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
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
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
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
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
meanes yet most of them were conuerted by others Laurentius baptized the sonne of Ethelbert that was a pagan The king of Northumbers marying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert by her perswasion was christened by Paulinus Erpwald the king of the Castangles receiued the faith by the perswasion of king Edwine Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptized in Scotland Many Northerne Saxons were also conuerted to religion by the meanes of king Oswald and Finan a Scot. Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua conuerted the West-Saxons Sigbert was baptized in France and raigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion Peda king of Middleangles was baptized also by Finan a Scot. Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris conuerted to Christ the Southsaxons And all this is testified by Henry of Huntington With him also agrée for the most part Beda William of Malmesburie and diuers other Chroniclers It is therefore euident that Austin performed either litle or nothing those conuersions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death Fourthly it is most apparent that neither the French nor Britains of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons were conuerted by Austin Not the French for that Austin was not sent vnto them and for that they had receiued Christianitie long before Not the Britains for that Austin was sent to Saxons and not to Britains Secondly the Britains were Christians long before Austins coming into England neither did Christianitie after their first conuersion euer faile amongst them as is euident by the testimonie of Bede Capgraue and others Not long before the arriuall of Augustine many Britains about the time of Caster being newly baptized went out with the rest vnder the conduct of Germanus to fight against the Picts and Saxons and obtained a great victorie as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Councell assembled by Austin and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared diuers Bishops of the British nation Thirdly the Britains as Beda writeth refused to subiect themselues to Austins iurisdiction and to accept his orders Finally it appeareth that Austin did rather worke the subuersion then the conuersion of the Britains animating the Saxons to destroy them Fiftly Austin shewed extreame cowardire in coming towards England and hardly was perswaded to set forward as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speake one word of English nor to preach vnlesse it were by his interpreter Lastly he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles at the commandement of Gregorie But first such feare or cowardice beséemeth no Apostolike man Secondly faith cometh by hearing and vnderstanding and not by commission or outward signes It séemeth therefore that Austins Interpreters did rather conuert the Saxons then Austin himselfe Finally what power had either the bishop of Arles or Gregorie to appoint Archbishops in England And how cometh it to passe that now more Archbishops are here then one if his order had any force That these exceptions are true Beda will witnesse Percussi timore inerti saith he lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potiùs quà m barbaram feram incredulamque gentem cuius ne linguam quidem nossent adire cogitabant Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant And againe cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interpretes And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem ciuitatis iuxta quod iussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est Whatsoeuer then was done by Austin the same concerned none but a few Saxons of Kent and such as were baptized by him Neither did he deserue more then is due to euery minister of Gods word and Sacraments that by preaching and baptizing gaineth soules vnto Christ Iesus The Normans and Northern and West Saxons are nothing beholding to him The Britains haue cause to detest his memorie and to thinke hardly of him for his pride and barbarous crueltie If therefore Rob. Parsons meane to gaine any thing by the labours of Gregorie or Austin he must proue first that these two did preach to the auncient Saxons Britains French and other inhabitants of England Next that the present Pope is like vnto Gregorie the malignant race of Masse-priests and Iebusites to Austin Thirdly that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations are to subiect themselues to the Churches and Bishops that sent them And finally if he will haue vs to kéepe vnitie with the moderne Church of Rome he must proue that the same is neither departed from Christ nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregorie If not he doth but cast feathers against the wind and both tire himselfe with writing and vexe his reader with examining his fooleries and idle imaginations CHAP. IIII. That the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by Peter Eleutherius Gregorie and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them BUt what would it aduantage Rob. Parsons if he could proue that either the auncient Britains were conuerted to the faith by S. Peter and Eleutherius or the ancient Saxons by Gregorie and Austin séeing the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which is now reiected was either oppugned by them or at the least neuer knowne vnto them Now the Romanists prohibite holy Scriptures to be read publikely in vulgar tongues as dark and vnprofitable and condemne those that reade them translated into vulgar tongues without licence But the Apostle S. Peter 1. Epist. 2. exhorteth all Christians though newly regenerate to desire the sincere milke of the word And 2. Epist. 1. sheweth That they do well that take heede to the words of the Prophets as to a light shining in a darke place Neither néed we doubt but that all Peters true successors maintaine the same doctrine Gregorie in Ezechiel homil 10. doth commend Scriptures as meate and drinke and lib. 2. Moral as a glasse It is not likely therefore that he would prohibite Christians to eate and drinke and to behold themselues in a glasse that thereby they may learne to informe themselues in matters of faith and to reforme their manners 2. Now they teach that the holy Scriptures to vs are not authenticall nor canonicall vnlesse the Pope deliuer them and consigne them And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith that the Scriptures do depend vpon the Church and of Stapleton in his booke written in defence of the authoritie of the Church But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith that the word of the Prophets is most sure vnto vs. We haue saith he a most sure word of the Prophets And Gregorie in his preface vnto his Commentaries vpon Iob saith that in vaine we search
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
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
like the moderne Masse or that he worshipped the crosse or the image or planted them in the Church Bede mentioneth no such matter where he mentioneth them If by Masse he meane a dimission of the people and by the vse of images vnderstandeth an historicall vse of them he reléeueth his cause nothing For neither do we contend about words nor deny all historicall vse of images To help the matter a little he sayth that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in procession with a crosse and image of our Sauiour in a banner But Beda conuinceth him oflying who sayth he brought Christes image in a table Veniebant sayth he crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam imaginem Domini Saluatoris in tabula depictam For proofe that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth vs Pa. 8. 9. to the Magdeburgians Cent. 2. cap. 4. de doctr But his proofe is weake and witlesse For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius or Clement Secondly albeit we should graunt that Eleutherius consented with all those that liued in that age in their erroneous or incommodious spéeches which notwithstanding we haue no reason to beléeue yet can it not thereby be prooued that he consented with Clement the 8. or Clement with him For albeit we reade in Ignatius this phrase Offerre and Sacrificium immolare and like phrases in Irenaeus Cyprian Tercullian and Martialis who mentioneth also Altars yet it foloweth not that the Romish sacrifice of Christs body and bloud for quick and dead or the moderne Canon of y e Masse or Transubstantiation and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were knowne to these ancient Fathers For all those termes which the Fathers vsed being taken and meant spiritually and being vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices make nothing either against vs or for our aduersaries Masses or massing formes Thirdly although the Magdeburgians in these times complaine of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men which Parsons grossely interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine yet they taxe but few men and say not that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yéeld let them yeeld for themselues we do not in all points take ourselues bound to allow their sayings nor finde any such inconuenience in these termes as the Fathers vnderstood them as the Magdeburgians pretend Finally Rob. Parsons must speake of more then one point of consent or else he will shew himselfe vnwise to parallele Clement the 8. with his triple Crowne to the humble martyr of Christ Eleutherius This testimony therefore out of the Magdeburgians maketh little for his purpose But therein he doth properly bewray his owne folly For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen Dom. where he neuer wrote any such booke and did not vnderstand the Magdeburgians who vse these words Tertullianus de coena loquens in lib. de culiu foeminar Lastly the words inclinatio Doctrinae he translateth the falling away of Christian doctrine as if euery thing that did decline did fall away or else as if doctrine might be sayd properly to fall away and not rather men to decline from the sinceritie of doctrine Afterward Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth vs how Cyprian epist. 45. glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa and all other the Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of christian faith from Rome as from their mother and that he calleth the Roman Church matricem ceterarum omnium And that Tertullian saith that the authority of his church came from Rome And lastly that Augustine in Psal. contr partē Donati had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholike then to say that they were daughters childrē of the church of Rome But first this maketh nothing for his purpose which should proue that y e doctrine of the moderne church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome Secondly most grossely doth he either mistake or belye these Fathers for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say that his church of Carthage and all churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution fió Rome Nor doth he once mention Rome but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margent where it is plaine he speaketh of the generall Catholike Church Further he doth not say that Mauritania Numidia were vnder Carthage for they are prouinces entire of themselues and diuided from Carthage as Caesar Baronius might haue informed him All which also is made cleare by y e words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem radicem agnoscerent tenerent saith he Sed quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra prouincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritaniam cohaerentes Tertullians words are these Vnde nobis quoque authoritas praestò est statuta That is from whence we haue testimony at hand and not as this beetlehead interpreteth from whence the authority of our Church came S. Augustine in Psalmo contr part Donati neither saith that Hippo and other Churches were the daughters of Rome nor mentioneth Hippo. It appeareth therefore that Rob. Parsons had ouerwatched himselfe when he wrote these fooleries Pag. 101. he goeth about to refell our argument concluding that there was not in Rome the same faith in the dayes of Eleutherius that is now because then there was no mention or knowledge either of the vniuersall authority of the bishop of Rome or of the name or vse of Masses or of sacrifice propitiatory for quick or dead or of Transubstantiation or worship of Images But first he marreth our argument by adding and detracting To the bishop of Rome he adioyneth the Church leaueth out our exception against the doctrine of the Masse and worship of Images and putteth downe only the name and vse of masses and vse of images in churches But to forbeare to censure him for his iugling let vs sée what exception he maketh to our argument If saith he this consequence should be admitted then would it follow that the name and doctrine of the blessed Trinity the two distinct natures and one person in Christ his two distinct wils the virginity of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Sonne as from the Father should not be admitted But the fellow sheweth himselfe not only impudent but also most blasphemous to compare such false wicked impious doctrines as Papists now maintaine to the principall and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity and Christs two natures and the proceeding of the holy Ghost For who kneweth not that these articles are plainly proued out of Scriptures and declared in Councels receiued by most ancient Fathers but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse for quick dead of the Monarchy and vniuersall
authority of the Pope of Transubstantiation and popish worship of Images is not only not to be prooued but also to be disproued by holy scriptures The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels and authority of Fathers as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments We only will alledge some few First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed receiued and not to be offered vp for quick and dead Next to holy Scriptures and Fathers that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall Finally if Christes body be not really present nor the bread wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick dead But that is proued by the words of the institution bread and wine being named after consecration by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words hoc est corpus meum figuratiuely by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne and by diuers other arguments For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority there is no one word in scripture nay scriptures shew that all the Apostles were called and authorized alike and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl praelat Furthermore the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory as I haue shewed condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian neither can it be shewed that y e Pope either made lawes or ordeined bishops or iudged all causes throughout the whole church vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body and supposeth it neither to be visible nor palpable repugneth to the words of institution and common cōsent of Fathers that declare bread wine to remain after consecration taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches The worship of images is contrary to the law of God Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels to y e doctrine of Fathers and abolisheth all true religion God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes to the intent to worship it or to bow downe to it The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls The 2. Councel of Nice though it allow some worship done to images yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images Epiphanius tore downe a vaile that had an image of Christ or some Saint painted on it Gregory as before I haue shewed vtterly condemned the worship of Images Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin c. 19. saith plainely There is no religion where there is an image Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe the one as he calleth it negatiue and the other affirmatiue and by them he vanteth that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly For what can be supposed more absurd then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue by a negatiue or contraxiwise and yet such is Parsons his wisdome that he offereth vs this abuse Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe where he talketh of negatiue proofes For albeit he standeth vpon his denial and resolueth to put vs to proue yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe His meaning is that we are not able to shew that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time after or that they came into the church afterward And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy the Romish masse Transubstantiation and the worship of Images the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church and that long after Eleutherius his time The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added we may sée in Walafridus Strabo Platina Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited vntill the late conuenticle of Trent nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority nor beléeueth transubstantiation or receiueth the Popes masse or popish purgatory or his doctrine of Images Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent and the Emperour protested against y e Synod Little therefore doth Augustine help but to confound Parsons his cause albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church But sayth Parsons Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran as these words Consubstantiall Trinity and the like in the first Councell of Nice yet the substance of the article viz. concerning transubstantiation was held from the beginning And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose lib. 4. 5. 9. de Sacramentis and out of these words Non valebit sermo Christi vt species mutet elementorum And againe Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere quod non erat non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erat But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures
Bellarmine de not is Eccles. ca. 8. sayth that we cannot conclude necessarily that the Church is there where is succession of Bishops Non colligitur necessariò sayth he ibi esse Ecclesiam vbi est successio But were they resolued to stand vpon this succession yet would the same draw with it the ruine of the Popes cause For neuer shall they be able to shew a number of Bishops professing or holding the doctrine of the Popes Decretals and of the late conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent vntill of late yeares But saith Parsons Part. 2. Ch. 1. Augustine was held in the Church by the succession of Bishops And Tertullian de Praescript aduers. haeretic doth challenge heretikes to this combat of succession And Irenaeus proueth by the succession of Roman Bishops the true succession and continuation of one and the selfe same Catholike faith Likewise hée alledgeth Hierome who in his Dialogue against the Luciferians saith We are to abide in that Church which being founded by the Apostles doth indure to this day And Augustine lib de Vtil credend ca. 17. that sheweth how we are not to doubt to rest in the lap of that Church which notwithstanding the barkings of heretikes about it by successions of Bishops from the Apostles seate hath obteined the height of authority Finally he telleth vs Pag. 283. how 70. Archbishops of Canterbury were all of one religion But first we must vnderstand that the ancient Fathers talking of succession neuer speake of the externall place and bare succession of Bishops without respect to the truth of doctrine Irenaeus lib. 4. Ch. 43. would haue those Bishops harkned vnto which succeede the Apostles which with the succession of their Bishoprick haue receiued the certaine gift of truth according to the will of the Father Tertullian lib. de Praescript aduers. haeret sheweth that the persons are to be approued by their faith and not faith by the persons Non habent haereditatem Petri saith Ambrose lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. 6. quifidem Petrinon habent That is they haue not right to succeed Peter or Peters inheritance that hold not the faith of Peter Nazianzen de laudib Athanasij saith that they are partakers of the same chaire or succession that hold the same doctrine as they that hold contrary doctrine are to be counted aduersaries in succession Qui eandem fidei doctrinā profitetur saith he eiusdē quoque throni particeps est Qui autem contrariam doctrinam amplectitur aduersarius quoque in throno censeri debet Whatsoeuer then y e Fathers speake of succession it concerneth as well succession in doctrine as in place externall title of office Unlesse then this Iebusite can shew that y e moderne Popes are true Bishops and hold y e same faith which Peter the first Bishops of Rome did the testimonies of the Fathers which he alledgeth wil make against him Secondly y e Fathers do alledge y e succession of other churches as wel as Rome Irenaeus li. 3. aduers. haeres c. 3. appealeth as wel to the Churches of Asia namely to that of Ephesus Smyrna as to Rome albeit for auoiding prolixity he citeth only y e names of the Roman Bishops Testimonium his perhibent saith he quae sunt in Asia Ecclesiae omnes qui vsque adhuc successerunt Polycarpo Likewise in the end of the Chapter he citeth the testimony of the Church of Ephesus Tertullian de Praescript aduers haeret maketh all Churches founded by the Apostles equall and citeth as well the testimony of the Churches of Corinth Philippi Thessalonica and Ephesus as Rome But the succession of these Churches is no certaine marke of the Church or triall of the truth S. Augustine contr epist. fundament c. 4. reckneth diuers things ioyntly with the succession of Bishops which reteined him in the Church and among the rest sincerissimam sapientiam the sincere wisdome of Christian doctrine But Parsons must proue that the succession of Bishops only is a sufficient argument of truth Likewise Augustine in his booke de Vtilit credendi ca. 17. talketh not of the Romish Church but of the Catholike Church whose authority notwithstanding he placeth after the primary foundations of Scriptures Likewise Hierome speaketh of the Catholike Church not of the particular Church of Rome Finally neuer shal it be proued nor is it likely the later Bishops of Canterbury before the reuerend Father most glorious Martyr Bishop Cranmer receiuing y e new Decretals of the Pope the decrées of y e conuenticles of Lateran Constance and Florence but that their faith differd much frō the first Bishops of Canterbury which liued before the times of these conuenticles that authorized these new corruptions If then Rob. Parsons haue no better argumēt in his booke then this of the externall succession of the Popes of Rome it is likely he meaneth fraud and for the true Church commendeth vnto vs the synagogue of Antichrist and the whore of Babylon rather shunning then seeking any lawfull and certaine triall of truth CHAP. X. That the Church of England is the true Church of God and holdeth the Apostolike and Catholike faith AS Esau hated Iacob because of his fathers blessings as we reade Gen. 27. so Rob. Parsons the more it hath pleased God our heauēly Father to blesse y e Church of England the more hatred doth he shew against his countrymen and brethren In the first part of his treatise of Three Conuersions he endeuoureth to make thē slaues to the Pope In the second he raileth at them as vagrant persons and strangers frō Gods Church and people without succession of teachers from the Apostles and deuoid as he saith of all demonstrations and euidences to proue themselues to be Christes Church But if those be Gods true Church which heare his word with attention and beléeue it and receiue the Sacraments according to Christs institution and séeke to worship God with true deuotion and to liue after their Christian profession then is the Church of England Gods true Church For although Bellarmine and others do spend much time in taking exceptions against our doctrine practise in Gods worship and manners yet can none of them either proue any error in the doctrine which we teach or the administration of Sacraments which we practise or in the rules concerning Gods worship or common manners which we follow Secondly those Christians which professe and beléeue all the Apostolike faith and condemne all those errors and false doctrines which the Apostles condemned and endeuour vnfeinedly to liue according to their profession are the true Church For that is a property of Christes shéep to heare his voice not to follow strangers as we reade Iohn 10. The Apostle also sheweth Ephes. 2. that the faithfull are built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the chiefe corner stone But the Church of England beléeueth and professeth all the Apostles faith and condemneth whatsoeuer is contrary to the same
Neither can the aduersary iustly charge vs that we allow any false worship of God or breach of his holy ordonances Thirdly the Church of England for matters of Faith Sacraments Gods worship and seruice beléeueth followeth whatsoeuer is either expressely commanded in holy Scriptures or out of them deduced in ancient generall and lawfull Councels condemning also whatsoeuer is by ancient Councels or Fathers declared to be contrary to the same Fourthly Christes true Church is a diligent and wary keeper of doctrines committed to her and changeth nothing at any time deminisheth nothing addeth nothing cutteth not off things necessary nor addeth things superfluous looseth not her owne nor vsurpeth things belonging to others as saith Lirmensis Commonit ca. 32. Likewise ca. 34. he saith it is the property of Catholikes to keepe the doctrine of the Fathers committed to them in trust and to condemne prophane nouelties Who can then deny the name of Catholikes vnto vs but such as are false Catholikes Fiftly all Churches that belong to Christes body which is gathered and gouerned by his word nourished and preserued by his holy Sacraments and inspired and led by his holy spirit and grace belong to Christes Catholike Church But nothing can be alledged by the aduersaries but that these properties belong to the Church of England and the members thereof and those which communicate with it Sixthly the Church of England doth in all things cōmunicate with the Catholike Apostolike Church that is spred ouer all nations hath continued frō the beginning shall cōtinue to the end which hath a most certaine succession of true Bishops which adhereth to Christ only to his word and whose faith is confirmed with miracles and most inuincible testimonies If Parsons will deny this let him cease his railing against vs and his vaine babling about impertinent matters and forbeare to impute vnto vs the names of factions which we renounce and the faults of particulars which we defend not proue somewhat substātially Seuenthly the Church of England is iustified by the confession of our aduersaries for with them we professe one faith in all articles conteined in ancient Creedes with them we receiue the same Scriptures with them we allow the sacrament of the Eucharist Baptisme with them we admit the most anciēt generall Councels and finally whatsoeuer was deliuered by the Apostles to be obserued that we obserue What is then the differēce Forsooth they haue added to the Apostles faith to Christes Sacraments Scriptures Apostolike doctrine lawes and that we refuse for that it is aboue and beside yea sometime contrary to the Canon of Scriptures