degenerate in the adherents of the Church of Rome Which Wicleffe and his followers in England and the Valdenses and Albigenses in France and some in Germanie beganne at length to discouer But in our times the same by Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other godly men was both more openly discouered and Christianly reformed Secondly it is no maruell if Wicleffe and Husse and others that first beganne to discouer the abuses of Poperie did not see all For God had appointed a certaine time when the man of sinne should be reuealed and no man is so cleare sighted that he can see into all the abuses of Heretikes without helpe and direction of many Neither is this to be ascribed more vnto Wicleffe and such as haue laboured in the reformation of the Church then to others which haue their singular opinions and by their errors declare themselues to be men Furthermore by this we collect that we are to build our faith vpon none but the Apostles and Prophets which by speciall direction of the holy Ghost haue declared vnto vs the will of God Thirdly many heresies are falsly imputed both vnto Wicleffe and vnto Iohn Husse and vnto euery one that hath opposed himselfe against the Romish faction As for example they say that Wicleffe taught That God must obey the Diuell and that Iohn Husse added a fourth Person to the Trinitie matters contrarie to the whole forme of their doctrine Diuers errors also they haue ascribed to the Valdenses Albigenses and Bohemians Neither may we maruell if they haue slandered the dead seeing they spare not the liuing making their credulous followers beleeue That we make God the author of sinne and speake vnreuerently of Christ. They haue also laid most false imputations vpon Luther Caluin Zuinglius and other our teachers Further we are not to maruell if they haue charged Sir Iohn Oldcastle and diuers others the followers of Wicleffes doctrine with treasons and rebellions and other enormous crimes For so did the heathen deale with the first Christians as appeareth by the Apologies of Tertullian Arnobius and others And now they cease not to exclaime against our doctrine as if the same were enemie to the Magistrates authoritie the which is not more troden vnder foot by any then by the Popes of Rome and their agents Fourthly the Papists themselues haue many singular opinions in diuers points of doctrine Why then should they impute vnto vs the dissentions of priuate men And why may not all be good Christians holding the substantial points of Christian faith and varying in nothing from the grounds of true doctrine concerning the holy Trinitie Christs incarnation the Sacraments Gods worship and manners Finally as errors did not altogether enter into the Church so neither can they be all at one time and by one man or one age reformed In all the principall points concerning the abuses of Poperie both the Churches of England Scotland France Germany and other nations not subiect to the yoke of Antichrist do very well agree And we doubt not by the grace of God to sée Antichrist confounded with the spirit of Gods mouth shortly by a generall vnion in the rest Finally in his last chapter he compareth M. Foxe to a craftie Broker that vseth fraud in selling of his wares whereas the Romanists sell like royall Merchants He deliuereth also to his reader three differences betwixt the Papists vs saying first That we contemne the Church next y t we define it falsly thirdly y t we assigne common obscure markes thereof whereas the Papistes do all contrarie But of this comparison because it is his owne he may boldly take both parts to himselfe and not without iust cause For as the Pope selleth Religion and all diuine matters in grosse and like a royall Merchant so Parsons and such like pedlars and palterers fell as they may by retayle now bargaining for one part of the Church then for another now selling one sinne and then another In assigning his differences he differeth not from himselfe but as alwayes so now also he belyeth his aduersaries For neither do we make so litle estimation of the Church as he reporteth nor do we giue such a definition of the Church as he imagineth nor are our markes giuen out of the Church either common or improper On the other side they value not the Church one rush making the same a slaue to Antichrist nor do they define the Church aright not touching the life and soule of it but onely certaine outward qualities nor do they bring other markes then those that may fit the Pagans and Turks better then the Papists as the name Catholike vniuersality continuance succession vnitie prosperitie and such like do shew If Parsons will maintaine the contrarie let him answer a booke of mine De Ecclesia written against Bellarmine wherein this is declared at large If not that yet let him leaue his idle wandring discourse and come to a point and then we doubt not but to make his pedlarie ware knowne And thus an end of this woodden constables search Of which we may conclude that it will be a hard matter to find out a more idle searcher or foolish search CHAP. XII That the Church of moderne Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England THe Church of Christ saith Hierome in Psalm 133. consisteth not in walles but in the truth of doctrine There is the Church where is true faith So likewise euery Church is to be estéemed according to the doctrine which it teacheth and of the Church of Rome we are to make accompt not according to the walles of the Churches there but according to the doctrine which now that Church professeth If then there cannot be shewed a Church in the world for a thousand yeares professing that faith and doctrine which now the Church of Rome holdeth and professeth we may boldly say that the Church of Papists as now it standeth was not visible for a thousand yeares after Christ. Nay it is plaine that such a Church as the Papists now haue was neuer yet planted in England So farre is Parsons from his accompt when he supposeth that the faith and Church of Rome that now is hath alwaies continued since the first preaching of the Gospell and bene visible in England That we say true it appeareth first for that no Church did euer esteeme traditions and holy Scriptures with like affection before the decree of the conuenticle of Trent ratified by Pius the fourth Anno Domini 1564. The Church of England before that time neuer had any such conceit of traditions as to beleeue them to be the word of God and equall to Scriptures Secondly no Church in the world did make the old Latine vulgar translation of the Bible authenticall before y t time Thirdly the moderne Papists forbid men to reade the Scriptures translated into vulgar tongues without licence and
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
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
Peter and Eleutherius they neuer thought nor taught that our sinnes are purged by other meanes then by the bloud of Christ which as the Apostle sayth 1. Iohn 1. cleanseth vs from all sinne 37. That the soules of the godly are tormented by diuels in Purgatory or that the bishops of Rome by their plenary indulgences and Buls of Iubiley could deliuer soules from thence was farre from the thought of Austin and Gregory and much more of Eleutherius and Saint Peter These are deuises of late Dopes and frapling Schoolemen as appeareth by the Decretals of Boniface the eight and Clement the sixt extr de poenit remiss and Bellarmine and Henriquez and others in their treatises of Indulgences and Purgatory 38. Neither did Gregory nor Austin nor any before them teach that the grace of God was nothing but charity or that charity is the forme of faith as do the moderne vncharitable powdermen papists and their associates 39. Farre also it was from their thought that men are predestinate to saluation or reprobated and destined to damnation for works foreseene in them For the Apostle Rom. 9. doth prooue the contrary by the example of Esau and Iacob and addeth this reason that the purpose of God might remaine according to Election not by works but by him that calleth 40. None of them euer taught that men are iustified by mariage or orders or confirmation or extreme vnction or by eating fish or such externall obseruances as our aduersaries now teach 41. Nay they beléeued not that christian men were iustified by the works of the law or that they could perfectly fulfill the whole law loue God with all their hart soule affection For as the Apostle saith Rom. 4. the Law causeth wrath Againe if man could perfectly fulfill the law then might he liue without all sinne which is the heresie of the Pelagians as Augustine de haeres and Hierome aduers. Pelag. lib. 1. testifie 42. Neuer did any of these foure or other ancient Father teach that christian men were able not only to fulfill the whole law but also to do works of supererogation and more then the law requireth or else that the state of perfection did consist in beggery or pouerty forswearing of mariage and obedience to monkish rules 43. Finally because it were infinite to prosecute all the singular differences betwirt Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter of one part and the moderne Popes and the Iebusites on the other I will bring all into one briefe summe I do therefore pray Robert Parsons because he contendeth that now no other doctrine is taught in Rome beside that which in times past was deliuered by Gregory Austin Eleutherius and the holy Apostle S. Peter that he will be pleased of his Iebusiticall fauor plainely to demonstrate First that the particulars aboue mentioned were by thē knowne beléeued and taught And next that the rest of the Romish doctrine established partly in the Popes Decretals and partly in the conuenticles of Laterane of Constance of Florence and Trent and partly professed and proposed by Pius the fourth which the Church of England reiecteth and detesteth differeth nothing frō that forme of doctrine and wholsome words which they deliuered to their hearers in their time If he performe this he shall shew himselfe a great master if not his cause falleth his hope of mastership perisheth and his dreames of a Cardinals hat are at their last period CHAP. V. A briefe answere to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to prooue that the faith now professed in Rome vnder Clement the 8. is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past VNto our argumēts Rob. Parsons in his treatise of three Conuersions maketh no answere And yet he could not be ignorant that these and many more arguments are brought against his cause Nay it appeareth that it will be as easy a matter for him to turne himselfe into a woodcock as to maintaine his booke of Three Turnings Only least he should séeme silent he setteth on a brasen face and Pag. 8. desperatly promiseth to proue that the faith of Rome is and was all one vnder Eleutherius Gregory and Clement the 8. lately raigning He should haue added S. Peter also if he would haue mainteined his argument of three Conuersions But he knew that there is too maine a difference betwixt S. Peters catholike epistles and Clements vncatholike Decretals In the processe also of his discourse concerning the faith of Eleutherius and Gregory compared to the confession of Clement the 8. he runneth on confusedly and absurdly turning and winding vp and downe like a man that hath lost his way and is caried without direction he knoweth not whither In his discourse there are thrée maine faults First he doth not iustifie all those points of popery which are now holden by Clement the 8. at the least if the Pops beléeue the moderne Romish faith nor prooue them to haue béene beléeued and taught by Eleutherius and Gregory Next he neither proposeth his matters resolutely nor in proouing them proceedeth orderly Lastly he barely toucheth some points in controuersie but neither dare handle the principall matters taught by the Romanists nor can prooue that which he promiseth And this God willing we shall demonstrate out of the mans owne words folowing as well as we can the file and order of his disordred discourse Pag. 7. He threapeth kindnesse vpon vs and would beare vs in hand that we dare not deny but that both Masse and Images were in vse in Gregories time in the Romane Church and faith and so brought into England by Augustine But first he speaketh strangely where he sayth Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane faith For Masse is song or sayd at the Altar and Images are painted or made in bosse vpon walles or other places But faith is properly in the heart though declared with the mouth and consisteth neither in Imagery nor Massing foolery but in receiuing the sauing word of God Secondly if by the vse of the Masse and Images he vnderstand the moderne doctrine and practise of the Romish Church concerning these two points he wrongeth vs and abuseth his reader saying we dare not deny that the Masse and Images were in vse in the Romane church in Greries time and so brought into England by Augustine For by the old Romish ordinall it appeareth that Gregories Masse was most vnlike the moderne Masse of the Romanists That forme ouerthroweth priuate Masses halfe Communions prayers for the dead the carnall reall presence transubstantiation the reall propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead and the whole forme and frame of the moderne Romish Canon and Masse Gregory also as we haue declared absolutely condemned the worship of Images and neuer acknowledged that the Crosse or Crucifixe was to be worshipped with Latria Finally albeit Augustine named Masses and had a crosse and an image yet it appeareth not that his Masse was
