The subuersion of Robert Parsons his confused and worthlesse worke, entituled, A treatise of three conuersions of England from paganisme to Christian religion Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. 1606 Approx. 355 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 93 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2003-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A13174 STC 23469 ESTC S120773 99855967 99855967 21479 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A13174) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 21479) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1259:2) The subuersion of Robert Parsons his confused and worthlesse worke, entituled, A treatise of three conuersions of England from paganisme to Christian religion Sutcliffe, Matthew, 1550?-1629. [16], 48, 57-144, [4] p. Printed [by Richard Field] for Iohn Norton, London : 1606. Dedication signed: Matthew Sutcliffe. Printer's name from STC. Running title reads: The subuersion of Rob. Parsons his fancie of three conuersions. With a final contents leaf; the last leaf is blank. Reproduction of the original in the British Library. Title page mutilated; lacks pages 91-92. Pages 80-105 from Union Theological Seminary (New York, N.Y.). Library copy spliced at end. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610. -- Treatise of three conversions of England from paganisme to Christian religion -- Early works to 1800. Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800. 2000-00 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2001-08 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2001-10 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2001-11 Apex CoVantage Rekeyed and resubmitted 2002-02 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2002-04 Apex CoVantage Rekeyed and resubmitted 2002-05 TCP Staff (Michigan) Sampled and proofread 2002-05 Allison Liefer Text and markup reviewed and edited 2002-06 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 religiō 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 vpō 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 frō 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 ti●●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 a 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 , concerning Christs office , and humane nature , concerning the Church and Sacraments , concerning the ministery and policy of the Church , nay cōcerning the Law and the Gospell , is altogether different from that faith which the first Christians of this Iland professed . And were not the difference so great as we find it , yet what needed this babling fellow to search antiquitie for proofe of his three imagined conuersions of the ancient inhabitants of our countrey to Christian religion ? Let him shew , that the doctrine of popery which we refuse , is Christian religion , and that it was first taught by Saint Peter in Britany , or otherwhere , and that will suffice without more adoe . But herein the poore fellow faileth most grossely . Nay where he needed not , blindly he plungeth himselfe into diuers difficulties , offering to prooue , that the ancient inhabitants of this land were conuerted vnto Christian religion by S. Peter , Eleutherius , and the Monke Austin : matters farre beyond the reach of his abilitie , and impertinent . For neither doth he prooue , that the Britaine 's were thrise by them conuerted , nor would it aduantage his cause being prooued , seeing the decretaline and wicked doctrine of Popes , which all true Christians refuse , is of a late and different note from that faith , which those three taught and professed , and which was of ancient time planted in this Iland . The which , that it may euidently appeare , I haue for thy better satisfaction thought good to examine this whole treatise of three Conuersions , in volume big , in value small , in discourse idle , in proofes weake and simple , and altogether vnworthy any long answere , were it not that some men suppose , that he hath sayd somewhat , where God wot his whole treatise is nothing but vaine talking , and tedious discoursing to no purpose . Eadem atque eadem saepe dicit sayth Augustine epist. 86. of such an idle writer , aliud non inueniendo quod dicat , nisi quod inaniter , & ad rem non pertinens dicit . But with better reason may this be sayd of this pratling Iebusite , which repeating the same things often , yet findeth nothing to serue his purpose , but that which ouerthroweth the purpose of the author . In his Epistle Dedicatory he giueth the title of Catholikes to English Masse-priests and their consorts . But that is the point in question . He calleth them also the worthy children of the first professors of the Christian faith in this land . But the testimonie of a bastard shall neuer make bastard professors true Christians . Further it is not like , but his prouision will faile him before the end of his iourney , that beginneth so impudently to beg at his first setting forth , and so presumptuously to take for granted matters in controuersie . Finally , vnder the name of the Christian catholike faith , he goeth about to commend the corruptions and trash of the Romish church , as the Macedonian heretikes did their hereticall poyson . Venenum melle illitum , nempe catholico nomine superinducto propinabatur sayth Athanasius ad Serap . He sheweth reasons of his dedication , but all false . For neither shall he euer prooue , that Papists professe the Christian catholike faith first planted in England , nor deriue their pedegree from the first Christian Britains , or Saxons . His best reason is either forgotten or ouerslipped , viz. that such patcheries are most properly due to such patrons . Against true Christians he inueigheth with open mouth , as if they were heretikes , and intruders on the right of the catholike church . But that is a common practise of men of his sort , to fall to rayling and lying , when by truth they cannot stand . Hierome in his 2. apology against Russine , speaking of Heretikes , conuicti de perfidia sayth he ad maledicta se conferunt . And Constantine a directing his words to heretikes , chargeth them with vaine lyes . Cognoscite sayth he , quibus mendacijs vestrae doctrinae inanit as implicata teneatur . In fauour of the Papists he braggeth , that he hath produced the sentences and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world , to wit , the determination of all the highest ecctesiasticall tribunals . But if by Parliaments he meane generall Councels , he abuseth his clients , and all the world . For it were great simplicitie , if vpon his word they should suppose , either that Popery is authorized by ancient generall Councels , or that the late conuenticles of Laterane , Constance , Florence and Trent ordered by the Popes directiō were lawfull Coūcels . He doth also erre grossely , if he affirme it . Finally he contradicteth his owne holy fathers pleasure , if he affirme the Councell to be aboue the Pope , and the highest tribunall on earth . The words of the Apostle , Philip. 1. he applieth to such Papists as haue bene of late time called in question for treason and felony , as if they did not only beleeue in Christ , but also suffer for him . Whereof the second is euidently false , as publike records testifie ; the first is doubtfull , seeing heretikes cannot be counted true beleeuers . Likewise he abuseth other scriptures 1. Cor. 11. 1. Thess. 1. and Isa. 1. like the Valentinians , endeuouring to wrest the sacred word of God to his owne fancies , and fabulous discourses . Aptare volunt sayth Irenaeus lib. 1. aduers. haeres . ca. 1. fabulis suis eloquia Dei. Saint Paule 1. Cor. 11. and 1. Thess. 1. speaketh of true Christians , that followed Christ Iesus , and his Apostles : this Iebusite talketh of such , as follow Antichrist , and hearken to the Ieud perswasions of the false Apostles of Satan . That which the Prophet Isay , chap. 1. speaketh of purging the Church of God , the same he applieth to the rusty followers of Antichrist , whom he seeketh to continue in their disorders , and errors . Neither could he conceale the stirres that haue bene in England betweene the secular priests , and the Iebusites , although good it were for him , that they were neuer remembred , he being conuinced by the testimonie of his owne followers in diuers discourses written of this argument , to be a Machiauelian , 2 traytor , and a diuell . Here also he applieth the words meant of our Sauiour , Matth. 8. to Antichrist the destroyer , as if he rising vp could cōmand winds & seas , and cause calmes ; who indeede rather causeth stormes , then calmes ; warres , then peace ; and is the firebrand of troubles throughout all Christendome . Further he entitleth him Christes substitute . But his outragious persecutions of Gods saints , shew him to be Christes aduersary , rather then substitute . Commission or act of substitution he sheweth none . But of the other we find diuers argumēts Dan. 8. and 11. 2. Thess. 2. Apocalyp . 13. and 17. which in my bookes de pontif . Rom. are at large declared . In an addition to his epistle he triumpheth ouer Queene Elizabeth of pious memory , and raileth at her , as a persecutor , whose clemencie her greatest enemies cannot chuse but acknowledge : and he among the rest , if he were not vngratefull . But herein the heathen Philosophers do accuse him . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , sayth Homer odyss . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And another , de mortuis nil nisi bonum . Herein therefore the prouerbe is verified , that Hares insult ouer dead Lyons . If he had not bene a renegate Christian , and fugitiue traytor , he would neuer haue compared her to Iulian the apostate , or to Dioclesian that persecuting tyrant . Neither if he had bene wise , would he haue mentioned these two examples , himselfe in apostacie being like the one , and the Pope in crueltie and pride farre surpassing the other . From railing he falleth into a veine of flattering the King , whom he cōpareth vnto Constantine . And yet not many yeares since , in his most trayterous booke of titles he sought to depriue this Constantine of the crowne of England , and to conuey the same to the Infanta of Spaine , who now condemneth the glosing companions flattery . And very lately the gunpowder Papists by his direction attempted to destroy him , and his whole house . Thus with the time this Iebusite can change his note , singing that only which maketh for his profit . Modo palliatus , modo togatus . Now he playeth Dolman , now N. D. But as Ambrose sayth writing against Auxentius , vnum portentum est , duo nomina , that is , one monster , two titles . Yet such is the folly of this parasite , that thinking to praise the King , he doth greatly dishonor him , comparing his royall Maiesty to diuers not yet conuerted to Christianitie , and implying , that the King is no Christian. He talketh of the Kings preseruation ; yet may we probably suppose , that he had a finger both in Percies treason discouered in Nouember last , and in Clerks and Watsons practise executed at Winchester not long since , for intending the destructiō of the kings Maiesty , and the subuersion of the realme , as appeareth by a publike edict against them . In commending the Kings booke , he condemneth his religion : as if any could be more dishonored , then by imputation of want of religion . Againe he contradicteth himselfe , cōmending the king for feruent and extraordinary affection of piety towards God , and godlinesse : and yet presently after taxeth him as being addicted to vanity , and inanity of sects and heresies , where no ground , no head , no certaine principle , no sure rule or methode to try the truth can be found . Which his vaine and idle sconce shall neuer either iustly impute to that religion , which his Maiesty professeth , or cleanly auoyd in that sect , which he followeth , being a pack of impieties , blasphemies , heresies , nouelties , vncerteinties , contradictions , absurdities and fooleries . The first we verifie by diuers treatises written in defence of our religion , wherein we declare , that the same is not only built vpon the immoueable rocke Christ Iesus , the writings of the Prophets and Apostles bearing witnesse vnto it , and full of sincere wisedome ; but also approoued by Councels , Fathers , consent of nations , miracles , yea and by the bishops of Rome for many ages . The second is euidēt by the schoole doctrine of the Masse , of the Sacraments , of the Pope , of Purgatory , Indulgences , works of supererogation , and such like . For what more impious , then to say , that Christes body may be really eaten of dogs or hogs eating the Eucharist ? What more blasphemous , then to giue Gods honor to stocks , stones , and to Antichrist ? What more hereticall then to destroy Christes humane nature , and office , and to worship Angels , Saints and Images ? What more new then the doctrine of Constance , Florence , Trent , concerning the massing sacrifice , the communion vnder one kind , the subsisting of accidents without substance , indulgences and such like ? What more vncertaine , then popish religion , that dependeth vpon the Popes determination , a man oftentimes blind , vnlearned , and variable ? What more contradictory then that Christes body should be both visible and inuisible , aboue and below , dead and aliue at one time ? What more absurd then to limite the catholike church within the diocese of Rome , or to say with the Donatists , that it is perished out of the whole world , saue in one corner of the Romish church ? Finally what more foolish , then the apish toyes of Masse-priests at the altar , of massing Bishops in consecrating Churches , and such like superstitious ceremonies ? In his Preface he endeuoreth to prooue , that man is mutable , by his owne example , that hath so often altered his intention in his treatise of three Conuersions . But that is little for his credit , or the credit of his cause . For what if he turne like a weather-cocke , and renounce religion ? would he haue all his countreymen to prooue apostates like himselfe ? Truth also is constant , and alwayes like it selfe . But falsehood varieth , and false teachers differ in the defence of falsehood . Noua ipsa rursum innouata emendatione scindis , emendata autem iterum emendando condemnas , sayth Hilary to Constantius . The like we may say to this motley and changeable Iebusite , who being vncertaine in his resolution , and leauing matters formerly purposed , brought forth matters neuer designed , for a calfe presenting his readers with a hedgehog . Afterward he exhorteth men by the example of S. Augustine to the search of Catholike Religion , & condemneth the sluggishnes of them , that are carelesse in this behalfe . But his words are contrary to the Romish practise , that forbiddeth the reading of Scriptures in vulgar tongues without licence , and maketh it mortall sinne for a lay man to dispute of religion . Much , certes , it were to be wished , that men would do as he sayth , for then should Christians easily espy the iugling of Papists , and see , that popery is not Catholike , as it differeth from the faith professed in the church of England . Dagon cannot stand before Gods Arke , nor darkenes continue , when light appeareth . To preuent perillous courses , and to giue light , where certeinty of religion lyeth , he sayth he hath framed his treatise of Three Conuersions . But alas , the poore ideot is so farre from prouing the certeinty of his religion , as the East is from the West . For what assurance can he haue of religion , who doth beleeue neither Propheticall , nor Apostolical writings , nor other article of faith without the Popes resolution , and for his proofes alledgeth Simeon Metaphrastes , Surius , Baronius , and other fabulous writers , and vaine and vncertaine traditions , of which he hath no certeinty ? Againe his pamphlet of Three Conuersions doth principally handle matter of history , and not matter of faith or doctrine . Lastly , he doth rather seeke to draw men into danger both of soule and body , by seeking to bring Gods people back to the thraldome of Babylon , then to keepe them from any danger . Neither doth he handle in his treatise any point here by him promised . In this preface , I confesse , he compareth the Church to a mansion house , and seuerall points of doctrine to parcels of land belonging to the same , promising that he will make proofe , that the right of the Church belongeth to the Romanists , as true owners of the mansion house built in the clouds by Parsons , and that we are but vagrant and contemptible persons . But first there is great difference betweene the Church , and a mansion house : the Church being a mysticall body , and being scattered here and there , and not being appropriated to any family , city , or nation : and a mansion house being a 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 no. IN this controuersie betwixt our aduersaries and vs , about the first conuersion of the ancient Britains and Saxons to Christian religion , thrée points are principally to be considered , & resolued . First , whether the Britains were first conuerted to the faith by S. Peter , and by Eleutherius , and the Saxons by Austin the Monke . Secondly whether these thrée , or any one of them taught that faith , which now the Pope and his adherents professe , and we refuse . And thirdly what the moderne Church of Rome can challenge of vs , by any fauour done to our auncestors by them . Robert Parsons boldly affirmeth , that the ancient Britains were conuerted to the faith first of all by S. Peter , and next by Eleutherius a Bishop of Rome . And thirdly that Austin , sent by Gregory the first , did first preach the faith to the Saxons . But the first cōuersion supposed to be wrought by Peter we deny . Of the second we haue cause to doubt . Of the third our aduersaries haue no cause to boast . He impudently auoucheth , that these thrée taught the same doctrine , which the church of Rome now holdeth , and which we refuse . We wonder at his impudency , and laugh at his folly , that attempteth to prooue any such matter . Thirdly vpon these supposed conuersions he concludeth , that England and Englishmen haue particular obligation to a the church of Rome aboue other nations . He would haue said , if he durst for shame , that therefore we are to be subiect to the Romish church , and to receiue her doctrine & trash , I would say , traditions . We say , that we owe nothing but hatred to the Popes , and later church of Rome , hauing receiued nothing from thence , but wrongs , and disgraces , and losse . If any thing we owe , it is to those , which tooke paines to preach the true faith among vs , and not to the Romanists and their agents , that now go about to turne vs from the faith , and to destroy his Maiesty , and our countrey by treason . That S. Peter neuer preached the Gospell in Britaine these reasons are sufficient to perswade vs. First , it is apparent Galat. 2. that the preaching of the Gospell to the vncircumcised was committed vnto Paul , and the preaching of the same to the circumcised , to Peter . The direction also of the first epistle of S. Peter sent to the Iewes dispersed throughout Pontus , Galatia , Asia and Bithynia doth prooue it true . How then is it likely , that S. Peter leauing the circumcision committed to his charge , should preach to the vncircumcision committed to others charge ? Or how could he , that preached to them in Asia spare so much time , as to make a iourney to preach to them in Britaine ? Againe can any man thinke , if he had preached to the Britains at the time of the writing of the first and second epistle , that he would not as well haue mentioned them , as the Easterne nations ? That the second epistle was written to the same persons to whom he had directed y e first , it appeareth by these words 2. Pet. 2. This second epistle I write to you . Baronius also confesseth , that he wrote this epistle a litle before his death . It cannot therfore be surmised , that he preached to the Britains after the writing of this epistle , nor that he would neglect them more then others , if at any time he had preached to them . Secondly if Peter preached the Gospell in Britaine , either he preached in Claudius the Emperour his dayes , or vnder the reigne of Nero. And so some of our aduersaryes say he preached vnder the reigne of Claudius , as Baronius , some vnder the reigne of Nero , as Eisengrenius in his Cēturics . But Eusebius in Chronico sayth , that after his comming to Rome he preached the Gospell there , and cōtinued Bishop 25. yeares . vbi Euangelium praedicans sayth he , 25. annis eiusdem vrbis Episcopus perseuerat . Baronius anno Christi 58. relateth , how Peter , being expulsed out of Rome by Claudius , preached to the Westerne nations . But Onuphrius in annotat . ad vit am Petri sayth , that being expulsed by Claudius out of Rome , he went not westward , but eastward , and returned first to Hierusalem , where he was present at the Councell at Hierusalem , and afterward sate 7. yeares Bishop of Antioch . Ibidem , sayth he , 7. annis vsque ad Claudij obitum , & Neronis imperium permansit . The report also of his 25. yeares continuance in Rome is imprebable . For if he were martyred , as some say the 13. as others the 14. yeare of Nero , then could he not be Bishop there 25. yeares , Paule being conuerted to Christ some yeare or more after Christes passion , and afterward abiding in Arabia three yeares , and 14. yeares after finding Peter at Hierusalem , as may be gathered out of the words of the Apostle Galat. 