Another old English Chronicle testifieth That Augustine went with the army to the warre and that such of the Britains as were sent to intreat for peace were killed without pitie That Augustine was the cause of this warre and murther we may probably also gather out of Bedes historie For he doth not onely shew that the greatest slaughter was made of the Monkes of Bangor that resisted Austin and gaue counsell against him but also that Austin did threaten them and foretell them that they should haue warre Augustinus saith he lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. fertur minitans praedixisse quòdsipacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi Neither is any cause alledged of this warre against the Britains but that Augustine was by them reiected Is not then Austin to be taken as a braue Apostle and conuerter of nations to the faith that came with Pagans against Christians with fire and sword because they would not vndergo his yoke To excuse this matter they alledge the words of Bede as they pretend who speaking of this murther saith That Austin was dead long before But a man of meane iudgement may see that these words are thrust into Bede by some falsarie For how could Austin be dead long before that after this warre as Bede reporteth ordained Iustus and Melitus Bishops Do dead men reuiue againe to ordaine Bishops Furthermore these words of Austins death before the murther of the Britains are not found in the Saxon translation of Beda made by King Alured Finally both the Chronicles of Peterborough and Flores historiarum do witnesse that Austin died three yeares after the execution done vpon the Britains The Britains therefore are not bound to Rome that sent this proud and cruell man amongst them Neither is the same much obliged to Eleutherius if he did as is said send Preachers into Britaine The reasons I haue before alledged As for the Danes Normans and French and their discendants they are cleare also from this obligation For the Romanists albeit they séeke out all colours to beautifie the Popes chaire yet say not that preachers from Rome did conuert them to the faith It resteth then that all the weight of this obligation to Rome which Parsons aduanceth so magnifically must rest vpon a few Saxons or English But this cannot be great as I haue shewed seeing the Saxons were not then the greatest part of the inhabitants of this land nor generally conuerted by the Romaines as hath bene declared But were the auncient English beholding in times past to Gregorie or Austin yet the inhabitants of England for this sixe hundred yeares and vpward haue bene litle beholding to the Popes of Rome and their adherents For first they haue vsed all force and fraud to plant their false hereticall and idolatrous Religion in England as their sending of Legates Agents Archpriests Iebusites and Masse-priests when they durst openly and now of late priuily and the rebellions and warres stirred vp by them against the Kings and Princes of England do declare If then we are neither to hearken to false Prophets nor dreamers of dreames nor to spare them or fauour them that would draw vs from the seruice of God to Idolatrie then are we to detest the Pope and his idolatroùs Agents whose massing Religion and worship of Saints and Images is nothing else but refined paganisme and grosse Idolatrie Againe If we are to marke them and auoid them that cause diuision and offences contrarie to the doctrine which we haue receiued from the Apostles as Saint Paule exhorteth vs Roman 16. then are we to haue no communion nor fellowship with the Pope which indeuoureth to diuide vs from the Catholike Church and to draw vs from Apostolicall doctrine to his leude Decretaline Heresies and Traditions Secondly they haue by their cunning engines drawne infinite treasure out of England impouerishing both the Kings and people of this Iland by their manifold exactions Matthew Paris doth in sundrie places complaine of the oppressions made by the Pope and his Agents and in Henrico tertio saith That England by the Pope was made like a vine left to the open spoile of euery one that passed by Thirdly for the most part they haue concurred with our enemies and by all meanes oppugned our nation Matthew Paris writing Harolds life sheweth that Alexander the Pope sent a Standard to William the conqueror when he came with fire and sword against the English nation Papa saith he vexillum Willelmo in omen regni transmisit And call you this a fauour to ioyne with him that came to conquer our countrie and to cut the Englishmens throats In the dayes of Henry the 2. the Pope fauoured both the Kings disloyall subiects and open enemies as appeareth by the discourse of matters passed betwixt him and Thomas Becket Innocentius the 3 excommunicated King Iohn and sought to depriue him of his kingdome By his malitious courses the King lost Normandie and was forced to surrender his Crowne into his Legats hands Matthew Paris testifieth that he gaue the English for slaues to the French Sententialiter definiuit saith he vt Rex Anglorum Ioannes à solio regni deponeretur He committed the execution of this sentence to the French King and for his labour determined that he and his successors should perpetually enioy the kingdome of England Vt ipse successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent And may we thinke that any is so brutish as to dispute that we are beholding to the Pope that giueth vs as a prey vnto our enemies Certes vnlesse we had read it in Parsons the Popes parasite we could hardly haue beleeued it In the end albeit he could not bring vs into seruitude yet he wanted not much to make our King and country tributary That noble and victorious Prince King Edward the third found none that more ouerthwarted him and disturned the course of his victories in France then the Pope as his letters menaces and practises reported in Histories declare To forbeare to speake of ancient wrongs done to our Princes and nation by other Popes see I beséech you the indignities offered to king Henry the 8. and his subiects by that impious Pope Paule the third and to his daughter Q. Elizabeth of famous memorie and her people by that lousie friar Pius the fift Gregorie the 13. and Sixtus the fifts seditious rayling and outragious Buls Paule the third rayleth on the King interditeth the kingdome depriueth his subiects of trade and giueth them as slaues to those that could take them Prohibet commercium cum Anglis saith Sanders in his Glosse vpon the Popes Bull foedera cum Henrico dissoluit Henrici sequaces tradit in seruitutem Looke what rage or malice can deuise that he vomiteth out both against the King and our nation And will Parsons haue our nation to submit themselues to such monsters or can any find in their hearts to yéeld to such tyrants Against Queene Elizabeth Pius Quintus
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
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
THE SVBVERSION OF ROBERT PARSONS His confused and worthlesse worke ENTITVLED A treatise of three Conuersions of England from Paganisme to Christian Religion 1. Tim. 1. Conuersi sunt in vaniloquium They are turned vnto vaine iangling LONDON Printed for IOHN NORTON 1606. TO THE RIGHT HOnorable the Lord Ellesmere Lord Chancellor of England THE shew of antiquity in matters of religion being so plausible to the multitude and so sorcible to perswade the simple I maruell not my good Lord if our aduersaries the Papists who shew themselues also aduerse to truth do both commonly and willingly entitle their erroneous doctrines concerning the worship of Saints and Images the Popes indulgences Purgatory and all their traditions and trash though neuer so new the Old Religion Your Lordship also well knoweth what paines Parsons the Iebusite hath taken in his bookes of Three Conuersions to prooue that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted to that religion which is now professed and taught at Rome not doubting but if he can prooue it so ancient that the same will soone be admitted as true as being deriued from the Apostles and most ancient and sincere Bishops of Rome Hauing therefore commiseration of the ignorance of seduced Papists and willing to consirme good Christians in the truth and to arme the weake against the assaults of such seducers I haue vndertaken to examine his whole discourse concerning the three supposed conuersions of England wherein Parsons indeuoureth to prooue the antiquitie of Popish religioÌ„ within this Iland seeking from the true religion professed here to bring vs back to the haeresies and captiuitie of Rome more odious farre then that of Babylon And this I vndertake not because he deserueth to receiue any long or curious answer but rather to shew his consorts that he bringeth nothing which cannot easily be answered Some do esteeme the booke very much in regard of the strangenesse and noueltie promising not only a narration of the planting of religion in England by Austin the Monke but also a confirmation of the history of King Lucius and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and new tidings of a new conuersion of Brittaine wrought by S. Peter himselfe matters of which many will be glad to heare But he that diligently peruseth what he hath written shall soone lose all his longing For whether