Another old English Chronicle testifieth That Augustine went with the army to the warre and that such of the Britains as were sent to intreat for peace were killed without pitie That Augustine was the cause of this warre and murther we may probably also gather out of Bedes historie For he doth not onely shew that the greatest slaughter was made of the Monkes of Bangor that resisted Austin and gaue counsell against him but also that Austin did threaten them and foretell them that they should haue warre Augustinus saith he lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. fertur minitans praedixisse quòdsipacem cum fratribus accipere nollent bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi Neither is any cause alledged of this warre against the Britains but that Augustine was by them reiected Is not then Austin to be taken as a braue Apostle and conuerter of nations to the faith that came with Pagans against Christians with fire and sword because they would not vndergo his yoke To excuse this matter they alledge the words of Bede as they pretend who speaking of this murther saith That Austin was dead long before But a man of meane iudgement may see that these words are thrust into Bede by some falsarie For how could Austin be dead long before that after this warre as Bede reporteth ordained Iustus and Melitus Bishops Do dead men reuiue againe to ordaine Bishops Furthermore these words of Austins death before the murther of the Britains are not found in the Saxon translation of Beda made by King Alured Finally both the Chronicles of Peterborough and Flores historiarum do witnesse that Austin died three yeares after the execution done vpon the Britains The Britains therefore are not bound to Rome that sent this proud and cruell man amongst them Neither is the same much obliged to Eleutherius if he did as is said send Preachers into Britaine The reasons I haue before alledged As for the Danes Normans and French and their discendants they are cleare also from this obligation For the Romanists albeit they séeke out all colours to beautifie the Popes chaire yet say not that preachers from Rome did conuert them to the faith It resteth then that all the weight of this obligation to Rome which Parsons aduanceth so magnifically must rest vpon a few Saxons or English But this cannot be great as I haue shewed seeing the Saxons were not then the greatest part of the inhabitants of this land nor generally conuerted by the Romaines as hath bene declared But were the auncient English beholding in times past to Gregorie or Austin yet the inhabitants of England for this sixe hundred yeares and vpward haue bene litle beholding to the Popes of Rome and their adherents For first they haue vsed all force and fraud to plant their false hereticall and idolatrous Religion in England as their sending of Legates Agents Archpriests Iebusites and Masse-priests when they durst openly and now of late priuily and the rebellions and warres stirred vp by them against the Kings and Princes of England do declare If then we are neither to hearken to false Prophets nor dreamers of dreames nor to spare them or fauour them that would draw vs from the seruice of God to Idolatrie then are we to detest the Pope and his idolatroùs Agents whose massing Religion and worship of Saints and Images is nothing else but refined paganisme and grosse Idolatrie Againe If we are to marke them and auoid them that cause diuision and offences contrarie to the doctrine which we haue receiued from the Apostles as Saint Paule exhorteth vs Roman 16. then are we to haue no communion nor fellowship with the Pope which indeuoureth to diuide vs from the Catholike Church and to draw vs from Apostolicall doctrine to his leude Decretaline Heresies and Traditions Secondly they haue by their cunning engines drawne infinite treasure out of England impouerishing both the Kings and people of this Iland by their manifold exactions Matthew Paris doth in sundrie places complaine of the oppressions made by the Pope and his Agents and in Henrico tertio saith That England by the Pope was made like a vine left to the open spoile of euery one that passed by Thirdly for the most part they haue concurred with our enemies and by all meanes oppugned our nation Matthew Paris writing Harolds life sheweth that Alexander the Pope sent a Standard to William the conqueror when he came with fire and sword against the English nation Papa saith he vexillum Willelmo in omen regni transmisit And call you this a fauour to ioyne with him that came to conquer our countrie and to cut the Englishmens throats In the dayes of Henry the 2. the Pope fauoured both the Kings disloyall subiects and open enemies as appeareth by the discourse of matters passed betwixt him and Thomas Becket Innocentius the 3 excommunicated King Iohn and sought to depriue him of his kingdome By his malitious courses the King lost Normandie and was forced to surrender his Crowne into his Legats hands Matthew Paris testifieth that he gaue the English for slaues to the French Sententialiter definiuit saith he vt Rex Anglorum Ioannes à solio regni deponeretur He committed the execution of this sentence to the French King and for his labour determined that he and his successors should perpetually enioy the kingdome of England Vt ipse successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent And may we thinke that any is so brutish as to dispute that we are beholding to the Pope that giueth vs as a prey vnto our enemies Certes vnlesse we had read it in Parsons the Popes parasite we could hardly haue beleeued it In the end albeit he could not bring vs into seruitude yet he wanted not much to make our King and country tributary That noble and victorious Prince King Edward the third found none that more ouerthwarted him and disturned the course of his victories in France then the Pope as his letters menaces and practises reported in Histories declare To forbeare to speake of ancient wrongs done to our Princes and nation by other Popes see I beséech you the indignities offered to king Henry the 8. and his subiects by that impious Pope Paule the third and to his daughter Q. Elizabeth of famous memorie and her people by that lousie friar Pius the fift Gregorie the 13. and Sixtus the fifts seditious rayling and outragious Buls Paule the third rayleth on the King interditeth the kingdome depriueth his subiects of trade and giueth them as slaues to those that could take them Prohibet commercium cum Anglis saith Sanders in his Glosse vpon the Popes Bull foedera cum Henrico dissoluit Henrici sequaces tradit in seruitutem Looke what rage or malice can deuise that he vomiteth out both against the King and our nation And will Parsons haue our nation to submit themselues to such monsters or can any find in their hearts to yéeld to such tyrants Against Queene Elizabeth Pius Quintus
Neither can the aduersary iustly charge vs that we allow any false worship of God or breach of his holy ordonances Thirdly the Church of England for matters of Faith Sacraments Gods worship and seruice beléeueth followeth whatsoeuer is either expressely commanded in holy Scriptures or out of them deduced in ancient generall and lawfull Councels condemning also whatsoeuer is by ancient Councels or Fathers declared to be contrary to the same Fourthly Christes true Church is a diligent and wary keeper of doctrines committed to her and changeth nothing at any time deminisheth nothing addeth nothing cutteth not off things necessary nor addeth things superfluous looseth not her owne nor vsurpeth things belonging to others as saith Lirmensis Commonit ca. 32. Likewise ca. 34. he saith it is the property of Catholikes to keepe the doctrine of the Fathers committed to them in trust and to condemne prophane nouelties Who can then deny the name of Catholikes vnto vs but such as are false Catholikes Fiftly all Churches that belong to Christes body which is gathered and gouerned by his word nourished and preserued by his holy Sacraments and inspired and led by his holy spirit and grace belong to Christes Catholike Church But nothing can be alledged by the aduersaries but that these properties belong to the Church of England and the members thereof and those which communicate with it Sixthly the Church of England doth in all things cōmunicate with the Catholike Apostolike Church that is spred ouer all nations hath continued frō the beginning shall cōtinue to the end which hath a most certaine succession of true Bishops which adhereth to Christ only to his word and whose faith is confirmed with miracles and most inuincible testimonies If Parsons will deny this let him cease his railing against vs and his vaine babling about impertinent matters and forbeare to impute vnto vs the names of factions which we renounce and the faults of particulars which we defend not proue somewhat substātially Seuenthly the Church of England is iustified by the confession of our aduersaries for with them we professe one faith in all articles conteined in ancient Creedes with them we receiue the same Scriptures with them we allow the sacrament of the Eucharist Baptisme with them we admit the most anciēt generall Councels and finally whatsoeuer was deliuered by the Apostles to be obserued that we obserue What is then the differēce Forsooth they haue added to the Apostles faith to Christes Sacraments Scriptures Apostolike doctrine lawes and that we refuse for that it is aboue and beside yea sometime contrary to the Canon of Scriptures which is the perfect rule of faith Unlesse therfore our aduersaries will stubbornly reiect the Apostolike faith the canon of Scriptures the Sacraments and the ancient formes of Ecclesiastical gouernment condemne the same they cannot deny y t Church of England to be y e true Church Finally all those exceptions which either Bellarmine or Bristow or Stapleton or Hill or any of their consorts haue takē to our doctrine or manners are cleared so answered that still the aduersary though neuer so full of words resteth silenced Parsons in y e second part of his treatise of Three Conuersions of England by him pretended goeth about to shew that the Church of England is no part of the Church vniuersally dispersed and that hath continued throughout all ages But his arguments are so vaine that I make this an argument to iustifie the cause of our Church For if he and his consorts can take no iust exception either to the faith or manners of the Church of England then doth it follow that the same is the true Church of Christ Et inimici nostri iudices and our enemies therein iudge against themselues CHAP. XI Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and discent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward is examined refuted IT is a simple part according to the common prouerbe in the midst of a riuer to aske where is water or in a forrest of trées to enquire for wood Yet Parsons séemeth not much wiser who in the Scriptures and writings of ancient Fathers euery where finding the Apostolike and Catholike Church with the which y e Church of England holdeth cōmunion doth notwithstanding still enquire where our Church was in y e Apostles time the ages after But it séemeth he was vnwilling to sée y t which he was loth to find His search certes and manner of procéeding and whole dispute about this matter as it is tedious and full of words so it is fond foolish and void of substance and concludent argument In the 2. Part of his turning Treatise chap. 1. he alledgeth diuers testimonies out of Irenaeus Tertullian Hierome and Augustine concerning the succession of Bishops and the force thereof But what I pray you doth that make against vs who do well allow of that faith which was taught and maintained by those Bishops succeeding one another in diuers Churches which they mention Nay if Parsons talked of no other faith or doctrine then that which those holy Fathers speake of and did not hide in this catalogue of good Bishops a multitude of false teachers and Heretikes much vnlike to the former the controuersie betwixt vs wold soone be ended Furthermore where he will not allow them to be the true Church which in all points of faith consent with the Apostles and ancient Fathers and disagrée in nothing but will néeds exact a discent of our faith by a catalogue of Bishops we want not therein an answer sufficient For the Bishops of Britaine and England that haue continued since the first plantation of Religion by Ioseph of Arimathaea and other Apostolike men haue still retained the Apostolike faith and the Sacraments instituted by Christ. True it is they retained them but yet with many corruptions although nothing so many as are now established in the Church of Rome since the wicked conuenticle of Trent Although then the Church of England haue purged away certaine abuses yet the substance of doctrine and Sacraments we haue not changed therein varying in nothing from the Apostles or auncient Bishops of Christs Church for many hundred yeares after Christ. But the Popes of Rome and their adherents within these fiue hundred yeares haue brought in a new Scholasticall Decretaline doctrin especially since the conuenticle of Trent which neither the Apostles nor auncient Bishops euer knew nay which is opposite to their doctrine and faith It appeareth therefore that this argument of succession doth rather make for vs then for our aduersaries Secondly he beareth vs in hand that Luther and Caluin being pressed with this argument of Succession did make the Church inuisible And that Melancthon and the Magdeburgians dissenting from them and ouercome with proofes concerning the visibilitie of the Church did grant it to be visible yet so as it did consist not