which is the perfect rule of faith Unlesse therfore our aduersaries will stubbornly reiect the Apostolike faith the canon of Scriptures the Sacraments and the ancient formes of Ecclesiastical gouernment condemne the same they cannot deny y t Church of England to be y e true Church Finally all those exceptions which either Bellarmine or Bristow or Stapleton or Hill or any of their consorts haue takē to our doctrine or manners are cleared so answered that still the aduersary though neuer so full of words resteth silenced Parsons in y e second part of his treatise of Three Conuersions of England by him pretended goeth about to shew that the Church of England is no part of the Church vniuersally dispersed and that hath continued throughout all ages But his arguments are so vaine that I make this an argument to iustifie the cause of our Church For if he and his consorts can take no iust exception either to the faith or manners of the Church of England then doth it follow that the same is the true Church of Christ Et inimici nostri iudices and our enemies therein iudge against themselues CHAP. XI Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and discent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward is examined refuted IT is a simple part according to the common prouerbe in the midst of a riuer to aske where is water or in a forrest of trées to enquire for wood Yet Parsons séemeth not much wiser who in the Scriptures and writings of ancient Fathers euery where finding the Apostolike and Catholike Church with the which y e Church of England holdeth cōmunion doth notwithstanding still enquire where our Church was in y e Apostles time the ages after But it séemeth he was vnwilling to sée y t which he was loth to find His search certes and manner of procéeding and whole dispute about this matter as it is tedious and full of words so it is fond foolish and void of substance and concludent argument In the 2. Part of his turning Treatise chap. 1. he alledgeth diuers testimonies out of Irenaeus Tertullian Hierome and Augustine concerning the succession of Bishops and the force thereof But what I pray you doth that make against vs who do well allow of that faith which was taught and maintained by those Bishops succeeding one another in diuers Churches which they mention Nay if Parsons talked of no other faith or doctrine then that which those holy Fathers speake of and did not hide in this catalogue of good Bishops a multitude of false teachers and Heretikes much vnlike to the former the controuersie betwixt vs wold soone be ended Furthermore where he will not allow them to be the true Church which in all points of faith consent with the Apostles and ancient Fathers and disagrée in nothing but will néeds exact a discent of our faith by a catalogue of Bishops we want not therein an answer sufficient For the Bishops of Britaine and England that haue continued since the first plantation of Religion by Ioseph of Arimathaea and other Apostolike men haue still retained the Apostolike faith and the Sacraments instituted by Christ. True it is they retained them but yet with many corruptions although nothing so many as are now established in the Church of Rome since the wicked conuenticle of Trent Although then the Church of England haue purged away certaine abuses yet the substance of doctrine and Sacraments we haue not changed therein varying in nothing from the Apostles or auncient Bishops of Christs Church for many hundred yeares after Christ. But the Popes of Rome and their adherents within these fiue hundred yeares haue brought in a new Scholasticall Decretaline doctrin especially since the conuenticle of Trent which neither the Apostles nor auncient Bishops euer knew nay which is opposite to their doctrine and faith It appeareth therefore that this argument of succession doth rather make for vs then for our aduersaries Secondly he beareth vs in hand that Luther and Caluin being pressed with this argument of Succession did make the Church inuisible And that Melancthon and the Magdeburgians dissenting from them and ouercome with proofes concerning the visibilitie of the Church did grant it to be visible yet so as it did consist not
in the externall conspicuous succession of Bishops and Councels but rather in those which following the Apostolike Church and faith kept themselues from common corruptions of others But not they did dissent but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport For all of vs do affirme that the vniuersall Catholike Church is inuisible because it containeth all the members of Christs Church of all times and all ages Likewise all of vs beléeue that particular Churches are alwaies visible albeit not so that euery one is able to discerne which is the true Church which not For that is a matter of reason and discourse and not of sense and that being true all heretikes and infidels would discerne which is the true Church and cease to persecute it Likewise we say that the true Church is not alwaies in peace and prosperitie Nay oftentimes the same is persecuted and driuen to hide it selfe as it did in the Apostles time and during the times of the first persecutions vntill the raigne of Constantine and as the Scriptures do foretell it should do in the persecution vnder the raigne of Antichrist Ridiculously therfore doth he alledge Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church For they neither speake of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth all Christians nor of the glorie of the Church in all times He doth also proclaime either his owneignorance not setting downe what we hold nor knowing how we distïnguish or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to stander it and to cauill with his aduersaries Finally he doth leudly and contumeliously speake of Christs Church hiding it selfe in time of persecution tearming it A companie of few obscure and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadowes and darknesse and knowne to few or none Pag. 294. he cauilleth at M. Foxes words where he saith that commonly none see it but such onely as be members and partakers thereof For his meaning is that none can see it to be the true Church but such as are members thereof Although all those that persecute it do see the men that belong to the Church His similitude also of the truth and true Church agréeth well For albeit men be visible yet this point Which is the true Church is not a matter of sense but of the vnderstanding and the Church as it is Christs body is mysticall albeit it consist of visible men Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth vs How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdome and how Cyprian inueigheth against the Martyrs of the Nouatians and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists But to what purpose God knoweth vnlesse he would either put vs in mind of the false traiterous Massepriests and Iebusites that being put to death in England for felonie and treason as in the end the secular Priests themselues confesse are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this vngodly comparison that suffered death for the testimonie of truth in Q. Maries bloudie raigne Which if he do then he is as farre guiltie of their bloud as the wolues that shed it and is rather to expect the vengeance of God then any answer from man In the same Chapter he endeuoureth to shew some differences bewixt the Martyrs of the primitiue Church and vs as for example that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lambe vpon the altar That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice and Laurence his Deacon to dispence the Lords bloud and that as Prudentius saith The holy bloud did fume in siluer cuppes That Cyprian said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi sacrificium Deo Patri offerre But first the difference if any be is in termes and not in matters of faith Secondly we do not disallow these termes simply if they be rightly vnderstood as the auncient Fathers meant them Thirdly the words of S. Andrew are drawne out of the Legend Bernard in Serm. de S. Andrea is quoted for them yet in neither of his Sermons hath he them Fourthly the words of Prudentius must néedes be vnderstood figuratiuely vnlesse they will haue their sacrifice to be bloudie Lastly these words do make more for vs then for the Papists For that sacrifice which Andrew and Cyprian do speake of for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrewes Legend doth signifie onely the representation of Christs sacrifice in bread and wine Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice vnderstandeth bread and wine and not Christs body and bloud really present Panem calicem mixtum vino saith he obtulit And againe Sed per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis vini sed altaris Apostolorum facit mentionem Furthermore the same shew that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cuppe to the people which Papists now admit not Lastly Sixtus suffering for the confession of Christ is liker to Bishop Ridley then to the triple-crowned Pope Clement who suffereth not but rather persecuteth such Bishops as professe Christ. The reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offered for quicke and dead out of these words cannot be proued Afterward he telleth vs p. 310. how Constantine built foure Churches in