we consider the subiect of this discourse or the manner of handling the same there is nothing that can any way satisfie the reader The proofes stand vpoÌ„ coniectures The authors stile is harsh and vneuen His rehearsals thick and tedious His purpose fond foolish Three things he striueth to prooue First that this land was thrise conuerted to religion by preachers sent froÌ„ Rome viz. by S. Peter Eleutherius and Austin Secondly that the same was conuerted to no other religion then that which is now preached and mainteined at Rome And thirdly that therefore we are now to learne religion and to receiue direction and gouernment from thence But the first is very euill performed For of the first conuersion by S. Peter he is scarce able to bring any coniecture The second seemeth fabulous The third concerneth not the whole land but only a few Saxons In the second he hath altogether failed not being able to prooue either his Tridentine or Decretaline doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse the seauen Sacraments the worship of saints and idols and such like matters in question out of the histories of those tiâ—â—s In the third point he trauaileth in vaine For why should England be more subiect to Rome for receiuing the Christian faith from thence then Rome to Hierusalem from whence the sound of the Gospell went into all lands In the second part of his three Conuersions he seemeth to make great inquirie for our Church and religion in former times But when he cannot deny but we hold all the Christian faith either taught expressely by the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church or explaned in the sixe generall Councels and do only condemne the corruptions of later time brought in by the Decretals and Schoolemens frapling disputes he sheweth himselfe a blinde searcher that can neither see nor sinde our faith and Church before these late dayes Physitions say that melancholike men are much subiect to dreames Melancholici saith one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth therefore that Parsons writing this booke of three Conuersions wherin so many dreames and fancies are conteined did ouerflow with melancholy But writing the second part of his treatise it seemeth that he was in a dead sleepe and had his senses so bound that he could neither feele nor see any thing In time past they say he was able to write well but now his bookes are like the coynes of which one in Plautus talketh The last are the worst And this I doubt not to make to appeare in this my answere the which I make bold to present to your Lordship as a testimoniall of my thankefulnesse and a pledge of my affection loue And the rather for that as your Lordship hath bene a principall helper to free me of my troubles so you may first taste of the fruite of my trauailes It is more then a yeare since I first framed this treatise but could not publish it by reason of my other occasions and disturbances But now that your bountifull fauours haue giuen me some time of breathing I thought I could not better employ my life and breath then in the common defence of the truth Vouchsafe therefore my good Lord to accept of this small present and to take both the gift and giuer into your protection And so I shall be more free to do God seruice and more willing to employ my selfe for his Church and alwayes rest Your Lordships most readie to be commanded Matthew Sutcliffe The Praeface to the Christian Reader IT is an old trick of heretikes Christian Reader to grace their leud opinions with faire titles Sub falso praetextu specie pietatis saith Constantine speaking to heretikes semper delinquentes omnia contagione vestra contaminatis So Parsons albeit he talketh of popish religion which is nothing else but a mixture of Iudaisme Paganisme and Heresie yet doth he giue out that he contendeth for Christian religion Againe albeit the Masse wherein the whole seruice of God according to the opinion of Papists consisteth be but a late patchery and their popish opinions meere nouelties and strange fancies yet would he make men beleeue that the Masse was instituted by Christ and that these new doctrines were taught by Peter and the rest of the Apostles of our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus In his Epistle Dedicatory he calleth the English Papists the off-spring and children of the first professors of Christianitie in this Iland And yet no children could further degenerate from their ancestors then the moderne Papists from the ancient Christians as by many particulars may be demonstrated Their faith concerning the foundations of Christian religion
Hares insult ouer dead Lyons If he had not bene a renegate Christian and fugitiue traytor he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant Neither if he had bene wise would he haue mentioned these two examples himselfe in apostacie being like the one and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine And yet not many yeares since in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him and his whole house Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note singing that only which maketh for his profit Modo palliatus modo togatus Now he playeth Dolman now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius vnum portentum est duo nomina that is one monster two titles Yet such is the folly of this parasite that thinking to praise the King he doth greatly dishonor him comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie and implying that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation yet may we probably suppose that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty and the subuersion of the realme as appeareth by a publike edict against them In commending the Kings booke he condemneth his religion as if any could be more dishonored then by imputation of want of religion Againe he contradicteth himselfe cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God and godlinesse and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity and inanity of sects and heresies where no ground no head no certaine principle no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion which his Maiesty professeth or cleanly auoyd in that sect which he followeth being a pack of impieties blasphemies heresies nouelties vncerteinties contradictions absurdities and fooleries The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion wherein we declare that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it and full of sincere wisedome but also approoued by Councels Fathers consent of nations miracles yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse of the Sacraments of the Pope of Purgatory Indulgences works of supererogation and such like For what more impious then to say that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist What more blasphemous then to giue Gods honor to stocks stones and to Antichrist What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature and office and to worship Angels Saints and Images What more new then the doctrine of Constance Florence Trent concerning the massing sacrifice the communion vnder one kind the subsisting of accidents without substance indulgences and such like What more vncertaine then popish religion that dependeth vpon the Popes determination a man oftentimes blind vnlearned and variable What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible aboue and below dead and aliue at one time What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome or to say with the Donatists that it is perished out of the whole world saue in one corner of the Romish church Finally what more foolish then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches and such like superstitious ceremonies In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue that man is mutable by his owne example that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions But that is little for his credit or the credit of his cause For what if he turne like a weather-cocke and renounce religion would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe Truth also is constant and alwayes like it selfe But falsehood varieth and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas sayth Hilary to Constantius The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite who being vncertaine in his resolution and leauing matters formerly purposed brought forth matters neuer designed for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion condemneth the sluggishnes of them that are carelesse in this behalfe But his words are contrary to the Romish practise that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion Much certes it were to be wished that men would do as he sayth for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists and see that popery is not Catholike as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke nor darkenes continue when light appeareth To preuent perillous courses and to giue light where certeinty of religion lyeth he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions But alas the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion as the East is from the West For what assurance can he haue of religion who doth beleeue neither Propheticall nor Apostolical writings nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes Surius Baronius and other fabulous writers and vaine and vncertaine traditions of which he hath no certeinty Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history and not matter of faith or doctrine Lastly he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon then to keepe them from any danger Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised In this preface I confesse he compareth the Church to a mansion house and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same promising that he will make proofe that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons But first there is great difference betweene the Church and a mansion house the Church being a mysticall body and being scattered here and there and not being appropriated to any family city or nation and a mansion house being a
