or vnderstood by principality Next he vrgeth the coÌ„fession of y e MagdeburgiaÌ„s against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome True it is that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y e title of Incommodious opinions and stubble of some Doctors they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter and saying that the Church is built vpon him Likewise they taâ—â— Cyprian for some spéeches But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude that either Cyprian or Tertullian or Irenaeus or Ignatius doth hold maintaine the bishop of Romes authority which now he challengeth Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian No way certes he can be thought to vnderstand him that nameth Salonius for Sidonius and supposeth Maximus Vrbanus and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers and to haue affirmed that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church wheras these three returning from the side of schismatikes that in euery church had erected a bishop of their
in the externall conspicuous succession of Bishops and Councels but rather in those which following the Apostolike Church and faith kept themselues from common corruptions of others But not they did dissent but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport For all of vs do affirme that the vniuersall Catholike Church is inuisible because it containeth all the members of Christs Church of all times and all ages Likewise all of vs beléeue that particular Churches are alwaies visible albeit not so that euery one is able to discerne which is the true Church which not For that is a matter of reason and discourse and not of sense and that being true all heretikes and infidels would discerne which is the true Church and cease to persecute it Likewise we say that the true Church is not alwaies in peace and prosperitie Nay oftentimes the same is persecuted and driuen to hide it selfe as it did in the Apostles time and during the times of the first persecutions vntill the raigne of Constantine and as the Scriptures do foretell it should do in the persecution vnder the raigne of Antichrist Ridiculously therfore doth he alledge Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church For they neither speake of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth all Christians nor of the glorie of the Church in all times He doth also proclaime either his owneignorance not setting downe what we hold nor knowing how we distïnguish or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to stander it and to cauill with his aduersaries Finally he doth leudly and contumeliously speake of Christs Church hiding it selfe in time of persecution tearming it A companie of few obscure and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadowes and darknesse and knowne to few or none Pag. 294. he cauilleth at M. Foxes words where he saith that commonly none see it but such onely as be members and partakers thereof For his meaning is that none can see it to be the true Church but such as are members thereof Although all those that persecute it do see the men that belong to the Church His similitude also of the truth and true Church agréeth well For albeit men be visible yet this point Which is the true Church is not a matter of sense but of the vnderstanding and the Church as it is Christs body is mysticall albeit it consist of visible men Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth vs How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdome and how Cyprian inueigheth against the Martyrs of the Nouatians and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists But to what purpose God knoweth vnlesse he would either put vs in mind of the false traiterous Massepriests and Iebusites that being put to death in England for felonie and treason as in the end the secular Priests themselues confesse are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this vngodly comparison that suffered death for the testimonie of truth in Q. Maries bloudie raigne Which if he do then he is as farre guiltie of their bloud as the wolues that shed it and is rather to expect the vengeance of God then any answer from man In the same Chapter he endeuoureth to shew some differences bewixt the Martyrs of the primitiue Church and vs as for example that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lambe vpon the altar That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice and Laurence his Deacon to dispence the Lords bloud and that as Prudentius saith The holy bloud did fume in siluer cuppes That Cyprian said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi sacrificium Deo Patri offerre But first the difference if any be is in termes and not in matters of faith Secondly we do not disallow these termes simply if they be rightly vnderstood as the auncient Fathers meant them Thirdly the words of S. Andrew are drawne out of the Legend Bernard in Serm. de S. Andrea is quoted for them yet in neither of his Sermons hath he them Fourthly the words of Prudentius must néedes be vnderstood figuratiuely vnlesse they will haue their sacrifice to be bloudie Lastly these words do make more for vs then for the Papists For that sacrifice which Andrew and Cyprian do speake of for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrewes Legend doth signifie onely the representation of Christs sacrifice in bread and wine Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice vnderstandeth bread and wine and not Christs body and bloud really present Panem calicem mixtum vino saith he obtulit And againe Sed per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis vini sed altaris Apostolorum facit mentionem Furthermore the same shew that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cuppe to the people which Papists now admit not Lastly Sixtus suffering for the confession of Christ is liker to Bishop Ridley then to the triple-crowned Pope Clement who suffereth not but rather persecuteth such Bishops as professe Christ. The reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offered for quicke and dead out of these words cannot be proued Afterward he telleth vs p. 310. how Constantine built foure Churches in Rome dedicating them to our Sauiour to Saint Iohn Baptist S. Peter S. Paule and S. Laurence adorning them with Images c. And hauing told his tale he runneth out into a discourse of the glorie of that Church and in great pride asketh vs where our poore obscure and troden downe Church as he calleth it was at this time and for 300. yeares before But vpon such small victories he sheweth himselfe a vaine fellow to make such triumphes This tale of foure Churches dedicated to Saints and adorned with Images is borrowed out of the Legend and is repugnant to the Fathers doctrine Lactantius saith There is no religion where there is an Image or simulachrum Saint Augustine saith that temples are not erected to Saints but that their memories are there honored The same Father lib. de vera Relig. cap. 55. speaketh both against Images and religious worship of Saints Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus And againe Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum As for the spreading and splendor of Christs Church in Constantines time the same argueth that the Church is gouerned and beautified by godly Princes such as Constantine was rather then by godlesse Popes such as Clement was To his question I answer that the Church in Constantines time was that Church with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate and from which the Romanists are departed subiecting themselues not to such godly Princes as Constantine was but to the Pope and to his vngodly Decretaline and prophane schoole doctrine which is diuers from the faith of those times as God willing we
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
command the seruice to be said in Latine Gréeke and Hebrew which languages the common people vnderstand not But such a Church and so malignant and enuious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seene in the world before the assembly of Trent 4. For a thousand yeares after Christ and longer it was lawful for laymen and all Christians to dispute argue and reason of matters of Christian Religion And so long this Popish Church was not seene in the world that prohibiteth laymen so to do 5. The moderne Papists teach that Christs naturall bodie is both in heauen and earth and vpon euery altar where any consecrated host is hanged where he is neither felt seene nor perceiued and all at one time But the Church vntill the times of the Trent conuenticle euer beleeued that Christ had a solide visible and palpable bodie And certes very strange it were if the Catholike and mysticall bodie of Christ shold be visible not his natural body 6. They teach that Christ was a perfect man at the first instant of his conception and that he knew all things and was omniscient as man both then and alwaies But this neither the Church of England nor other Christian Church as yet could euer beleeue or comprehend 7. They teach that Christians are not to beléeue the Scriptures to be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope tell them so They say also that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs doth depend vpon the Church that is as they say vpon the Pope Cardinals Masse-priests Monkes and Friars But the true Church hath alwaies taken this to be derogatorie to the Maiestie of God and of holy Scriptures 8. They teach that the Pope hath two swords and a triple crowne as King of Kings and Lord of Lords But the Church of England for a thousand yeares after Christ neuer saw nor beléeued any such thing Nay the English know wel y t Greg. the 7. was y e first y t took vp arms against y e Emperor 9. They teach that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to assoile subiects from their oaths of obedience But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. sheweth to haue vin reputed a nouelty if not an heresie The Church of England neuer saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King Iohns time and then the same did not beléeue it or allow it 10. The moderne synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head foundation and spouse of Christes Church But no visible Church euer taught this vntill of late time the Church of England neuer held it nor beleeued it 11. Now they thinke it lawfull to suborne the subiects against their Prince and to hire priuie murtherers assassinors to cut y e throte of Kings excommunicate as appeareth by the excōmunications of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soueragine Quéene Elizabeth and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorismes Nay of late they haue attempted by gunpowder to blow vp the King and his Sonne albeit not excommunicated and to massacre murther the most eminent men