doth differ from the Church of Christ from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor and Gregorie the first he alledgeth first that M. Foxe speaketh nothing of these thrée ages nor of the Doctors that then flourished in the East or West Church and in Britaine it selfe or of their doctrine And all this he supposeth to haue bene omitted because it made much against him and nothing for him Otherwise he thinketh he would haue set downe somewhat vndertaking to set foorth at large the whole race course of the Church from Christ to our times Next he saith that the Magdeburgians in their fourth fift and sixt Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the thrée ages from Constantine downward find nothing for themselues but rather against themselues as for example in the matter of Free-will where they say in the 4. Centur. c. 4. that almost all the Doctors of that age speake confusedly and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture and in the Paragraffe of repentance where they say it is handled by the Doctors of this 4. age thinly and coldly And likewise in the matter of the reall presence where they cite the Fathers abundantly saue in the matter of the sacrifice where they reprehend them and finally in the controuersie of Good-workes satisfaction inuocation of Saints and concerning ceremonies where they reprehend the Fathers But all this brabblement about M. Foxe and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose For first what if either they should haue omitted or spoken any thing which they should not It is a vaine thing to imagine that all this should be imputed to vs. Secondly the reason why M. Foxe speaketh so litle of the 4. 5. and 6. ages and of the Fathers then flourishing was for that we acknowledge that faith which was then professed and adioyne ourselues to that Church What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages when the same is euery where apparent in the Fathers of that age whose faith if we might haue restored without the leauen of the Church of Rome lately brought in the controuersie betwixt vs and our aduersaries would soone be ended Furthermore it was not his purpose to handle controuersies and therefore no maruell if in euery question he did not set downe y e sentences of the Fathers Thirdly the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-wil repentance the sacrifice good-works inuocation of Saints and such like mislike some of the Fathers But he is a very simple ideot that therefore would conclude that they ioyne with the Papists in their moderne heresies Likewise they alledge the Fathers for proofe of a certaine reall presence But it is not that corporall and carnall presence of the body and bloud of Christ of which the Papists dreame Finally albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians taxe some one or two of the Fathers or rather those authors which haue published counterfeit books vnder the name of the Fathers yet in the matters of greatest moment they shew the true Fathers to make for vs. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons if leauing his bangling about these small aduantages he list to deale with vs in any substantial point of controuersie In the 4. chapter of his second part and diuers chapters following he handleth the discent of times from Gregorie the first vnto the preaching of Iohn Wicleffe and therein spendeth much vaine talke to small purpose For although in those times the tyranny of the Pope increased and Monkish life began to be in request and the worship of Images and Saints departed together with diuers friuolous ceremonies by litle and litle entred and Priests were separated by the Popes practises from their lawful wiues yet the substance of Christian Religion remained still in the Church of England all this while and the corruptions that then began to enter were nothing in comparison of that which followed afterward nor generally receiued In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Uniuersall Church nor did he vndertake to depose Kings before Gregorie the 7. or to ouerrule all Churches The Bishops of England tooke not themselues to be subiect vnto the Pope vnder paine of damnation nor did he much encroch vpon them before the times of Henry the second King of England The doctrine of the carnall reall presence of transubstantiation of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud in the Masse of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria and of Images with the same worship that is due to the Original of the seuen Sacraments and of the degrées of merits of workes and workes of supererogation of the force of fréewill in iustification of the Popes two swords and superioritie ouer generall Councels and his power in Purgatory and in granting Indulgences and such like was not then knowne in England but was deuised afterward by schoolemen and Canonists and established by the Popes Decretals and wicked conuenticles assembled by their commandement Nay albeit the Popes by all meanes sought to subdue Christian Kings and to bring all Ecclesiasticall preferments to their owne disposition and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wiues yet could they not do this but in long time and after great contradiction of many Of this discourse then two things may be gathered direct against Rob. Parsons his cause The first is that the Church of England from the time of Gregorie the first to Alexander the thirds time was not subiect to the Pope nor had receiued the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Popes late Decretals and deuised in the Conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence Trent and published in the prophane disputes of schoolemen The second is that the tyrannie of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England increased by litle and litle vntill King Henry the eight his raigne and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entred into England after his time Of which two points we may conclude that the Church of England from the time of Austin vntill the time of Alexander the third in fundamentall matters of faith did communicate with vs and not with the moderne Papists whose principall corruptions haue entred since In the 9. 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarrelleth with Master Foxe for building the Church vpon M. Wicleffe Sir Iohn Old-castle Husse M. Luther M. Caluin Zuinglius and others holding as he saith many dangerous points of doctrine and differing from themselues from vs and many of thē noted of diuers great crimes But while he quarelleth with others he bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downeward or to affirme that there was no Church in the world for certaine ages before Wicleffe but rather to shew that the Church in diuers places and by little and little being corrupted since the time of the Fathers by the pride and false doctrine of the Popes began much to
command the seruice to be said in Latine Gréeke and Hebrew which languages the common people vnderstand not But such a Church and so malignant and enuious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seene in the world before the assembly of Trent 4. For a thousand yeares after Christ and longer it was lawful for laymen and all Christians to dispute argue and reason of matters of Christian Religion And so long this Popish Church was not seene in the world that prohibiteth laymen so to do 5. The moderne Papists teach that Christs naturall bodie is both in heauen and earth and vpon euery altar where any consecrated host is hanged where he is neither felt seene nor perceiued and all at one time But the Church vntill the times of the Trent conuenticle euer beleeued that Christ had a solide visible and palpable bodie And certes very strange it were if the Catholike and mysticall bodie of Christ shold be visible not his natural body 6. They teach that Christ was a perfect man at the first instant of his conception and that he knew all things and was omniscient as man both then and alwaies But this neither the Church of England nor other Christian Church as yet could euer beleeue or comprehend 7. They teach that Christians are not to beléeue the Scriptures to be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope tell them so They say also that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs doth depend vpon the Church that is as they say vpon the Pope Cardinals Masse-priests Monkes and Friars But the true Church hath alwaies taken this to be derogatorie to the Maiestie of God and of holy Scriptures 8. They teach that the Pope hath two swords and a triple crowne as King of Kings and Lord of Lords But the Church of England for a thousand yeares after Christ neuer saw nor beléeued any such thing Nay the English know wel y t Greg. the 7. was y e first y t took vp arms against y e Emperor 9. They teach that the Pope hath power to depose Kings to assoile subiects from their oaths of obedience But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. sheweth to haue vin reputed a nouelty if not an heresie The Church of England neuer saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King Iohns time and then the same did not beléeue it or allow it 10. The moderne synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head foundation and spouse of Christes Church But no visible Church euer taught this vntill of late time the Church of England neuer held it nor beleeued it 11. Now they thinke it lawfull to suborne the subiects against their Prince and to hire priuie murtherers assassinors to cut y e throte of Kings excommunicate as appeareth by the excōmunications of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soueragine Quéene Elizabeth and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorismes Nay of late they haue attempted by gunpowder to blow vp the King and his Sonne albeit not excommunicated and to massacre murther the most eminent men in this kingdome and wholy to ouerthrow the state But y e Church of England euer taught obedience to Princes and disliked this damnable doctrine 12. They teach that the Pope is aboue all generall Councels But no Church euer beleeued this for a thousand foure hundred yeares The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decréed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian. 13. They teach that the Pope is supreme iudge of all matters of controuersie in religion But the Church of England euer thought it a matter absurd to make a blind man iudge of colours or an vnlearned irreligious fellow to be iudge of matters of learning and religion Now who knoweth not that most Popes are such Of Benedict that liued in the Emperour Henry the 2. his daies Sigebertus in ann Do. 1045. writeth that he was so rude ignorant that he could not reade his breuiary but was inforced to choose another to do it Benedictus saith he qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. inuaserat cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit 14. They now fall downe before the Pope and kisse his féet and when he list to goe abrode they cary him like an idoll vpon mens shoulders But no Church for aboue a thousand yeares after Christ did euer kisse the feet of Antichrist or adore him Nay the Church of England did alwayes know full well that S. Peter a farre holier and honester man then Clement the 8. or Paule the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lye at his feet or to worship him 15. They now call the Pope God and acknowledge him to be their good Lord and God as appeareth by the Chapter Satis dist 96. and the glosse vpon Iohn the 22. his Extrauagant