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
no. IN this controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs about the first conuersion of the ancient Britains and Saxons to Christian religion thrée points are principally to be considered resolued First whether the Britains were first conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke Secondly whether these thrée or any one of them taught that faith which now the Pope and his adherents professe and we refuse And thirdly what the moderne Church of Rome can challenge of vs by any fauour done to our auncestors by them Robert Parsons boldly affirmeth that the ancient Britains were conuerted to the faith first of all by S. Peter and next by Eleutherius a Bishop of Rome And thirdly that Austin sent by Gregory the first did first preach the faith to the Saxons But the first cōuersion supposed to be wrought by Peter we deny Of the second we haue cause to doubt Of the third our aduersaries haue no cause to boast He impudently auoucheth that these thrée taught the same doctrine which the church of Rome now holdeth and which we refuse We wonder at his impudency and laugh at his folly that attempteth to prooue any such matter Thirdly vpon these supposed conuersions he concludeth that England and Englishmen haue particular obligation to the church of Rome aboue other nations He would haue said if he durst for shame that therefore we are to be subiect to the Romish church and to receiue her doctrine trash I would say traditions We say that we owe nothing but hatred to the Popes and later church of Rome hauing receiued nothing from thence but wrongs and disgraces and losse If any thing we owe it is to those which tooke paines to preach the true faith among vs and not to the Romanists and their agents that now go about to turne vs from the faith and to destroy his Maiesty and our countrey by treason That S. Peter neuer preached the Gospell in Britaine these reasons are sufficient to perswade vs. First it is apparent Galat. 2. that the preaching of the Gospell to the vncircumcised was committed vnto Paul and the preaching of the same to the circumcised to Peter The direction also of the first epistle of S. Peter sent to the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus Galatia Asia and Bithynia doth prooue it true How then is it likely that S. Peter leauing the circumcision committed to his charge should preach to the vncircumcision committed to others charge Or how could he that preached to them in Asia spare so much time as to make a iourney to preach to them in Britaine Againe can any man thinke if he had preached to the Britains at the time of the writing of the first and second epistle that he would not as well haue mentioned them as the Easterne nations That the second epistle was written to the same persons to whom he had directed y e first it appeareth by these words 2. Pet. 2. This second epistle I write to you Baronius also confesseth that he wrote this epistle a litle before his death It cannot therfore be surmised that he preached to the Britains after the writing of this epistle nor that he would neglect them more then others if at any time he had preached to them Secondly if Peter preached the Gospell in Britaine either he preached in Claudius the Emperour his dayes or vnder the reigne of Nero. And so some of our aduersaryes say he preached vnder the reigne of Claudius as Baronius some vnder the reigne of Nero as Eisengrenius in his Cēturics But Eusebius in Chronico sayth that after his comming to Rome he preached the Gospell there and cōtinued Bishop 25. yeares vbi Euangelium praedicans sayth he 25. annis eiusdem vrbis Episcopus perseuerat Baronius anno Christi 58. relateth how Peter being expulsed out of Rome by Claudius preached to the Westerne nations But Onuphrius in annotat ad vit am Petri sayth that being expulsed by Claudius out of Rome he went not westward but eastward and returned first to Hierusalem where he was present at the Councell at Hierusalem and afterward sate 7. yeares Bishop of Antioch Ibidem sayth he 7. annis vsque ad Claudij obitum Neronis imperium permansit The report also of his 25. yeares continuance in Rome is imprebable For if he were martyred as some say the 13. as others the 14. yeare of Nero then could he not be Bishop there 25. yeares Paule being conuerted to Christ some yeare or more after Christes passion and afterward abiding in Arabia three yeares and 14. yeares after finding Peter at Hierusalem as may be gathered out of the words of the Apostle Galat. 2. It is not likely also that he could suddenly go frō Hierusalem to Rome being sent to preach to all natiōs The best witnesse of Peters being Bishop of Rome 25. yeares is Eusebius his Chronicle but he testifieth also that he sate 25. yeares at Antioch which is a plaine contradiction to all stories of that matter Thirdly Peter preached in no place but he there ordeined Bishops and teachers and founded Churches But in Britaine we do not reade that either he ordeined Bishops or founded Churches or left any memoriall of his being there Fourthly the tradition of the church which is a part of the word of God as the Papists beleeue ascribeth the first conuersion of Britaine to Ioseph of Arimathaea and his fellowes Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph affirmeth that they preached the word of God in Britaine with great confidence and this he sayth they did the 63. yeare from Christs incarnation Anno sayth he ab incarnatione domini 63. fidem Christi fiducialiter praedicabāt Which disprooueth Caesar Baronius his tradition of Peters first preaching in Britaine anno Domini 58. Fiftly no one English Chronicle doth so much as once mention the comming of Peter into Britaine Is it then probable that Simeon Metaphrastes the writer of the Greeke legend liuing in Greece or Caesar Baronius the calculator of Romish traditions and legends singing Masses at Rome should better know what was done in Britaine then the ancient Chroniclers of the Britaine nation Sixthly of ancient writers of Ecclesiasticall histories no one sayth that Peter the Apostle first preached to the Britains Neither doth any ancient father of the church mention any such matter but rather ascribe that labour either to Paule as doth Theodoret in commentar in epist. ad Timoth. lib. 9. de curandis Graec. affect and Sophronius in serm de natiu Dom. and Venantius Fortunatus or to Simon Zelotes as Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. and Dorotheus in Synopsi or to Aristobolus as doth the same Dorotheus and some late writers But if Peter had first founded the Church of Britaine it is not likely that all authors would either haue concealed so glorious an action or else haue attributed the same to others Finally the aduersaries themselues for the most part confesse that Ioseph of Arimathaea did
first conuert the Britains to the faith of Christ. So sayth Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph So sayth Sanders in his preface to his sclanderous booke of schisme Britannos sayth he ad fidem Christi primus conuertisse primamque Ecclesiam in illa natione crexisse perhibetur Iosephus ab Arimathaea Lastly Parsons himselfe in his late Ward-word knew no more but of the two conuersions as he calleth them of England the first vnder Eleutherius the second vnder Gregory the first Wherefore either now or then he vttred vntruth The arguments and testimonies produced by Parsons to prooue S. Peters preaching in Britaine are weake and friuolous First saith he of S. Peter himselfe to haue bene in England or Britany and preached founded Churches and ordeined Priests and Deacons therein is recorded out of Greeke antiquities by Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian But first it may be a question how he knoweth that Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian sayth so and that out of Gréeke antiquities seeing he poore idiot vnderstandeth no Gréeke nor hath read any Greeke antiquities he quoteth therefore Metaphrastes apud Surium 23. Iuny but Caesar Baronius in his Annales quoteth Metaphr 29. Iuny Secondly he wrōgeth both Metaphrastes Surius adding to their words Thirdly albeit he had reported their words truly yet neither are we to giue credit to Metaphrastes a lying pedant liuing in Constantinople some 700. yeares agone and writing more lyes then leaues nor to Surius a superstitious Monke and a professed enemy of the truth Finally neither doth Metaphrastes nor Surius