Rome dedicating them to our Sauiour to Saint Iohn Baptist S. Peter S. Paule and S. Laurence adorning them with Images c. And hauing told his tale he runneth out into a discourse of the glorie of that Church and in great pride asketh vs where our poore obscure and troden downe Church as he calleth it was at this time and for 300. yeares before But vpon such small victories he sheweth himselfe a vaine fellow to make such triumphes This tale of foure Churches dedicated to Saints and adorned with Images is borrowed out of the Legend and is repugnant to the Fathers doctrine Lactantius saith There is no religion where there is an Image or simulachrum Saint Augustine saith that temples are not erected to Saints but that their memories are there honored The same Father lib. de vera Relig. cap. 55. speaketh both against Images and religious worship of Saints Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus And againe Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum As for the spreading and splendor of Christs Church in Constantines time the same argueth that the Church is gouerned and beautified by godly Princes such as Constantine was rather then by godlesse Popes such as Clement was To his question I answer that the Church in Constantines time was that Church with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate and from which the Romanists are departed subiecting themselues not to such godly Princes as Constantine was but to the Pope and to his vngodly Decretaline and prophane schoole doctrine which is diuers from the faith of those times as God willing we
doth differ from the Church of Christ from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor and Gregorie the first he alledgeth first that M. Foxe speaketh nothing of these thrée ages nor of the Doctors that then flourished in the East or West Church and in Britaine it selfe or of their doctrine And all this he supposeth to haue bene omitted because it made much against him and nothing for him Otherwise he thinketh he would haue set downe somewhat vndertaking to set foorth at large the whole race course of the Church from Christ to our times Next he saith that the Magdeburgians in their fourth fift and sixt Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the thrée ages from Constantine downward find nothing for themselues but rather against themselues as for example in the matter of Free-will where they say in the 4. Centur. c. 4. that almost all the Doctors of that age speake confusedly and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture and in the Paragraffe of repentance where they say it is handled by the Doctors of this 4. age thinly and coldly And likewise in the matter of the reall presence where they cite the Fathers abundantly saue in the matter of the sacrifice where they reprehend them and finally in the controuersie of Good-workes satisfaction inuocation of Saints and concerning ceremonies where they reprehend the Fathers But all this brabblement about M. Foxe and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose For first what if either they should haue omitted or spoken any thing which they should not It is a vaine thing to imagine that all this should be imputed to vs. Secondly the reason why M. Foxe speaketh so litle of the 4. 5. and 6. ages and of the Fathers then flourishing was for that we acknowledge that faith which was then professed and adioyne ourselues to that Church What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages when the same is euery where apparent in the Fathers of that age whose faith if we might haue restored without the leauen of the Church of Rome lately brought in the controuersie betwixt vs and our aduersaries would soone be ended Furthermore it was not his purpose to handle controuersies and therefore no maruell if in euery question he did not set downe y e sentences of the Fathers Thirdly the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-wil repentance the sacrifice good-works inuocation of Saints and such like mislike some of the Fathers But he is a very simple ideot that therefore would conclude that they ioyne with the Papists in their moderne heresies Likewise they alledge the Fathers for proofe of a certaine reall presence But it is not that corporall and carnall presence of the body and bloud of Christ of which the Papists dreame Finally albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians taxe some one or two of the Fathers or rather those authors which haue published counterfeit books vnder the name of the Fathers yet in the matters of greatest moment they shew the true Fathers to make for vs. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons if leauing his bangling about these small aduantages he list to deale with vs in any substantial point of controuersie In the 4. chapter of his second part and diuers chapters following he handleth the discent of times from Gregorie the first vnto the preaching of Iohn Wicleffe and therein spendeth much vaine talke to small purpose For although in those times the tyranny of the Pope increased and Monkish life began to be in request and the worship of Images and Saints departed together with diuers friuolous ceremonies by litle and litle entred and Priests were separated by the Popes practises from their lawful wiues yet the substance of Christian Religion remained still in the Church of England all this while and the corruptions that then began to enter were nothing in comparison of that which followed afterward nor generally receiued In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Uniuersall Church nor did he vndertake to depose Kings before Gregorie the 7. or to ouerrule all Churches The Bishops of England tooke not themselues to be subiect vnto the Pope vnder paine of damnation nor did he much encroch vpon them before the times of Henry the second King of England The doctrine of the carnall reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud in the Masse of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria and of Images with the same worship that is due to the Original of the seuen Sacraments and of the degrées of merits of workes and workes of supererogation of the force of fréewill in iustification of the Popes two swords and superioritie ouer generall Councels and his power in Purgatory and in granting Indulgences and such like was not then knowne in England but was deuised afterward by schoolemen and Canonists and established by the Popes Decretals and wicked conuenticles assembled by their commandement Nay albeit the Popes by all meanes sought to subdue Christian Kings and to bring all Ecclesiasticall preferments to their owne disposition and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wiues yet could they not do this but in long time and after great contradiction of many Of this discourse then two things may be gathered direct against Rob. Parsons his cause The first is that the Church of England from the time of Gregorie the first to Alexander the thirds time was not subiect to the Pope nor had receiued the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Popes late Decretals and deuised in the Conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and published in the prophane disputes of schoolemen The second is that the tyrannie of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England increased by litle and litle vntill King Henry the eight his raigne and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entred into England after his time Of which two points we may conclude that the Church of England from the time of Austin vntill the time of Alexander the third in fundamentall matters of faith did communicate with vs and not with the moderne Papists whose principall corruptions haue entred since In the 9. 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarrelleth with Master Foxe for building the Church vpon M. Wicleffe Sir Iohn Old-castle Husse M. Luther M. Caluin Zuinglius and others holding as he saith many dangerous points of doctrine and differing from themselues from vs and many of thē noted of diuers great crimes But while he quarelleth with others he bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downeward or to affirme that there was no Church in the world for certaine ages before Wicleffe but rather to shew that the Church in diuers places and by little and little being corrupted since the time of the Fathers by the pride and false doctrine of the Popes began much to
