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
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
be Canonicall vnlesse the Pope and Romish Church do tell them so These words Iohn 5. verse 44. How can ye beleeue which receiue honor one of another and seeke not the honor that commeth of God alone And that which is said by Parsons concerning pious affection required as a key to open the gate to true faith most fitly may be applied against Parsons and his consorts for they seeke for glory one of another and all for preferment from the Pope and Cardinals They séeke also the honor of Angels and Saints But neither do they seeke for Gods glory alone nor do they desire so much the prayse of God as of men Further how can they pretend pious affection and the keyes to open the gate to true faith when by fraud treachery violence and bloody massacres of Christians they séeke to mainteine not the faith but heresie not the truth of Christ but the false and erroneous doctrine of Antichrist Lastly Parsons where he maketh pious affection a key to open the gate to true faith sheweth himselfe either impious in placing piety before true faith or hereticall that with Pelagius supposeth a man may be pious before faith by force of fréewill Pag. 9. for proofe of the sacrifice of the Masse he bringeth a testimony out of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres ca. 32. which quite ouerthroweth the popish sacrifice of the Masse For there he speaketh of the sacrifice of Christians and calleth it primitias creaturarum the first fruites of Gods creatures But the Papists in their Masse suppose that the Priest offereth not the first fruites of Gods creatures but the very body and blood of Christ. Pag. 14. he standeth much vpon the testimonies of Gildas Nicephorus Theodoret and Sophronius which name diuers that preached the Gospell in Britaine But all this tendeth to the ouerthrow of Parsons his discourse who in that place vndertaketh to proue that S. Peter and not other preachers did first conuert the Britans to the Christian faith Pag. 59. he sheweth how Wilfride conuerted the Southsaxons which is as far from his purpose as the North from the South For in all this dispute he vndertaketh to prooue that the Britans were first conuerted to the Christian faith by Romans and not by Frenchmen or Britans Pag. 67. out of Tertullian he goeth about to prooue that Blastus was condemned as an heretike for that priuily with his obseruance of Easter he sought to bring in ludaisine And Pag. 73. he affirmeth that Constantine did authorize and publish the decrées of y e Nicen Councell Both which points directly make against our aduersaries For while they rigorously stand vpon the obseruance of Easter and offer paschal lambs they do after a sort renew and call back into vse the ceremonies of the Iewes and while they ascribe to the Pope all authority to confirme and publish the acts of Councels they do abrogate the authority of Christian Princes in fauour of Antichrist Pag. 97. he alledgeth diuers texts and testimonies to proue that temporall Princes are Gods vicars and substitutes within their realmes But if that be so then the Pope is the diuels substitute and vicar of hell that oftentimes goeth about to remoue Gods substitutes from their gouernment and to kill them Pag. 106. S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptism c. 24. is produced as a witnesse to proue that what the vniuersall Church doth hold and euer hath held and was not instituted by Councels hath come from the Apostles But this witnesse ouerthrowed the whole cause of popery if he may be credited For neither the doctrine of the Popes vniuersall monarchy in the visible Church and in Purgatory nor of the popish sacrifice in honor of Saints and Angels and for the benefit of quick and dead nor of the worship of images nor the rest of the vnwritten traditions of the Romish Church haue béen alwayes held by the vniuersall Church nor are at this day held by the same Further it is manifest that the worship of images was first established in the second Councell of Nice and the doctrine of transubstantiation and auricular confession in the Councell of Lateran vnder Innocent the third the carnall reall presence in a Councell at Rome vnder Nicholas the 2. and other popish heresies in the Councels of Constance Florence and Trent Are they not then ashamed to call their traditions Apostolicall Pag. 145. he alledgeth an Epistle of Ignatius ad Heronem where he saith Virgines custodi tanquam sacramenta Christi But this ouerthroweth the practise of the Romish Church which is nothing curious in kéeping of these Sacraments nor so watchfull in looking to them but that they are often gotten with child by the Masse-priests Monks and Friers Furthermore this sheweth that there are more Sacramēts then 7. which no Papist dare affirme vnlesse he will encurre the thundring curse of the connenticle of Trent Pag. 159. he reherseth an Epistle of Gregory condemning them that worship stocks or stones Do we then thinke that either Gregory or Austin did conuert the English to the worship of these things He doth also wickedly translate Gregories Epistle leauing out these words à Germaniarum Episcopis which conteine a contradiction to the words of Bede who saith that Austin was ordred by a French Bishop and not a German Bishop Pag. 229. he alledgeth these words of Augustine epist. 