in the externall conspicuous succession of Bishops and Councels but rather in those which following the Apostolike Church and faith kept themselues from common corruptions of others But not they did dissent but Parsons doth either mistake or misreport For all of vs do affirme that the vniuersall Catholike Church is inuisible because it containeth all the members of Christs Church of all times and all ages Likewise all of vs beléeue that particular Churches are alwaies visible albeit not so that euery one is able to discerne which is the true Church which not For that is a matter of reason and discourse and not of sense and that being true all heretikes and infidels would discerne which is the true Church and cease to persecute it Likewise we say that the true Church is not alwaies in peace and prosperitie Nay oftentimes the same is persecuted and driuen to hide it selfe as it did in the Apostles time and during the times of the first persecutions vntill the raigne of Constantine and as the Scriptures do foretell it should do in the persecution vnder the raigne of Antichrist Ridiculously therfore doth he alledge Scriptures and Fathers speaking of the visible Church For they neither speake of the Catholike Church as it comprehendeth all Christians nor of the glorie of the Church in all times He doth also proclaime either his owneignorance not setting downe what we hold nor knowing how we distïnguish or else impudently misreporteth our doctrine that he might thereby take some occasion the rather to stander it and to cauill with his aduersaries Finally he doth leudly and contumeliously speake of Christs Church hiding it selfe in time of persecution tearming it A companie of few obscure and contemptible people lurking from time to time in shadowes and darknesse and knowne to few or none Pag. 294. he cauilleth at M. Foxes words where he saith that commonly none see it but such onely as be members and partakers thereof For his meaning is that none can see it to be the true Church but such as are members thereof Although all those that persecute it do see the men that belong to the Church His similitude also of the truth and true Church agréeth well For albeit men be visible yet this point Which is the true Church is not a matter of sense but of the vnderstanding and the Church as it is Christs body is mysticall albeit it consist of visible men Part. 2. cap. 2. he telleth vs How the Montanists and Marcionists bragged of martyrdome and how Cyprian inueigheth against the Martyrs of the Nouatians and Epiphanius against those of the Euphemites and how S. Augustine detested the Martyrs of the Donatists But to what purpose God knoweth vnlesse he would either put vs in mind of the false traiterous Massepriests and Iebusites that being put to death in England for felonie and treason as in the end the secular Priests themselues confesse are calendred in the Romish Churches tables for Martyrs or else to disgrace those godly Martyrs by this vngodly comparison that suffered death for the testimonie of truth in Q. Maries bloudie raigne Which if he do then he is as farre guiltie of their bloud as the wolues that shed it and is rather to expect the vengeance of God then any answer from man In the same Chapter he endeuoureth to shew some differences bewixt the Martyrs of the primitiue Church and vs as for example that Saint Andrew sacrificed daily an immaculate lambe vpon the altar That Sixtus the Bishop of Rome is said to offer sacrifice and Laurence his Deacon to dispence the Lords bloud and that as Prudentius saith The holy bloud did fume in siluer cuppes That Cyprian said Sacerdotem vice Christi fungi sacrificium Deo Patri offerre But first the difference if any be is in termes and not in matters of faith Secondly we do not disallow these termes simply if they be rightly vnderstood as the auncient Fathers meant them Thirdly the words of S. Andrew are drawne out of the Legend Bernard in Serm. de S. Andrea is quoted for them yet in neither of his Sermons hath he them Fourthly the words of Prudentius must néedes be vnderstood figuratiuely vnlesse they will haue their sacrifice to be bloudie Lastly these words do make more for vs then for the Papists For that sacrifice which Andrew and Cyprian do speake of for here I will take no exception to the words of Andrewes Legend doth signifie onely the representation of Christs sacrifice in bread and wine Cyprian lib. 2. Epist. 3. by the sacrifice vnderstandeth bread and wine and not Christs body and bloud really present Panem calicem mixtum vino saith he obtulit And againe Sed per Salomonem Spiritus sanctus typum Dominici sacrificy praemonstrat immolatae hostiae panis vini sed altaris Apostolorum facit mentionem Furthermore the same shew that the Deacons did then distribute the Sacrament of the Lords cuppe to the people which Papists now admit not Lastly Sixtus suffering for the confession of Christ is liker to Bishop Ridley then to the triple-crowned Pope Clement who suffereth not but rather persecuteth such Bishops as professe Christ. The reall sacrifice of Christs body and bloud offered for quicke and dead out of these words cannot be proued Afterward he telleth vs p. 310. how Constantine built foure Churches in Rome dedicating them to our Sauiour to Saint Iohn Baptist S. Peter S. Paule and S. Laurence adorning them with Images c. And hauing told his tale he runneth out into a discourse of the glorie of that Church and in great pride asketh vs where our poore obscure and troden downe Church