degenerate in the adherents of the Church of Rome Which Wicleffe and his followers in England and the Valdenses and Albigenses in France and some in Germanie beganne at length to discouer But in our times the same by Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other godly men was both more openly discouered and Christianly reformed Secondly it is no maruell if Wicleffe and Husse and others that first beganne to discouer the abuses of Poperie did not see all For God had appointed a certaine time when the man of sinne should be reuealed and no man is so cleare sighted that he can see into all the abuses of Heretikes without helpe and direction of many Neither is this to be ascribed more vnto Wicleffe and such as haue laboured in the reformation of the Church then to others which haue their singular opinions and by their errors declare themselues to be men Furthermore by this we collect that we are to build our faith vpon none but the Apostles and Prophets which by speciall direction of the holy Ghost haue declared vnto vs the will of God Thirdly many heresies are falsly imputed both vnto Wicleffe and vnto Iohn Husse and vnto euery one that hath opposed himselfe against the Romish faction As for example they say that Wicleffe taught That God must obey the Diuell and that Iohn Husse added a fourth Person to the Trinitie matters contrarie to the whole forme of their doctrine Diuers errors also they haue ascribed to the Valdenses Albigenses and Bohemians Neither may we maruell if they haue slandered the dead seeing they spare not the liuing making their credulous followers beleeue That we make God the author of sinne and speake vnreuerently of Christ. They haue also laid most false imputations vpon Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other our teachers Further we are not to maruell if they haue charged Sir Iohn Oldcastle and diuers others the followers of Wicleffes doctrine with treasons and rebellions and other enormous crimes For so did the heathen deale with the first Christians as appeareth by the Apologies of Tertullian Arnobius and others And now they cease not to exclaime against our doctrine as if the same were enemie to the Magistrates authoritie the which is not more troden vnder foot by any then by the Popes of Rome and their agents Fourthly the Papists themselues haue many singular opinions in diuers points of doctrine Why then should they impute vnto vs the dissentions of priuate men And why may not all be good Christians holding the substantial points of Christian faith and varying in nothing from the grounds of true doctrine concerning the holy Trinitie Christs incarnation the Sacraments Gods worship and manners Finally as errors did not altogether enter into the Church so neither can they be all at one time and by one man or one age reformed In all the principall points concerning the abuses of Poperie both the Churches of England Scotland France Germany and other nations not subiect to the yoke of Antichrist do very well agree And we doubt not by the grace of God to sée Antichrist confounded with the spirit of Gods mouth shortly by a generall vnion in the rest Finally in his last chapter he compareth M. Foxe to a craftie Broker that vseth fraud in selling of his wares whereas the Romanists sell like royall Merchants He deliuereth also to his reader three differences betwixt the Papists vs saying first That we contemne the Church next y t we define it falsly thirdly y t we assigne common obscure markes thereof whereas the Papistes do all contrarie But of this comparison because it is his owne he may boldly take both parts to himselfe and not without iust cause For as the Pope selleth Religion and all diuine matters in grosse and like a royall Merchant so Parsons and such like pedlars and palterers fell as they may by retayle now bargaining for one part of the Church then for another now selling one sinne and then another In assigning his differences he differeth not from himselfe but as alwayes so now also he belyeth his aduersaries For neither do we make so litle estimation of the Church as he reporteth nor do we giue such a definition of the Church as he imagineth nor are our markes giuen out of the Church either common or improper On the other side they value not the Church one rush making the same a slaue to Antichrist nor do they define the Church aright not touching the life and soule of it but onely certaine outward qualities nor do they bring other markes then those that may fit the Pagans and Turks better then the Papists as the name Catholike vniuersality continuance succession vnitie prosperitie and such like do shew If Parsons will maintaine the contrarie let him answer a booke of mine De Ecclesia written against Bellarmine wherein this is declared at large If not that yet let him leaue his idle wandring discourse and come to a point and then we doubt not but to make his pedlarie ware knowne And thus an end of this woodden constables search Of which we may conclude that it will be a hard matter to find out a more idle searcher or foolish search CHAP. XII That the Church of moderne Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England THe Church of Christ saith Hierome in Psalm 133. consisteth not in walles but in the truth of doctrine There is the Church where is true faith So likewise euery Church is to be estéemed according to the doctrine which it teacheth and of the Church of Rome we are to make accompt not according to the walles of the Churches there but according to the doctrine which now that Church professeth If then there cannot be shewed a Church in the world for a thousand yeares professing that faith and doctrine which now the Church of Rome holdeth and professeth we may boldly say that the Church of Papists as now it standeth was not visible for a thousand yeares after Christ. Nay it is plaine that such a Church as the Papists now haue was neuer yet planted in England So farre is Parsons from his accompt when he supposeth that the faith and Church of Rome that now is hath alwaies continued since the first preaching of the Gospell and bene visible in England That we say true it appeareth first for that no Church did euer esteeme traditions and holy Scriptures with like affection before the decree of the conuenticle of Trent ratified by Pius the fourth Anno Domini 1564. The Church of England before that time neuer had any such conceit of traditions as to beleeue them to be the word of God and equall to Scriptures Secondly no Church in the world did make the old Latine vulgar translation of the Bible authenticall before y t time Thirdly the moderne Papists forbid men to reade the Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence and
command the seruice to be said in Latine Gréeke and Hebrew which languages the common people vnderstand not But such a Church and so malignant and enuious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seene in the world before the assembly of Trent 4. For a thousand yeares after Christ and longer it was lawful for laymen and all Christians to dispute argue and reason of matters of Christian Religion And so long this Popish Church was not seene in the world that prohibiteth laymen so to do 5. The moderne Papists teach that Christs naturall bodie is both in heauen and earth and vpon euery altar where any consecrated host is hanged where he is neither felt seene nor perceiued and all at one time But the Church vntill the times of the Trent conuenticle euer beleeued that Christ had a solide visible and palpable bodie And certes very strange it were if the Catholike and mysticall bodie of Christ shold be visible not his natural body 6. They teach that Christ was a perfect man at the first instant of his conception and that he knew all things and was omniscient as man both then and alwaies But this neither the Church of England nor other Christian Church as yet could euer beleeue or comprehend 7. They teach that Christians are not to beléeue the Scriptures to be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope tell them so They say also that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs doth depend vpon the Church that is as they say vpon the Pope Cardinals Masse-priests Monkes and Friars But the true Church hath alwaies taken this to be derogatorie to the Maiestie of God and of holy Scriptures 8. They teach that the Pope hath two swords and a triple crowne as King of Kings and Lord of Lords But the Church of England for a thousand yeares after Christ neuer saw nor beléeued any such thing Nay the English know wel y t Greg. the 7. was y e first y t took vp arms against y e Emperor 9. They teach that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to assoile subiects from their oaths of obedience But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. sheweth to haue vin reputed a nouelty if not an heresie The Church of England neuer saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King Iohns time and then the same did not beléeue it or allow it 10. The moderne synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head foundation and spouse of Christes Church But no visible Church euer taught this vntill of late time the Church of England neuer held it nor beleeued it 11. Now they thinke it lawfull to suborne the subiects against their Prince and to hire priuie murtherers assassinors to cut y e throte of Kings excommunicate as appeareth by the excōmunications of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soueragine Quéene Elizabeth and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorismes Nay of late they haue attempted by gunpowder to blow vp the King and his Sonne albeit not excommunicated and to massacre murther the most eminent men in this kingdome and wholy to ouerthrow the state But y e Church of England euer taught obedience to Princes and disliked this damnable doctrine 12. They teach that the Pope is aboue all generall Councels But no Church euer beleeued this for a thousand foure hundred yeares The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decréed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian. 13. They teach that the Pope is supreme iudge of all matters of controuersie in religion But the Church of England euer thought it a matter absurd