165. in illum ordinem Episcoporum c. that is If any traytor should haue crept into that order of Roman Bishops it should not haue preiudiced the Church of God or innocent Christians But he cutteth off the middest of the sentence and some words in the latter end least that holy Fathers opinion might appeare too cléerely And yet it appeareth thereby sufficiently that Roman Bishops may be false traytors and that the succession of the Popes is no marke of the Church seeing Augustine doth say the Church may stand notwithstanding their falshood and trecherie Pag. 280. he citeth the words of Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres c. 4. commending Succession with the gift of truth What is then the bare succession of Popes or Turkes without truth Pag. 295. he confesseth That the truth of this question whether this or that be the true Church is a matter of vnderstanding Out of this grant therefore we conclude that we cannot discerne with our eyes which is the true Church nor know it by the succession of Popes or such like sensible markes Pag. 307. He produceth the example of S. Laurence dispensing the cup of Christs bloud from the altar Do not the Masse-priests therefore shame to drinke all alone and to refuse to dispense the cup from the Lords table Pag. 360. He alledgeth diuers orders concerning doctrine life and the ceremonies of the Church But all are repugnant to the ceremonies of the Romish Synagogue Pag. 372. He telleth vs how the Gospell was laid in the midst of Bishops sitting in Councell But this sheweth that matters there ought to be decided by the word of God
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
THE SVBVERSION OF ROBERT PARSONS His confused and worthlesse worke ENTITVLED A treatise of three Conuersions of England from Paganisme to Christian Religion 1. Tim. 1. Conuersi sunt in vaniloquium They are turned vnto vaine iangling LONDON Printed for IOHN NORTON 1606. TO THE RIGHT HOnorable the Lord Ellesmere Lord Chancellor of England THE shew of antiquity in matters of religion being so plausible to the multitude and so sorcible to perswade the simple I maruell not my good Lord if our aduersaries the Papists who shew themselues also aduerse to truth do both commonly and willingly entitle their erroneous doctrines concerning the worship of Saints and Images the Popes indulgences Purgatory and all their traditions and trash though neuer so new the Old Religion Your Lordship also well knoweth what paines Parsons the Iebusite hath taken in his bookes of Three Conuersions to prooue that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted to that religion which is now professed and taught at Rome not doubting but if he can prooue it so ancient that the same will soone be admitted as true as being deriued from the Apostles and most ancient and sincere Bishops of Rome Hauing therefore commiseration of the ignorance of seduced Papists and willing to consirme good Christians in the truth and to arme the weake against the assaults of such seducers I haue vndertaken to examine his whole discourse concerning the three supposed conuersions of England wherein Parsons indeuoureth to prooue the antiquitie of Popish religioÌ„ within this Iland seeking from the true religion professed here to bring vs back to the haeresies and captiuitie of Rome more odious farre then that of Babylon And this I vndertake not because he deserueth to receiue any long or curious answer but rather to shew his consorts that he bringeth nothing which cannot easily be answered Some do esteeme the booke very much in regard of the strangenesse and noueltie promising not only a narration of the planting of religion in England by Austin the Monke but also a confirmation of the history of King Lucius and Eleutherius Bishop of Rome and new tidings of a new conuersion of Brittaine wrought by S. Peter himselfe matters of which many will be glad to heare But he that diligently peruseth what he hath written shall soone lose all his longing For whether we consider the subiect of this discourse or the manner of handling the same there is nothing that can any way satisfie the reader The proofes stand vpoÌ„ coniectures The authors stile is harsh and vneuen His rehearsals thick and tedious His purpose fond foolish Three things he striueth to prooue First that this land was thrise conuerted to religion by preachers sent froÌ„ Rome viz. by S. Peter Eleutherius and Austin Secondly that the same was conuerted to no other religion then that which is now preached and mainteined at Rome And thirdly that therefore we are now to learne religion and to receiue direction and gouernment from thence But the first is very euill performed For of the first conuersion by S. Peter he is scarce able to bring any coniecture The second seemeth fabulous The third concerneth not the whole land but only a few Saxons In the second he hath altogether failed not being able to prooue either his Tridentine or Decretaline doctrine concerning the Pope the Masse the seauen Sacraments the worship of saints and idols and such like matters in question out of the histories of those tiâ—â—s In the third point he trauaileth in