2. It is not likely also , that he could suddenly go frō Hierusalem to Rome , being sent to preach to all natiōs . The best witnesse of Peters being Bishop of Rome 25. yeares is Eusebius his Chronicle : but he testifieth also , that he sate 25. yeares at Antioch , which is a plaine contradiction to all stories of that matter . Thirdly , Peter preached in no place , but he there ordeined Bishops and teachers , and founded Churches . But in Britaine we do not reade , that either he ordeined Bishops , or founded Churches , or left any memoriall of his being there . Fourthly , the tradition of the church , which is a part of the word of God , as the Papists beleeue , ascribeth the first conuersion of Britaine to Ioseph of Arimathaea and his fellowes . Capgraue in his legend of Ioseph affirmeth , that they preached the word of God in Britaine with great confidence , and this , he sayth , they did the 63. yeare from Christs incarnation . Anno , sayth he , ab incarnatione domini 63. fidem Christi fiducialiter praedicabāt . Which disprooueth Caesar Baronius his tradition of Peters first preaching in Britaine anno Domini 58. Fiftly no one English Chronicle doth so much as once mention the comming of Peter into Britaine . Is it then probable , that Simeon Metaphrastes the writer of the Greeke legend , liuing in Greece , or Caesar Baronius the calculator of Romish traditions and legends , singing Masses at Rome , should better know what was done in Britaine , then the ancient Chroniclers of the Britaine nation ? Sixthly of ancient writers of Ecclesiasticall histories no one sayth , that Peter the Apostle first preached to the Britains . Neither doth any ancient father of the church mention any such matter , but rather ascribe that labour either to Paule , as doth Theodoret in commentar . in epist. ad Timoth. & lib. 9. de curandis Graec. affect . and Sophronius in serm . de natiu . Dom. and Venantius Fortunatus : or to Simon Zelotes , as Nicephorus lib. 2. cap. 40. and Dorotheus in Synopsi : or to Aristobolus , as doth the same Dorotheus , and some late writers . But if Peter had first founded the Church of Britaine , it is not likely , that all authors would either haue concealed so glorious an action , or else haue attributed the same to others . Finally the aduersaries themselues for the most part confesse , that Ioseph of Arimathaea did 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 , a 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 , 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 . a 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 Meduinus , that were sent to baptize Lucius were Britains . Thirdly , the sound of the names of those which were sent to Lucius , doth rather declare them to be Britains then Romaines . For whether we call them Eluanus and Meduinus , or Phaganus and Deruianus , or Faganus and Duuanus ; they will hardly be drawne to sound like Latine . Finally Capgraue in Iosepho , Malmesburiensis in hist. Glaston . and Caius in his booke of the antiquitie of Cambridge do declare , that Christianitie once planted by Ioseph was alwaies continued in the land by those , which succeeded him . What then néeded the Britains to runne to Rome to fetch a commission to baptize the king , vnlesse it were to winne a litle glorie by the reputation , which the Romains then had in the world ? Againe , albeit we should grant , that they were Romains that baptized king Lucius ; yet what glorie can hereof redound either to Eleutherius , or to the Romains ? For Eleutherius neither preached to the Britains , nor once mooued a foote from Rome . Neither could those Romaines that are said to be sent into Brittaine , speake the language of Britains , or teach them Christianitie . Nor is it so great a matter to baptize king Lucius , who , if euer there were any such , was like to the Caciques of the Indians , or the petty kings of Ireland . To conclude this point , this fable seemeth to be deuised by some fauourers of the Church of Rome , that indeuour to draw all nations to like that sea , as the fountaine of many fauors : and yet it is neither probably related , nor maketh any thing to the purpose , for which it was first forged , and afterwards by diuers related and enlarged . Let vs then sée what Rob. Parsons is able to make of this matter . First he saith , that these two conuersions vnder two famous Popes of Rome , ( viz. Eleutherius and Gregorie ) are acknowledged and registred by the whole Christian world . But what is this to the purpose , if it were true , séeing neither of them did much cooperate in the conuersion of the Britains and Saxons ? And being false , who doth not sée , that the notorious impudencie of this Iebusite deserueth to be censured of all the Christian world ? Caius for his principall proofe of the baptisme of king Lucius alleageth letters patent of king Arthur . Beda saith onely , that Lucius was christened per mandatum Eleutherij , that is , by the commandement of Eleutherius . The rest that go further are writers of legends , and contemptible fellowes speaking all vntruth to win the Popes fauour . Of Gregorie and Austin the Monke we shall speake , when their turne cometh . Furthermore , albeit Gregorie and Eleutherius were Bishops , and famous men in the Church for their painfull labours , and constancie in teaching the truth : what is that to the Popes of our time , that are rather Wolues , then shepheards , loyterers than labourers : infamous persecutors of Christians , then conuerters of Pagans to the Christian faith , maintainers of errors then teachers of truth ? Parsons calleth them successors to Eleutherius and Gregorie : but neuer shall he shew , that these two called themselues Vniuersal bishops , or Heads of the church , or took vpon them to depose kings , or to giue away kingdomes , or to ride vpon mens shoulders , or to giue their féete to be kissed . Is he not then ashamed to compare such monsters to such holy men , and to ascribe the prayse of good Bishops to those , that are no Bishops , nor good men ? 2. Further he sheweth , how matters passed in this conuersion , which he supposeth , and how Lucius hearing of the horrible persecutions of Christians in Rome , and how two worthy Senators called Pertinax and Tretellius , had bene lately conuerted from paganisme to Christ , and that Marcus Aurelius then liuing , began to be a friend to Christians , as the Emperors Legate in England told him , &c. sent men to Rome to demand preachers of Eleutherius the Pope , who directed to him two Romaines named Fugatius and Damianus . And the cause hereof he assigneth to be , for that he vnderstood the chiefe fountaine of religion to be at Rome , and was not contented with instructions by Christians at home . But in this and the rest of his narration of Lucius he telleth many grosse lies learned by him of his father Lucifer , the father of pride , & lies . For first , it is not like , that this was the occasion of Lucius his ambassade to Rome , considering that in the latter end of Marcus Aurelius and beginning of Commodus his Empire , we do not reade of any such horrible persecutions against Christians , as he reporteth . Secondly , this sending to Rome , which Parsons imagineth to haue fallen out in the raigne of Marcus Aurelius , Baronius referreth to the second yeare of Commodus . Thirdly , the conuersion of two Senators Pertinax and Trebellius , by Parsons called Tretellius , is not reported by any authenticall Writer . Fourthly , if Lucius were enemie to the Romaines , as Parsons sayth , it is not likely , that an Ambassador did reside with him , or that he had any commerce with the Romaines . Fiftly , he sent to Rome , not to demand Preachers , but baptisme , as Galfridus , Beda and Damasus testifie . Sixtly , neuer can it be shewed , that Lucius beléeued Rome to be the fountaine of religion . For it séemeth rather to be worldly respect , then respect of religion , that moued him to send to Rome . Finally , I haue before shewed , that those which were sent to Lucius were Britains , and not Romans : neither doth any authenticall Writer affirme the contrarie . 3. For proofe of his grosse leasings he saith , that this conuersion vnder king Lucius is testified in auncient bookes of the liues of Romaine bishops , attributed by some to Damasus , by ecclesiasticall tables and martyrologies , by Bede , by Ado Archbishop of Treuers , by Marianus Scotus , and all Authors since . But all this testification amounteth to nothing , but onely to make proofe of Parsons his notorious ignorance and impudencie . For first the aduersaries themselues giue no credite to those notes , that passe vnder the name of Damasus . Secondly , nothing is more ridiculous , then to alledge lying legends , and moth-eaten martyrologies for authenticall proofes . Thirdly , neither doth Bede nor Damasus , nor Ado speake one word of the conuersion of Britaine , nor say , that Lucius was christened by any Romaine . Fourthly , Ado was not bishop of Treuers , as Parsons ignorantly affirmeth , but of Vienna . Fiftly , Marianus Scotus doth differ in time from others , and yet saith little for Parsons his purpose . Finally , neither all , nor many writers after him do report this storie . 4. To answer our obiections concerning the great differences concerning the time , wherein this conuersion is supposed to be made , and the obseruation of Easter after a fashion diuers from the Church of Rome , he saith first , That there is no small varietie found among principall Writers about principall points and mysteries of our faith , as about the coming of the Magi , the martyrdome of the Infants , the time of Christ his baptisme , yea also of his passion , what yeare and day each of these things happened . But first he sheweth himselfe to be a leud and blasphemous companion , that compareth the historie of Christs passion , and of other high points of our religion , to the fable of the conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius . Wo were we , if we had no better assurance of Christs passion , and other matters of Christian religion , then Parsons hath of his supposed conuersion of Britaine vnder Lucius . Furthermore , it is one thing to varie about the times of things authentically testified in holy Scripture , to haue passed , though the certaine day and time be not expressed , and to varie about the times of things , of which there is no authenticall assurance . Thirdly , there is no materiall controuersie about the time of Christs passion , but it may well be decided out of holy Scriptures . The like we may say of the Infants put to death by Herod , and of the coming of the Magi. But about the time of the supposed conuersion of Britaine by Eleutherius his agents , there are manifest contradictions , insomuch , as not onely the time , but the report it selfe is made very doubtfull . He answereth further , and a saith , that if it were granted , that the Brittaines obserued Easter after the fashion of the East church , and that Simon Zelotes preached the Gospell in England ; yet it proueth not , that the faith of Britanny came not from Rome . As if it were likely , that schollers in such a ceremonie would dissent from their first maisters , or else that Simon Zelotes were either sent from Rome , or did not ayde the Britains in their first conuersion . Finally , he spendeth many idle words in cauilling with the Magdeburgians , and M. Foxe of reuerent memorie . But for asmuch as he neither proueth , nor refelleth any thing materiall , we should wrong ourselues and the reader , if we should follow the gosling wandring vp and downe , that hath lost himselfe in the Labyrinth of his owne fancies and fooleries . CHAP. III. Of Austin the Monke his coming into England , and of his preaching and proceeding here . FOr the sending and preaching of Austin the Monke to the Saxons , our aduersaries haue some better colour of reason , then for the sending of any Romaines by Eleutherius to the Britains . For neither is it denyed , that Gregorie did send , or that Austin came to Ethelbert king of Kent . But what is all this to the purpose ? For neither can the modern Romaines vant of the acts and prowesse of Gregorie or Austin , nor doth any aduantage redound to the moderne synagogue of Rome by their merits , as we shall declare anone . Furthermore neither is Gregorie to be tearmed the Apostle of the inhabitants of this Iland , nor are the Papists to make any great crackes for any thing done either by Gregorie the first , or by his Legate Austin . That Gregorie the first was our Apostle , as in Bede to flatter the Romanists he is called , it cannot be proued . For first he cannot say , as the Apostle did , Galat. 