name one Church founded or one Bishop ordeined by Peter nor is Parsons able to name them His second reason is deriued from the testimony of Innocentius in his epistle to Decentius in the chapt Quis nesciat dist 11. But first there is no mention in that epistle made of Britaine neither can the same be well vnderstood by the Ilands lying betwixt Italy France Spaine Africa and Sicilia but rather some Ilands of the Mediterranean sea Secondly this epistle is euidently counterfet and conteineth a most notorious vntruth For he saith that none did institute Churches or teach in Italy France Spaine Afrike Sicily and the Ilands betweene them but S. Peter and his successors which is clearely refuted by the preaching of Paule in Italy of Iames in Spayne of Philip and Dionysius in France and is conuinced not only by the testimony of histories and fathers but also by the infallible authority of scriptures which testifie of Paules preaching in Rome and other places of Italy that receiued no authority frō Peter The Glosse therfore to salue this sore and to help this lye by alius in that Chapter vnderstandeth contrarius As if Innocent had said that none did preach contrary to Peter in all those places And Parsons to adde some weight to his light argument addeth these words vnto Innocentius or his schollers falsifying the deposition of his owne witnesse Finally these words of Innocentius do not imply that Peter preached in Britaine but some of his successors The third testimonie brought for proofe of this first conuersion is taken out of one William Eisengrene his first Centurie But it is of no more weight then the testimonie of Isegrime the wolfe in the booke of Reinard the foxe the fellow being a weake author and a party in this cause Furthermore he plainely contradicteth Caesar Baronius For where he saith that Peter preached in Britaine in the raigne of Claudius Sir Isegrime writeth that he founded Christian Churches in England vnder Nero if Parsons say truly So lyars confound themselues like Cadmus his broode one contending against another and each cutting his fellowes throte Parsons his fourth testimonie is out of Gildas de excid Britanniae where he saith the priests of Britaine did vsurpe S. Peter the Apostles seate with impure fecte But this sheweth that al bishops teaching S. Peters doctrine do sit after a sort in S. Peters chaire rather then that S. Peter placed a speciall chaire and sate as Bishop in Britaine of which neither Gildas nor other authenticall author giueth the least signification Saint Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 30. teacheth vs that these words spoken to Peter Louest thou me feede my sheepe belong to all Bishops Cùm ei dicitur saith he ad omnes dicitur Amas me pasce oues meas Cyprian Hierome Optatus and other Fathers call all Bishops the Apostles successors albeit the Apostles did not there sit or teach where the Bishops haue their sea which are tearmed their successors Fiftly he alleadgeth the testimonie of Alred Rienual a Cistercian Monk recorded by Surius 5. lanuarij who about 500 yeares agone as he saith wrote that S. Peter appearing to a holy man shewed him how he preached himselfe in England But neither can Parsons name this holy man vpon whose credit this report dependeth nor is any credit to be giuen to Surius or to his legends or to such fained dreames and reuelations as he reporteth In the meane while the Papists if they be not wilfully blind may sée how Parsons gulleth them with lyes and fables out of Simeon Metaphrastes and Surius and discerne what a braue péece of worke his treatise of thrée Conuersions is that is founded vpon dreames reuelations and fables testified onely by authors of legends fat crammed Monkes and professed enemies of the truth Finally in the same Chapter he discourseth of the preaching of Paule Simon Zelotes Aristobolus and Ioseph of Arimathaea in Britaine He collecteth also some suspitions out of Gildas Nicephorus and others as if the Britains were conuerted by some Romaines which being Christians went with Claudius the Emperor against the Britains But what maketh all this to proue that the Britains were first conuerted by Peter We are hereof to conclude the contrarie rather For if mention be made of Simon Zelotes and Aristobolus and others of more obscure note for preaching in Britaine it is not like that the preaching of Peter here in this Iland should haue bene suppressed in silence if there had bene any such thing Parsons surmiseth that those that went with Claudius into Britaine were sent thither by Peter But that is his owne foolish conceit and vaine imagination No auncient Writer doth testifie any such thing Thus then we may sée that all Parsons his discourse concerning the conuersion of Britaine by S. Peter is subuerted and brought to nothing Let vs therefore consider what is to be thought of the other two supposed conuersions CHAP. II. Of the pretended conuersion of Lucius king of Britaine and of the British nation to Christian religion by Eleutherius bishop of Rome and his agents The report of the conuersion of the Britains and their king Lucius vnto the faith of Christ although beléeued by Parsons and the Romanists as an article of their conuertible faith yet for many iust respects may well be called into question First the name of Lucius séemeth rather to sauour of the Latine then of the British language Neither can it be said
for the writers of Scriptures when we faithfully beleeue that the holy Ghost was the author of the booke Quis haec scripserit saith he valdè superuacuè quaeritur cùm tamen author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur Which is as much as if he should say that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs proceedeth not from the writer much lesse from the teacher or propounder but from the holy Ghost 3. Now the Romanists teach that the books of the Machabees and such like are canonicall Scriptures and equall to other books of the old Testament But S. Peter 2. Ep. 1. where by the word of y e Prophets he vnderstandeth y e Scriptures excludeth from the ranke of Scriptures of y e old Testament al books not written by Prophets of which sort are the books of the Machabees being written long after the times of Malachy the last of the Prophets Gregor lib. 19. moral c. 17. doth say plainly that y e books of the Machabees are not canonical 4. Now they affirme that the Pope is the foundation head of the Church But the Apostle Paul sheweth vs that Christ is the head of the Church and that the same is built vpon the Apostles and Prophets Christ being the chiete corner stone and we may not thinke that the Apostle Peter taught any other doctrine Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 82. naming Peter and other Apostles saith they were not heads but members of the Church Sub vno capite saith he omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae Neither is it credible that Eleutherius or Austin taught any other doctrine 5. When Cornelius as we reade Act. 10. did fall at Peters feet and adored him Peter would not suffer it And Gregory and Eleutherius were far from admitting men to kisse their slippers But now the Romanists giue the bastonata to those that wil not worship the Pope and ordinarily the Pope requireth adoration and suffereth great Princes to kisse his feete Of late some are said to haue disputed that Latria is due to the Pope 6. Now also the bishops of Rome haue giuen ouer preaching and feeding the flocke But the Apostle Peter exhorteth all Bishops and Elders to feed the flocke that dependeth on them And Greg. in pastor p. 2. saith That all bishops take on them the office of a Preacher or Cryer Praeconis officium suscipit saith he quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit 7. Now the Popes carry themselues as Lords ouer their flocke and entitle themselues Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishops But Peter 1. Epi. 5. forbiddeth Elders to beare themselues as Lords ouer Gods heritage And Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 78. 80. condemneth this title of Uniuersall and Oecumenicall bishop as proud and Antichristian 8. Now they that take vpon them to curse kings and to raise rebellion against them and to thrust them out of their royall seates as appeareth by the wicked Buls of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. of England of Pius the 5. Sixtus the 5. against Q Elizabeth and the wicked Decretais of Greg. the 7. against Henry the 4. and of Gregorie the 9. and Innocent the 4. against Friderick the 2. But the Apostle Peter neuer cursed Nero albeit he was a most cursed fellow nor went about to depose him Nay contrariwise he exhorteth all Christians to submit themselues to kings and gouernors Likewise Eleutherius Gregorie were obedient to temporall Princes Greg. li. 4. ep 78. calleth the Emperor his most pious Lord and submitteth himself euen in an Ecclesiastical cause to his order Pijssimi Domini scripta suscepi saith he vt cum fratre consacerdote meo debeam esse pacificus 9. Now they teach that the reprobate wicked men professing the Romish faith are true members of the Catholike Church as appeareth by Bellarmines discourse de Ecclesia militante They include the same also within the precincts of the Romish Church But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. sheweth that it consisteth of the elect according to Gods foreknowledge dispersed in Pontus Galatia and other countries Gregorie in Cantic 4. saith that the holy Church is called hortus conclusus that is a garden walled round about because it is of euery side so enuironed with a wall of charitie that no reprobate person may come within the number of the elect Likewise in the 28. book of his Morals he concludeth all the elect within the measure of the Church Neither doth it appeare that either Eleutherius or Austin did teach otherwise 10. They now teach vs to doubt of our election and saluation But S. Peter exhorteth vs 2. Epist. 