vaine For why should England be more subiect to Rome for receiuing the Christian faith from thence then Rome to Hierusalem from whence the sound of the Gospell went into all lands In the second part of his three Conuersions he seemeth to make great inquirie for our Church and religion in former times But when he cannot deny but we hold all the Christian faith either taught expressely by the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church or explaned in the sixe generall Councels and do only condemne the corruptions of later time brought in by the Decretals and Schoolemens frapling disputes he sheweth himselfe a blinde searcher that can neither see nor sinde our faith and Church before these late dayes Physitions say that melancholike men are much subiect to dreames Melancholici saith one of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seemeth therefore that Parsons writing this booke of three Conuersions wherin so many dreames and fancies are conteined did ouerflow with melancholy But writing the second part of his treatise it seemeth that he was in a dead sleepe and had his senses so bound that he could neither feele nor see any thing In time past they say he was able to write well but now his bookes are like the coynes of which one in Plautus talketh The last are the worst And this I doubt not to make to appeare in this my answere the which I make bold to present to your Lordship as a testimoniall of my thankefulnesse and a pledge of my affection loue And the rather for that as your Lordship hath bene a principall helper to free me of my troubles so you may first taste of the fruite of my trauailes It is more then a yeare since I first framed this treatise but could not publish it by reason of my other occasions and disturbances But now that your bountifull fauours haue giuen me some time of breathing I thought I could not better employ my life and breath then in the common defence of the truth Vouchsafe therefore my good Lord to accept of this small present and to take both the gift and giuer into your protection And so I shall be more free to do God seruice and more willing to employ my selfe for his Church and alwayes rest Your Lordships most readie to be commanded Matthew Sutcliffe The Praeface to the Christian Reader IT is an old trick of heretikes Christian Reader to grace their leud opinions with faire titles Sub falso praetextu specie pietatis saith Constantine speaking to heretikes semper delinquentes omnia contagione vestra contaminatis So Parsons albeit he talketh of popish religion which is nothing else but a mixture of Iudaisme Paganisme and Heresie yet doth he giue out that he contendeth for Christian religion Againe albeit the Masse wherein the whole seruice of God according to the opinion of Papists consisteth be but a late patchery and their popish opinions meere nouelties and strange fancies yet would he make men beleeue that the Masse was instituted by Christ and that these new doctrines were taught by Peter and the rest of the Apostles of our Lord and Sauiour Christ Iesus In his Epistle Dedicatory he calleth the English Papists the off-spring and children of the first professors of Christianitie in this Iland And yet no children could further degenerate from their ancestors then the moderne Papists from the ancient Christians as by many particulars may be demonstrated Their faith concerning the foundations of Christian religion
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
that he receiued this name in baptisme For he is so called before he was baptized as well as after neither doth any Author mention this change of name Secondly about this time when Lucius is said to haue raigned king of Britaine and long before the Romaines as histories report had brought the whole countrie vnder subiection and into the forme of a prouince which admitteth no king Beda de gestis Anglor lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Claudius the Emperor saith that in few dayes he brought most of the Iland vnder his subiection Intra paucissimos dies saith he plurimam insulae partem in deditionem recepit Afterward in the same booke and 11. chapter he sheweth how the Romans dwelt possessed all vnto the banke cast vp vpon the frontiers of Scotland by Seuerus Neither is it materiall that after this the Britains endeuored to recouer their auncient libertie For vnder the raigne of Commodus as Capitolinus testifieth all the stirres in Britanny and other countries were pacified In Britannia Germania Dacia saith he imperium eius recusantibus Prouincialibus omnia per duces sedata sunt In the times also of Domitian and Adrian which liued not long before Lucius his supposed raigne we read in Spartianus that the Britains liued in subiection to the Romaines How then could Lucius in this time rule all the Iland of Britaine as is supposed by the authors of this fabulous conuersion vnder king Lucius Baronius annal tom 2. anno 183. answereth that Lucius raigned beyond the wall But that sheweth plainely that this report as it is recorded by Bede and Geffrey of Momoutb is vtterly false For the one reporteth that the Britaine 's vnder Lucius were conuerted the other that all Britanny was conuerted from Paganisme and not a few Britains onely beyond the wall of Seuerus