cum inter nonnullos de verb. signif Commonly the Canonists honor him as a God on the earth But no Church did euer abase it selfe so low as to vse these high termes to so base a fellow The Church of England though patient in bearing the Popes iniuries did neuer vse any such slauish formes of flattery 16. They beléeue that the Pope can change kingdomes and take a kingdome from one and giue it to another Potest mutare regna saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 6. atque vni auferre atque alteri conferre But this no Church of God euer beléeued The Church of England certes when King Iohn would haue made his Kingdome tributary to the Pope disallowed and detested the fact and when the Pope would haue deposed King Henry the eight manfully resisted him So did the French likewise oppose themselues against Iulius the 2. that went about to wrest the Scepter out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth 17. They beléeue that Abbots and Friars may by priuilege of the Pope giue voices in Councels and that an Abbot may ordeine Clerks as appeareth by the practise of their late conuenticles and by the priuileges granted to the Benedictines But all ancient Councels declare that Councels are assemblies not of Monks Friars but of Bishops and all Churches according to the Canons of y e Apostles as they are called acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops not to blockish statues called Popes 18. They beléeue that Cardinals only now haue voyce in the election of the Bishop of Rome But this no Church beleeued for a thousand yeares after Christ. The Church of England euer held rather the ancient Canons that gaue the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people then these late humorous Canons and Decretals of Popes 19. They beléeue that Monks are Clergy men and necessary members of the Church But no Church for a thousand yeares after Christ euer beléeued it 20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and
Dominicke and other begging societies were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes or that Friers were to be called religious men or members of the Church 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin to Saints and the founders of Monkish orders as now they do in the Romish Church 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries liue asunder Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth that man is not to separate that which God hath ioyned together rather then the Pope 24. The Papists beléeue that the vowes of Chastity Pouerty and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen then works commanded by Gods law But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope with two swords and a guard of Switzers of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes of shauen Masse-priests Monks and Friars and of a multitude of ignorant people that subiect theÌ„selues to the Pope and cry Miserere nobis But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares Let Parsons therefore take heed least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests Non radent caput neque barbam sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras We reade also that this shauing and whipping or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal and from the Gentiles We are not therefore to thinke that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses rontrary to Gods word In the Church of England such shauing and lashing and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more was not commonly receiued nor practised 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading and what visible Church it was that allowed it 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time nor had he the patrimony of Peter as it is called till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy Doth it not then appeare that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine and partly of lawes But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1â—00 and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time Doth it not then follow necessarily that the Church of Rome that now is hath risen vp out of the earth and that but of late time 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis S. Dominike or other Saints They are therefore of a late stampe that beléeue this 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares The true Church euer abhorred them 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine 34. The Missals breuiaries and offices that now are receiued by the Popish Church were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent The Church of England vsed other formes in former times 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpoÌ„ Saints in publike Letanies Neither did this or any other church in old time say Masses offices in honor of Angels Saints and the blessed virgin Mary 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs and to make holy water to driue away diuels was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more In England Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego BereÌ„garius dist 2. de Consec was the first that taught his Romish adherents that Christs flesh was handled with hands and torne with téeth 38. The first that taught that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly was Alexander Hales Part. 4. sum q. 53. memb 2. and qu. 45. memb 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum q. 80. art 3. doth second him And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests their folowers do hold the same opinion contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued that Christians were eaters of mans flesh and Canibals But the moderne Romish Church holdeth that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne 41. The same man did first ordeine that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church confessing her sinnes in the priests eare 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice before the time of the conuenticle of Trent Who then would not maruell that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance From thence therefore
the Church beléeuing this point tooke her beginning 45. That the Priest doth worke three miracles as oft as he doth consecrate and that all Masse-priests are workers of miracles no true Church can beléeue or euer did beléeue Only the miraculous ideots that subiect themselues to Antichrist and receiue the Romish Catechisme prescribed them by the conuenticle of Trent are bound to beleeue it 46. For a thousand yeares Christes Church neuer knew any priuat Masse without Communion The Church therfore that vseth priuat Masses without Communion is but a new vpstart Church 47. The Communion vnder one kinde was not established by law before the conuenticle of Constance This therefore doth shew also that the Romish church communicating vnder one kind is but of late continuance 48. That Masses should be good to cure sick Horses and mesel Swine is but a late doctrine Of a late beginning therefore is that Church that beléeueth these things and sayth Masses for faire weather and rayne against the Plague and for all purposes yea for sick Horses and mesel Swine 49. The first that set downe any certeinty for 7. Sacraments was he that borowed the name of the conuenticle of Florence in the instruction giuen to the Armenians The 7. Sacramentary church therefore is but new 50. Then also were the Romanists taught what were the words of Popish Confirmation and extreme Unction But the Church of God hitherto neuer beléeued that these are Sacraments or were ordeined by Christ to be vsed by the Church in the forme prescribed by the conuenticle of Florence Would Parsons shew when and where Christ instituted these two Romish Sacraments he might resolue his folowers of a great doubt and do himselfe great honor 51. Bellarmine teacheth that all Sacraments do iustifie the receiuers ex opere operato and like it is that the Romanists as becommeth good schollers do follow their masters doctrine But sure no Church of Christ hitherto did euer beléeue that Christians were iustified by Mariage Orders Confirmation or extreme Unction 52. The true Church of Christ did euer beléeue that Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of the whole world It must néeds therfore be a new congregation and opposite to Christes Church that teacheth or beléeueth that euery Christian is to satisfie himselfe for the temporall paines of sinnes committed after Baptisme 53. In the conuenticle of Florence we reade that it was first decréed that such as departed this life without satisfaction for sinnes committed are purged with Purgatory fire and that such may be ŕelieued by Masses oraisons almes Bellarmine lib. 2. de Purgat ca. 13. telleth vs How by many reuelations it hath bene declared that soules are tormented there by Diuels It cannot therefore be an ancient Church whose faith is patched vp by such fellowes and consisteth of such strange nouelties 54. Whether Indulgences do profit soules in Purgatory ex condigno or only ex congruo the matter seemeth not yet resolued as may appeare by Bellarmines dispute lib. 1. de Purgator c. 14. In ancient time the Church of England was ignorant of the popish doctrine of Indulgences It cannot therefore be an ancient society that teacheth such new doctrines and is not yet resolued vpon them 55. Boniface the 8. did first institute Iubileys Clement the 6. from a hundred yeares brought the solemnity to 50. and Sixtus the 4. to 25. Where it standeth We may therefore conclude that this iubilating Church of Rome differed much from the Church of Christ before Constantines time and that it was not heard of before the dayes of Boniface the eight 56. The Romanists worship the Crosse and Crucifixe and Images of the Trinity with Latria But such an Image-worshipping Church is not to be found vntill such time as Thomas Aquinas taught this idolatrous doctrine 57. They kisse Images bow to them offer incense to them and set vp lights and say Masses before them But these tricks were not frequented in the Church of England for a thousand yeares nor euer in any true Christian Church were publikely receiued 58. They call vpon the blessed Virgin as their gate of saluation and pray to Saints and Angels as mediators of intercession They do also make vowes to them and say Masses in their honor all which proue the erection of their congregations to be new and of a late deuice 59. They beleeue that S. Rock and S. Sebastian cure the plague that Apollonia cureth toothach that S. Lewes hath horses in his protection and S. Antony pigges of which all true Christians may be much ashamed 60. With the Collyridians the Romanists offer a rake in the honor of the blessed Virgin and with many other heretikes bring in diuers heresies and not only nouelties Finally for their owne impure traditions they leaue the obseruance of Gods holy lawes Let them therefore henceforth leaue to vaunt of the antiquity of their Church or to tell vs of nouelties séeing their Church holding these nouelties must néeds be new and of a late erection CHAP. XIII That Parsons maketh no conscience to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures THus we sée the substance of Parsons his two first bookes of Three Conuersions quashed and brought to nothing But because he hath committed diuers other faults which in the sequele of our discourse we could not particularly insist vpon we haue thought it good to referre their further examination to this place For whatsoeuer bragges his followers do make of this braue worke yet by examination it will appeare that the Author hath fouly abused and mistaken Scriptures corrupted falsified and falsely alledged Fathers and other Authors bragged of himselfe and his conforts most vainely taken things in question as granted most simply erred in historyes and other authors most childishly applyed Scriptures and spoken of God and matters concerning God most blasphemously behaued himselfe toward his Prince most disloyally lyed and calumniated honest men most impudently alledged matters making against himselfe most sottishly and to reduce all into a briefe summe that this whole treatise is nothing else but a fardle of false allegations corruptions lyes and fooleries That he maketh no conscience to wrest and peruert the words of holy Scriptures it appeareth by these particulars In the front of his booke which he like a man of a front face without shame entituleth A treatise of Three Conuersions of England he tumbleth two sentences of Scripture together and maketh one of two He doth also wrest them both contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost For whereas Deuter. 4. whence his first place is taken we are willed to enquire of ancient times and thereof to learne Gods great works in deliuering his people he applyeth the words of that text to the times of late Popes and to their trash and traditions And out of the words Deut. 32. whence his second place is taken where we are commanded to remember the old dayes of our forefathers c. he instnuateth that we are to looke back to the Popes