1. to make our calling and election sure Which were a most vaine exhortation and request if no man could assure himself of his saluation Neither did Eleutherius or Gregory or Austin in this dissent from him 11. They now teach priests to offer for quicke and dead and Christians to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kind But Peter kept Christs institution inuiolably which sheweth that the Sacrament is to be receiued vnder both the kinds of bread and wine and not to be offered for quick and dead Gregory also homil 22. in Euang. sheweth that the people receiued both kinds Quid sit sanguis Agni saith he speaking to the people iam non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis 12. They make their followers beleeue that Christs naturall bodie is really vnder the formes of bread and wine although it cannot be felt nor séene there But Peter knew that Christ had no other body but such a one as might be felt and séene And Gregorie lib. 14. moral c. 31. 32. imputeth this as an heresie to Eutychius that mens bodies after the resurrection should be impalpable and inuisible 13. They giue out that we may redéeme our sins with siluer and gold buying and procuring Indulgences and with our owne satisfactions both in this life and in Purgatorie But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. saith expresly We are not redeemed with siluer and gold but by the precious bloud of Christ. Gregorie likewise in Psal. 5. Peenit saith that our Redeemer is called excelsus or high because none beside God could redéeme vs out of the hands of our enemies And lib. Moral 9-cap 30. Non valent virtute propria saith he ab humano genere supplicia sequuturae mortis expleri that is No man by his owne power can satisfie for the paines in the world to come 14. Now in celebration of the holy Eucharist they haue added a number of prayers for quicke and dead and prayers and confessions to Saints Angels But the Apostles as Gregorie testifieth lib. 7. Epist. 63. did consecrate saying onely the Lords prayer And in his time and long after the formes now vsed were not receiued 15. Neither Saint Peter nor Eleutherius nor Gregorie nor Austin did make the traditions of the Church equall to the word of God written Nay Gregorie vpon the Canticles cap. 2. saith that in Christ alone we find wholesome meate But if in Christ
alone then not in the Popes traditions 16. None of them did euer speake vnreuerently of Scriptures or call them a killing letter or a matter of strife or a nose of waxe or a shipmans hose or such like as do our aduersaries 17. None of them did make the Latine translation of the Bible more authenticall then the originall Tert. Nay Peter albeit he had the gift of tongues yet did he not write in Latine but in Greeke 18. Neither did Eleutherius or Gregorie call himselfe the spouse or rocke of the Church or Christs Vicar or substitute Nor did either S. Peter or Austin allow such proud titles 19. Neither did Gregorie the first nor any before him call himselfe King of Kings or Supreme Monarch of the Church Nay Gregorie rather delighted in the name and title of seruant of seruants and the rest of the bishops of Rome in ancient time were humble men and detested these proud titles 20. In the times of Gregory and Austin neither the number of Sacraments nor those formes rites which now the Synagogue of Rome vseth were established If Parsons will maintaine the contrary let him make proofe that the words vsed in the popish sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Vnction were knowne practised in those times Let him also shew that Priests were then appointed to sacrifice for quick dead Now if he cannot find these formes in the time of Gregory he will be much more puzzeled to find them in the daies of Eleutherius or Peter 21. The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist 11. confesseth frankly that he knoweth not whether the conuersion in the Eucharist be substantial or not Qualis sit illa conuersio sayth he an formalis vel substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio Much more difficultie then shall Parsons find to prooue his Transubstantiation out of the doctrine of Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter 22. S. Peter knew no other Priesthood but that which was common to all Christians neither did he acknowledge any sacrifices of Christians but spirituall Neither Eleutherius nor Gregory nor Austin euer heard that a Masse-priest did either offer vp Christs body and bloud really or as we reade in the Canon of the Masse take vpon him to be a mediator for Christes body and bloud 23. It is impious to thinke that either Peter or Gregory or any in those times beléeued that hogges and dogges eating consecrated hoasts did with their mouthes eate and swallow downe into their belly the body of Christ as the Schoolemen and most Papists now teach 24. S. Peter neuer put the Sacrament in pixes nor adored it as his Lord and God Neither do we find that either Elcutherius or Gregory practised any such matter For it was first ordred by Honorius the third that y e Sacrament should be kept in pixes and worshipped after the moderne fashion 25. In the Romish ordinall we finde no prayers for the dead nor any priuat masses nor masses for warre peace plagues or for hogges and horses and such like vses If then the same be thought to haue procéeded for the most part from Gregory and from others that succéeded him it is certaine that these abuses came in after his time 26. The forme of hosts and singing cakes not much bigger then a counter and the image of the crucifixe vpon them and the idolatrous worship of Latria giuen to them was vtterly vnknowne in Gregories time and long after 27. The old ordinall of Rome doth shew that the confession of penitents was not made to Saints or Angels in Gregories time or before him 28. Neither in Gregories time nor before him do we find that any godly Bishop commanded that the publike Liturgie of the Church should be sayd in Latin or Gréeke or other language not vnderstood by the common people or that he suffred the Sacraments to be administred in tongues not knowne of the vulgar sort Nay the Apostle Paule 1. Cor. 14. sheweth plainely that praiers in a tongue not vnderstood are fruitlesse which doctrine no question antiquitie much respected 29. Now the Romanists will haue all Churches to follow Rome as their Mistresse in all rites and ceremonies But Gregory as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. gaue Austin liberty to chuse out of all Churches what rites he thought most conuenient Ex singulis quibusque Ecclesijs saith he quae pia quae religiosa quae recta sunt elige 30. Neither did Austin nor Gregory consecrate a Paschal lambe at Easter after the Iewish manner or hallow water to driue away diuels and for remission of venial sinnes as is now practised by the Papists 31. The law of auricular confession and the necessity and forme thereof was first established by Innocent the third c. Omnis vtriusque sexus de poenit remis It is not therfore likely that y t same should be practised in Gregories time or before 32. Gregory would not haue Saints images broken or defaced in Churches yet did neither he nor any Bishop of Rome before him allow the worship of them Quòd ea adorari vetuisses omnino laudauimus saith he lib. 9. epist. 9. ad Serenum speaking of images of Saints And again Si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare verò imagines omnibus modis deuita that is if any will make images foibid them not but by all meanes auoid the worship of images But Peter and Eleutherius neither worshipped images nor suffered them to be made in Churches None of them certes nor Austin himselfe did thinke or teach that the crosse or crucifixe is to be worshipped with Latria Austin comming to Canterbury had a crosse of siluer and the image of our Sauiour painted in a table as Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 26. reporteth but he sayth not that either the crosse or image was worshipped with Latria or otherwise either by him or by others 33. Both Gregory and Austin vsed Letanies But neither did they pray to the virgin Mary nor to Peter nor Paule nor to other Saints Austins Letany as we may reade in Bede hist. Angl. lib. 1. ca. 16. was nothing but a praier directed to God 34. Gregory and Austin estéemed much the reliques of Saints yet did neither of them digge their bodies out of the graues and put them in shrines to be worshipped as is the fashion of papists of our time 35. Neither did Gregory take vpon him to canonize or vncanonize Saints or to appoint Masses to be said or holidayes to be kept in their honor And if this will not be prooued of Gregory much lesse will it be shewed that either Eleucherius or Peter euer taught or allowed any such canonization of Saints or Romish worship giuen them 36. Gregory allowed Purgatory as it seemeth for small faults yet did he not beléeue that men did satisfie in Purgatory for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor that the bishop of Rome by his indulgences could deliuer men out of Purgatory As for