1. Not of man , nor by man. For he was not called immediatly by Christ , as were the Apostles , but was ordained by bishops , and chosen by the Cleargie and people of Rome , as the agents of Rome themselues confesse . Secondly , it was not sayd to him , as to Christs Apostles Matth. 28. Go teach all nations . Nor did he presume to take vpon him that charge . Nay , expresly he condemned the title of Oecumenicall or Vniuersall bishop . But he was onely called and ordained to gouerne the Church of Rome : and happie is he , if he did approue himselfe faithfull in his calling . Thirdly , he had no grace of working miracles , or prophecie , as Christs Apostles had , nor could he speake with tongs , as the Apostles did . Nay , it is apparent , that he was very vnskilfull both in the Gréeke and Hebrew tongues , which notwithstanding Saint Augustine for the vnderstanding of Scriptures accompteth necessarie . Fourthly , he neither preached himselfe , nor sent Austin to preach to the Britains , or to the French , or other nations beside Saxons onely ; of all which notwithstanding the inhabitants of this countrie are descended . Finally , he preached not himselfe to the Saxons , nor séemed to be sent vnto them , but abiding quietly at Rome , sent Austine , and other Italian Monkes to preach vnto them . How then is he tearmed the Apostle of the English , to whom he was neither sent , nor came , nor preached ? That neither he , nor Austin deserue great praise for the conuersion of the Saxons or English , it is proued first , for that Gregorie himselfe did nothing , but send and command others , who notwithstanding were not the first conuerters of the Saxons . For it were absurd to thinke , that the Saxons hauing so many Christian Britains liuing both among them , and neare vnto them , had no notice of Christian religion vntill the coming of Austin . That the Britains liued among the Saxons the practise of conquerors doth shew , who do not kill such as submit themselues , but rule them and command them . So did the Romaines in time past conquering Spaine , and Gallia , and other countries . So did the Normans entring into England . And so did the Saxons also deale with the Britains . Malmesburie lib. 1. de gest . Angl. ca. 2. speaking of the Saxon king Cerdic , testifieth , that the men of the countrie being once ouercome did willingly yeeld to obey him . In eius iura volentes concessêre , saith he , Likewise lib. 1. cap. 3. speaking of Hengists Captaines : Cum Prouincialibus ( saith he ) congressi , profligatisque qui resistendum putauerunt , reliquos in sidem acceptos placidae quietis gratia mulcebant . Now let any reasonable man esteeme , how it is possible , that the pagan Saxons conuersing daily with Christian Britains , and séeing the practise of their Rites and Religion , shold neither be conuerted to Christian Religion , nor haue any notice of it . Further we reade , that Berta Ethelberts wife was a Christian woman , and had with her a Christian Bishop named Luidardus , by whom the king and his people could not chuse but receiue some notice and tincture of Christian Religion . This is plainely related by Beda hist. Angl. lib. 1. cap. 26. Antea ad eum ( saith Beda speaking of Ethelbert ) fama Christianae religionis peruenerat , vipote qui & vxorem habebat Christianam de gente Francorum nomine Bertam , quam ea conditione à parentibus acceperat , vt ritum fidei ac religionis suae , cum Episcopo , quem ei fidei adiutorem dederant , nomine Luidardo inuiolatam seruare , licentiam haberet . Capgraue in the legend of Lethardus containing diuers traditions of the Romish Church speaking of this matter , calleth him Austins precursor , and saith , that he prepared him a way , and an entrance into the country . Praecursor ( saith he ) & ianitor venturi Augustini . And againe : Parauit ei viam , ingressum & locum . Wherefore , as the Britains liuing among the Saxons shewed them a light of Christian religion , so Luidardus and Berta were the first , that prepared the heart of Ethelbert king of Kent , to receiue Christian religion , and not Augustine , whose language he litle vnderstood , and whose person he accepted , no question , for his Quéenes sake , and at the perswasion of Luidardus . Thirdly , although some Saxons were conuerted by Austins meanes , yet most of them were conuerted by others . Laurentius baptized the sonne of Ethelbert , that was a pagan . The king of Northumbers marying Edelburg the daughter of Ethelbert , by her perswasion was christened by Paulinus . Erpwald the king of the Castangles receiued the faith by the perswasion of king Edwine . Osric and Eanfrid kings of the Deirans and Bernicians were baptized in Scotland . Many Northerne Saxons were also conuerted to religion by the meanes of king Oswald and Finan a Scot. Birinus ordained by Asterius bishop of Genua conuerted the West-Saxons . Sigbert was baptized in France , and raigning in Essex caused many to embrace Christian religion . Peda king of Middleangles was baptized also by Finan a Scot. Vlfride consecrated bishop by Ailbert bishop of Paris conuerted to Christ the Southsaxons . And all this is testified by Henry of Huntington . With him also agrée for the most part Beda , William of Malmesburie and diuers other Chroniclers . It is therefore euident , that Austin performed either litle or nothing , those conuersions of Saxon nations being wrought by others after his death . Fourthly , it is most apparent , that neither the French nor Britains , of which the inhabitants of this land consist as much as of Saxons , were conuerted by Austin . Not the French , for that Austin was not sent vnto them , and for that they had receiued Christianitie long before . Not the Britains , for that Austin was sent to Saxons , and not to Britains . Secondly , the Britains were Christians long before Austins coming into England , neither did Christianitie after their first conuersion euer faile amongst them , as is euident by the testimonie of Bede , Capgraue and others . Not long before the arriuall of Augustine many Britains about the time of Caster being newly baptized , went out with the rest , vnder the conduct of Germanus , to fight against the Picts and Saxons , and obtained a great victorie , as we may reade in Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap 20. Likewise in the Councell assembled by Austin , and mentioned by Beda lib. 2. hist. Angl. cap. 2. there appeared diuers Bishops of the British nation . Thirdly , the Britains , as Beda writeth , refused to subiect themselues to Austins iurisdiction , and to accept his orders . Finally , it appeareth , that Austin did rather worke the subuersion , then the conuersion of the Britains , animating the Saxons to destroy them . Fiftly , Austin shewed extreame cowardire in coming towards England , and hardly was perswaded to set forward , as we may reade in Bede , lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. Coming also into Kent he was not able to speake one word of English , nor to preach , vnlesse it were by his interpreter . Lastly , he was ordained Archbishop of England by Eltherius bishop of Arles , at the commandement of Gregorie . But first such feare or cowardice beséemeth no Apostolike man. Secondly , faith cometh by hearing , and vnderstanding , and not by commission or outward signes . It séemeth therefore , that Austins Interpreters did rather conuert the Saxons , then Austin himselfe . Finally , what power had either the bishop of Arles , or Gregorie to appoint Archbishops in England ? And how cometh it to passe , that now more Archbishops are here then one , if his order had any force ? That these exceptions are true , Beda will witnesse . Percussi timore inerti ( saith he ) lib. 1. hist. Angl. cap. 23. redire domum potiùs , quàm barbaram , feram , incredulamque gentem , cuius ne linguam quidem nossent , adire cogitabant . Et hoc esse tutius communi consilio decernebant . And againe , cap. 26. Acceperunt praecipiente Papa Gregorio de Francorum gente interpretes . And afterward cap. 28. Augustinus venit Arelas & ab Archiepiscopo eiusdem ciuitatis , iuxta quod iussa sancti Patris Gregorij acceperant , Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est . Whatsoeuer then was done by Austin , the same concerned none , but a few Saxons of Kent , and such as were baptized by him . Neither did he deserue more , then is due to euery minister of Gods word and Sacraments , that by preaching and baptizing gaineth soules vnto Christ Iesus . The Normans , and Northern , and West . Saxons are nothing beholding to him . The Britains haue cause to detest his memorie , and to thinke hardly of him for his pride , and barbarous crueltie . If therefore Rob. Parsons meane to gaine any thing by the labours of Gregorie or Austin , he must proue first , that these two did preach to the auncient Saxons , Britains , French and other inhabitants of England . Next , that the present Pope is like vnto Gregorie : the malignant race of Masse-priests and Iebusites to Austin . Thirdly , that all Churches erected by Preachers sent from other nations , are to subiect themselues to the Churches and Bishops that sent them . And finally , if he will haue vs to kéepe vnitie with the moderne Church of Rome , he must proue , that the same is neither departed from Christ , nor from the doctrine of Austin and Gregorie . If not , he doth but cast feathers against the wind , and both tire himselfe with writing , and vexe his reader with examining his fooleries , and idle imaginations . CHAP. IIII. That the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome , which the Church of England reiecteth , was either oppugned by Peter , Eleutherius , Gregorie and Austin , or at the least vnknowne vnto them . BUt what would it aduantage Rob. Parsons , if he could proue , that either the auncient Britains were conuerted to the faith by S. Peter , and Eleutherius , or the ancient Saxons by Gregorie and Austin , séeing the moderne doctrine of the Church of Rome , which is now reiected , was either oppugned by them , or at the least neuer knowne vnto them ? Now the Romanists prohibite holy Scriptures to be read publikely in vulgar tongues , as dark and vnprofitable , and condemne those that reade them translated into vulgar tongues without licence . But the Apostle S. Peter , 1. Epist. 2. exhorteth all Christians though newly regenerate , to desire the sincere milke of the word . And 2. Epist. 1. sheweth , That they do well , that take heede to the words of the Prophets , as to a light shining in a darke place . Neither néed we doubt , but that all Peters true successors maintaine the same doctrine . Gregorie in Ezechiel . homil . 10. doth commend Scriptures , as meate and drinke and lib. 2. Moral . as a glasse . It is not likely therefore , that he would prohibite Christians to eate and drinke , and to behold themselues in a glasse , that thereby they may learne to informe themselues in matters of faith , and to reforme their manners . 