to make a blind man iudge of colours or an vnlearned irreligious fellow to be iudge of matters of learning and religion Now who knoweth not that most Popes are such Of Benedict that liued in the Emperour Henry the 2. his daies Sigebertus in ann Do. 1045. writeth that he was so rude ignorant that he could not reade his breuiary but was inforced to choose another to do it Benedictus saith he qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. inuaserat cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit 14. They now fall downe before the Pope and kisse his féet and when he list to goe abrode they cary him like an idoll vpon mens shoulders But no Church for aboue a thousand yeares after Christ did euer kisse the feet of Antichrist or adore him Nay the Church of England did alwayes know full well that S. Peter a farre holier and honester man then Clement the 8. or Paule the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lye at his feet or to worship him 15. They now call the Pope God and acknowledge him to be their good Lord and God as appeareth by the Chapter Satis dist 96. and the glosse vpon Iohn the 22. his Extrauagant cum inter nonnullos de verb. signif Commonly the Canonists honor him as a God on the earth But no Church did euer abase it selfe so low as to vse these high termes to so base a fellow The Church of England though patient in bearing the Popes iniuries did neuer vse any such slauish formes of flattery 16. They beléeue that the Pope can change kingdomes and take a kingdome from one and giue it to another Potest mutare regna saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 6. atque vni auferre atque alteri conferre But this no Church of God euer beléeued The Church of England certes when King Iohn would haue made his Kingdome tributary to the Pope disallowed and detested the fact and when the Pope would haue deposed King Henry the eight manfully resisted him So did the French likewise oppose themselues against Iulius the 2. that went about to wrest the Scepter out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth 17. They beléeue that Abbots and Friars may by priuilege of the Pope giue voices in Councels and that an Abbot may ordeine Clerks as appeareth by the practise of their late conuenticles and by the priuileges granted to the Benedictines But all ancient Councels declare that Councels are assemblies not of Monks Friars but of Bishops and all Churches according to the Canons of y e Apostles as they are called acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops not to blockish statues called Popes 18. They beléeue that Cardinals only now haue voyce in the election of the Bishop of Rome But this no Church beleeued for a thousand yeares after Christ. The Church of England euer held rather the ancient Canons that gaue the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people then these late humorous Canons and Decretals of Popes 19. They beléeue that Monks are Clergy men and necessary members of the Church But no Church for a thousand yeares after Christ euer beléeued it 20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and
Dominicke and other begging societies were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes or that Friers were to be called religious men or members of the Church 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin to Saints and the founders of Monkish orders as now they do in the Romish Church 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries liue asunder Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth that man is not to separate that which God hath ioyned together rather then the Pope 24. The Papists beléeue that the vowes of Chastity Pouerty and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen then works commanded by Gods law But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope with two swords and a guard of Switzers of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes of shauen Masse-priests Monks and Friars and of a multitude of ignorant people that subiect theÌ„selues to the Pope and cry Miserere nobis But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares Let Parsons therefore take heed least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests Non radent caput neque barbam sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras We reade also that this shauing and whipping or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal and from the Gentiles We are not therefore to thinke that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses rontrary to Gods word In the Church of England such shauing and lashing and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more was not commonly receiued nor practised 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading and what visible Church it was that allowed it 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time nor had he the patrimony of Peter as it is called till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy Doth it not then appeare that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine and partly of lawes But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1â—00 and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time Doth it not then follow necessarily that the Church of Rome that now is hath risen vp out of the earth and that but of late time 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis S. Dominike or other Saints They are therefore of a late stampe that beléeue this 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares The true Church euer abhorred them 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine 34. The Missals breuiaries and offices that now are receiued by the Popish Church were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent The Church of England vsed other formes in former times 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpoÌ„ Saints in publike Letanies Neither did this or any other church in old time say Masses offices in honor of Angels Saints and the blessed virgin Mary 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs and to make holy water to driue away diuels was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more In England Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego BereÌ„garius dist 2. de Consec was the first that taught his Romish adherents that Christs flesh was handled with hands and torne with téeth 38. The first that taught that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly was Alexander Hales Part. 4. sum q. 53. memb 2. and qu. 45. memb 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum q. 80. art 3. doth second him And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests their folowers do hold the same opinion contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued that Christians were eaters of mans flesh and Canibals But the moderne Romish Church holdeth that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne 41. The same man did first ordeine that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church confessing her sinnes in the priests eare 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice before the time of the conuenticle of Trent Who then would not maruell that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance From thence therefore
the Church beléeuing this point tooke her beginning 45. That the Priest doth worke three miracles as oft as he doth consecrate and that all Masse-priests are workers of miracles no true Church can beléeue or euer did beléeue Only the miraculous ideots that subiect themselues to Antichrist and receiue the Romish Catechisme prescribed them by the conuenticle of Trent are bound to beleeue it 46. For a thousand yeares Christes Church neuer knew any priuat Masse without Communion The Church therfore that vseth priuat Masses without Communion is but a new vpstart Church 47. The Communion vnder one kinde was not established by law before the conuenticle of Constance This therefore doth shew also that the Romish church communicating vnder one kind is but of late continuance 48. That Masses should be good to cure sick Horses and mesel Swine is but a late doctrine Of a late beginning therefore is that Church that beléeueth these things and sayth Masses for faire weather and rayne against the Plague and for all purposes yea for sick Horses and mesel Swine 49. The first that set downe any certeinty for 7. Sacraments was he that borowed the name of the conuenticle of Florence in the instruction giuen to the Armenians The 7. Sacramentary church therefore is but new 50. Then also were the Romanists taught what were the words of Popish Confirmation and extreme Unction But the Church of God hitherto neuer beléeued that these are Sacraments or were ordeined by Christ to be vsed by the Church in the forme prescribed by the conuenticle of Florence Would Parsons shew when and where Christ instituted these two Romish Sacraments he might resolue his folowers of a great doubt and do himselfe great honor 51. Bellarmine teacheth that all Sacraments do iustifie the receiuers ex opere operato and like it is that the Romanists as becommeth good schollers do follow their masters doctrine But sure no Church of Christ hitherto did euer beléeue that Christians were iustified by Mariage Orders Confirmation or extreme Unction 52. The true Church of Christ did euer