as he calleth it was at this time and for 300. yeares before But vpon such small victories he sheweth himselfe a vaine fellow to make such triumphes This tale of foure Churches dedicated to Saints and adorned with Images is borrowed out of the Legend and is repugnant to the Fathers doctrine Lactantius saith There is no religion where there is an Image or simulachrum Saint Augustine saith that temples are not erected to Saints but that their memories are there honored The same Father lib. de vera Relig. cap. 55. speaketh both against Images and religious worship of Saints Non sit nobis religio humanorum operum cultus And againe Non sit nobis Religio cultus hominum mortuorum As for the spreading and splendor of Christs Church in Constantines time the same argueth that the Church is gouerned and beautified by godly Princes such as Constantine was rather then by godlesse Popes such as Clement was To his question I answer that the Church in Constantines time was that Church with the which in faith and Sacraments we communicate and from which the Romanists are departed subiecting themselues not to such godly Princes as Constantine was but to the Pope and to his vngodly Decretaline and prophane schoole doctrine which is diuers from the faith of those times as God willing we
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
ciuill and artificiall building situate in one place and belonging to one family or sort of people Secondly seuerall points of doctrine are rudely compared to seuerall parcels ofland which are corporeall and may be translated from one to another whereas points of Christian doctrine are matters spiritual and cannot be held truly professed but by the members of the true Church In like sort the Arians by their grosse similitudes depraued such matters as were well spoken as sayth Athanasius orat 4. contr Arian Incorporalia sayth he corporaliter excipientes quae probè dicta erant deprauarunt Thirdly neither shall he euer prooue that the right of the Church belongeth to the Pope and his adherents nor shall he exclude vs from the precincts of the true Church howsoeuer in his Luciferian pride he do here despise and scorne vs. His marks of Antiquitie and Succession are neither the proper notes of the Church nor were they so to be taken can he if by succession he meane discent of true doctrine either take them from vs or giue them to the Popes adherents who rather belong to the synagogue of Sathan then to the Church of God In the latter end of his Praeface he taketh vpon him the person of a Doctor and layeth downe foure points of consideration about matters of faith The first is that our articles of faith are aboue mans reason The second that they haue sufficient arguments of credibility The third is that it behooueth vs to haue a pious affection The fourth is that some articles of our faith may be demonstrated and knowne by force of humane reason But first he sheweth himselfe a vaine and arrogant companion that in matters where he is party taketh on him to be a Doctor not distinguishing betwixt a barre a Doctors chaire Secondly all thèse schoole-points are matters far distant from the argument of Three Conuersions which he vndertaketh to handle For I hope he will not affirme that his Three Conuersions be matters of faith Thirdly his first and last point contradict one another For if all the articles of our faith are aboue mans reason as he sayth handling the first point then are not some articles of faith demonstrable by force of reason which is also the doctrine of the Apostle who sheweth vs that the naturall man vnderstandeth not the things of the spirit of God Fourthly by pious affection he absurdly vnderstandeth a good opinion of the Pope and his slaues the Iebusites and Masse-priests But how can Christians haue a good opinion of them whom holy Scriptures declare to be false teachers and vpholders of the kingdome of Antichrist and experience declareth to be professed enemies of piety and godlinesse Fiftly he concludeth very absurdly because some matters of faith are demonstrable by reason that he hath so discussed matters in his treatise of Three Conuersions as that all matters thereby may be cleared For neither doth his treatise properly concerne matter of faith nor hath he done such glorious acts as he braggeth of Finally these points do little relieue Parsons For if we are to talke of matters of religion with great reuerēce and submission then are the writings of the Schoolemen scādalous that dispute pro and contra in all matters of religion Parsons also dealeth very lewdly who attributeth more to Philosophical demōstrations then to arguments inducing vs to beleeue matters of religion Next if there be matters sufficient in religion to induce vs to beleeue then are not the articles of Popery to be beleeued we hauing more inducements to reiect them then to beleeue them Thirdly if matters are to be scanned before they be receiued as Parsons inferreth then most blind are the Papists that beleeuing the Pope and his adherents to be the Church drinke vp all the abhominations which the whore of Babylon doth present vnto them without all examination whether they be consonant to holy Scriptures the faith of the ancient Fathers or not Fourthly if matters are to be examined with serenitie of mind why are Papists forbidden to reade our bookes to heare our reasons nay without licence to reade the Scriptures Why do they condemne them whose cause they refuse to heare or know Lastly this his treatise of Three Conuersions