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
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
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
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
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
concerning Christs office and humane nature concerning the Church and Sacraments concerning the ministery and policy of the Church nay cōcerning the Law and the Gospell is altogether different from that faith which the first Christians of this Iland professed And were not the difference so great as we find it yet what needed this babling fellow to search antiquitie for proofe of his three imagined conuersions of the ancient inhabitants of our countrey to Christian religion Let him shew that the doctrine of popery which we refuse is Christian religion and that it was first taught by Saint Peter in Britany or otherwhere and that will suffice without more adoe But herein the poore fellow faileth most grossely Nay where he needed not blindly he plungeth himselfe into diuers difficulties offering to prooue that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted vnto Christian religion by S. Peter Eleutherius and the Monke Austin matters farre beyond the reach of his abilitie and impertinent For neither doth he prooue that the Britaine 's were thrise by them conuerted nor would it aduantage his cause being prooued seeing the decretaline and wicked doctrine of Popes which all true Christians refuse is of a late and different note from that faith which those three taught and professed and which was of ancient time planted in this Iland The which that it may euidently appeare I haue for thy better satisfaction thought good to examine this whole treatise of three Conuersions in volume big in value small in discourse idle in proofes weake and simple and altogether vnworthy any long answere were it not that some men suppose that he hath sayd somewhat where God wot his whole treatise is nothing but vaine talking and tedious discoursing to no purpose Eadem atque eadem saepe dicit sayth Augustine epist. 86. of such an idle writer aliud non inueniendo quod dicat nisi quod inaniter ad rem non pertinens dicit But with better reason may this be sayd of this pratling Iebusite which repeating the same things often yet findeth nothing to serue his purpose but that which ouerthroweth the purpose of the author In his Epistle Dedicatory he giueth the title of Catholikes to English Masse-priests and their consorts But that is the point in question He calleth them also the worthy children of the first professors of the Christian faith in this land But the testimonie of a bastard shall neuer make bastard professors true Christians Further it is not like but his prouision will faile him before the end of his iourney that beginneth so impudently to beg at his first setting forth and so presumptuously to take for granted matters in controuersie Finally vnder the name of the Christian catholike faith he goeth about to commend the corruptions and trash of the Romish church as the Macedonian heretikes did their hereticall poyson Venenum melle illitum nempe catholico nomine superinducto propinabatur sayth Athanasius ad Serap He sheweth reasons of his dedication but all false For neither shall he euer prooue that Papists professe the Christian catholike faith first planted in England nor deriue their pedegree from the first Christian Britains or Saxons His best reason is either forgotten or ouerslipped viz. that such patcheries are most properly due to such patrons Against true Christians he inueigheth with open mouth as if they were heretikes and intruders on the right of the catholike church But that is a common practise of men of his sort to fall to rayling and lying when by truth they cannot stand Hierome in his 2. apology against Russine speaking of Heretikes conuicti de perfidia sayth he ad maledicta se conferunt And Constantine directing his words to heretikes chargeth them with vaine lyes Cognoscite sayth he quibus mendacijs vestrae doctrinae inanit as implicata teneatur In fauour of the Papists he braggeth that he hath produced the sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world to wit the determination of all the highest ecctesiasticall tribunals But if by Parliaments he meane generall Councels he abuseth his clients and all the world For it were great simplicitie if vpon his word they should suppose either that Popery is authorized by ancient generall Councels or that the late conuenticles of Laterane Constance Florence and Trent ordered by the Popes directiō were lawfull Coūcels He doth also erre grossely if he affirme it Finally he contradicteth his owne holy fathers pleasure if he affirme the Councell to be aboue the Pope and the highest tribunall on earth The words of the Apostle Philip. 1. he applieth to such Papists as haue bene of late time called in question for treason and felony as if they did not only beleeue in Christ but also suffer for him Whereof the second is euidently false as publike records testifie the first is doubtfull seeing heretikes cannot be counted true beleeuers Likewise he abuseth other scriptures 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thess. 1. and Isa. 1. like the Valentinians endeuouring to wrest the sacred word of God to his owne fancies and fabulous discourses Aptare volunt sayth Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres ca. 1. fabulis suis eloquia Dei Saint Paule 1. Cor. 11. and 1. Thess. 1. speaketh of true Christians that followed Christ Iesus and his Apostles this Iebusite talketh of such as follow Antichrist and hearken to the Ieud perswasions of the false Apostles of Satan That which the Prophet Isay chap. 1. speaketh of purging the Church of God the same he applieth to the rusty followers of Antichrist whom he seeketh to continue in their disorders and errors Neither could he conceale the stirres that haue bene in England betweene the secular priests and the Iebusites although good it were for him that they were neuer remembred he being conuinced by the testimonie of his owne followers in diuers discourses written of this argument to be a Machiauelian 2 traytor and a diuell Here also he applieth the words meant of our Sauiour Matth. 8. to Antichrist the destroyer as if he rising vp could cōmand winds seas and cause calmes who indeede rather causeth stormes then calmes warres then peace and is the firebrand of troubles throughout all Christendome Further he entitleth him Christes substitute But his outragious persecutions of Gods saints shew him to be Christes aduersary rather then substitute Commission or act of substitution he sheweth none But of the other we find diuers argumēts Dan. 8. and 11. 2. Thess. 2. Apocalyp 13. and 17. which in my bookes de pontif Rom. are at large declared In an addition to his epistle he triumpheth ouer Queene Elizabeth of pious memory and raileth at her as a persecutor whose clemencie her greatest enemies cannot chuse but acknowledge and he among the rest if he were not vngratefull But herein the heathen Philosophers do accuse him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sayth Homer odyss 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And another de mortuis nil nisi bonum Herein therefore the prouerbe is verified that