2. Now they teach , that the holy Scriptures to vs are not authenticall , nor canonicall , vnlesse the Pope deliuer them , and consigne them . And this is the meaning of Bellarmine li. de notis Eccles. cap. 2. where he saith , that the Scriptures do depend vpon the Church ; and of Stapleton in his booke written in defence of the authoritie of the Church . But S. Peter 2. Epist. 1. saith , that the word of the Prophets is most sure vnto vs. We haue ( saith he ) a most sure word of the Prophets . And Gregorie in his preface vnto his Commentaries vpon Iob , saith , that in vaine we search for the writers of Scriptures , when we faithfully beleeue , that the holy Ghost was the author of the booke . Quis haec scripserit ( saith he ) valdè superuacuè quaeritur , cùm tamen author libri Spiritus Sanctus fideliter credatur . Which is as much , as if he should say : that the authoritie of Scriptures , in regard of vs , proceedeth not from the writer , much lesse from the teacher or propounder , but from the holy Ghost . 3. Now the Romanists teach , that the books of the Machabees and such like are canonicall Scriptures , and equall to other books of the old Testament . But S. Peter 2. Ep. 1. where by the word of y e Prophets he vnderstandeth y e Scriptures , excludeth from the ranke of Scriptures of y e old Testament , al books not written by Prophets , of which sort are the books of the Machabees , being written long after the times of Malachy the last of the Prophets . Gregor . lib. 19. moral . c. 17. doth say plainly , that y e books of the Machabees are not canonical . 4. Now they affirme , that the Pope is the foundation & head of the Church . But the Apostle Paul sheweth vs , that Christ is the head of the Church , and that the same is built vpon the Apostles and Prophets , Christ being the chiete corner stone : and we may not thinke , that the Apostle Peter taught any other doctrine . Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 82. naming Peter and other Apostles saith , they were not heads , but members of the Church . Sub vno capite ( saith he ) omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae . Neither is it credible , that Eleutherius , or Austin taught any other doctrine . 5. When Cornelius , as we reade Act. 10. did fall at Peters feet , and adored him , Peter would not suffer it . And Gregory and Eleutherius were far from admitting men to kisse their slippers . But now the Romanists giue the bastonata to those that wil not worship the Pope , and ordinarily the Pope requireth adoration , and suffereth great Princes to kisse his feete . Of late some are said to haue disputed , that Latria is due to the Pope . 6. Now also the bishops of Rome haue giuen ouer preaching and feeding the flocke . But the Apostle Peter exhorteth all Bishops , and Elders to feed the flocke , that dependeth on them . And Greg. in pastor . p. 2. saith , That all bishops take on them the office of a Preacher or Cryer . Praeconis officium suscipit ( saith he ) quisquis ad sacerdotium accedit . 7. Now the Popes carry themselues , as Lords ouer their flocke , and entitle themselues Oecumenicall , or Vniuersall bishops . But Peter 1. Epi. 5. forbiddeth Elders to beare themselues , as Lords ouer Gods heritage And Greg. lib. 4. Epist. 78. & 80. condemneth this title of Uniuersall and Oecumenicall bishop , as proud and Antichristian . 8. Now they that take vpon them to curse kings , and to raise rebellion against them , and to thrust them out of their royall seates , as appeareth by the wicked Buls of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. of England , of Pius the 5. & Sixtus the 5. against Q Elizabeth , and the wicked Decretais of Greg. the 7. against Henry the 4. and of Gregorie the 9. and Innocent the 4. against Friderick the 2. But the Apostle Peter neuer cursed Nero , albeit he was a most cursed fellow , nor went about to depose him . Nay contrariwise , he exhorteth all Christians to submit themselues to kings and gouernors . Likewise Eleutherius & Gregorie were obedient to temporall Princes . Greg. li. 4. ep . 78. calleth the Emperor his most pious Lord , and submitteth himself euen in an Ecclesiastical cause to his order . Pijssimi Domini scripta suscepi , ( saith he ) vt cum fratre & consacerdote meo debeam esse pacificus . 9. Now they teach , that the reprobate & wicked men professing the Romish faith are true members of the Catholike Church , as appeareth by Bellarmines discourse de Ecclesia militante . They include the same also within the precincts of the Romish Church . But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. sheweth , that it consisteth of the elect , according to Gods foreknowledge , dispersed in Pontus , Galatia , and other countries . Gregorie in Cantic . 4. saith , that the holy Church is called hortus conclusus , that is , a garden walled round about , because it is of euery side so enuironed with a wall of charitie , that no reprobate person may come within the number of the elect . Likewise in the 28. book of his Morals , he concludeth all the elect within the measure of the Church . Neither doth it appeare , that either Eleutherius or Austin did teach otherwise . 10. They now teach vs to doubt of our election and saluation . But S. Peter exhorteth vs , 2. Epist. 1. to make our calling and election sure . Which were a most vaine exhortation and request , if no man could assure himself of his saluation . Neither did Eleutherius , or Gregory , or Austin in this dissent from him . 11. They now teach priests to offer for quicke and dead , and Christians to receiue the Sacrament vnder one kind . But Peter kept Christs institution inuiolably , which sheweth , that the Sacrament is to be receiued vnder both the kinds of bread and wine , and not to be offered for quick and dead . Gregory also homil . 22. in Euang. sheweth , that the people receiued both kinds . Quid sit sanguis Agni ( saith he , speaking to the people ) iam non audiendo sed bibendo didicistis ? 12. They make their followers beleeue that Christs naturall bodie is really vnder the formes of bread and wine , although it cannot be felt , nor séene there . But Peter knew that Christ had no other body , but such a one , as might be felt and séene . And Gregorie lib. 14. moral . c. 31. & 32. imputeth this as an heresie to Eutychius , that mens bodies after the resurrection should be impalpable , and inuisible . 13. They giue out , that we may redéeme our sins with siluer and gold , buying and procuring Indulgences , and with our owne satisfactions both in this life and in Purgatorie . But S. Peter 1. Epist. 1. saith expresly , We are not redeemed with siluer and gold , but by the precious bloud of Christ. Gregorie likewise in Psal. 5. Peenit . saith , that our Redeemer is called excelsus , or high , because none , beside God , could redéeme vs out of the hands of our enemies . And lib. Moral . 9-cap . 30. Non valent virtute propria ( saith he ) ab humano genere supplicia sequuturae mortis expleri : that is , No man by his owne power can satisfie for the paines in the world to come . 14. Now in celebration of the holy Eucharist they haue added a number of prayers for quicke and dead , and prayers and confessions to Saints & Angels . But the Apostles , as Gregorie testifieth lib. 7. Epist. 63. did consecrate , saying onely the Lords prayer . And in his time and long after the formes now vsed were not receiued . 15. Neither Saint Peter , nor Eleutherius , nor Gregorie , nor Austin did make the traditions of the Church equall to the word of God written . Nay Gregorie vpon the Canticles , cap. 2. saith , that in Christ alone we find wholesome meate . But if in Christ 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 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 like the moderne Masse , or that he worshipped the crosse or the image , or planted them in the Church . Bede mentioneth no such matter , where he mentioneth them . If by Masse he meane a dimission of the people , and by the vse of images vnderstandeth an historicall vse of them , he reléeueth his cause nothing . For neither do we contend about words , nor deny all historicall vse of images . To help the matter a little he sayth , that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in procession with a crosse , and image of our Sauiour in a banner . But Beda conuinceth him oflying , who sayth a he brought Christes image in a table . Veniebant sayth he , crucem pro vexillo ferentes argenteam , & imaginem Domini Saluatoris in tabula depictam . For proofe , that Eleutherius held the faith now professed by Clement the 8. he remitteth vs Pa. 8. & 9. to the Magdeburgians , Cent. 2. & cap. 4. de doctr . But his proofe is weake , and witlesse . For first in that place there is no mention made either of Eleutherius , or Clement . Secondly albeit we should graunt , that Eleutherius consented with all those that liued in that age in their erroneous or incommodious spéeches ( which notwithstanding we haue no reason to beléeue ) yet can it not thereby be prooued , that he consented with Clement the 8. or Clement with him . For albeit we reade in Ignatius this phrase Offerre , and Sacrificium immolare , and like phrases in Irenaeus , Cyprian , Tercullian , and Martialis , who mentioneth also Altars ; yet it foloweth not , that the Romish sacrifice of Christs body and bloud for quick and dead , or the moderne Canon of y e Masse , or Transubstantiation , and the rest of the Romish Masses ceremonies were knowne to these ancient Fathers . For all those termes , which the Fathers vsed being taken and meant spiritually , and being vnderstood of spirituall sacrifices , make nothing either against vs , or for our aduersaries Masses , or massing formes . Thirdly , although the Magdeburgians in these times complaine of some declining in Christian doctrine of some men , which Parsons grossely interpreteth and calleth the falling away of Christian doctrine : yet they taxe but few men , and say not , that any agreed in all or most points with the Papists . Fourthly what the Magdeburgians do yéeld , let them yeeld for themselues : we do not in all points take ourselues bound to allow their sayings , nor finde any such inconuenience in these termes , as the Fathers vnderstood them , as the Magdeburgians pretend . Finally , Rob. Parsons must speake of more then one point of consent , or else he will shew himselfe vnwise to parallele Clement the 8. with his triple Crowne to the humble martyr of Christ Eleutherius . This testimony therefore out of the Magdeburgians maketh little for his purpose . But therein he doth properly bewray his owne folly . For he citeth Tertullian lib. de coen . Dom. where he neuer wrote any such booke ; and did not vnderstand the Magdeburgians , who vse these words , Tertullianus de coena loquens in lib. de culiu foeminar . Lastly the words , inclinatio Doctrinae , he translateth the falling away of Christian doctrine : as if euery thing , that did decline , did fall away ; or else , as if doctrine might be sayd properly to fall away , and not rather men to decline from the sinceritie of doctrine . Afterward , Pag. 25. and 26. he telleth vs , how Cyprian epist. 