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
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
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
or tooke vpon them to depose Emperours and Kings and to tread vpon their necks we reade not Clement therefore and his predecessors that haue taken vpon them to depose Kings and haue troden vpon their necks and raised their subiects against them are rather successors of Iulius Caesar and Nero and the Emperors of Romains then of Peter and Eleutherius Sixtly we do not reade that Peter euer came abroade crowned with a triple crowne and clad with golden and silken ornaments and apparell or that he had a guard of Suitzers and a number of Cardinals Masse-priests and Friars to attend vpon him The like also we may say of Eleutherius The Popes therefore that come abroade with this pompe and pride rather therein succeed Constantine then S. Peter or Eleutherius And this concerning S. Peter we gather out of Bernard lib. 4. de Consid. ad Eugenium Petrus hie est saith he quinescitur processisse aliquando vel gemmis ornatus vel sericis non tectus auro non vectus equo albo nec stipatus milite nec circumstrepentibus saepius ministris Absque his tamen credidit satis impleri posse salutare mandatum Si amas me pasce oues meas In his successisti non Petro sed Constantino 7. S. Peter neuer challenged any right in the city of Rome or territory adioyning or that which is called the patrimony of Peter Neither did either he or Eleutherius challenge to be King of Kings or Lord of Lords or Supreme Monarke of the Church The Popes therefore vsurping these rights and challenging these titles do not therein succeed Peter or the ancient Bishops of Rome 8. S. Peter and Eleutherius neuer tooke vpon them to dispense with oaths or Simony or sacrilege or incest or such abominable crimes Neither did ambitious simoniacall sacrilegious incestuous and such monstrous persons resort to Peter either to procure preferment or to reteine honors which they had already procured Bernard lib. 1. de Consid. speaking of the Apostle Nunquid ad eum saith he de totò orbe confluebant ambitiosi auari simoniaci sacrilegi concubinarij incestuosi quaeque istiusmodi monstra hominum vt ipsius Apostolica authoritate vel obtinerent honores Ecclesiasticos vel retinerent In this case therefore the Popes shew not themselues the Apostles successors neither will they proue the successors of the ancient Bishops of Rome vnlesse they can shew that they did these things 9. No man can be said to succéed the Apostles but those which preach the word of God and administer the Sacraments nor vnto Bishops but which do the office worke of Bishops Therefore doth Cyprian call Bishops the Apostles successors lib. 4. epist. 9. and the Apostle 1. Tim. 3. doth call a bishoprick a good worke and 2. Tim. 2. Timothy is tearmed a workeman Hierome in an epistle to Oceanus sheweth that the office of a Bishop importeth a good worke and not dignitie St quis saith he Episcopatum desiderat bonū opus desiderat opus non dignitatem laborem non delicias Bernard lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. saith that y e name of a Bishop doth emply officium non dominium an office and not a preheminence And that may appeare by the practise of Eleutherius a diligent preaching Bishop But the Popes now do not either y e office of Apostles in going about to teach all nations or the office of a Bishop in teaching the flock of Christ and gouerning the same according to the Apostles Canons What do they then Forsooth they encourage Assassins to murther Princes and as Paule the fift of late did graunt Indulgences to miners and powdermen to blow vp the King his Nobles and Commons assembled in Parliament and to shead innocent bloud 10. Peter diligently fed the flock of Christ according to the charge giuen him by Christ. Neither neede we to doubt but that Eleutherius did the same Can we then call the Popes the successors of Peter and Eleutherius that neither féede the flock of Christ nor care for the same but rather like wolues séeke to deuoure and destroy Christes shéepe Bernard lib. 4. ad Eugen. denied Eugenius either to be a paffor or Peters successor if he did not féede Pastorem te populo huic saith he certè aut nega aut exhibe Non negabis ne cuius sedem tenes te neges baeredem And afterward Non est quod pastoris horreas operam curámue pastoralem pastoris haeres 11. All those that succéed Peter or any godly Bishop in his sea are to teach the doctrine of Peter to abide in their predecessors faith Presbyteris illis saith Irenaeus lib. 4. aduers. haeres c. 43. qui sunt in Ecclesia obaudire oportet qui successionem habent ab Apostolis qui cum Episcopatus successione charisma veŕitatis certum secundum placitum patris acceperunt We are to heare those Bishops which haue their succession frō the Apostles which with the succession of their bishoprick haue receiued the gift of truth according to the pleasure of the Father Tertullian de Praescript contr haeret sheweth them only to be successors of the Apostles which do so hold as in their Testament they prescribed Ambrose lib. 1. de Poenit. c. 6. denyeth expresly that they succéed in Peters inheritance which kéepe not the faith of Peter But the Popes of lats time are departed from the faith of Peter and Eleutherius as before we haue shewed Finally it is an absurd thing to suppose idolaters heretikes coniurers sacrilegious Church-robbers whoremongers gluttons and carnall worldlings that rayse warres trouble Christendome vexe the professors of S. Peters doctrine and sow rather gunpowder then Gods word to be the Apostle Peters or Eleutherius his successors Hierome as the aduersaries report dist 40. c. non est facile holdeth them not for Saints which possesse the place of Saints but those which do their works The same man vpon the second of Michaeas Apostolicus sayth he sermonem conuersationem Apostolorū imitetur Ionas Aurelianensis lib. 3. de Cult imag holdeth none for Apostolike but which do the worke of Apostles Iohn of Salesbury Polycrat lib. 8. c. 23. sayth that such as ambitiously and not without effusion of bloud mount into the Popes chaire do rather succeed Romulus in parricide then Peter in gouerning of the flock committed to them The Popes therefore of late time neither succéed Peter nor Eleutherius nor the ancient Bishops of Rome But if they succéed any they succéed Pope Ioane Their spirituall fornications and idolatries their golden cup wherein they propound their abhominable doctrine to the world their whorish deceits and frauds their whorish forhead and impudencie their bloudie massacres and crueltie declare them properly to succéed her and to be of néere affinity to the whore of Babylon Apocalyp 17. This history Rob. Parsons Part. 2. Chap. 5. goeth about by all the force he hath to discredit But he striueth in vaine against a story recorded by men not set on by