is not such a braue peece of worke as he imagineth nor shall he gaine any one iote ofhis cause thereby For first it is either false that the ancient Britains were conuerted by S. Peter and Eleutherius or else very doubtfull Likewise it is a matter questionable whether Austin the Monke or some other did first conuert the Saxons to the Christian faith Secondly admit the ancient Britans had bin conuerted by S. Peter and by Eleutherius and the Saxons by Austin the Monke yet this maketh nothing for Pope Clement the 8. or Paule the fift that is no more like to Peter nor Eleutherius then a Cheshire cheese to the bright Sunne Peter was a holy Apostle and fed Christes sheepe Eleutherius was a godly Bishop and preached the Gospell which Clement and Paule the fift doth not Againe Clement and Paule the fift challenge two swords and haue a temporall Kingdome which those two neuer had nor challenged This Clement and Pope Paule mainteine many hereticall doctrines established in the Popes Decretals and late Popish conuenticles which neither S. Peter nor Eleutherius nor Austin euer heard of Finally neither are the Romans subiect to the Bishops of Hierusalem although the Gospell first came to them from thence nor owe we ought to Rome albeit those that first conuerted the Britains and Saxons had come from thence To those that first taught vs we are obliged to render thanks But Parsons like a foolish logician would thereof inferre that we are now to yeeld obedience to the Pope because Peter preached first in Britaine He might as well inferre that the Romans are to be subiect to the Turke that sitteth at Hierusalem for that the Gospell came first to them from thence Thirdly those exceptions which he taketh to vs and our Religion are most vaine and friuolous as the discourse ensuing shall declare Wherefore as we haue already ripped vp his rude and ragged epistle aduertisement and preface so now Godwilling I purpose to discouer the vnsufficiencie and foolery of the rest of his frapling discourse I do not thinke thou shalt finde a booke of that bulke so void of all proofe or good matter vnlesse it be some that proceedeth from the same author Reade therefore I beseech thee both our writings with indifferency and iudge according to equity and so shalt thou hereafter be made more wary in esteeming such huge volumes fraught with nothing but idle tales grosse lyes loose collections and to say all in one word Iebusiticall and Popish vanity and foolery and learne to discerne shadowes from substance and errors from truth The Subuersion of Rob. Parsons his Babylonicall Tower entitled A Treatise of three Conuersions CHAP. I. Whether S. Peter the Apostle preached the Gospell in Britaine or
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
with the article of transubstantiation that is so repugnaÌ„t to Scriptures faith authority and common sence Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist in the times of darkenes Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the article of the Trinity Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impudently where he saith the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning For I haue shewed before that the Master of Sentences knew it not And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose make nothing for Parsons For he will not deny but that species or formes remaine where as Ambrose saith they are changed Againe Ambrose will not haue any other change in the elements then is wrought in our regeneration or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. and de Sacrament lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such that the things still remaine Vt sint quae erant in aliud commuteÌ„tur The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread Tu sayth he quia accipis panem diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignoraÌ„ce or negligence that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sacramentis where he wrote but sixe if those sixe bookes at all were his and alledgeth these two places as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis that are not there to be found but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose where he sayth he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another for he doth neither talke of the change of natures of elements nor substances To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy of the worship of images and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene alwayes beléeued in the Church he alledgeth neither authority nor reason but only saith that although we appoint certaine times when these things began yet we dare not stand to any certaine time nor can alledge the certaine authors of them But as in his owne proofes so in reporting our assertions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie For we do not say as he reporteth that the Pope challenged this supremacy which now in some countries he possesseth vnder Pope Gregory and Phocas the Emperour but that they began to encroch by litle and litle and that Boniface the 3. obteined of Phocas that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his successors The authors of the Masse and of the worship of Images both entring by degrées we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories and stand to our allegation so firmely that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied we graunt therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this exception or his negatiue