as Baromus is driuen to confesse Thirdly no authenticall authors make mention of this storie The first spreaders of this report séeme to be Damasus in his pontificall and Bede in his storie de gestis Anglorum and Ado. Whereof the first deserueth litle credit among the papists The second reporteth too many things by heare-say The third is a fabulous Writer From them it seemeth Galfridus Monumetensis Martinus Polonus Platina and others haue borrowed this fable The matter as y e first authors report it is no way probable Malmesburiensis in fastis speaking of Lucius saith he receiued the faith with the whole nation of the Britains But that is altogether improbable for at that time the Romaines professing paganisme ruled almost all Britaine Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 4. ca. 19. saith that the preachers sent by Eleutherius did abolish paganisme almost throughout all the Iland Cùm per totam ferè insulam saith he paganismum deleuissent A matter repugnant to all authenticall histories which testifie that the Romans that then ruled in Britaine and a great part of the world besides professed and maintained paganisme vntil the raigne of Constantine The same man saith further that in the whole Iland there were 28. Flamines or principall priests and thrée Archiflamines and that king Lucius in the place of Flamines appointed Bishops and for Atchistamines substituted Archbishops But these are also matters neuer before heard of For neither had Lucius power ouer the whole I le as before is declared nor had the Britains any such Flamines or Archiflamines nor among the Romaines that had Flamines were any Archiflamines appointed ouer Flamines This historie therefore of king Lucius may well be paragoned with the tales of king Arthur Sir Tristram and Lancelot du lac or of Gregorie the Pope de gestis Romanorum ca. 81. or of Rowland and Oliuer in the legend of Romish Saints Fourthly there is great variance betwirt the reporters of this narration especially concerning the time when it should be done Baronius saith Lucius was conuerted during the raigne of Commodus the Emperor of Rome anno Dom. 183. Beda saith it was vnder Marcus Antonius Verus anno 156. Galfridus Monumetensis hist. Brit. lib. 5. cap. 1. saith Lucius died the yeare of our Lord 156. So that he must néeds be conuerted some time before Martinus Polonus writeth that he was baptized anno Christi 188. Marianus Scotus accompteth it done anno Christi 177. Lilly referreth this act to the yeare of Christ 181. And Lanquet to the yeare 180. an old Chronicle written in the Saxon language and found in the archiues of Peterborough saith that Lucius wrote to Eleutherius anno Christi 167. To conclude Nennius saith that Lucius wrote to Euaristus anno 164. and maketh no mention of Eleutherius Likewise some report how the king was conuerted without mentioning the conuersion of his people as Beda Others testifie that the whole Iland was then almost cleared from paganisme as Galfridus Monumetensis lib. 4. hist. Brit. cap. 19. Sanders in his preface to his rayling libel de schismate Anglicano saith a great part of the people was then conuerted Platina telleth vs how in stead of 25. Flamines there were so many Bishops created in Britaine and in the place of three Archiflamines thrée Archbishops were substituted But Galfridus setteth downe 28. bishops and 3. Archbishops made for so many Flamines and Archiflamines Some report that Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus to Lucius as Platina in Eleutherio Others name none as Damasus in Pontificali and Beda lib. 1. hist. Anglor cap. 4. Others name Fugatius and Donatianus and say that Elnanus and Meduinus were sent in ambassage to Eleutherius as Baronius tom 2. anno Dom. 183. Galfridus hist. Brit. lib. 4. cap. 19. saith Eleutherius sent Faganus and Duuanus and with him consenteth Ponticus Virunnus Malmesburiensis lib. de antiq Glaston Eccles. calleth these messengers Phaganus and Deruianus The historie of Landaffe calleth the Doctors sent by Eleutherius Eluanus and Meduinus and with him consenteth Caius lib. 1. de antiq Acad. Cantabrig If then truth cannot dissent nor vary from it selfe how can we beleeue the narration concerning Lucius to be true that is so diuersly reported Againe if the king onely or some few with him were conuerted to Christianitie in the time of Eleutherius then was religion rather continued and enlarged by his agents then restored being lost Which appeareth also in this that the king heard of the persecution of Christians of Christian religion before he sent to Eleutherius But suppose that Lucius was indéed conuerted to Christian religion about the time reported in the storie yet it seemeth that those that conuerted the king were rather Britains then Romaines That is apparent first by the testimonie of the Annales of Burton cited by Caius lib. 1. de antiq Acad. Cantabrig which affirme that diuers Doctors of Cambridge were baptized anno 141. But what should they need to send for Romains when they had Christian Doctors among themselues Secondly the same is proued by the historie of Landaffe alleaged likewise by Caius which testifieth that Eluanus and
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
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