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
alone then not in the Popes traditions 16. None of them did euer speake vnreuerently of Scriptures or call them a killing letter or a matter of strife or a nose of waxe or a shipmans hose or such like as do our aduersaries 17. None of them did make the Latine translation of the Bible more authenticall then the originall Tert. Nay Peter albeit he had the gift of tongues yet did he not write in Latine but in Greeke 18. Neither did Eleutherius or Gregorie call himselfe the spouse or rocke of the Church or Christs Vicar or substitute Nor did either S. Peter or Austin allow such proud titles 19. Neither did Gregorie the first nor any before him call himselfe King of Kings or Supreme Monarch of the Church Nay Gregorie rather delighted in the name and title of seruant of seruants and the rest of the bishops of Rome in ancient time were humble men and detested these proud titles 20. In the times of Gregory and Austin neither the number of Sacraments nor those formes rites which now the Synagogue of Rome vseth were established If Parsons will maintaine the contrary let him make proofe that the words vsed in the popish sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Vnction were knowne practised in those times Let him also shew that Priests were then appointed to sacrifice for quick dead Now if he cannot find these formes in the time of Gregory he will be much more puzzeled to find them in the daies of Eleutherius or Peter 21. The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist 11. confesseth frankly that he knoweth not whether the conuersion in the Eucharist be substantial or not Qualis sit illa conuersio sayth he an formalis vel substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio Much more difficultie then shall Parsons find to prooue his Transubstantiation out of the doctrine of Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter 22. S. Peter knew no other Priesthood but that which was common to all Christians neither did he acknowledge any sacrifices of Christians but spirituall Neither Eleutherius nor Gregory nor Austin euer heard that a Masse-priest did either offer vp Christs body and bloud really or as we reade in the Canon of the Masse take vpon him to be a mediator for Christes body and bloud 23. It is impious to thinke that either Peter or Gregory or any in those times beléeued that hogges and dogges eating consecrated hoasts did with their mouthes eate and swallow downe into their belly the body of Christ as the Schoolemen and most Papists now teach 24. S. Peter neuer put the Sacrament in pixes nor adored it as his Lord and God Neither do we find that either Elcutherius or Gregory practised any such matter For it was first ordred by Honorius the third that y e Sacrament should be kept in pixes and worshipped after the moderne fashion 25. In the Romish ordinall we finde no prayers for the dead nor any priuat masses nor masses for warre peace plagues or for hogges and horses and such like vses If then the same be thought to haue procéeded for the most part from Gregory and from others that succéeded him it is certaine that these abuses came in after his time 26. The forme of hosts and singing cakes not much bigger then a counter and the image of the crucifixe vpon them and the idolatrous worship of Latria giuen to them was vtterly vnknowne in Gregories time and long after 27. The old ordinall of Rome doth shew that the confession of penitents was not made to Saints or Angels in Gregories time or before him 28. Neither in Gregories time nor before him do we find that any godly Bishop commanded that the publike Liturgie of the Church should be sayd in Latin or Gréeke or other language not vnderstood by the common people or that he suffred the Sacraments to be administred in tongues not knowne of the vulgar sort Nay the Apostle Paule 1. Cor. 14. sheweth plainely that praiers in a tongue not vnderstood are fruitlesse which doctrine no question antiquitie much respected 29. Now the Romanists will haue all Churches to follow Rome as their Mistresse in all rites and ceremonies But Gregory as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. gaue Austin liberty to chuse out of all Churches what rites he thought most conuenient Ex singulis quibusque Ecclesijs saith he quae pia quae religiosa quae recta sunt elige 30. Neither did Austin nor Gregory consecrate a Paschal lambe at Easter after the Iewish manner or hallow water to driue away diuels and for remission of venial sinnes as is now practised by the Papists 31. The law of auricular confession and the necessity and forme thereof was first established by Innocent the third c. Omnis vtriusque sexus de poenit remis It is not therfore likely that y t same should be practised in Gregories time or before 32. Gregory would not haue Saints images broken or defaced in Churches yet did neither he nor any Bishop of Rome before him allow the worship of them Quòd ea adorari vetuisses omnino laudauimus saith he lib. 9. epist. 9. ad Serenum speaking of images of Saints And again Si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare verò imagines omnibus modis deuita that is if any will make images foibid them not but by all meanes auoid the worship of images But Peter and Eleutherius neither worshipped images nor suffered them to be made in Churches None of them certes nor Austin himselfe did thinke or teach that the crosse or crucifixe is to be worshipped with Latria Austin comming to Canterbury had a crosse of siluer and the image of our Sauiour painted in a table as Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 26. reporteth but he sayth not that either the crosse or image was worshipped with Latria or otherwise either by him or by others 33. Both Gregory and Austin vsed Letanies But neither did they pray to the virgin Mary nor to Peter nor Paule nor to other Saints Austins Letany as we may reade in Bede hist. Angl. lib. 1. ca. 16. was nothing but a praier directed to God 34. Gregory and Austin estéemed much the reliques of Saints yet did neither of them digge their bodies out of the graues and put them in shrines to be worshipped as is the fashion of papists of our time 35. Neither did Gregory take vpon him to canonize or vncanonize Saints or to appoint Masses to be said or holidayes to be kept in their honor And if this will not be prooued of Gregory much lesse will it be shewed that either Eleucherius or Peter euer taught or allowed any such canonization of Saints or Romish worship giuen them 36. Gregory allowed Purgatory as it seemeth for small faults yet did he not beléeue that men did satisfie in Purgatory for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor that the bishop of Rome by his indulgences could deliuer men out of Purgatory As for