proofe as he ridiculously calleth it His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better First he citeth the names of Irenaeus Iustine Martyr Athenagoras Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy fréewill merit of works the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing or else to speake against the producents cause Only he could not as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres ca. 3. beginning Maximae antiquissimae ecclesiae c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence which sheweth that y e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded then that of the church of Rome and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only not as head but for auoiding tediousnes Quoniam valde longum est saith he in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones maximae antiquissimae c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam in this sort for that vnto this church in respect of her more mighty principality it is necessary that all churches must agree haue accesse Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes dignity and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly y t because Christians did respect y e church of Rome much while it kept the faith sincere now also all churches are to respect it being departed froÌ„ the faith tyraÌ„nizing ouer all others For why should we rather respect that church then the church of Ephesus Smyrna whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected then that of Rome Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words saying lo here the principality of that church coÌ„firmed For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome or vnderstood by principality Next he vrgeth the coÌ„fession of y e MagdeburgiaÌ„s against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome True it is that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y e title of Incommodious opinions and stubble of some Doctors they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter and saying that the Church is built vpon him Likewise they taâ—â— Cyprian for some spéeches But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude that either Cyprian or Tertullian or Irenaeus or Ignatius doth hold maintaine the bishop of Romes authority which now he challengeth Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian No way certes he can be thought to vnderstand him that nameth Salonius for Sidonius and supposeth Maximus Vrbanus and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers and to haue affirmed that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church wheras these three returning from the side of schismatikes that in euery church had erected a bishop of their
vs but fauouring the sea of Rome and such as no man can note of partialitie in this behalfe That Iohn the 8. or as some number the Popes the 7. was a woman first Radulphus Flauiacensis in his Chronicle doth testifie This man was a Monke of Benets order and liued about the yeare of our Lord 930. as Trithemius reporteth Secondly Marianus Scotus doth report the same Anno Domini 854. saith he anno Lotharij 14. successit Leoni Ioannes mislier He sheweth also that she sate two yeares fiue moneths and foure dayes Our third witnesse is Sigebertus who speaking of this Pope sayth that the fame went that this Iohn was a woman and being begot with child by her seruant was deliuered being Pope These two testimonies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis our aduersaries now of late haue razed out of all those copies which now are printed But this doth nothing relieue their credit but rather blot them both with the infamy of this whoredome and also with corruption and falsity Their owne consciences must néedes herein witnesse against them séeing they know that these words are found as well in printed bookes as in ancient manuscript copies Martinus Polonus our fourth witnesse telleth plainely that this woman desguised in mans apparell went with her louer to Athens proued learned returned to Rome was chosen Pope begotten with child and deliuered neere S. Clements Church and that for this cause all Popes afterward shunned this way Our fift witnesse is Martin a Minorite in his booke entitled Flores temporum printed at Vlme in Dutch anno Domini 1486. This Minorite telleth how Pope Ioane coniuring a Diuell to tell when he would depart out of the body of one possessed receiued answere that he would declare this when the Pope would tell when a Pope should be deliuered of child Papa pater patrum saith he papissae pandito partum Et tibi tunc edam de corpore quando recedam Our sixth witnesse is Francis Petrarch who in an Italian booke printed at Florence anno Dom. 1478. sayth that a woman was made Pope and deliuered of child The seauenth witnesse is Antonine Archbishop of Florence who in the second part of his history tit 16. ca. 1. § 7. doth report this history of a woman-pope as others do and addeth that an image representing the Popes deliuery of child was erected in the place where she trauailed of child and dyed and thereupon exclaimeth ô the depth of the wisdome and knowledge of God! The eight witnesse is Iohn Boccace in his booke De Foeminis illustribus who in the whole report agréeth with Antonine and his other contestes The ninth is Iacobus Gulielmus of Egmond a Monke in the rimes following Papacadit panditur improbis Ridendi norma puer nascitur In vico Clementis Wernerus Rolewinke maketh the tenth who in his booke