in this kingdome and wholy to ouerthrow the state But y e Church of England euer taught obedience to Princes and disliked this damnable doctrine 12. They teach that the Pope is aboue all generall Councels But no Church euer beleeued this for a thousand foure hundred yeares The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decréed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian. 13. They teach that the Pope is supreme iudge of all matters of controuersie in religion But the Church of England euer thought it a matter absurd to make a blind man iudge of colours or an vnlearned irreligious fellow to be iudge of matters of learning and religion Now who knoweth not that most Popes are such Of Benedict that liued in the Emperour Henry the 2. his daies Sigebertus in ann Do. 1045. writeth that he was so rude ignorant that he could not reade his breuiary but was inforced to choose another to do it Benedictus saith he qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. inuaserat cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit 14. They now fall downe before the Pope and kisse his féet and when he list to goe abrode they cary him like an idoll vpon mens shoulders But no Church for aboue a thousand yeares after Christ did euer kisse the feet of Antichrist or adore him Nay the Church of England did alwayes know full well that S. Peter a farre holier and honester man then Clement the 8. or Paule the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lye at his feet or to worship him 15. They now call the Pope God and acknowledge him to be their good Lord and God as appeareth by the Chapter Satis dist 96. and the glosse vpon Iohn the 22. his Extrauagant cum inter nonnullos de verb. signif Commonly the Canonists honor him as a God on the earth But no Church did euer abase it selfe so low as to vse these high termes to so base a fellow The Church of England though patient in bearing the Popes iniuries did neuer vse any such slauish formes of flattery 16. They beléeue that the Pope can change kingdomes and take a kingdome from one and giue it to another Potest mutare regna saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 6. atque vni auferre atque alteri conferre But this no Church of God euer beléeued The Church of England certes when King Iohn would haue made his Kingdome tributary to the Pope disallowed and detested the fact and when the Pope would haue deposed King Henry the eight manfully resisted him So did the French likewise oppose themselues against Iulius the 2. that went about to wrest the Scepter out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth 17. They beléeue that Abbots and Friars may by priuilege of the Pope giue voices in Councels and that an Abbot may ordeine Clerks as appeareth by the practise of their late conuenticles and by the priuileges granted to the Benedictines But all ancient Councels declare that Councels are assemblies not of Monks Friars but of Bishops and all Churches according to the Canons of y e Apostles as they are called acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops not to blockish statues called Popes 18. They beléeue that Cardinals only now haue voyce in the election of the Bishop of Rome But this no Church beleeued for a thousand yeares after Christ. The Church of England euer held rather the ancient Canons that gaue the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people then these late humorous Canons and Decretals of Popes 19. They beléeue that Monks are Clergy men and necessary members of the Church But no Church for a thousand yeares after Christ euer beléeued it 20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and
Dominicke and other begging societies were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes or that Friers were to be called religious men or members of the Church 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin to Saints and the founders of Monkish orders as now they do in the Romish Church 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries liue asunder Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth that man is not to separate that which God hath ioyned together rather then the Pope 24. The Papists beléeue that the vowes of Chastity Pouerty and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen then works commanded by Gods law But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope with two swords and a guard of Switzers of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes of shauen Masse-priests Monks and Friars and of a multitude of ignorant people that subiect theÌ„selues to the Pope and cry Miserere nobis But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares Let Parsons therefore take heed least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests Non radent caput neque barbam sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras We reade also that this shauing and whipping or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal and from the Gentiles We are not therefore to thinke that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses rontrary to Gods word In the Church of England such shauing and lashing and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more was not commonly receiued nor practised 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading and what visible Church it was that allowed it 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time nor had he the patrimony