own faction began now to hold y t in euery seuerall church there ought to be but one bishop Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well vnderstand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist 8. For indéede he speaketh not of the Romane church but of the vniuersall church The like may be sayd of Cyprians booke de simplic Praelat Finally if Parsons vpon the words of Cyprian or Origen can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope he shall well deserue a Cardinals hat But in the meane while he must content himselfe with a garland of Fore tayles for his insignious fopperie that by such weake surmises thinketh to proue the faith of Eleutherius Clement the 8. to be all one He should also haue alledged the testimonie of the Magdeburgians as yeelding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Masse for transubstantiation the worship of images but therein he faileth Onely he talketh idlely of certaine frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of Frée-will Iustification Repentance Good workes Fasts Uirginitie kéeping of Holy dayes Martyrdome inuocation of Saints Purgatorie Traditions Monasticall life Reliques and such like points But all this is nothing to the purpose For neither are we bound to performe and make good euery priuate mans singular opinions nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference betwixt themselues and the Fathers nor do they alwaies gather their sentences out of the authenticall writings of the Fathers neither do they meane and comprehend all as oft as they speake against one or two nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from vs that either al the Fathers make against vs or that all most or any do ioyne with the Papists Robert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends to leaue this vaine and roauing discoursing and scholerlike to conclude somewhat against that religion which he hath forsaken and we do professe and beleeue to be most Catholike and auncient and Apostolicall For proofe that the religion now professed in Rome is the same which was brought into England by Austin the Monke he referreth vs p. 152. to Stapletons Fortresse of faith as he called it But he should remember that the same fortresse was taken and ouerthrowne by M. Doctor Fulke of worthie memorie and that in such sort that the builder and author of that foolish fortresse durst neuer vndertake to repaire the ruines thereof Furthermore he is to vnderstand that Stapletons discourse containeth a briefe recapitulation of certaine ceremonies and abuses in doctrine which were in practise about the coming in of Augustine into England But neither were they matters of any importance nor were they generally receiued nor were they agreable to the formes now receiued and vsed in the Church of Rome Part. 1. ch 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gregorie and Austin and rayling against M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead And Chap. 9. and 10. endeuoureth to proue that Austin brought into England no other religion then that which the Church professed during the times of Eleutherius But first we haue no speciall quarrell either against Gregorie or Austin If Parsons will needes vrge vs to speake against the Monke Austin he shall heare what he was anone Secondly these good men M. Foxe M. Bale and M. Holinshead it is no maruell though they be rayled on by such wicked fellowes Vpright and good men as the Wiseman sheweth vs Prou. 29. are an abhomination to the wicked Thirdly we do not so much contend about the corruptions brought in by Austin the Monke as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust vpon vs. Parsons therfore ought to shew that now the same religion is professed ' in Rome which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britaine and England and not so much to prate of the times betwéene Eleutherius and Austin Howbeit it appeareth that euen in these times superstition and false doctrine began to créepe into some corners of the Church contrarie to that forme which was receiued from the Apostles and vsed in Eleutherius his times Some began to talke doubtfully of Purgatorie others to pray priuatly to Saints In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised diuers from Apostolicall orders Of Fréewill and of Workes some began to talke philosophically others to aduance mans merits Churches were built in honour of Saints and their Reliques worshipped Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table and a siluer crosse and began to chaunt Letanies which Rob. Parsons albeit all the Iebusites in Rome should helpe him with their suffrages will neuer proue to haue bene knowne or practised in Eleutherius his time Pa. 181. he proueth altars in Britaine out of Chrysostome and afterward altars of stone and sacrifices and vowes and othes made to Saints out of Gildas He alledgeth also Optatus and Augustine for proofe of altars and y e Masse But neither doth the name of Masse or altars or sacrifices or vowes prooue the Romish Masse altars sacrifice vowes or the Romish doctrine of these points as at large hath bene declared in my bookes De Missa and De Monachis against Bellarmine nor do we stand vpon names or termes nor are these the principall points of Romish religion which we impugne nor is the testimonie of Gildas authenticall Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth vs of a Church built in the honor of Saint Martin where Austin song prayed and said Masses of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his prayer and application of reliques of a prayer made to Saint Alban of honoring Martyrs sepulchers of Alleluia and the obseruance of Lent out of Bede But therein he spendeth his labour in vaine For neither were the Masses then said nor