called Fasciculus temporum speaking of this Pope sayth That being gotten with child and afterward going in Procession she died in trauaile and therefore was not put into the catalogue of Popes The same history is recorded by him that wrote the Annales of Auspurg anno Domini 855. he therefore filleth the eleuenth place The full iury is made vp by Raphael Volateran who in his Cosmograph consenteth with the rest Unto these for a supply we may adde Platina in Ioanne 8. Sabellicus Aenead 9. Bergomensis and Palmerius in their Chronicles Trithemius in Catalog Pontif. Albert Crantz Baptista of Mantua Iohn Lucidus Iohn Stella Nauclerus in Generat 29. Iohn Henaldus and Peter Messias in Silua var. lect Finally least any man might forget a matter so memorable the same report was represented in imagery both in the stréete of S. Clement at Rome and in the Cathedrall Church of Siena and that might haue béen yet sene of euery man but that Pius the 5. ashamed of the lechery and whoredome of his predecessor caused the statue of marble representing this Tragicall accident to be throwne into Tiber. Finally no man euer denyed or contradicted this report vntill the time of Onuphrius a hungry parasite of the Pope and a lying Friar who to win some fauour of the Pope began first to call this history into question and desperatly to face out the matter If then Rob. Parsons and his consorts had not faces of proofe they would haue béene ashamed being but late vpstarts and contemptible fellowes to haue opposed their bare credits against the authority of so many authenticall and vnpartial witnesses in matters done so long before they came out of the bottomlesse pit They answere and deuise what they thinke most fitting to discredit the report or to help their cause But all is but like dust cast into the ayre that falleth on the heads of them that cast it and blindeth their owne eyes Parsons pag. 389. answereth and saith that albeit some such thing had hapned yet it had not preiudicated the Church of Christ. But had any such thing hapned then had he no reason so stiffly to deny it Againe albeit the Catholike Church be not preiudiced by the intrusion of men or women incapable of Ecclesiasticall function yet the same would wholy ouerthrow the discent and succession of Romish Bishops vpon which the Romanists do so much depend For if heretikes and men or women vncapable of Ecclesiasticall function do thrust into the line of Bishops then is the line of true Bishops interrupted But of heretikes S. Augustine giueth vs knowledge epist. 165. that they may enter among y e Romish Bishops where he saith What if a traytor in those times should haue crept in Of persons incapable the story of Dame Ioane the Pope giueth testimony He correcteth therefore his first answere and vpon better aduice sayth that this whole story of Pope Ioane is a meere fable deuised first by Martinus Polonus a simple man that telleth many things by heare-say and continued by those that fauoured the German Emperours contending against the Pope And to proue this he alledgeth first that Anastasius Audomarus Luitprandus Regino Hermannus Contractus Lambertus Schafnaburgensis Otho Frisingensis and Vrspergensis after Leo the 4. place Benedict the third and next that William of Malmesbury Henry Huntington Roger Houeden Florentius Vigorniensis and Matthew of Westminster make no mention of this woman-pope And thirdly that Alphred liuing in Rome when Pope Leo died or thereabout must needes haue knowne that one of his owne countrey had beene Pope if any such matter had then fallen out Fourthly that in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus this story is not set downe Fiftly that Leo the 9. in the contention betwirt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople obiected to Michael Bishop of Constantinople that diuers Eunuches had béene Bishops there and as is sayd a woman also which it is not likely he would haue done if the same might truly haue béene sayd of the sea of Rome And lastly that the story conteineth diuers improbabilities and contradictions But that the story should be fabulous
or a matter feined it is not like being recorded in so many histories and authenticall writers That Martinus Polonus did first report this matter no man hath reason to beléeue séeing the same so plainely set downe in Radulphus Flauiacensis Marianus Scorus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis Baronius sayth that Marianus Scotus was the first brother of it Neither was Martinus Polonus so simple a fellow as is pretended being the Popes penitentiary and a writer in that kind equall to the best of his ranke That y e fauourers of the Emperour should brute this matter abrode to defame the Pope is a méere fiction For it cannot be shewed that any Emperour in the contention betwixt the Emperours and the Popes did euer cast out any such matter against the Pope Rob. Parsons his arguments brought forth to proue this history to be a fable are like his owne head that is brutish and blockish For first it is no good argument to conclude from the authority of two or thrée of the Popes parasites negatiuely viz. that they omit a matter tending to the Popes defame ergo no such matter was done Secondly he alledgeth a counterfet author called Audomarus He may do well to shew who he was being neither mentioned by Baronius nor Bellarmine where they talke of this matter Thirdly it is ridiculous to inquire of our country writers of matters done at Rome or to thinke that they would speake any