and not by the Popes Decretals Finally he sheweth pag. 475. out of S. Augustines 48. Epistle ad Vincentium that the Church is sometime shadowed and obscured which plainely ouerthroweth the Popish doctrine concerning the illustrious and perpetuall visibilitie of the Church of Christ. If then any simple Papist heretofore haue bene seduced by this fabulous discourse of Rob. Parsons to beleeue that the inhabitants of this land haue bene thrice conuerted to that faith which now is professed at Rome or to giue credit to the hereticall doctrine of the Romanists let him reforme his opinion and beware how he admit such trifling bookes wherein Scriptures are so wickedly abused and Fathers so corruptly alledged and lyes so commonly interlaced And if he loue Rob. Parsons let him admonish him hereafter to haue more care what he writeth and to desist from wresting and abusing Scriptures from falsisying and corrupting the testimonie of Fathers from Thrasonicall bragging and yet beggarly crauing matters in controuersie from his impious spéeches against God and disloyall termes against his Prince and finally from lying slandering and impertinent babling Otherwise as his faults and errors appeare many and grieuous so it will manifestly appeare that it is Gods iudgement that so wicked a cause should be defended so weakly leudly and wickedly God giue him grace to repent him of his inueterate malice against true Christians and confirme all Christians in the truth that they giue no eare to the fabulous tales and leasings of such leud wicked and malitious companions FINIS The Contents of the Discourse precedent THe Praeface conteineth a briefe examination of Robert Parsons his Epistle Dedicatorie of the addition to it and of his Praeface The 1. Chapter disputeth this question Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or no. The 2. Chapter sheweth what we are to thinke of the pretended Conuersion of Lucius King of Britaine and of the Britains to Christian Religion by Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and his Agents The 3. Chapter resolueth vs of Austin the Monkes coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here In the 4. Chapter is proued that the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome which the Church of England reiecteth was either oppugned by S. Peter Eleutherius Gregory and Austin or at the least vnknowne vnto them The 5. Chapter conteineth a briefe answer to Parsons his fond and friuolous discourse wherein desperatly he vndertaketh to proue that the faith now professed in Rome is the same and no other then was taught by Eleutherius and Gregory in time past The 6. Chapter discouereth the vanitie and foolerie os Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England The 7. Chapter bringeth euident demonstrations that the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation The 8. Chapter containeth proofes concluding that the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter or Eleutherius but rather of Pope Ioane The 9. Chapter sheweth that the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meane of triall of the truth The 10. Chapter proueth the Church of England to be the true Church of God and to hold the Apostolike and true Catholike faith The 11. Chapter refuteth Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and descent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward The 12. Chapter sheweth that the moderne Church of Papists was not visible in the world for more then a thousand yeares after Christ and neuer was fully setled nor plainely visible in England Chap. 13. therein is declared how litle conscience Parsons maketh to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures The 14. Chapter containeth a catalogue of diuers falsifications false allegations and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church and other authors committed by Parsons The 15. Chapter exhibiteth certaine examples of Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges and beggarly crauing of matters in question The 16. Chapter alledgeth arguments of Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries The 17. Chapter containeth a Table of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous in respect of his duty to his Prince disloyall The 18. Chapter containeth a Table of Parsons his lies calumniations and false allegations The 19. Chapter sheweth how Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause FINIS a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca. 62. a Euseb. de vit Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Part. 1. ca. 1. pa. 19. a In Eleutherio 1 Part. 1. cap. 4. a Part. 1. p. 80 a Lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 26. a Pag. 113. a Pag. 123. a Mallb 20. Marc. 10. Luc. 22. a In Chronico a Part. 1. ca. 1. a Pag. 333. and pages following
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
Hares insult ouer dead Lyons If he had not bene a renegate Christian and fugitiue traytor he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant Neither if he had bene wise would he haue mentioned these two examples himselfe in apostacie being like the one and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine And yet not many yeares since in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him and his whole house Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note singing that only which maketh for his profit Modo palliatus modo togatus Now he playeth Dolman now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius vnum portentum est duo nomina that is one monster two titles Yet such is the folly of this parasite that thinking to praise the King he doth greatly dishonor him comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie and implying that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation yet may we probably suppose that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty and the subuersion of the realme as appeareth by a publike edict against them In commending the Kings booke he condemneth his religion as if any could be more dishonored then by imputation of want of religion Againe he contradicteth himselfe cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God and godlinesse and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity and inanity of sects and heresies where no ground no head no certaine principle no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion which his Maiesty professeth or cleanly auoyd in that sect which he followeth being a pack of impieties blasphemies heresies nouelties vncerteinties contradictions absurdities and fooleries The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion wherein we declare that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it and full of sincere wisedome but also approoued by Councels Fathers consent of nations miracles yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse of the Sacraments of the Pope of Purgatory Indulgences works of supererogation and such like For what more impious then to say that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist What more blasphemous then to giue Gods honor to stocks stones and to Antichrist What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature and office and to worship Angels Saints and Images What more new then the doctrine of Constance Florence Trent concerning the massing sacrifice the communion vnder one kind the subsisting of accidents without substance indulgences and such like What more vncertaine then popish religion that dependeth vpon the Popes determination a man oftentimes blind vnlearned and variable What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible aboue and below dead and aliue at one time What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome or to say with the Donatists that it is perished out of the whole world saue in one corner of the Romish church Finally what more foolish then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches and such like superstitious ceremonies In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue that man is mutable by his owne example that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions But that is little for his credit or the credit of his cause For what if he turne like a weather-cocke and renounce religion would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe Truth also is constant and alwayes like it selfe But falsehood varieth and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas sayth Hilary to Constantius The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite who being vncertaine in his resolution and leauing matters formerly purposed brought forth matters neuer designed for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion condemneth the sluggishnes of them that are carelesse in this behalfe But his words are contrary to the Romish practise that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion Much certes it were to be wished that men would do as he sayth for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists and see that popery is not Catholike as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke nor darkenes continue when light appeareth To preuent perillous courses and to giue light where certeinty of religion lyeth he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions But alas the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion as the East is from the West For what assurance can he haue of religion who doth beleeue neither Propheticall nor Apostolical writings nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes Surius Baronius and other fabulous writers and vaine and vncertaine traditions of which he hath no certeinty Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history and not matter of faith or doctrine Lastly he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon then to keepe them from any danger Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised In this preface I confesse he compareth the Church to a mansion house and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same promising that he will make proofe that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons But first there is great difference betweene the Church and a mansion house the Church being a mysticall body and being scattered here and there and not being appropriated to any family city or nation and a mansion house being a
first conuert the Britains to the faith of Christ. So sayth Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph So sayth Sanders in his preface to his sclanderous booke of schisme Britannos sayth he ad fidem Christi primus conuertisse primamque Ecclesiam in illa natione crexisse perhibetur Iosephus ab Arimathaea Lastly Parsons himselfe in his late Ward-word knew no more but of the two conuersions as he calleth them of England the first vnder Eleutherius the second vnder Gregory the first Wherefore either now or then he vttred vntruth The arguments and testimonies produced by Parsons to prooue S. Peters preaching in Britaine are weake and friuolous First saith he of S. Peter himselfe to haue bene in England or Britany and preached founded Churches and ordeined Priests and Deacons therein is recorded out of Greeke antiquities by Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian But first it may be a question how he knoweth that Simeon Metaphrastes a Graecian sayth so and that out of Gréeke antiquities seeing he poore idiot vnderstandeth no Gréeke nor hath read any Greeke antiquities he quoteth therefore Metaphrastes apud Surium 23. Iuny but Caesar Baronius in his Annales quoteth Metaphr 29. Iuny Secondly he wrōgeth both Metaphrastes Surius adding to their words Thirdly albeit he had reported their words truly yet neither are we to giue credit to Metaphrastes a lying pedant liuing in Constantinople some 700. yeares agone and writing more lyes then leaues nor to Surius a superstitious Monke and a professed enemy of the truth Finally neither doth Metaphrastes nor Surius name one Church founded or one Bishop ordeined by Peter nor is Parsons able to name them His second reason is deriued from the testimony of Innocentius in his epistle to Decentius in the chapt Quis nesciat dist 11. But first there is no mention in that epistle made of Britaine neither can the same be well vnderstood by the Ilands lying betwixt Italy France Spaine Africa and Sicilia but rather some Ilands of the Mediterranean sea Secondly this epistle is euidently counterfet and conteineth a most notorious vntruth For he saith that none did institute Churches or teach in Italy France Spaine Afrike Sicily and the Ilands betweene them but S. Peter and his successors which is clearely refuted by the preaching of Paule in Italy of Iames in Spayne of Philip and Dionysius in France and is conuinced not only by the