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
alone then not in the Popes traditions 16. None of them did euer speake vnreuerently of Scriptures or call them a killing letter or a matter of strife or a nose of waxe or a shipmans hose or such like as do our aduersaries 17. None of them did make the Latine translation of the Bible more authenticall then the originall Tert. Nay Peter albeit he had the gift of tongues yet did he not write in Latine but in Greeke 18. Neither did Eleutherius or Gregorie call himselfe the spouse or rocke of the Church or Christs Vicar or substitute Nor did either S. Peter or Austin allow such proud titles 19. Neither did Gregorie the first nor any before him call himselfe King of Kings or Supreme Monarch of the Church Nay Gregorie rather delighted in the name and title of seruant of seruants and the rest of the bishops of Rome in ancient time were humble men and detested these proud titles 20. In the times of Gregory and Austin neither the number of Sacraments nor those formes rites which now the Synagogue of Rome vseth were established If Parsons will maintaine the contrary let him make proofe that the words vsed in the popish sacraments of Confirmation and Extreme Vnction were knowne practised in those times Let him also shew that Priests were then appointed to sacrifice for quick dead Now if he cannot find these formes in the time of Gregory he will be much more puzzeled to find them in the daies of Eleutherius or Peter 21. The Master of the Sentences lib. 4. dist 11. confesseth frankly that he knoweth not whether the conuersion in the Eucharist be substantial or not Qualis sit illa conuersio sayth he an formalis vel substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio Much more difficultie then shall Parsons find to prooue his Transubstantiation out of the doctrine of Austin Gregory Eleutherius and Peter 22. S. Peter knew no other Priesthood but that which was common to all Christians neither did he acknowledge any sacrifices of Christians but spirituall Neither Eleutherius nor Gregory nor Austin euer heard that a Masse-priest did either offer vp Christs body and bloud really or as we reade in the Canon of the Masse take vpon him to be a mediator for Christes body and bloud 23. It is impious to thinke that either Peter or Gregory or any in those times beléeued that hogges and dogges eating consecrated hoasts did with their mouthes eate and swallow downe into their belly the body of Christ as the Schoolemen and most Papists now teach 24. S. Peter neuer put the Sacrament in pixes nor adored it as his Lord and God Neither do we find that either Elcutherius or Gregory practised any such matter For it was first ordred by Honorius the third that y e Sacrament should be kept in pixes and worshipped after the moderne fashion 25. In the Romish ordinall we finde no prayers for the dead nor any priuat masses nor masses for warre peace plagues or for hogges and horses and such like vses If then the same be thought to haue procéeded for the most part from Gregory and from others that succéeded him it is certaine that these abuses came in after his time 26. The forme of hosts and singing cakes not much bigger then a counter and the image of the crucifixe vpon them and the idolatrous worship of Latria giuen to them was vtterly vnknowne in Gregories time and long after 27. The old ordinall of Rome doth shew that the confession of penitents was not made to Saints or Angels in Gregories time or before him 28. Neither in Gregories time nor before him do we find that any godly Bishop commanded that the publike Liturgie of the Church should be sayd in Latin or Gréeke or other language not vnderstood by the common people or that he suffred the Sacraments to be administred in tongues not knowne of the vulgar sort Nay the Apostle Paule 1. Cor. 14. sheweth plainely that praiers in a tongue not vnderstood are fruitlesse which doctrine no question antiquitie much respected 29. Now the Romanists will haue all Churches to follow Rome as their Mistresse in all rites and ceremonies But Gregory as Bede testifieth lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 28. gaue Austin liberty to chuse out of all Churches what rites he thought most conuenient Ex singulis quibusque Ecclesijs saith he quae pia quae religiosa quae recta sunt elige 30. Neither did Austin nor Gregory consecrate a Paschal lambe at Easter after the Iewish manner or hallow water to driue away diuels and for remission of venial sinnes as is now practised by the Papists 31. The law of auricular confession and the necessity and forme thereof was first established by Innocent the third c. Omnis vtriusque sexus de poenit remis It is not therfore likely that y t same should be practised in Gregories time or before 32. Gregory would not haue Saints images broken or defaced in Churches yet did neither he nor any Bishop of Rome before him allow the worship of them Quòd ea adorari vetuisses omnino laudauimus saith he lib. 9. epist. 9. ad Serenum speaking of images of Saints And again Si quis imagines facere voluerit minimè prohibe adorare verò imagines omnibus modis deuita that is if any will make images foibid them not but by all meanes auoid the worship of images But Peter and Eleutherius neither worshipped images nor suffered them to be made in Churches None of them certes nor Austin himselfe did thinke or teach that the crosse or crucifixe is to be worshipped with Latria Austin comming to Canterbury had a crosse of siluer and the image of our Sauiour painted in a table as Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 26. reporteth but he sayth not that either the crosse or image was worshipped with Latria or otherwise either by him or by others 33. Both Gregory and Austin vsed Letanies But neither did they pray to the virgin Mary nor to Peter nor Paule nor to other Saints Austins Letany as we may reade in Bede hist. Angl. lib. 1. ca. 16. was nothing but a praier directed to God 34. Gregory and Austin estéemed much the reliques of Saints yet did neither of them digge their bodies out of the graues and put them in shrines to be worshipped as is the fashion of papists of our time 35. Neither did Gregory take vpon him to canonize or vncanonize Saints or to appoint Masses to be said or holidayes to be kept in their honor And if this will not be prooued of Gregory much lesse will it be shewed that either Eleucherius or Peter euer taught or allowed any such canonization of Saints or Romish worship giuen them 36. Gregory allowed Purgatory as it seemeth for small faults yet did he not beléeue that men did satisfie in Purgatory for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes nor that the bishop of Rome by his indulgences could deliuer men out of Purgatory As for
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
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
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