of Peter as it is called till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy Doth it not then appeare that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine and partly of lawes But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1â—00 and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time Doth it not then follow necessarily that the Church of Rome that now is hath risen vp out of the earth and that but of late time 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis S. Dominike or other Saints They are therefore of a late stampe that beléeue this 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares The true Church euer abhorred them 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine 34. The Missals breuiaries and offices that now are receiued by the Popish Church were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent The Church of England vsed other formes in former times 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpoÌ„ Saints in publike Letanies Neither did this or any other church in old time say Masses offices in honor of Angels Saints and the blessed virgin Mary 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs and to make holy water to driue away diuels was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more In England Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego BereÌ„garius dist 2. de Consec was the first that taught his Romish adherents that Christs flesh was handled with hands and torne with téeth 38. The first that taught that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly was Alexander Hales Part. 4. sum q. 53. memb 2. and qu. 45. memb 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum q. 80. art 3. doth second him And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests their folowers do hold the same opinion contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued that Christians were eaters of mans flesh and Canibals But the moderne Romish Church holdeth that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne 41. The same man did first ordeine that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church confessing her sinnes in the priests eare 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice before the time of the conuenticle of Trent Who then would not maruell that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance From thence therefore
the Church beléeuing this point tooke her beginning 45. That the Priest doth worke three miracles as oft as he doth consecrate and that all Masse-priests are workers of miracles no true Church can beléeue or euer did beléeue Only the miraculous ideots that subiect themselues to Antichrist and receiue the Romish Catechisme prescribed them by the conuenticle of Trent are bound to beleeue it 46. For a thousand yeares Christes Church neuer knew any priuat Masse without Communion The Church therfore that vseth priuat Masses without Communion is but a new vpstart Church 47. The Communion vnder one kinde was not established by law before the conuenticle of Constance This therefore doth shew also that the Romish church communicating vnder one kind is but of late continuance 48. That Masses should be good to cure sick Horses and mesel Swine is but a late doctrine Of a late beginning therefore is that Church that beléeueth these things and sayth Masses for faire weather and rayne against the Plague and for all purposes yea for sick Horses and mesel Swine 49. The first that set downe any certeinty for 7. Sacraments was he that borowed the name of the conuenticle of Florence in the instruction giuen to the Armenians The 7. Sacramentary church therefore is but new 50. Then also were the Romanists taught what were the words of Popish Confirmation and extreme Unction But the Church of God hitherto neuer beléeued that these are Sacraments or were ordeined by Christ to be vsed by the Church in the forme prescribed by the conuenticle of Florence Would Parsons shew when and where Christ instituted these two Romish Sacraments he might resolue his folowers of a great doubt and do himselfe great honor 51. Bellarmine teacheth that all Sacraments do iustifie the receiuers ex opere operato and like it is that the Romanists as becommeth good schollers do follow their masters doctrine But sure no Church of Christ hitherto did euer beléeue that Christians were iustified by Mariage Orders Confirmation or extreme Unction 52. The true Church of Christ did euer beléeue that Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of the whole world It must néeds therfore be a new congregation and opposite to Christes Church that teacheth or beléeueth that euery Christian is to satisfie himselfe for the temporall paines of sinnes committed after Baptisme 53. In the conuenticle of Florence we reade that it was first decréed that such as departed this life without satisfaction for sinnes committed are purged with Purgatory fire and that such may be ŕelieued by Masses oraisons almes Bellarmine lib. 2. de Purgat ca. 13. telleth vs How by many reuelations it hath bene declared that soules are tormented there by Diuels It cannot therefore be an ancient Church whose faith is patched vp by such fellowes and consisteth of such strange nouelties 54. Whether Indulgences do profit soules in Purgatory ex condigno or only ex congruo the matter seemeth not yet resolued as may appeare by Bellarmines dispute lib. 1. de Purgator c. 14. In ancient time