thing tending to the disgrace of the Pope whose sworne slaues they were Beside that the author of Fasciculus temporum sheweth that this woman-pope was not forgotten but of purpose omitted by the writers of histories because of the slander that might thereof redound to the sea of Rome Fourthly no man can tell whether Alphred knew any such matter or not Nay it is not very certaine that either he or his father were in Rome about the time of Pope Ioans deliuery But had they bene at Rome about this time yet might they well know Pope Iohn to be English although not a woman Fiftly if in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus and Sigebertus Gemblacensis this history be not found it is plaine that the agents of the Romish Church men infamous for falsitie haue razed the same out And that may appeare first by the testimonie of Fasciculus temporum who sheweth the cause of the blotting out of Pope Ioans name next by ancient manuscript copies and last by the testimonie of Baronius who maketh Marianus Scotus the first deuiser of this matter So hard is it for lyars and forgers to consent together Sixthly it may be a question whether the letters of Leo the 9. to Michael be counterfet or not But were they written by him as is reported yet raylers oftentimes obiect the same crimes one to another Finally there is no such discordance in the circumstances of the history but that there are farre greater in matters which the Romanists beleeue to be most true Letters and names and places and times may be easily mistaken and yet the matter reported may prooue most true Likewise it is no strange thing for one person to be called of two places both Anglicus and Maguntinus That Athens then was a place famous for studie it may be gathered out of Gréeke histories no one writer certes holdeth the contrary The Popes therefore of this time if they please may be successors of Pope Ioane whom we haue manifestly demonstrated to haue béene Pope but the successors of Peter and Eleutherius and other godly ancient Bishops of Rome they cannot iustly terme themselues CHAP. IX That the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church nor meanes of triall of the truth BEllarmine lib. de not Eccles. ca. 8. would gladly haue the succession of the Romish Bishops to be a marke of the Church And Rob. Parsons doth estéeme the same a matter of great importance for triall of true religion and prooueth it in the best sort he can Part. 2. Ch. 1. How much they are abused these reasons may declare First the succession of Popes is of no greater force or vertue then the succession of the priests of the law For from them they borrow diuers titles and prerogatiues But the high priests of the Iewes did oftentimes withstand the Prophets of God and Vria the high priest in the time of Achaz as we reade 4. Kings 16. erected a strange altar in the Temple Finally they condemned Christ and his Apostles and all their doctrine Secondly the Apostles in their time could not trie their religion by the succession of Bishops nor was succession then a marke of the Church For neither did the Apostles succéed the high priests or sacrificers of the Iewes nor as yet had the Apostle Peter any successor But the marks and properties of the Church are always the same Neither can we looke for better triall and proofe of religion then that which the Apostles had Thirdly the Church of Rome when Paule wrote his famous epistle vnto it had no succession of Bishops Yet was it then the true Church Neither néede we to make question but that the same had all conuenient meanes for the triall of truth 4. The succession of Bishops in the Church of Antioch Hierusalem and Alexandria neither was a certaine marke of the Church nor a meanes to try the truth And this I thinke our aduersaries will not deny But if they should it may easily be prooued for that Ecclesiasticall histories teach vs that the Bishops of those seas haue fallen into diuers grosse heresies and are now condemned for heretikes by the sea of Rome 5. The Churches of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople to this day shew the Catalogues of their Bishops Likewise Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonit Cap. 34. sheweth the successors of Simon Magus for diuers ages Likewise doth Epiphanius haeres 34. shew who for diuers yeares succéeded Valentinus Yet Parsons will not grant that either Valentinus or Simon Magus or their followers were true Catholikes neither will the Papists confesse that the Greeks of the Churches of Constantinople or the people of Antioch or Alexandria are the true Church or that by the succession of their Bishops truth may be tried 6. If by succession of Bishops either the Church or the truth might certeinly be discerned and tried then could not Bishops erre or teach peruersely But histories teach vs that diuers great Bishops haue grossely erred as Liberius and Honorius the first in Rome Macedonius and Nestorius in Constantinople And this the Apostle speaking to the Bishops assembled at Miletus Act. 20. doth clearely shew Of your owne selues saith he shall men arise speaking peruerse things to draw disciples after them Finally the aduersaries themselues sometimes confesse that succession is no certaine marke of the Church Lyra in his postill vpon the 16. of Matth. sayth that the chiefe Bishops haue bene found to haue departed from the faith But what triall is to be had by succession if Bishops may depart from the faith
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