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
Africans to the Easterne Church or the Frizelanders or Germains to the English Is it not then a mad conceit of Parsons to suppose because for many ages past it is reported that the ancient Britains and Saxons were conuerted by preachers sent from Rome that the Church of England should be subiect to the Pope or Church of Rome Fiftly the Church of Rome as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. adners haeres cap. 3. was founded by Peter and Paule Neither néede we make any question but that they came from Hierusalem Diuers stories also say that Peter for some time sate Bishop of Antioch Eusebius saith He was 25. yeares Bishop at Antioch If then the Church of Rome do yéeld no subiection either for matters of faith or gouernment to the Church of Hierusalem or Antioch from whence the Papists cannot deny but that the first founders of the Church of Rome did come Parsons is but a simple fellow to vrge this matter of Conuersion so much séeing the Romanists themselues and their holy Fathers the Popes of Rome regard it not one strain Finally if our owne Bishops to whom we owe subiection in the Lord should teach any other Gospell then that which was preached by the Apostles of our Sauiour Christ we are not to follow them Nay we are to pronounce them Anathema Though we saith the Apostle Gal. 1. or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached vnto you let him be accursed But the Pope aud his adherents preach vnto vs otherwise and publish doctrines in their Decretals and acts of the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent not onely diuers from the Apostles preaching but also contrarie vnto it as partly we haue shewed and also shall be readie to auerre to Parsons his face though neuer so much steeled with impudencie Had they then any right to teach or gouern vs as they haue not yet by the Apostles rule we are to pronounce them Anathema And as for Parsons we are to suppose him a weake fellow that hath spent the quintessence of his silly learning and vnderstanding to proue that which profiteth him nothing If we owe any thing to the Romaines it is to those if any such were that tooke paines to teach vs the faith of Christ. As for the moderne Romanists that seeke to turne vs from true religion nay that séeke to blow vs vp we owe them nothing Furthermore as well may it be concluded that the Pope and his adherents the Iebusites are to be subiect to the great Turke that now ruleth at Hierusalem or to his Mufti or chiefe Bishop there because from thence came the preachers that first founded the Church of Rome as that we are to be subiect to the Church of Rome or the Pope because the auncient Britains and Saxons were first conuerted by preachers that came from Rome For the Turkes Mufti is as good a Bishop as the Pope and the Popes religion is not much lesse corrupted in many points then that of the Turke Howsoeuer it is the Turkes call themselues Musulmans or True beléeuers as the Papists call themselues Catholikes Finally I cannot better compare Parsons that concludeth subiection and obedience of this pretended Conuersion to any then to him that would inferre that the Pope is Lord of the whole world because sometime Rome was mistris of the world or that the Romains haue obligation to the Turkes of Asia because they possesse the citie and country of Troy from whence it is said the auncient Romains are descended But saith Parsons pa. 28. Irenaeus Tertullian de Praescript Cyprian lib. 4. cap. 8. Augustine and others are wont to vrge greatly against Heretikes that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome then ought it to runne to her in all doubts and difficulties of faith But first no one of these Fathers speaketh one word in the places quoted of our Church Secondly they do not affirme this of any other Church Why then doth he not bring foorth his testimonies that hath bene so often taken halting in false alledging the Fathers Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres saith that euery Church ought to haue respect to the Church of Rome then for her eminent principality And others regarded her when she florished in pietie But what is this to the moderne Church of Rome that is departed from the faith pietie and vertue of the auncient Church of Rome Againe if other Churches in old time had no great respect to Rome professing the faith no Church is now bound to hearken to her being departed from the faith Finally albeit in ancient time other Churches did consult in matters of difficultie with the Church of Rome yet this prooueth not that in matters of faith or ceremontes they were to adhere to her or that they ought to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their Monarch Doth it not then appeare that Parsons his worke is as fraile as a Spiderwebbe and as full of foolerie as frailtie vndertaking to proue matters which he could not performe and which being proued do rather make against him then for him CHAP. VII That the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation GLadly would Parsons haue concluded if he durst that the English being first conuerted to the faith by the Romains are now to be subiect to the Pope both in matters of doctrine and Ecclesiasticall gouernment But well he vnderstood that the consequent was leud and foolish He doth now therefore say onely That England and English men haue particular obligation to the sea of Rome leauing it to euery mans priuate supposall what that obligation is But we do no more yeeld to this then to the former conclusion For whereas the inhabitants of England are descended either of the auncient Britains or Saxons or Danes or Normans and Frenchmen first the auncient Britains and their ofspring do owe nothing either to Austin or Gregorie For when as the Bishops of the Britains came to conferre with Austin most proudly he sate in his chaire and would not receiue them with any signe of humanitie or reuerence Factum est saith Bede lib. 2. histor Anglor cap. 2. vt venientibus illis sederet Augustinus in sella He confesseth also that the Britaine Bishops noted his pride And it appeareth manifestly in this that ambitiously he sought to be the Archbishop of England and to rule ouer the Britains Againe when the Bishops of Britaine refused him as their Archbishop and would not submit themselues to his commandements he animated the Saxons and stirred them to warre against the Britains Austin being refused of the Bishops saith Thomas Grey in his Chronicle and others the learned of the Britains made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert king of Kent that foorthwith he leauied his power and marched against them and flue them in most cruell wife hauing no more mercie on them then a Wolfe vpon a sheepe
or a matter feined it is not like being recorded in so many histories and authenticall writers That Martinus Polonus did first report this matter no man hath reason to beléeue séeing the same so plainely set downe in Radulphus Flauiacensis Marianus Scorus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis Baronius sayth that Marianus Scotus was the first brother of it Neither was Martinus Polonus so simple a fellow as is pretended being the Popes penitentiary and a writer in that kind equall to the best of his ranke That y e fauourers of the Emperour should brute this matter abrode to defame the Pope is a méere fiction For it cannot be shewed that any Emperour in the contention betwixt the Emperours and the Popes did euer cast out any such matter against the Pope Rob. Parsons his arguments brought forth to proue this history to be a fable are like his owne head that is brutish and blockish For first it is no good argument to conclude from the authority of two or thrée of the Popes parasites negatiuely viz. that they omit a matter tending to the Popes defame ergo no such matter was done Secondly he alledgeth a counterfet author called Audomarus He may do well to shew who he was being neither mentioned by Baronius nor Bellarmine where they talke of this matter Thirdly it is ridiculous to inquire of our country writers of matters done at Rome or to thinke that they would speake any thing tending to the disgrace of the Pope whose sworne slaues they were Beside that the author of Fasciculus temporum sheweth that this woman-pope was not forgotten but of purpose omitted by the writers of histories because of the slander that might thereof redound to the sea of Rome Fourthly no man can tell whether Alphred knew any such matter or not Nay it is not very certaine that either he or his father were in Rome about the time of Pope Ioans deliuery But had they bene at Rome about this time yet might they well know Pope Iohn to be English although not a woman Fiftly if in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis this history be not found it is plaine that the