the Church of England was ignorant of the popish doctrine of Indulgences It cannot therefore be an ancient society that teacheth such new doctrines and is not yet resolued vpon them 55. Boniface the 8. did first institute Iubileys Clement the 6. from a hundred yeares brought the solemnity to 50. and Sixtus the 4. to 25. Where it standeth We may therefore conclude that this iubilating Church of Rome differed much from the Church of Christ before Constantines time and that it was not heard of before the dayes of Boniface the eight 56. The Romanists worship the Crosse and Crucifixe and Images of the Trinity with Latria But such an Image-worshipping Church is not to be found vntill such time as Thomas Aquinas taught this idolatrous doctrine 57. They kisse Images bow to them offer incense to them and set vp lights and say Masses before them But these tricks were not frequented in the Church of England for a thousand yeares nor euer in any true Christian Church were publikely receiued 58. They call vpon the blessed Virgin as their gate of saluation and pray to Saints and Angels as mediators of intercession They do also make vowes to them and say Masses in their honor all which proue the erection of their congregations to be new and of a late deuice 59. They beleeue that S. Rock and S. Sebastian cure the plague that Apollonia cureth toothach that S. Lewes hath horses in his protection and S. Antony pigges of which all true Christians may be much ashamed 60. With the Collyridians the Romanists offer a rake in the honor of the blessed Virgin and with many other heretikes bring in diuers heresies and not only nouelties Finally for their owne impure traditions they leaue the obseruance of Gods holy lawes Let them therefore henceforth leaue to vaunt of the antiquity of their Church or to tell vs of nouelties séeing their Church holding these nouelties must néeds be new and of a late erection CHAP. XIII That Parsons maketh no conscience to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures THus we sée the substance of Parsons his two first bookes of Three Conuersions quashed and brought to nothing But because he hath committed diuers other faults which in the sequele of our discourse we could not particularly insist vpon we haue thought it good to referre their further examination to this place For whatsoeuer bragges his followers do make of this braue worke yet by examination it will appeare that the Author hath fouly abused and mistaken Scriptures corrupted falsified and falsely alledged Fathers and other Authors bragged of himselfe and his conforts most vainely taken things in question as granted most simply erred in historyes and other authors most childishly applyed Scriptures and spoken of God and matters concerning God most blasphemously behaued himselfe toward his Prince most disloyally lyed and calumniated honest men most impudently alledged matters making against himselfe most sottishly and to reduce all into a briefe summe that this whole treatise is nothing else but a fardle of false allegations corruptions lyes and fooleries That he maketh no conscience to wrest and peruert the words of holy Scriptures it appeareth by these particulars In the front of his booke which he like a man of a front face without shame entituleth A treatise of Three Conuersions of England he tumbleth two sentences of Scripture together and maketh one of two He doth also wrest them both contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost For whereas Deuter. 4. whence his first place is taken we are willed to enquire of ancient times and thereof to learne Gods great works in deliuering his people he applyeth the words of that text to the times of late Popes and to their trash and traditions And out of the words Deut. 32. whence his second place is taken where we are commanded to remember the old dayes of our forefathers c. he instnuateth that we are to looke back to the Popes
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
Church faileth or so erreth that none holdeth the truth nor doth Master Foxe either so teach or contradict former authenticall writers Pag. 308. he telleth vs how the Centuriasts Centur. 3. ca. 4. reprehend Cyprian sharply for speaking of offring sacrifice But he abuséth his reader and mistaketh the whole matter For they do not mislike him for speaking of offring sacrifice but for attributing too much to the priest In the same place thinking that he hath found out a lease of priests Lo heere saith Parsons three massing priests and yet is there not one word in that place of the Masse True it is that Cyprian speaketh of a sacrifice but his sacrifice was not the massing popish sacrifice but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing Pag. 310. he saith that Constantine built 4. goodly Churches within the city of Rome caried earth to their first foundation and adorned them with Images Thrée lyes no where found but in the fabulous legends calculated by Friers and Masse-priests vnder the shadow of a glasse of wine Nay the legends themselues are not so false as Parsons his discourse of Three Conuersions For they place S. Pauls Church without Rome whereas he by his cunning masonry hath placed it in Rome Pag. 316. he chargeth vs with Symbolizing with the Manicheyes But if to agrée with heretikes is to symbolize with them then doth Parsons symbolize with heretikes We do anathematize both the Manicheyes and all other heretikes Pag. 318. and 319. he