45. glorieth , in that his Church of Carthage in Africa , and all other the Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia , had receiued their first institution of christian faith from Rome , as from their mother , and that he calleth the Roman Church matricem ceterarum omnium . And that Tertullian saith , that the authority of his church came from Rome . And lastly , that Augustine in Psal. contr . partē Donati , had no better way to defend his church of Hippo and others to be truly Catholike , then to say , that they were daughters & childrē of the church of Rome . But first , this maketh nothing for his purpose , which should proue , that y e doctrine of the moderne church of Rome varieth not from the ancient church of Rome . Secondly most grossely doth he either mistake , or belye these Fathers , for neither doth Cyprian epist. 45. say , that his church of Carthage and all churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia , had receiued their first institution fió Rome . Nor doth he once mention Rome , but some ignorant fellow hath added Rome in the margent , where it is plaine he speaketh of the generall Catholike Church . Further he doth not say , that Mauritania & Numidia were vnder Carthage : for they are prouinces entire of themselues , and diuided from Carthage , as Caesar Baronius might haue informed him . All which also is made cleare by y e words of Cyprian lib. 4. epist. 8. Vt Ecclesiae Catholicae matricem & radicem agnoscerent , & tenerent . saith he , Sed quoniam latiùs fusa est nostra prouincia , habet etiam Numidiam & Mauritaniam cohaerentes . Tertullians words are these , Vnde nobis quoque authoritas praestò est statuta . That is , from whence we haue testimony at hand : and not as this beetlehead interpreteth , from whence the authority of our Church came . S. Augustine in Psalmo contr . part . Donati neither saith , that Hippo and other Churches were the daughters of Rome , nor mentioneth Hippo. It appeareth therefore , that Rob. Parsons had ouerwatched himselfe when he wrote these fooleries . Pag. 101. he goeth about to refell our argument , concluding , that there was not in Rome the same faith in the dayes of Eleutherius that is now , because then there was no mention or knowledge either of the vniuersall authority of the bishop of Rome , or of the name or vse of Masses , or of sacrifice propitiatory for quick or dead , or of Transubstantiation , or worship of Images . But first he marreth our argument by adding and detracting . To the bishop of Rome he adioyneth the Church , leaueth out our exception against the doctrine of the Masse , and worship of Images , and putteth downe only the name and vse of masses , and vse of images in churches . But to forbeare to censure him for his iugling , let vs sée , what exception he maketh to our argument . If , saith he , this consequence should be admitted , then would it follow , that the name and doctrine of the blessed Trinity , the two distinct natures and one person in Christ , his two distinct wils , the virginity of our blessed Lady both before and after her childbirth , the proceeding of the Holy Ghost as well from the Sonne , as from the Father , should not be admitted . But the fellow sheweth himselfe not only impudent , but also most blasphemous , to compare such false , wicked , & impious doctrines , as Papists now maintaine , to the principall and highest mysteries of our faith concerning the Trinity , and Christs two natures , and the proceeding of the holy Ghost . For who kneweth not , that these articles are plainly proued out of Scriptures , and declared in Councels , & receiued by most ancient Fathers ? but the doctrine of the sacrifice of the Masse for quick & dead , of the Monarchy and vniuersall authority of the Pope , of Transubstantiation , and popish worship of Images , is not only not to be prooued , but also to be disproued by holy scriptures . The same is also contrary both to decrées of Councels , and authority of Fathers , as hath bene declared in diuers treatises of those seuerall arguments . We only will alledge some few . First then the sacrifice of the masse for quick and dead is repugnant to Christes institution , that ordeined the Eucharist to be distributed & receiued , and not to be offered vp for quick and dead . Next to holy Scriptures , and Fathers , that say that carnall sacrifices are ceased , that y e body of Christ was once only to be offered , that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchisedech , and that the sacrifices of Christians are spirituall and not carnall . Finally if Christes body be not really present , nor the bread & wine transubstantiated into his body and bloud , then the papists themselues must néeds cōfesse , that the Masse is no sacrifice propitiatory for quick & dead . But that is proued by the words of the institution , bread and wine being named , after consecration , by y e testimony of Fathers that expound these words , hoc est corpus meum , figuratiuely , by the analogy betwixt the signes and things signified , which by transubstantiation is quite ouerthrowne , and by diuers other arguments . For the Popes monarchy and vniuersall authority , there is no one word in scripture , nay scriptures shew , that all the Apostles were called , and authorized alike ; and that is also expressely affirmed by Cyprian de simpl . praelat . Furthermore , the Popes agents cannot shew either cōmission or practise for this authority , for more then a thousand yeares after Christ. Gregory , as I haue shewed , condemned the title of vniuersall bishop as Antichristian ; neither can it be shewed , that y e Pope either made lawes , or ordeined bishops , or iudged all causes throughout the whole church , vntil Antichrist of the temple of God had made a denne of theeues . Transubstantiation ouerthroweth the humane nature of Christes body , and supposeth it neither to be visible , nor palpable , repugneth to the words of institution , and common cōsent of Fathers , that declare bread & wine to remain after consecration , taketh away the analogy betwéene the signes and things signified , and bringeth in the heresie of Euty ches . The worship of images is contrary to the law of God , Exod. 20. to y e decrées of Councels , to y e doctrine of Fathers , and abolisheth all true religion . God forbiddeth vs expresly to make either grauē image or likenes , to the intent to worship it , or to bow downe to it . The Councell of Eliberis c. 36. forbiddeth any thing that is worshipped to be painted on walls . The 2. Councel of Nice , though it allow some worship done to images , yet expresly sheweth that Latria or diuine honor is not to be giuē to any image . The Councel of Francfort abrogated the acts of the idolatrous conuenticle of Nice allowing the worship of images . Epiphanius tore downe a vaile , that had an image of Christ , or some Saint painted on it . Gregory , as before I haue shewed , vtterly condemned the worship of Images . Finally Lactātius lib. 2. Instit. diuin . c. 19. saith plainely , There is no religion , where there is an image . Most odious therfore and blasphemous it is to make a comparison betwixt the articles of our Christian faith , and these damnable doctrines contrariant to Religion and truth . Notwithstanding to demonstrate these points of the moderne Romish faith , Parsons promiseth to take two wayes of proofe , the one as he calleth it , negatiue , and the other affirmatiue ; and by them he vanteth , that he will make our folly to appeare to euery indifferent man. But whatsoeuer he is able to performe against vs , against himselfe he bringeth an euident proofe of his owne folly . For what can be supposed more absurd , then to offer to prooue an affirmatiue , by a negatiue , or contraxiwise ? and yet such is Parsons his wisdome , that he offereth vs this abuse . Further he séemeth not very well to vnderstand himselfe , where he talketh of negatiue proofes . For albeit he standeth vpon his denial , and resolueth to put vs to proue , yet he deserueth a garland for his eminent folly , that estéemeth his owne bare and blockish denyall an argument , and is not ashamed to call it negatiue proofe . His meaning is , that we are not able to shew , that either the points aboue mentioned are contrary to the doctrine and practise of the Christian church in Eleutherius his time & after , or that they came into the church afterward . And therefore he indenoureth to cōclude vpon y e words of S. Augustine lib. 4. de bapt . ca. 24. that seeing y e whole church for some time hath receiued the doctrine of y e popes Monarchy , the Romish masse , Transubstantiation , and the worship of Images , the same is deliuered by authority of the Aposties . But first we haue shewed this doctrine to be contrary to the practise and faith of Christes Church . Secondly we are able to shew how euery of these doctrines entred by little and little into the Church , and that long after Eleutherius his time . The Churches of Romes primacy ouer other Churches began to enter by a graunt of Phocas . The popes tyranny by vsurpation of Gregory the 7. The péeces of the Masse when they were added , we may sée in Walafridus Strabo , Platina , Nauclerus and Polydore Virgill . Transubstantiation was first established by Innocent the 3. The worship of Images by the second Councell of Nice got credit . Yet were these doctrines neuer perfited , vntill the late conuenticle of Trent , nor could they euer be receiued of the whole Church . For to this day the Greek Church neither acknowledgeth y e Popes authority , nor beléeueth transubstantiation , or receiueth the Popes masse , or popish purgatory , or his doctrine of Images . Nay the French at this day refuse the decrées of the conuenticle of Trent , and the Emperour protested against y e Synod . Little therefore doth Augustine help , but to confound Parsons his cause , albeit his words are not to be vnderstood of all false doctrines , whose certaine originall and author is not alwayes knowne , but of ceremonies in the administration of sacraments and gouernment of the Church . But sayth Parsons , Pag. 111. although the word Transubstantiation was added by the Councell of Lateran , as these words Consubstantiall , Trinity , and the like in the first Councell of Nice , yet the substance of the article ( viz. concerning transubstantiation ) was held from the beginning . And this he endeuoreth to prooue by the authority of S. Ambrose , lib. 4. 