the honor then done to Saints reliques nor their obseruances like to those which the Church of Rome now practiseth Beside that Bede speaketh of things past after the manners of his time and reporteth many things by heare-say Parsons also to helpe the matter translateth these words of Bede lib. 1. hist. cap. 18. Beatum Albanum Martyrem auctori Deo per ipsum gratias petierunt thus They went to the sepulcher of S. Alban prayed to the Saint largely But there is no such meaning to be forced out of the words Finally these points are not great in regard of the rest of the Romish religion which we refuse Out of Galfridus Monumetensis he gathereth that Dubritius was the Legate of the Apostolike sea and that there were Procession Organs and singing in the Church Out of M. Bale M. Foxe Trithemius and others that before Austins time there were diuers learned men and preachers among the Britains whereof some were instructed at Rome some were sent from Rome some built Monasteries some were Monkes But neither doth that make any thing for proofe
that they either held that religiō which Eleutherius taught or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth Finally he affirmeth that the religion taught by Austin was catholike and confirmed by miracles and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times But that which is the point in controuersie viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time is the same that was preached by Austin the Monke the wise disputer doth scarce mention and no way proueth Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents and by Austin we are to renounce all those heresies false doctrines and abuses which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church Secondly that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence nor transubstantiation nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead nor halfe Communions nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie nor his Indulgences nor the worship of Images nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused to haue bene preached by those that first planted Christian religion in this countrie CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood who will needes beare the Reader in hand that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome but also to that faith which now the Pope and his adherents do professe Now therfore it resteth that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope Two things it séemeth he aymeth at in this worke The first is to bring the King the Cleargie the Nobles and people of England vnder the Popes obedience and into the captiuitie of Babylon The second is to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon But to effect this purpose this labour is wholy vnsufficient For first no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion or rule ouer Gods people as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples The Princes of nations saith he beare rule ouer them and afterward but it shall not be so with you Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage Neque dominantes in Cleris saith he Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius applieth this to him and sheweth that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination and Lordlinesse Planum est saith he lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus I ergo tu tibi vsurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences Not saith he that we haue dominion ouer your faith but we are helpers of your ioy Finally our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi or Maister and sheweth that this is Pharisaicall Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop and reason sheweth that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master or teacher of the whole Church Secondly the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie Stand fast saith the Apostle Gal. 5. in the libertie wherewith Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage And againe Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you by humblenesse of mind and worshipping of Angels aduancing himselfe in those things which he neuer saw rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind Which words do directly belong to the Pope who pretending humilitie and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels and telling newes out of Purgatorie and strange things which he neuer saw affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope who ruleth in their consciences and marketh them for his slaues as we reade Apocalyps 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie He made all both small and great saith Iohn rich and poore free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand and in their foreheads But let such beware how they continue in this bondage and let others that are frée take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast and his image and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads or in their hands shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God Thirdly experience teacheth vs that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem and from thence went foorth into all lands And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles Act. 1. saith They shall be witnesses to him both in Hierusalem and in all Iudaea and to the vttermost part of the earth Yet neuer did either the Bishops or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge where they say Peter preached and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations then the Church of Hierusalem where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached and from whence as we reade Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world and to teach all nations Fourthly we reade in histories that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine For so Capgraue writeth citing Freculphus for his author It is said also that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France and that Iames coming from Ierusalem preached first in Spaine S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers that came out of the East country Finally our histories do teach vs that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine and that the Frizelanders and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria nor the English to the French or the French to the bishops of Athens or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem or the
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
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
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