beléeue that Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of the whole world It must néeds therfore be a new congregation and opposite to Christes Church that teacheth or beléeueth that euery Christian is to satisfie himselfe for the temporall paines of sinnes committed after Baptisme 53. In the conuenticle of Florence we reade that it was first decréed that such as departed this life without satisfaction for sinnes committed are purged with Purgatory fire and that such may be ŕelieued by Masses oraisons almes Bellarmine lib. 2. de Purgat ca. 13. telleth vs How by many reuelations it hath bene declared that soules are tormented there by Diuels It cannot therefore be an ancient Church whose faith is patched vp by such fellowes and consisteth of such strange nouelties 54. Whether Indulgences do profit soules in Purgatory ex condigno or only ex congruo the matter seemeth not yet resolued as may appeare by Bellarmines dispute lib. 1. de Purgator c. 14. In ancient time the Church of England was ignorant of the popish doctrine of Indulgences It cannot therefore be an ancient society that teacheth such new doctrines and is not yet resolued vpon them 55. Boniface the 8. did first institute Iubileys Clement the 6. from a hundred yeares brought the solemnity to 50. and Sixtus the 4. to 25. Where it standeth We may therefore conclude that this iubilating Church of Rome differed much from the Church of Christ before Constantines time and that it was not heard of before the dayes of Boniface the eight 56. The Romanists worship the Crosse and Crucifixe and Images of the Trinity with Latria But such an Image-worshipping Church is not to be found vntill such time as Thomas Aquinas taught this idolatrous doctrine 57. They kisse Images bow to them offer incense to them and set vp lights and say Masses before them But these tricks were not frequented in the Church of England for a thousand yeares nor euer in any true Christian Church were publikely receiued 58. They call vpon the blessed Virgin as their gate of saluation and pray to Saints and Angels as mediators of intercession They do also make vowes to them and say Masses in their honor all which proue the erection of their congregations to be new and of a late deuice 59. They beleeue that S. Rock and S. Sebastian cure the plague that Apollonia cureth toothach that S. Lewes hath horses in his protection and S. Antony pigges of which all true Christians may be much ashamed 60. With the Collyridians the Romanists offer a rake in the honor of the blessed Virgin and with many other heretikes bring in diuers heresies and not only nouelties Finally for their owne impure traditions they leaue the obseruance of Gods holy lawes Let them therefore henceforth leaue to vaunt of the antiquity of their Church or to tell vs of nouelties séeing their Church holding these nouelties must néeds be new and of a late erection CHAP. XIII That Parsons maketh no conscience to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures THus we sée the substance of Parsons his two first bookes of Three Conuersions quashed and brought to nothing But because he hath committed diuers other faults which in the sequele of our discourse we could not particularly insist vpon we haue thought it good to referre their further examination to this place For whatsoeuer bragges his followers do make of this braue worke yet by examination it will appeare that the Author hath fouly abused and mistaken Scriptures corrupted falsified and falsely alledged Fathers and other Authors bragged of himselfe and his conforts most vainely taken things in question as granted most simply erred in historyes and other authors most childishly applyed Scriptures and spoken of God and matters concerning God most blasphemously behaued himselfe toward his Prince most disloyally lyed and calumniated honest men most impudently alledged matters making against himselfe most sottishly and to reduce all into a briefe summe that this whole treatise is nothing else but a fardle of false allegations corruptions lyes and fooleries That he maketh no conscience to wrest and peruert the words of holy Scriptures it appeareth by these particulars In the front of his booke which he like a man of a front face without shame entituleth A treatise of Three Conuersions of England he tumbleth two sentences of Scripture together and maketh one of two He doth also wrest them both contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost For whereas Deuter. 4. whence his first place is taken we are willed to enquire of ancient times and thereof to learne Gods great works in deliuering his people he applyeth the words of that text to the times of late Popes and to their trash and traditions And out of the words Deut. 32. whence his second place is taken where we are commanded to remember the old dayes of our forefathers c. he instnuateth that we are to looke back to the Popes
and not by the Popes Decretals Finally he sheweth pag. 475. out of S. Augustines 48. Epistle ad Vincentium that the Church is sometime shadowed and obscured which plainely ouerthroweth the Popish doctrine concerning the illustrious and perpetuall visibilitie of the Church of Christ. If then any simple Papist heretofore haue bene seduced by this fabulous discourse of Rob. Parsons to beleeue that the inhabitants of this land haue bene thrice conuerted to that faith which now is professed at Rome or to giue credit to the hereticall doctrine of the Romanists let him reforme his opinion and beware how he admit such trifling bookes wherein Scriptures are so wickedly abused and Fathers so corruptly alledged and lyes so commonly interlaced And if he loue Rob. Parsons let him admonish him hereafter to haue more care what he writeth and to desist from wresting and abusing Scriptures from falsisying and corrupting the testimonie of Fathers from Thrasonicall bragging and yet beggarly crauing matters in controuersie from his impious spéeches against God and disloyall termes against his Prince and finally from lying slandering and impertinent babling Otherwise as his faults and errors appeare many and grieuous so it will manifestly appeare that it is Gods iudgement that so wicked a cause should be defended so weakly leudly and wickedly God giue him grace to repent him of his inueterate malice against true Christians and confirme all Christians in the truth that they giue no eare to the fabulous tales and leasings of such leud wicked and malitious companions FINIS The Contents of the Discourse precedent THe Praeface conteineth a briefe examination of Robert Parsons his Epistle Dedicatorie of the addition to it and of his Praeface The 1. Chapter disputeth this question Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or no. The 2. Chapter sheweth what we are to thinke of the pretended Conuersion of Lucius King of Britaine and of the Britains to Christian Religion by Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and his Agents The 3. Chapter resolueth vs of Austin the Monkes coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here In the 4. Chapter is proued that the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by S. Peter Eleutherius Gregory and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them The 5. Chapter conteineth a briefe answer to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to proue that the faith now professed in Rome is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past The 6. Chapter discouereth the vanitie and foolerie os Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England The 7. Chapter bringeth euident demonstrations that the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation The 8. Chapter containeth proofes concluding that the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane The 9. Chapter sheweth that the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meane of triall of the truth The 10. Chapter proueth the Church of England to be the true Church of God and to hold the Apostolike and true Catholike faith The 11. Chapter refuteth Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward The 12. Chapter sheweth that the moderne Church of Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England Chap. 13. therein is declared how litle conscience Parsons maketh to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures The 14. Chapter containeth a catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other authors committed by Parsons The 15. Chapter exhibiteth certaine examples of Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question The 16. Chapter alledgeth arguments of Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries The 17. Chapter containeth a Table of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall The 18. Chapter containeth a Table of Parsons his lies calumniations and false allegations The 19. Chapter sheweth how Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause FINIS a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca. 62. a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Part. 1. ca. 1. pa. 19. a In Eleutherio 1 Part. 1. cap. 4. a Part. 1. p. 80 a Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26. a Pag. 113. a Pag. 123. a Mallb 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 22. a In Chronico a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Pag. 333. and pages following