5. & 9. de Sacramentis , and out of these words , Non valebit sermo Christi , vt species mutet elementorum ? And againe , Sermo Christi , qui potuit de nihilo facere , quod non erat , non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare , quod non erat ? But first he sheweth himselfe a shamelesse creature , to compare the mystery of the holy Trinity , and of the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father , both being prooued cléerely by Scriptures , with the article of transubstantiation , that is so repugnāt to Scriptures , faith , authority , and common sence . Secondly he wrongeth the famous Councell of Nice to equall it to the conuenticle of Lateran vnder Innocentius the 3 nay vnder the kingdome of Antichrist , & in the times of darkenes . Thirdly he séemeth little to vnderstand what passed in the Councell of Nice , that supposeth that Councell first to haue established the article of the Trinity . Fourthly he auoucheth an vntruth impudently , where he saith , the article of transubstantiation was held from the beginning . For I haue shewed before , that the Master of Sentences knew it not . And in my books de Missa I haue ouerthrowne transubstantiation by the testimonie of Ambrose . These two sentences which he alledgeth outof Ambrose , make nothing for Parsons . For he will not deny , but that species , or formes remaine , where as Ambrose saith they are changed . Againe , Ambrose will not haue any other change in the elements , then is wrought in our regeneration , or in the iron of the hatchet of one of the sonnes of the Prophets , 4. Reg. 6. or in the vnion of the two natures in Christ , as is euidently seene lib. de ijs qui initiantur . ca. 9. and de Sacrament . lib. 4. ca. 4. This mutation he wil haue to be such , that the things still remaine . Vt sint quae erant , & in aliud commutētur . The same Father lib. 6. de Sacram. ca. 1. saith we receiue bread . Tu , sayth he , quia accipis panem , diuinae eius substantiae in illo participaris elemento . Fiftly he bewrayeth singular ignorāce or negligence , that citeth the ninth booke of Ambrose de Sacramentis , where he wrote but sixe , if those sixe bookes at all were his , and alledgeth these two places , as out of Ambroses booke de Sacramentis , that are not there to be found , but are deriued out of his booke de ijs qui initiantur ca. 9. Finally he grossely belyeth Ambrose , where he sayth , he auerreth the change of natures of elements and of one substance into another , for he doth neither talke of the change of natures , of elements , nor substances . To prooue the article of the Popes supremacy , of the worship of images , and of the sacrifice of Masse to haue bene alwayes beléeued in the Church , he alledgeth neither authority , nor reason , but only saith , a that although we appoint certaine times when these things began , yet we dare not stand to any certaine time , nor can alledge the certaine authors of them . But as in his owne proofes , so in reporting our assertions he vseth notorious falshood and impudencie . For we do not say , as he reporteth , that the Pope challenged this supremacy , which now in some countries he possesseth , vnder Pope Gregory , and Phocas the Emperour , but that they began to encroch by litle and litle , and that Boniface the 3. obteined of Phocas , that the seate of Peter should be esteemed chiefe of all Churches , as Platina saith in Bonifacio 3. The rest , we say the Popes obteined partly by fraud , and force of armes in the time of Gregory the 7. and diuers of his successors . The authors of the Masse , and of the worship of Images both entring by degrées , we alledge most certainely out of their owne histories , and stand to our allegation so firmely , that Rob. Parsons notwithstanding his great cracks thought best to passe ouer the matter in sad and déepe silence . That heresies could not creepe into the church without being espied , we graunt , & therfore shew how popish heresies grew to be contradicted by the most auncient and sound Fathers : and that Rob. Parsons had litle reason to stand vpon this exception , or his negatiue proofe , as he ridiculously calleth it . His affirmatiue proofe also is not much better . First , he a citeth the names of Irenaeus , Iustine Martyr , Athenagoras , Clemens Alexandrinus for proofe of the Popes supremacy , fréewill , merit of works , the sacrifice and ceremonies of the masse . But very wisely he maketh only a muster of names without making them to speake , lest in the places quoted either they should hap to say nothing , or else to speake against the producents cause . Only he could not , as he sayth Pag. 129. omit one place out of Ireney lib. 3. aduers. haeres . ca. 3. beginning , Maximae & antiquissimae ecclesiae &c. but first he choppeth off the beginning of the sentence , which sheweth , that y e tradition of other churches is no lesse to be regarded , then that of the church of Rome , and that Irenaeus citeth the Romish churches tradition only , not as head , but for auoiding tediousnes . Quoniam valde longum est , saith he , in hoc tali volumine omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones , maximae & antiquissimae &c. Secondly absurdly he translateth these words , ad hanc ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem conuenire ecclesiam , in this sort , for that vnto this church , in respect of her more mighty principality , it is necessary , that all churches must agree , & haue accesse . Whereas Irenaeus his meaning only is , that euery church should haue respect vnto the church of Rome in respect of her greatnes & dignity , and not subiect it selfe or agree vnto it . Thirdly he collecteth very absurdly , y t because Christians did respect y e church of Rome much , while it kept the faith sincere , now also all churches are to respect it , being departed frō the faith , & tyrānizing ouer all others . For why should we rather respect that church , then the church of Ephesus & Smyrna , whose succession and tradition Irenaeus then no lesse respected , then that of Rome ? Mainely therefore doth Parsons conclude vpon Irenaeus his words , saying , lo here the principality of that church cōfirmed . For by the Popes supremacy far greater matters are now vnderstood , then Irenaeus euer gaue to Rome , or vnderstood by principality . Next he vrgeth the cōfession of y e Magdeburgiās against vs. But neither do we allow whatsoeuer they say , nor do they bring any thing to help Parsons to proue , that the moderne faith of Rome was professed by Eleutherius bishop of Rome . True it is , that in the 2. Century c. 4. vnder y e title of Incommodious opinions , and stubble of some Doctors , they alledge Ignatius epist. ad Rom. and Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. and centur . 3. c. 4. do mislike Tertullian for giuing the keies only to Peter , and saying , that the Church is built vpon him . Likewise they ta●● Cyprian for some spéeches . But it is plain ideotisme héerof to conclude , that either Cyprian , or Tertullian , or Irenaeus , or Ignatius doth hold & maintaine the bishop of Romes authority , which now he challengeth . Parsons séemeth not to haue read Cyprian . No way , certes , he can be thought to vnderstand him , that nameth Salonius for Sidonius , and supposeth Maximus , Vrbanus , and Sidonius named in that epistle to be holy Fathers , and to haue affirmed , that there ought to be one chiefe Bishop in the catholike church , wheras these three returning from the side of schismatikes , that in euery church had erected a bishop of their own faction , began now to hold , y t in euery seuerall church , there ought to be but one bishop . Furthermore neither he nor the Magdeburgians do well vnderstand Cyprian lib. 4. cpist . 8. For indéede he speaketh not of the Romane church , but of the vniuersall church . The like may be sayd of Cyprians booke de simplic . Praelat . Finally if Parsons vpon the words of Cyprian , or Origen , can conclude the primacy challenged by the Pope , he shall well deserue a Cardinals hat . But in the meane while , he must content himselfe with a garland of Fore tayles for his insignious fopperie , that by such weake surmises thinketh to proue the faith of Eleutherius & Clement the 8. to be all one . He should also haue alledged the testimonie of the Magdeburgians , as yeelding the Fathers to make for the popish sacrifice of the Masse , for transubstantiation , & the worship of images : but therein he faileth . Onely he talketh idlely of certaine frauds practised by them in citing the Fathers , and toucheth them for dissenting from the Fathers in matters of Frée-will , Iustification , Repentance , Good workes , Fasts , Uirginitie , kéeping of Holy dayes , Martyrdome , inuocation of Saints , Purgatorie , Traditions , Monasticall life , Reliques , and such like points . But all this is nothing to the purpose . For neither are we bound to performe and make good euery priuate mans singular opinions : nor do the Magdeburgians note any great matters of difference betwixt themselues and the Fathers : nor do they alwaies gather their sentences out of the authenticall writings of the Fathers : neither do they meane and comprehend all , as oft as they speake against one or two : nor finally doth it follow because some one or two Fathers do dissent in some one or two points from vs , that either al the Fathers make against vs , or that all , most , or any do ioyne with the Papists . Robert Parsons therefore would be admonished by some of his friends , to leaue this vaine and roauing discoursing , and scholerlike to conclude somewhat against that religion , which he hath forsaken , and we do professe , and beleeue to be most Catholike , and auncient , and Apostolicall . For proofe that the religion now professed in Rome is the same , which was brought into England by Austin the Monke , he referreth vs p. 152. to Stapletons Fortresse of faith , as he called it . But he should remember , that the same fortresse was taken , and ouerthrowne by M. Doctor Fulke of worthie memorie , and that in such sort , that the builder and author of that foolish fortresse , durst neuer vndertake to repaire the ruines thereof . Furthermore , he is to vnderstand , that Stapletons discourse containeth a briefe recapitulation of certaine ceremonies and abuses in doctrine , which were in practise about the coming in of Augustine into England . But neither were they matters of any importance , nor were they generally receiued , nor were they agreable to the formes now receiued , and vsed in the Church of Rome . Part. 1. ch . 8. he spendeth much time in speaking for Gregorie and Austin , and rayling against M. Foxe , M. Bale , and M. Holinshead . And Chap. 9. and 10. endeuoureth to proue , that Austin brought into England no other religion , then that , which the Church professed during the times of Eleutherius . But first we haue no speciall quarrell either against Gregorie or Austin . If Parsons will needes vrge vs to speake against the Monke Austin , he shall heare , what he was anone . Secondly , these good men M. Foxe , M. Bale , and M. Holinshead , it is no maruell though they be rayled on by such wicked fellowes . Vpright and good men , ( as the Wiseman sheweth vs , Prou. 29. ) are an abhomination to the wicked . Thirdly , we do not so much contend about the corruptions brought in by Austin the Monke , as those which now the Church of Rome would thrust vpon vs. Parsons therfore ought to shew , that now the same religion is professed ' in Rome , which was brought in both by Eleutherius and Austin into Britaine and England , and not so much to prate of the times betwéene Eleutherius and Austin . Howbeit it appeareth , that euen in these times superstition and false doctrine began to créepe into some corners of the Church contrarie to that forme , which was receiued from the Apostles , and vsed in Eleutherius his times . Some began to talke doubtfully of Purgatorie , others to pray priuatly to Saints . In the administration of the Lords Supper some rites began here and there to be practised diuers from Apostolicall orders . Of Fréewill and of Workes some began to talke philosophically , others to aduance mans merits . Churches were built in honour of Saints , and their Reliques worshipped . Austin he brought in an image of Christ in a table , and a siluer crosse , and began to chaunt Letanies ; which Rob. Parsons , albeit all the Iebusites in Rome should helpe him with their suffrages , will neuer proue to haue bene knowne or practised