testimony of histories and fathers but also by the infallible authority of scriptures which testifie of Paules preaching in Rome and other places of Italy that receiued no authority frō Peter The Glosse therfore to salue this sore and to help this lye by alius in that Chapter vnderstandeth contrarius As if Innocent had said that none did preach contrary to Peter in all those places And Parsons to adde some weight to his light argument addeth these words vnto Innocentius or his schollers falsifying the deposition of his owne witnesse Finally these words of Innocentius do not imply that Peter preached in Britaine but some of his successors The third testimonie brought for proofe of this first conuersion is taken out of one William Eisengrene his first Centurie But it is of no more weight then the testimonie of Isegrime the wolfe in the booke of Reinard the foxe the fellow being a weake author and a party in this cause Furthermore he plainely contradicteth Caesar Baronius For where he saith that Peter preached in Britaine in the raigne of Claudius Sir Isegrime writeth that he founded Christian Churches in England vnder Nero if Parsons say truly So lyars confound themselues like Cadmus his broode one contending against another and each cutting his fellowes throte Parsons his fourth testimonie is out of Gildas de excid Britanniae where he saith the priests of Britaine did vsurpe S. Peter the Apostles seate with impure fecte But this sheweth that al bishops teaching S. Peters doctrine do sit after a sort in S. Peters chaire rather then that S. Peter placed a speciall chaire and sate as Bishop in Britaine of which neither Gildas nor other authenticall author giueth the least signification Saint Augustine de Agone Christiano c. 30. teacheth vs that these words spoken to Peter Louest thou me feede my sheepe belong to all Bishops Cùm ei dicitur saith he ad omnes dicitur Amas me pasce oues meas Cyprian Hierome Optatus and other Fathers call all Bishops the Apostles successors albeit the Apostles did not there sit or teach where the Bishops haue their sea which are tearmed their successors Fiftly he alleadgeth the testimonie of Alred Rienual a Cistercian Monk recorded by Surius 5. lanuarij who about 500 yeares agone as he saith wrote that S. Peter appearing to a holy man shewed him how he preached himselfe in England But neither can Parsons name this holy man vpon whose credit this report dependeth nor is any credit to be giuen to Surius or to his legends or to such fained dreames and reuelations as he reporteth In the meane while the Papists if they be not wilfully blind may sée how Parsons gulleth them with lyes and fables out of Simeon Metaphrastes and Surius and discerne what a braue péece of worke his treatise of thrée Conuersions is that is founded vpon dreames reuelations and fables testified onely by authors of legends fat crammed Monkes and professed enemies of the truth Finally in the same Chapter he discourseth of the preaching of Paule Simon Zelotes Aristobolus and Ioseph of Arimathaea in Britaine He collecteth also some suspitions out of Gildas Nicephorus and others as if the Britains were conuerted by some Romaines which being Christians went with Claudius the Emperor against the Britains But what maketh all this to proue that the Britains were first conuerted by Peter We are hereof to conclude the contrarie rather For if mention be made of Simon Zelotes and Aristobolus and others of more obscure note for preaching in Britaine it is not like that the preaching of Peter here in this Iland should haue bene suppressed in silence if there had bene any such thing Parsons surmiseth that those that went with Claudius into Britaine were sent thither by Peter But that is his owne foolish conceit and vaine imagination No auncient Writer doth testifie any such thing Thus then we may sée that all Parsons his discourse concerning the conuersion of Britaine by S. Peter is subuerted and brought to nothing Let vs therefore consider what is to be thought of the other two supposed conuersions CHAP. II. Of the pretended conuersion of Lucius king of Britaine and of the British nation to Christian religion by Eleutherius bishop of Rome and his agents The report of the conuersion of the Britains and their king Lucius vnto the faith of Christ although beléeued by Parsons and the Romanists as an article of their conuertible faith yet for many iust respects may well be called into question First the name of Lucius séemeth rather to sauour of the Latine then of the British language Neither can it be said
historie of Christs passion and of other high points of our religion to the fable of the conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius Wo were we if we had no better assurance of Christs passion and other matters of Christian religion then Parsons hath of his supposed conuersion of Britaine vnder Lucius Furthermore it is one thing to varie about the times of things authentically testified in holy Scripture to haue passed though the certaine day and time be not expressed and to varie about the times of things of which there is no authenticall assurance Thirdly there is no materiall controuersie about the time of Christs passion but it may well be decided out of holy Scriptures The like we may say of the Infants put to death by Herod and of the coming of the Magi. But about the time of the supposed conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius his agents there are manifest contradictions insomuch as not onely the time but the report it selfe is made very doubtfull He answereth further and saith that if it were granted that the Brittaines obserued Easter after the fashion of the East church and that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospell in England yet it proueth not that the faith of Britanny came not from Rome As if it were likely that schollers in such a ceremonie would dissent from their first maisters or else that Simon Zelotes were either sent from Rome or did not ayde the Britains in their first conuersion Finally he spendeth many idle words in cauilling with the Magdeburgians and M. Foxe of reuerent memorie But for asmuch as he neither proueth nor refelleth any thing materiall we should wrong ourselues and the reader if we should follow the gosling wandring vp and downe that hath lost himselfe in the Labyrinth of his owne fancies and fooleries CHAP. III. Of Austin the Monke his coming into England and of his preaching and proceeding here FOr the sending and preaching of Austin the Monke to the Saxons our aduersaries haue some better colour of reason then for the sending of any Romaines by Eleutherius to the Britains For neither is it denyed that Gregorie did send or that Austin came to Ethelbert king of Kent But what is all this to the purpose For neither can the modern Romaines vant of the acts and prowesse of Gregorie or Austin nor doth any aduantage redound to the moderne synagogue of Rome by their merits as we shall declare anone Furthermore neither is Gregorie to be tearmed the Apostle of the inhabitants of this Iland nor are the Papists to make any great crackes for any thing done either by Gregorie the first or by his Legate Austin That Gregorie the first was our Apostle as in Bede to flatter the Romanists he is called it cannot be proued For first he cannot say as the Apostle did Galat. 1. Not of man nor by man For he was not called immediatly by Christ as were the Apostles but was ordained by bishops and chosen by the Cleargie and people of Rome as the agents of Rome themselues confesse Secondly it was not sayd to him as to Christs Apostles Matth. 28. Go teach all nations Nor did he presume to take vpon him that charge Nay expresly he condemned the title of Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishop But he was onely called and ordained to gouerne the Church of Rome and happie is he if he did approue himselfe faithfull in his calling Thirdly he had no grace of working miracles or prophecie as Christs Apostles had nor could he speake with tongs as the Apostles did Nay it is apparent that he was very vnskilfull both in the Gréeke and Hebrew tongues which notwithstanding Saint Augustine for the vnderstanding of Scriptures accompteth necessarie Fourthly he neither preached himselfe nor sent Austin to preach to the Britains or to the French or other nations beside Saxons onely of all which notwithstanding the inhabitants of this countrie are descended Finally he preached not himselfe to the Saxons nor séemed to be sent vnto them but abiding quietly at Rome sent Austine and other Italian Monkes to preach vnto them How then is he tearmed the Apostle of the English to whom he was neither sent nor came nor preached That neither he nor Austin deserue great praise for the conuersion of the Saxons or English it is proued first for that Gregorie himselfe did nothing but send and command others who notwithstanding were not the first conuerters of the Saxons For it were absurd to thinke that the Saxons hauing so many Christian Britains liuing both among them and neare vnto them had no notice of Christian religion vntill the coming of Austin That the Britains liued among the Saxons the practise of conquerors doth shew who do not kill such as submit themselues but rule them and command them So did the Romaines in time past conquering Spaine and Gallia and other countries So did the Normans entring into England And so did the Saxons also deale with the Britains Malmesburie lib. 1. de gest Angl. ca. 2. speaking of the Saxon king Cerdic testifieth that the men of the countrie being once ouercome did willingly yeeld to obey him In eius iura volentes concessêre saith he Likewise lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Hengists Captaines Cum Prouincialibus saith he congressi profligatisque qui resistendum putauerunt reliquos in sidem acceptos placidae quietis gratia mulcebant Now let any reasonable man esteeme how it is possible that the pagan Saxons conuersing daily with Christian Britains and séeing the practise of their Rites and Religion shold neither be conuerted to Christian Religion nor haue any notice of it Further we reade that Berta Ethelberts wife was a Christian woman and had with her a Christian Bishop named Luidardus by whom the king and his people could not chuse but receiue some notice and tincture of Christian Religion This is plainely related by Beda hist. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 26. Antea ad eum saith Beda speaking of Ethelbert fama Christianae religionis peruenerat vipote qui vxorem habebat Christianam de gente Francorum nomine Bertam quam ea conditione à parentibus acceperat vt ritum fidei ac religionis suae cum Episcopo quem ei fidei adiutorem dederant nomine Luidardo inuiolatam seruare licentiam haberet Capgraue in the legend of Lethardus containing diuers traditions of the Romish Church speaking of this matter calleth him Austins precursor and saith that he prepared him a way and an entrance into the country Praecursor saith he ianitor venturi Augustini And againe Parauit ei viam ingressum locum Wherefore as the Britains liuing among the Saxons shewed them a light of Christian religion so Luidardus and Berta were the first that prepared the heart of Ethelbert king of Kent to receiue Christian religion and not Augustine whose language he litle vnderstood and whose person he accepted no question for his Quéenes sake and at the perswasion of Luidardus Thirdly although some Saxons were conuerted by Austins
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