agents of the Romish Church men infamous for falsitie haue razed the same out And that may appeare first by the testimonie of Fasciculus temporum who sheweth the cause of the blotting out of Pope Ioans name next by ancient manuscript copies and last by the testimonie of Baronius who maketh Marianus Scotus the first deuiser of this matter So hard is it for lyars and forgers to consent together Sixthly it may be a question whether the letters of Leo the 9. to Michael be counterfet or not But were they written by him as is reported yet raylers oftentimes obiect the same crimes one to another Finally there is no such discordance in the circumstances of the history but that there are farre greater in matters which the Romanists beleeue to be most true Letters and names and places and times may be easily mistaken and yet the matter reported may prooue most true Likewise it is no strange thing for one person to be called of two places both Anglicus and Maguntinus That Athens then was a place famous for studie it may be gathered out of Gréeke histories no one writer certes holdeth the contrary The Popes therefore of this time if they please may be successors of Pope Ioane whom we haue manifestly demonstrated to haue béene Pope but the successors of Peter and Eleutherius and other godly ancient Bishops of Rome they cannot iustly terme themselues CHAP. IX That the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meanes of triall of the truth BEllarmine lib. de not Eccles. ca. 8. would gladly haue the succession of the Romish Bishops to be a marke of the Church And Rob. Parsons doth estéeme the same a matter of great importance for triall of true religion and prooueth it in the best sort he can Part. 2. Ch. 1. How much they are abused these reasons may declare First the succession of Popes is of no greater force or vertue then the succession of the priests of the law For from them they borrow diuers titles and prerogatiues But the high priests of the Iewes did oftentimes withstand the Prophets of God and Vria the high priest in the time of Achaz as we reade 4. Kings 16. erected a strange altar in the Temple Finally they condemned Christ and his Apostles and all their doctrine Secondly the Apostles in their time could not trie their religion by the succession of Bishops nor was succession then a marke of the Church For neither did the Apostles succéed the high priests or sacrificers of the Iewes nor as yet had the Apostle Peter any successor But the marks and properties of the Church are always the same Neither can we looke for better triall and proofe of religion then that which the Apostles had Thirdly the Church of Rome when Paule wrote his famous epistle vnto it had no succession of Bishops Yet was it then the true Church Neither néede we to make question but that the same had all conuenient meanes for the triall of truth 4. The succession of Bishops in the Church of Antioch Hierusalem and Alexandria neither was a certaine marke of the Church nor a meanes to try the truth And this I thinke our aduersaries will not deny But if they should it may easily be prooued for that Ecclesiasticall histories teach vs that the Bishops of those seas haue fallen into diuers grosse heresies and are now condemned for heretikes by the sea of Rome 5. The Churches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople to this day shew the Catalogues of their Bishops Likewise Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonit Cap. 34. sheweth the successors of Simon Magus for diuers ages Likewise doth Epiphanius haeres 34. shew who for diuers yeares succéeded Valentinus Yet Parsons will not grant that either Valentinus or Simon Magus or their followers were true Catholikes neither will the Papists confesse that the Greeks of the Churches of Constantinople or the people of Antioch or Alexandria are the true Church or that by the succession of their Bishops truth may be tried 6. If by succession of Bishops either the Church or the truth might certeinly be discerned and tried then could not Bishops erre or teach peruersely But histories teach vs that diuers great Bishops haue grossely erred as Liberius and Honorius the first in Rome Macedonius and Nestorius in Constantinople And this the Apostle speaking to the Bishops assembled at Miletus Act. 20. doth clearely shew Of your owne selues saith he shall men arise speaking peruerse things to draw disciples after them Finally the aduersaries themselues sometimes confesse that succession is no certaine marke of the Church Lyra in his postill vpon the 16. of Matth. sayth that the chiefe Bishops haue bene found to haue departed from the faith But what triall is to be had by succession if Bishops may depart from the faith
demonstrations of his owne weaknesse vanitie and that in his owne writings he hath enrolled himself a bragging foole in great letters There also he telleth vs further how he produceth the iudgements censures sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world to wit the determination of the highest Ecclesiasticall Tribunals in fauour of his consorts the Papists of England But this shamelesse bragge is refuted by the whole course of his worthlesse worke For neither doth he handle any one principall point of faith in controuersie nor doth he produce the Canons of lawfull generall Councels which haue soueraigne authoritie in externall gouernment to proue the doctrine of the Papists but onely prateth idlely of counterfeit Decretals and mentioneth forged instruments suborned witnesses and most weake surmises not woorth one chip Furthermore where he calleth Councels the highest Tribunals of the Church he doth as it were with his putatiue Fathers sledge batter the Popes chaire in péeces Thirdly he vanteth of the honorable course of true obedience to God in matters of the soule and loyall behauiour towards temporall Princes in al worldly affaires held by Papists And this he saith is glorious both before God and man But the mans notorious vanitie deserueth to be hated both of God and man For how can they be thought to hold a right course of obedience toward God that prohibite the reading of Gods word in the Church in tongues vnderstood And how may they seeme carefull in matters of the soule that bring in new and strange worships of God and for Christ serue Antichrist The disloyaltie of Papists is too too apparent not onely in the rebellions of England and Ireland and their trecherous plots against his Maiestie and his predecessors but also in their doctrine teaching and professing that Kings are the Popes vassals and that he hath power to take away their Crownes and to assoile subiects from their obedience But if any doubted of their loyaltie before now he may be resolued not onely by their trecherous plot to blow vp the Parliament house but also by their open rebellion in Warwikeshire Speaking of the fact of Pope Clement commanding his vassals in England to kéepe silence he boasteth of it as of a miracle But it is no maruell to sée the slaues of Antichrist obedient to his command It were rather miraculous if they should follow the lawes of God and submit themselues to their lawfull Princes and renounce the abhominations of Antichrist In the latter end of his Epistle he braggeth That supposing Christ to be Christ and his promises true he wil forsooth by his doughtie discourse of Three Conuersions decide all the controuersies betwixt vs and the Papists and that as he professeth with certaine sequele of argument and necessarie demonstration But his blustring bragges are passed without effect and his clients rest more doubtfull then before Nay his arguments are so ridiculous that indifferent men do scorne them and his demonstrations so lousie that it appeareth plainely that he is better affected to Antichrist then to Christ and groundeth his faith rather on the Popes Decretals then holy Scriptures Pag. 114. he beareth his reader in hand that really and substantially he is able to proue our doctrine to be hèresie and to shew the beginnings and authors thereof But his shews are declared to be shadowes and the substance of his discourse is disproued as a packe of reall and grosse fooleries Sooner shall he transubstantiate himself into a messe of Mustard then either maintaine the masse of Popish heresies or disproue the substance of our doctrine Neither doth he more insolently boast of his owne doughtie déedes then childishly beg and take matters in question as granted In the Epistle Dedicatory and diuers other places Papists are still called Catholikes and Popish superstitioÌ„ couered and dignified by the name of Catholike Religion Matters by all true Christians vtterly denyed and by infinite particulars disproued and apparently false For how can they be truly esteemed Catholikes that embrace the particular faith of the Church of Rome neither taught by the Prophets nor Apostles of Christ nor knowne to y e ancient Fathers of the Church Or how can a particular hereticall superstitious idolatrous Religion be reputed Catholike There also he supposeth the auncient monuments of the Church to be charters and euidences for the moderne Romish Religion A matter alwaies contradicted by vs and neuer proued by our aduersaries and yet boldly affirmed by this babling discourser Let him therefore cease to beg this at our hands and orderly deduce the doctrine of the Romish Masse Popes tyrannical rule and the rest of their vnwritten traditions out of the ancient monuments of y e Church Pag. 7. He telleth vs That the Masse and Images were in vse in Gregory the 1. his time And no question but he vnderstandeth the Masse now vsed and the worship of Images by the Church of Rome defended But these are matters in questioÌ„ not impudently to be affirmed but seriously to be proued Pag. 311. he nameth the Popes of Rome head Bishops of the Catholike Church But this would rather be soundly proued and so he should do the Pope a great fauour then dissolutely passed ouer and boldly begged For wise men do but admire his folly and scorne such loose dealing It were an easie matter to specifie his impudencie in this kind by infinit particulars But what néed more proofes in matters so euident CHAP. XVI Arguments of Rob. Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries AMong his followers Robert Parsons they say is holden a profound Doctor But his pitifull failes and errors in mistaking both his authors and their words and meaning declare the contrarie In the addition following his Epistle he telleth vs how Constantine the great entred into the Empire next after Dioclesian But Ecclesiasticall histories shew that Constantius and Galerius succéeded Diocletian and that Constantine succéeded his father Constantius And if he will not beléeue vs yet let him see what Baronius saith in his second and third Tome of Annales who putteth thrée yeares betwéene Dioclesian and Constantine and others betweene them two There also he saith that Constantine being of a different religion when he entred became a Christian by his pious mother Helena But the Legend of Siluester saith that Helena was a Iew in Religion and endeuoured to draw her sonne that way And Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles. hist. cap. 26. sheweth that from the beginning of his raigne he was a follower of his father in pious affection towards our Religion Se paternae pietatis erga nostrae Religionis disciplinam aeâ—eulum imitatorem ostendit saith he Further he mistaketh the historie of Maxentius affirming That he fained himselfe a Christian when he heard of Constantines coming toward Rome whereas Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles hist. cap. 26. saith he fained Christianitie in the first entrance of his raigne His words are In ipso imperij ingressu Speaking of S. Martin S. Nectarius
man knoweth that there is no such Bishop in England The records of the storie might also direct his iudgement in this matter but that he vseth to looke vpon no records Pag. 269. He nameth a certaine sect of Heretiks Massilians as if they of Massilia were Heretikes But he should say if he were not grossely ignorant Messalians Pag. 282. Hierome is cited Dial. vlt. contr Lucifer Whereas it is apparent that he wrote onely one Dialogue against the Luciferians He is also alledged for proofe of succession of Bishops albeit he speake onely of the foundation and succession of the Church Pag. 387. He taxeth M. Foxes words against Pope Ioane as blasphemous Yet it is very absurd to account all to be blasphemie that is vttered against the Pope Pag. 444. and 445. in a matter of controuersie concerning Innocent the third he produceth Blondus and Genebrard two poore parasites of the Pope to speake in his cause Likewise he alledgeth Platina and Sabellicus as witnesses for Hildebrand For him also he quoteth Sigebert and Auentine that speake against him and an Epistle of Anselme that is not extant But what is more absurd and foolish then to vse the testimonie either of hired parasites or of such as speaks against the purpose of him that vseth them or of records no where extant But what should we néed to séeke for more arguments of Parsons ignorance and foolerie when his whole discourse is nothing but a packe of errors and fooleries CHAP. XVII A note of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall IF a man would respect termes he might percase somtimes estéeme Rob. Parsons to be a man not altogether exorbitant from Religion and loyaltie But if we looke into the whole course of his writing we shall hardly find in so finall a volume more aguments of impietie and disloyaltie In his Epistle Dedicatorie he applyeth these words of the Euangelist Exurgens imperauit ventis mari which belong properly to Christ to the Pope as if he were able to command the winds and sea In his Preface speaking of arguments of credibilitie for Christian Religion and naming the sayings of Prophets miracles and testimonie of eye witnesses he saith that neither they nor such like are so euident as philosophicall demonstrations As if philosophicall arguments were more cleare and euident then the lightsome word of God or Gods miracles or else as if euery one were better able to vnderstand philosophicall arguments knowne only by the light of naturall reason then the truth of Scriptures and Religion proued by the light of Gods holy Spirit most certaine miracles eye witnesses and diuers other arguments There also he affirmeth that there are like arguments of credibilitie for the points of Popish Religion now in controuersie as are for the Articles of Christian Religion But this is sufficient to ouerthrow all pietie and Religion For what man can beléeue the articles of the faith if we had no better ground for them then for the Popish doctrine of Purgatorie Indulgences the Popes Monarchie and infallible iudgement the popish worship of Angels and Saints and Images the eating of Christs bodie by brute beasts eating the Sacrament and other vnwritten Popish traditions Pag. 102. he compareth the doctrine of the Trinitie of Christs two natures and one Person of the procéeding of the holy Ghost and such like substantiall and necessarie points of the Christian faith to the wicked and corrupt doctrine of the Popes vniuersal authoritie of the popish Masse of Transubstantiation worship of Images and such like taught by the Church of Rome as if the one were as easily and directly to be proued as the other But what can be deuised more impious then to match the hereticall doctrine of schoolemen either deuised by Popes or conceiued by philosophicall deductions with the faith of Christ not onely proued by diuine Scriptures but also testified by Fathers and Catholike Christians of all times Pag. 111. he compareth the word Transubstantiation to the word Trinitie and Consubstantiall Which is as much as if he should deny the holy Trinitie and the Deitie of the Sonne of God if he cannot proue his Transubstantiation a matter that passeth his capacitie to proue Pag. 104. he alloweth the donation of Ethelwolph that gaue lands to God the blessed Virgin and all the Saints But what is more impious then to match creatures with the Creator to honor Saints the Mirgin Mary as Gods Likewise doth he shew himselfe disloy all to his Prince In his Epistle Dedicatorie speaking of obedience due to Princes he taketh from them all authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall causes esteeming that he doth them fauor in giuing them obedience in all worldly affaires But if he were further examined what obedience is due to Princes excommunicated by the Pope it is not to be questioned but he would deny them obedience in temporall affaires also and defend the rebellions of subiects against their Princes In an addition following his Epistle he insulteth ouer the late Queene hearing of her death and rayleth at her calling her an old persecutor The which argueth not only a disloyall affection towards his Prince but also an inhumane malice against the dead And this reward Princes reape that shew fauour to these Scorpions There also he prayseth the King for his learning iudgement and zeale But if he were either good Christian or true subiect he should haue commended his piety and not haue sought to make him subiect to the Pope Againe if he had loued the King he would not haue plotted his destruction Pag. 136. he imputeth the burning of Foster Freese and Tewkesbury thrée godly Martyrs in King Henry the 8. his dayes to the King and yet were the Romish persecutors the causers of their death Likewise he saith that others were burned by the Kings authority So all the fault is laid vpon the King although the principall agents in these murthers were Romish prelates Pag. 252. he prooueth that Kings are subiect to the Pope by the best reasons he could deuise Can he be thought then loyall to his Prince that extolleth strangers and debaseth Kings Pag. 257. he laugheth at King Edward the sixth as a child King as if the children of Kings were not to succéede their Fathers in their Kingdomes and Pag. 260. he scorneth Proclamations set forth in his name Percase it would greatly please him if all matters were ordred by the Decretals of the Pope But what néede we other arguments to conuince this fellow of disloyaltie when his booke of titles is extant wherein he doth not only oppugne the Kings title to the Crowne of England but also giueth both the Pope and people authority ouer Kings And if that will not serue yet when we remember the horrible treason of Percy and his consorts animated no doubt by Parsons we may plainely sée that he is a Cardinall traytor CHAP. XVIII A particular of Parsons his lyes calumniations