telleth diuers lyes of the Centuriasts making them to condemne diuers Fathers for inuocation of Angels whereas it doth not appeare that either those Fathers which are there mentioned prayed to Angels or that the Centuriasts do simply condemne them for writing as they did Pag. 354. he saith Charles the great was made Emperour of the West by Leo the third which is a ridiculous and vain-glorious lye For next to God his owne sword and the consent of the people of Rome and Italy made him Emperour of that countrey the rest of his Empire he had by his owne right As for Leo the third he had nothing to giue but only by certaine ceremonyes was appointed to declare the Emperours titles and the peoples voluntary submission Pag. 373. he giueth out that the sixth generall Councell was called by Pope Agatho But vnlesse he bring proofe it will appeare that he is nothing scrupulous in giuing out lyes Pag. 378. he saith the Councell of Laterane vnder Innocent the third was holden an 1115. But he miscounteth a hundred yeares as his own Chroniclers may informe him He saith also that all Councels were holden by order of the Bishop of Rome and confirmed by him and none held for lawfull without his confirmation But these are matters méerely forged For first not the Bishops of Rome but the Emperours called the first generall Councels Secondly albeit the Bishop of Rome should haue withstood them yet should their acts haue passed neither néeded these Councels any confirmation from the Bishop of Rome Thirdly diuers things passed in the sixt Councell of Aphrike in the Councell of Chalcedon and the sixt Synode maugre the Bishop of Rome albeit yet a Bishop and not the head of Antichrists kingdome as the Pope prooued afterward To conclude lyes are as rife with Parsons as lice were in Aegypt when they came vpon man and beast as we reade Exod. 8. CHAP. XIX Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause HE is a simple Fencer that hurteth himselfe with his owne weapons and in the common opinion of men they are accounted vnwise that bring forth furniture into the field that doth better serue the enemy then themselues Yet this is the wisdome of Parsons throughout his discourse The point of his allegations doth commonly serue to pierce himselfe and no better allegations néede we then those which he bringeth to ouerthrow that cause which he defendeth In his Epistle Dedicatory he alledgeth these words out of the Psalme 118. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam non est illis scandalum But what could be leuelled more directly against the cause of Papists For first they regard not holy Scriptures nor the law of God Next their whole confidence is in the Pope and in his dispensations and indulgences Thirdly they séeke not for peace but with warres and seditions trouble the Christian world No maruell therefore if the whole world be scandalized by the Popes Cardinals Monks Friers and their superstitions idolatries barbarous cruelties perfidious dealing wickednes In his Preface he citeth S. Augustine de morib Eccles. Cath. c. 17. and Chrysostome homil 14. inc 24. Matth. but both make against him Crassas omnino mentes corporeorum simulachrorum pestifero pastu morbidas ad diuina iudicanda defertis saith that holy Father and so we may likewise say to the Papists You bring with you grosse minds and distempred with the pestilent norriture of materiall images to iudge of diuine matters And this is the reason why they worship Saints and other creatures and make grosse similitudes of the Trinity and diuine persons Chrysostome speaketh of Christian Religion and not of the Popes monarchy or of the idolatrous popish Masse or of Purgatory or Indulgences or such popish trash Out of the 〈◊〉 of Saint Matthew he citeth Christs words foretelling that false Prophets should arise and say lo here is Christ or there is Christ. But this text doth directly prooue the Masse-priests to be false Prophets and seducers For one saith lo here is Christ pointing to this Altar or that Crucifixe another pointing to another Pixe or Crucifixe saith lo there is Christ. Chrysostome is alledged homil 43. operis imperfect in Matth. as speaking against men negligent in trying out the truth of doctrine Yet will not popish prelates permit Christians to heare Scriptures publikely read in vulgar tongues nor do they giue liberty to Christians to iudge of the false doctrine of Masse-priests and Friers Finally they do not like that Christians should be too busy in trying out the truth in disputing of matters of Religion He telleth vs further that many of our country this day perswade themselues that either matters of religion perteine not greatly vnto them or that they go well as they are But if this be a fault then are the Papists herein most faulty For in Italy and Spayne they are forbidden to talke of matters of Religion as things perteining to Priests and Friers and doubt not but that the Pope and his Cardinals together with inferior Prelates haue ordred all this businesse excellently well And this is the error of all the Popes puppy followers Ambrose is there alledged to shew that God will be beleeued on his word What indignity were it saith he lib. 1. de Abraham ca. 3. if beleeuing the testimonies of men concerning others we shall not beleeue the oracles of God concerning himselfe Do not then Papists offer a great indignity to God that will not beléeue Scriptures to
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