Africans to the Easterne Church or the Frizelanders or Germains to the English Is it not then a mad conceit of Parsons to suppose because for many ages past it is reported that the ancient Britains and Saxons were conuerted by preachers sent from Rome that the Church of England should be subiect to the Pope or Church of Rome Fiftly the Church of Rome as Irenaeus saith lib. 3. adners haeres cap. 3. was founded by Peter and Paule Neither néede we make any question but that they came from Hierusalem Diuers stories also say that Peter for some time sate Bishop of Antioch Eusebius saith He was 25. yeares Bishop at Antioch If then the Church of Rome do yéeld no subiection either for matters of faith or gouernment to the Church of Hierusalem or Antioch from whence the Papists cannot deny but that the first founders of the Church of Rome did come Parsons is but a simple fellow to vrge this matter of Conuersion so much séeing the Romanists themselues and their holy Fathers the Popes of Rome regard it not one strain Finally if our owne Bishops to whom we owe subiection in the Lord should teach any other Gospell then that which was preached by the Apostles of our Sauiour Christ we are not to follow them Nay we are to pronounce them Anathema Though we saith the Apostle Gal. 1. or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise then that which we haue preached vnto you let him be accursed But the Pope aud his adherents preach vnto vs otherwise and publish doctrines in their Decretals and acts of the conuenticles of Lateran Constance Florence and Trent not onely diuers from the Apostles preaching but also contrarie vnto it as partly we haue shewed and also shall be readie to auerre to Parsons his face though neuer so much steeled with impudencie Had they then any right to teach or gouern vs as they haue not yet by the Apostles rule we are to pronounce them Anathema And as for Parsons we are to suppose him a weake fellow that hath spent the quintessence of his silly learning and vnderstanding to proue that which profiteth him nothing If we owe any thing to the Romaines it is to those if any such were that tooke paines to teach vs the faith of Christ. As for the moderne Romanists that seeke to turne vs from true religion nay that séeke to blow vs vp we owe them nothing Furthermore as well may it be concluded that the Pope and his adherents the Iebusites are to be subiect to the great Turke that now ruleth at Hierusalem or to his Mufti or chiefe Bishop there because from thence came the preachers that first founded the Church of Rome as that we are to be subiect to the Church of Rome or the Pope because the auncient Britains and Saxons were first conuerted by preachers that came from Rome For the Turkes Mufti is as good a Bishop as the Pope and the Popes religion is not much lesse corrupted in many points then that of the Turke Howsoeuer it is the Turkes call themselues Musulmans or True beléeuers as the Papists call themselues Catholikes Finally I cannot better compare Parsons that concludeth subiection and obedience of this pretended Conuersion to any then to him that would inferre that the Pope is Lord of the whole world because sometime Rome was mistris of the world or that the Romains haue obligation to the Turkes of Asia because they possesse the citie and country of Troy from whence it is said the auncient Romains are descended But saith Parsons pa. 28. Irenaeus Tertullian de Praescript Cyprian lib. 4. cap. 8. Augustine and others are wont to vrge greatly against Heretikes that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome then ought it to runne to her in all doubts and difficulties of faith But first no one of these Fathers speaketh one word in the places quoted of our Church Secondly they do not affirme this of any other Church Why then doth he not bring foorth his testimonies that hath bene so often taken halting in false alledging the Fathers Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres saith that euery Church ought to haue respect to the Church of Rome then for her eminent principality And others regarded her when she florished in pietie But what is this to the moderne Church of Rome that is departed from the faith pietie and vertue of the auncient Church of Rome Againe if other Churches in old time had no great respect to Rome professing the faith no Church is now bound to hearken to her being departed from the faith Finally albeit in ancient time other Churches did consult in matters of difficultie with the Church of Rome yet this prooueth not that in matters of faith or ceremontes they were to adhere to her or that they ought to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their Monarch Doth it not then appeare that Parsons his worke is as fraile as a Spiderwebbe and as full of foolerie as frailtie vndertaking to proue matters which he could not performe and which being proued do rather make against him then for him CHAP. VII That the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England or the English nation but hatred and detestation GLadly would Parsons haue concluded if he durst that the English being first conuerted to the faith by the Romains are now to be subiect to the Pope both in matters of doctrine and Ecclesiasticall gouernment But well he vnderstood that the consequent was leud and foolish He doth now therefore say onely That England and English men haue particular obligation to the sea of Rome leauing it to euery mans priuate supposall what that obligation is But we do no more yeeld to this then to the former conclusion For whereas the inhabitants of England are descended either of the auncient Britains or Saxons or Danes or Normans and Frenchmen first the auncient Britains and their ofspring do owe nothing either to Austin or Gregorie For when as the Bishops of the Britains came to conferre with Austin most proudly he sate in his chaire and would not receiue them with any signe of humanitie or reuerence Factum est saith Bede lib. 2. histor Anglor cap. 2. vt venientibus illis sederet Augustinus in sella He confesseth also that the Britaine Bishops noted his pride And it appeareth manifestly in this that ambitiously he sought to be the Archbishop of England and to rule ouer the Britains Againe when the Bishops of Britaine refused him as their Archbishop and would not submit themselues to his commandements he animated the Saxons and stirred them to warre against the Britains Austin being refused of the Bishops saith Thomas Grey in his Chronicle and others the learned of the Britains made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert king of Kent that foorthwith he leauied his power and marched against them and flue them in most cruell wife hauing no more mercie on them then a Wolfe vpon a sheepe
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
shall shew anone They do also come nearer to the old Heretikes Simon Magus the Gnostickes Marcionists Valentinians Montanists and the rest mentioned by Parsons pag. 312. then we To the Bishops of Rome that suffered martyrdome the Popes are as like as Nero to Saint Peter Pag. 314. and in the pages following he chargeth vs with holding some heresies condemned in the primitiue Church As of the false Apostles that beleeued onely faith to be sufficient to saluation without workes of the Heretikes mentioned by Ignatius apud Theodoretum Dial. 3. Who did not confesse that the Eucharist was the flesh of our Sauiour Christ of the Nouatians that did not annoint those which were baptized by them nor receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation nor graunt Priests power to absolue from sinne and of the Manichees that denyed mans Free-will But these obiections are nothing but either calumniations or méere cauils For first we do not hold that a bare and solitarie faith deuoid of workes doth iustifie as those false Apostles did against whom S. Iames S. Peter and others do inueigh and as the Papists in effect do which make euery wicked man professing their faith and receiuing their Sacraments a true member of Christs bodie and absoluing hand ouer head all that come to confession Secondly we do not deny the Eucharist to be Christs flesh sacramentally Thirdly we do not refuse absolution to the penitent as did the Nouatians nor was Nouatus condemned for denying Confirmation to be a Sacrament for neither the name nor thing was then in vse in the Church but rather for neglecting a ceremonie then vsed Finally we do not denie that man sinneth voluntarily as did the Manichees but onely that he hath not fréedome of will whereby he may discerne and do workes tending to the attainement of the kingdome of heauen as the Pelagians directly and Papists after a sort do teach Pag. 318. and 319. he saith that Origen and other Fathers do inuocate Angels and Saints and are therefore condemned of the Magdeburgians Centur. 3. But first the words of Origen homil 1. in Ezechielem and of other Fathers may be so expounded as that they rather sound an affection and contestation and a Rhetoricall Apostrophe or turning of their speech to the Saints and Angels then a set forme of prayer Secondly diuers bookes cited for proofe of this point seeme either to be bastards or else corrupted by falsaries Thirdly it is an absurd conceit to attribute that which is haroly to be prooued of one or two Fathers to all the rest that speake so much against the same Finally there is great difference betwixt the words of the Fathers and of the moderne Breuiaries Missals and Offices directly framed in honor of Angels and Saints as we shall shew God willing when we come to speake of that controuersie Unlesse therefore Rob. Parsons can find better arguments he shall not proue that the Church for 300. yeares after Christ did dissent from the Church of England in matters of faith and Sacraments The like we may affirme of the next 300. yeares viz. from Constantine to Gregorie the first And that shall appeare by the simple arguments that he bringeth to proue a difference betwixt vs and the Church of those times The Donatists saith he p. 329. said that they were the onely Church and called the succession of Bishops in the Church of Rome the chaire of pestilence He telleth vs also how Saint Augustine Optatus and others obiect against them that they cast the blessed Sacrament of the altar to dogs ouerthrew altars broke Chalices and sold them cast a bottle of Chrisme out of the Church window shaued Priests heads to take away their vnction turned Nunnes out of their monasteries to the world polluted all Church stuffe But what is all this to vs that neither take vpon vs to be the only Church as the Papists and Donatists do nor call the ancient Bishops of Rome or their chaire the chaire of pestilence The Popes chaire we confesse is y e chaire of pestilence but Popes are no Bishops but the heads of Antichrists kingdome Furthermore God forbid that any of vs should throw the Eucharist to dogs or breake Communion tables or else abuse Gods Ministers or any thing dedicated to holy vses But our accusers do commonly shaue priests heads and not seldome do priests and Friars dishonest Nunnes and make litle accompt of their owne Church stuffe Parsons therefore to make some shew as if we did agree with the Donatists and himselfe and his conforts not doth grossely belye Augustine who hath litle or nothing of that which he is made to say and leudly salsifie Optatus For he doth not once name the Sacrament of the altar but the Eucharist nor speake of Monasteries but onely of women professing chastitie which he calleth Castimoniales But such at that time liued without Monasteries and were vnlike to Nunnes Likewise the altars of Christians then were of wood and this Chrisme was reserued for extraordinarie vses Pag. 330. and 331. he chargeth vs to hold with the Eunomians and Nouatians Aerians Iouinian Heluidius and Vigilantius But first we do not say with Eunomius that the committing of sinnes doth not hurt a man so he haue faith Nor do we say that he that is a true and faithfull Christian will commit grieuous sinnes Nor did Eunomius talke of the true Christian faith but of his owne faith Secondly we do not deny power to Priests to reconcile penitent sinners as did the Nouatians or after a sort to forgiue sinnes that is by Gods word to loose sinners and to declare their sinnes forgiuen Thirdly Aerius was condemned for Arianisme which we detest He had also priuate opinions concerning set fasts which our Church liketh not Lastly he condemned the order of the auncient Church that vsed to make a commemoration of the dead and to giue thankes for them in the celebration of the Eucharist whose doings as we will not condemne so their practise for manifold abuses brought in by Masse priests and Friars we are not bound to follow euery Church hauing libertie herein to edification Fourthly we admit not Iouinians heresie of equality of sinnes neither was Iouinian condemned either for saying that euery transgression of the law was mortall sinne in his owne nature or for teaching the abuses of Monkish life and profession as we do Fiftly we do not with Heluidius oppugne the perpetuall virginitic of the blessed Uirgin nor in all respects equall mariage with virginitie nor was he to be condemned if in regard of merit of eternall life he equalled mariage with birginitie Finally neither was Vigilantius to be condemned in speaking against the superstitious worship of dead mens bones nay sometime of the bones of other creatures or the abuse of burning tapers and candles at noone day nor did Hierome y t wrote against him allow inuocation of Saints or the filthy and swinish life of Monkes that we condemne To make some shew that the Church of England
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
and false allegations NOw we enter into a large field But it shall be sufficient for vs if of many impudent lyes calumniations and false allegations of authors we reherse some part and giue you a tast of his false dealing in the whole For thereby you may coniecture how this child of the father of lies hath dealt in the rest In a certain addition following his Epistle he telleth how it was foretold that S. Martin Nectarius Ambrose and Augustine should be conuerted to Christian Religion long before it came to passe But if he vouch not his authors we may boldly auouch that he hath forged this lye on his owne head without truth or authority In the same place he affirmeth that he knoweth most certainely how the Papists desired his Maiesties aduancement before all others But he that readeth his booke of titles set out vnder the name of Dolman and considereth not only the practises of Brooke Watson and Clerke against the King and the State but also the matters obiected by the Secular priests against the Iebusites and their faction concerning this point and especially the attempt of the gunpowder papists and vnderminers of the Parliament house will say that neither Parsons nor the popish faction shewed themselues very zealous of the Kings aduancement And as for the King of Spaines pentioners it were great simplicitie to thinke that taking his money they promised or intended his Maiesties aduancement and honor There also he telleth tales of the readinesse and forwardnesse of Papists in aduancing his Maiesties present admission to the Crowne The vntruth whereof is not only testified by their owne consciences but also by secret conuenticles after the late Quéenes death and by open practises to the contrary True it is that when they saw their owne weakenesse then they came on forward but with great sorrow and heauinesse of hart appearing in their countenances and rather to saue themselues then to helpe the King He addeth somewhat of his Maiesties Mother and the loyaltie of Papists towards her But his glauering leasing may be refuted first by the history of Sammier a Iebusite that was the principal motiue to bring her into trouble Next by the practises of the Pope Frenchmen and Spaniards that vsed her name as a pretence for their owne ambition And lastly by the practises of the Spanish pentioners and namely of Parsons for other titles In his Preface he saith that Master Foxe in his booke of Acts and Monuments treateth of the principall pillars of his religion whereof he maketh some Martyrs and some Confessors and distributeth them in a certaine Ecclesiasticall Calendar according to the dayes of euery moneth wherein their festiuals are to be kept But in these few lines he telleth many vntruths For first Master Foxe neuer accounted these Martyrs the principall pillars of his religion founding himselfe and his religion principally vpon the Prophets and Apostles Secondly not Master Foxe but their death and sufferings for Christes faith made these holy men and women Martyrs and Confessors Thirdly not M. Foxe but the Corrector of the print distributed them in the Calendar according to his pleasure Fourthly this Calendar was not made for the Church of England which abhorreth the abuses of popish Calendars but for a direction to those that shall desire to know the order and times of their martyrdome and sufferings that are named in the story Lastly M. Foxe neuer presumed to appoint festiuall dayes for the memorials of these holy men nor had he presumed so farre could he haue done it But in this point both he and we condemne the arrogancy presumption of the Pope that challengeth this power to himselfe In his argument before his first booke he giueth out that the church of Rome frō the times of S. Peter vntill our dayes hath alwayes mainteined and taught one faith without change or alteration of any one substantiall article or point of beliefe And this is the maine post whereon turneth his windmil-like discourse Who then doth not sée y t his whole discourse is founded vpō vntruth That this is a notorious vntruth it appeareth by the great alterations of Religion made partly by the Schoolemen and partly by the Popes Decretals and not least by the decrees of the conuenticles of Rome Lateran Constance Florence and Trent wherein I hope Parsons will not deny but that substantiall points of Religion haue béen discussed Pag. 9. he maketh the Centuriasts Centur. 2. 3. 4. to say that Christian doctrine fell away in the time of the Doctors But his report is false and slanderous For they speake only of a decay or declination in some points of doctrine and in some Doctors and not of any falling away or corruption in all the Doctors or in all points of their doctrine Pag. 23. he saith that some hold that Ioseph of Arimathaea was sent into Britaine by S. Peter A matter of no moment yet falsely affirmed by him y t careth not what vntruth he speake Pag. 40. speaking of Ieffrey of Mommouth he affirmeth that lib. 11. ca. 12. there is not one word of not acknowledging the Popes supremacy And his reason is for that Austin was not sent to the Britains but to the Saxons and for that they had their Archbishops iurisdiction reserued But his assertion conteineth a manifest vntruth For Austin Gregories Legat required subiection of them which they could not deny without impugning Gregories authoritie He caused them also most cruelly to be murthered which he would not haue done vnlesse he had thought his authority to be vniustly resisted His reason is most ridiculous and not only false For neither is there any mention made of any reseruation of iurisdiction in Austins story nor do y e Popes Legates spare to vsurp all iurisdiction where they can do it Furthermore it is a vaine thing to talke of Gregories reseruation of Archiepiscopall iurisdiction in Britaine when before his time no Bishop of Rome was euer heard to appoint either Bishop or Archbishop in Britaine Pag. 57. he saith the Lutherans reiect Hester S. Iames his epistle and the Apocalyps from the canon of Scriptures But their bookes and acts declare the contrary They only make a difference betwixt some Chapters of Hester S. Iames his Epistle and y e Apocalyps and other canonicall Scriptures which neuer haue been doubted of or called in question Pag. 58. he saith that Luther lib. de Concil did perswade the German Princes to obserue Easter day as an immoueable feast But either he wilfully forgetteth or slothfully dreameth For in his booke of Councels he saith only that it had bin better to haue left the law of Moyses concerning Pase dead and buried Quanto fecissent consultiùs saith he pag. 26. si legem Moysis de Paschali festo reliquissent ibi iacêre mortuam sepultam so farre was he from making it an immoueable feast Pag. 64. he telleth how Vlfrides festiuall is kept by the vniuersall Church vpon the 12. day of October But
this leasing is plainely confuted by the Calendars of the Easterne and African Churches that neuer knew any such Saint and Molanus signifieth that this Saints feast was only kept in England In Anglia saith he natalis Vlfridi But now the reformed Church hath blowne away these superstitious festiuals and condemneth the Popes claime in canonizing his disciples Rehersing the report of Lucius his conuersion out of Baronius pag. 77. he addeth lyeth and forgeth like a forging falsary That which he telleth of Lucius hating the Romans for their old religion and how he knew that the fountaine of religion was at Rome is both added and false That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conuersion and Marcus Aurelius his fauor and of Fugatius and Damianus who as he saith were Romans is false and not to be iustified by any good author That Wicleffe and Husse taught that Kings are no Kings longer then they rule well as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a méere calumniation Their bookes conteine contrary doctrine Pag. 103. he saith The article of the Trinity and Christes two natures were as little or perhaps lesse specified in the first two hundred yeares after Christ then the popish doctrine of the Popes authority of the Masse and of Images Matters not only false but blasphemous The doctrine of the Trinity and Christes two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse and Images being contrary to Scriptures Pag. 147. speaking of the Magdeburgians he saith They accuse openly and by name S. Athanasius Basil Gregory Nazianzen Ambrose Prudentius Epiphanius and Ephrem for the error of praying to Saints But he that shall reade the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary The same is also to be proued by reason For what néeded they to accuse the Fathers when neither the writings mentioned are certainely theirs nor any matter is in those writings contained that cannot probably be defended and be wrested out of the hands of our aduersaries that by them would proue prayers to Saints Pag. 152. he beareth his reader in hand that we cannot say that the faith of Rome in the time of Gregory the first was any other then that which is now in Rome And for further proofe he referreth vs to Srapleton his translation of Bede and his Fortresse of faith But first the translation is wicked and corrupt and his fortresse of perfidye and heresie is ouerthrowne by D. Fulke of worthy memory Secondly that which he affirmeth that we cannot say that we both say and prooue and thereof haue giuen diuers particulars in our former answere Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weake fortresse are neither the most materiall points in controuersie betwixt vs nor any way proued by him substantially Pag. 153. he telleth how by all meanes we can deuise we discredit Gregory and Austin But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great vntruths for we do neither discredit them nor wrong them but only report as we find Nay we doubt not but in diuers great points of controuersie to ouerthrow our aduersaries by the testimonie of there two Pag. 192. he sayth that S. German prayed largely to S. Albane But Bede vpon whose credit this report is made saith not so as we may reads hist. Anglor lib. 1. c. 18. Pag. 205. he affirmeth that Dinothus was punished by the sword of Ethelfred after the death of S. Austin Yet Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor c. 3. sheweth after this execution done vpon the innocent Britans how Austin ordeined two Bishops which he could not well do being dead Pag. 227. he telleth how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to breake King Henry the 8. his last will and that he conspired to put downe and destroy all the Kings children and was put to death for heresie and treason Matters certes most grossely deuised and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretike and traytor For first King Henries will if any such were was not cancelled by him but by the popish prelates in Quéene Maryes time and of that the lay Papists brag in their petition to the King an 1064. Secondly not Archbishop Cranmer but the bloody Papists had determined not only to breake his will that they might conuey the Crowne to strangers but also to burne his body if they had not béen preuented by Quéene Maryes death Thirdly that graue Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Quéene Mary albeit many Papists did it and she to requite his kind dealing cruelly persecuted him to the death Lastly he dyed for defence of true Religion and not for heresie And albeit matters of treason were obiected to him yet neuer came he to his arraignement for them as no question Rob. Parsons should if he might be caught Pag. 239. he sayth Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristow but this is not only false but also improbable for the good old man was most méeke and peaceable Pag. 241. he writeth that the Abbots of Glastenbury Whalley and Reading and D. Forest and Powell gaue their bloud for defence of Catholike vnitie But the acts of their triall shew that diuers of them were executed for plaine rebellion and all for treason And if any Abbots or Iebusites should make the like stirres abrode against the Pope or the King of Spaine it would auaile them but little to pretend Catholike vnity Forest and his fellowes vnder pretence of this Catholike vnity sought to reuoke and call backe into England the Popes tyranny Pag. 243. he shameth not to say that the King gaue Bishop Gardiner speciall commission to procure a reconciliation with the Pope But his impudent lying may be refuted both by his commission and instructions yet extant wherein no such matter is signified but rather the contrary Parsons therefore may do well to shew by what commission he lyeth thus shamefully Pag. 283. he sayth that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion vntill Cranmers time But hardly shall he prooue that all of them had in them any religion at all And by no meanes can he deny but as the church of Rome changed her faith so her louers likewise changed The faith of the conuenticle of Trent none of them euer knew Pag. 287. he alledgeth these words as out of Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. § 3. We are forced to beleeue the Church to be inuisible and to be seene only by the eyes of God But he that hath any eyes at all may sée this fellowes impudent lying In that place he hath no such words but rather teacheth contrary Likewise doth he belye Luther affirming that he teacheth the Church to be inuisible Pag. 296. and 297. he saith that we doubt that the Church is fayled and that Master Foxe contradicteth former writers and that we hold that all is not true which the Church held But we make no doubt but that Parsons doth grossely lye and faine For neither do we say that the vniuersall