in Eleutherius his time . Pa. 181. he proueth altars in Britaine out of Chrysostome , and afterward altars of stone , and sacrifices , and vowes , and othes made to Saints out of Gildas . He alledgeth also Optatus , and Augustine , for proofe of altars , and y e Masse . But neither doth the name of Masse , or altars , or sacrifices , or vowes prooue the Romish Masse , altars , sacrifice , vowes , or the Romish doctrine of these points , as at large hath bene declared in my bookes De Missa , and De Monachis against Bellarmine , nor do we stand vpon names or termes , nor are these the principall points of Romish religion , which we impugne : nor is the testimonie of Gildas authenticall . Part. 1. chap. 10. he telleth vs of a Church built in the honor of Saint Martin , where Austin song , prayed , and said Masses ; of a Tribunes daughter restored to sight by Germanus his prayer , and application of reliques , of a prayer made to Saint Alban , of honoring Martyrs sepulchers , of Alleluia , and the obseruance of Lent , out of Bede . But therein he spendeth his labour in vaine . For neither were the Masses then said , nor the honor then done to Saints reliques , nor their obseruances like to those , which the Church of Rome now practiseth . Beside that , Bede speaketh of things past after the manners of his time , and reporteth many things by heare-say . Parsons also to helpe the matter translateth these words of Bede lib. 1. hist. cap. 18. Beatum Albanum Martyrem auctori Deo per ipsum gratias petierunt : thus , They went to the sepulcher of S. Alban , prayed to the Saint largely . But there is no such meaning to be forced out of the words . Finally , these points are not great in regard of the rest of the Romish religion , which we refuse . Out of Galfridus Monumetensis he gathereth that Dubritius was the Legate of the Apostolike sea , and that there were Procession , Organs , and singing in the Church . Out of M. Bale , M. Foxe , Trithemius and others , that before Austins time there were diuers learned men and preachers among the Britains , whereof some were instructed at Rome , some were sent from Rome , some built Monasteries , some were Monkes . But neither doth that make any thing for proofe , that they either held that religiō , which Eleutherius taught , or taught that Romish religion which Parsons now professeth . Finally , he affirmeth , that the religion taught by Austin , was catholike and confirmed by miracles , and sheweth how it was planted and continued without interruption to these times . But that which is the point in controuersie , viz. that the religion established by the conuenticles of Lateran , Constance , Florence , Trent , and by the Popes Decretals since Innocent the thirds time , is the same , that was preached by Austin the Monke , the wise disputer doth scarce mention , and no way proueth . Of this his loose dispute then I inferre first , that seeing he would haue vs to embrace the religion preached in England by Eleutherius his agents , and by Austin , we are to renounce all those heresies , false doctrines , and abuses , which since the time of Austin haue bene brought into the Church . Secondly , that Robert Parsons is not able to proue the carnall reall presence , nor transubstantiation , nor the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud offered really in the Masse for quicke and dead , nor halfe Communions , nor the Popes tyrannical supremacie , nor his Indulgences , nor the worship of Images , nor Purgatorie for satisfaction for the temporall paines of mortall sinnes , nor the rest of the Romish doctrine by vs refused , to haue bene preached by those , that first planted Christian religion in this countrie . CHAP. VI. Of the vanitie and foolerie of Parsons his whole Treatise of three Conuersions of England . HItherto we haue discoursed of Parsons his falshood , who will needes beare the Reader in hand , that this land hath not onely bene thrice conuerted to the faith by Preachers that came from Rome , but also to that faith , which now the Pope and his adherents do professe . Now therfore it resteth , that we speake somewhat of the vanitie and foolerie of his whole purpose , that by this discourse hopeth to reclaime vs backe to the subiection of the Pope . Two things it séemeth , he aymeth at in this worke . The first is , to bring the King , the Cleargie , the Nobles , and people of England , vnder the Popes obedience , and into the captiuitie of Babylon . The second is , to perswade vs to like of the Romish Religion , and all the abhominations of Antichrist figured in the whore of Babylon . But to effect this purpose , this labour is wholy vnsufficient . For first , no Bishop or teacher ought to desire any such dominion , or rule ouer Gods people , as the Pope pretendeth to be due vnto him . Our Sauiour Christ expresly forbiddeth such rule vnto his Disciples . The Princes of nations ( saith he ) a beare rule ouer them , and afterward , but it shall not be so with you . Likewise Saint Peter dehorteth the Elders of the Church to affect domination , or popish tyrannie ouer the Lords heritage . Neque dominantes in Cleris , saith he . Hereupon Bernard writing to Eugenius , applieth this to him , and sheweth , that the Apostles were forbidden to affect this domination , and Lordlinesse . Planum est ( saith he ) lib. 2. de Consid. ad Eugen. Apostolis interdicitur dominatus . I , ergo tu , & tibi vsurpare aude , aut dominans Apostolatum , aut Apostolicus dominatum . The Apostle Paule also 2. Cor. 1. sheweth , that the Apostles themselues had no dominion ouer Christian mens faith , so that he might impose yokes vpon their consciences . Not ( saith he ) that we haue dominion ouer your faith , but we are helpers of your ioy . Finally , our Sauiour Christ forbiddeth his disciples to affect to be called Rabbi , or Maister , and sheweth , that this is Pharisaicall . Gregorie also disliketh the title of Vniuersall Bishop , and reason sheweth , that it is a note of great pride to desire to be called the generall Master , or teacher of the whole Church . Secondly , the people of God may not subiect themselues to any such tyrannie . Stand fast ( saith the Apostle Gal. 5. ) in the libertie , wherewith Christ hath made vs free , and be not entangled againe with the yoke of bondage . And againe , Col. 2. Let no man at his pleasure beare rule ouer you , by humblenesse of mind , and worshipping of Angels , aduancing himselfe in those things , which he neuer saw , rashly puft vp with his fleshly mind . Which words do directly belong to the Pope , who pretending humilitie , and calling himselfe Seruant of seruants : yet teaching worship of Saints and Angels , and telling newes out of Purgatorie , and strange things , which he neuer saw , affecteth Lordship and rule ouer the Church of God. There cannot be assigned a more proper marke to know the adherents of Antichrist , then the slauish bondage and subiection of the papists to the Pope , who ruleth in their consciences , and marketh them for his slaues , as we reade Apocalyps . 13. with the brand of Antichristianitie . He made all both small and great , ( saith Iohn ) rich and poore , free and bond to receiue a marke in their right hand , and in their foreheads . But let such beware , how they continue in this bondage : and let others that are frée , take héede how they suffer themselues to be entangled with the yoke of Antichristian tyrannie . For as we reade Apocal. 14. Such as worship the beast , and his image , and receiue Antichrists marke in their foreheads , or in their hands , shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God. Thirdly , experience teacheth vs , that the Gospell began to be preached first at Hierusalem , and from thence went foorth into all lands . And our Sauiour Christ speaking to his Apostles , Act. 1. saith , They shall be witnesses to him , both in Hierusalem , and in all Iudaea , and to the vttermost part of the earth . Yet neuer did either the Bishops , or Church of Hierusalem claime dominion , or superioritie ouer the whole Christian Church for that cause . Why should then the Church of Rome pretend a greater priuiledge , where they say Peter preached , and sent out teachers to conuert diuers cities and nations , then the Church of Hierusalem , where our Sauiour Christ himselfe preached , and from whence as we reade , Mat. 28. and Act. 1. he sent his Disciples to preach in all the world , and to teach all nations ? Fourthly , we reade in histories , that the Churches of India were planted by preachers sent from Alexandria , and that Philip out of France or Gallia sent preachers into Britaine . For so Capgraue writeth , citing Freculphus for his author . It is said also , that Dionysius coming from Athens preached the Gospell in France , and that Iames coming from Ierusalem , preached first in Spaine . S. Augustine Epist. 162. and 170. testifieth , that the Gospell came into Afrike by the meanes of preachers , that came out of the East country . Finally , our histories do teach vs , that the Northerne Saxons were conuerted by Finan a Scot , and that the Irish were conuerted to the faith by Patricke a Britaine , and that the Frizelanders , and diuers Germaine nations were taught religion by preachers out of England . Yet neither are the Indian Churches subiect to the Bishops of Alexandria , nor the English to the French , or the French to the bishops of Athens , or the Spaniards to the Bishop of Hierusalem , or the Africans to the Easterne Church , or the Frizelanders or Germains to the English. Is it not then a mad conceit of Parsons , to suppose , because for many ages past it is reported , that the ancient Britains and Saxons were conuerted by preachers sent from Rome , that the Church of England should be subiect to the Pope or Church of Rome ? Fiftly , the Church of Rome , as Irenaeus saith , lib. 3. adners . haeres . cap. 3. was founded by Peter and Paule . Neither néede we make any question , but that they came from Hierusalem . Diuers stories also say , that Peter for some time sate Bishop of Antioch . a Eusebius saith , He was 25. yeares Bishop at Antioch . If then the Church of Rome do yéeld no subiection either for matters of faith , or gouernment to the Church of Hierusalem , or Antioch , from whence , the Papists cannot deny , but that the first founders of the Church of Rome did come : Parsons is but a simple fellow , to vrge this matter of Conuersion so much , séeing the Romanists themselues , and their holy Fathers the Popes of Rome regard it not one strain . Finally , if our owne Bishops , to whom we owe subiection in the Lord , should teach any other Gospell , then that which was preached by the Apostles of our Sauiour Christ , we are not to follow them . Nay we are to pronounce them Anathema . Though we ( saith the Apostle , Gal. 1. ) or an Angell from heauen should preach vnto you otherwise , then that which we haue preached vnto you , let him be accursed . But the Pope aud his adherents preach vnto vs otherwise , and publish doctrines in their Decretals , and acts of the conuenticles of Lateran , Constance , Florence , and Trent , not onely diuers from the Apostles preaching , but also contrarie vnto it , as partly we haue shewed , and also shall be readie to auerre to Parsons his face , though neuer so much steeled with impudencie . Had they then any right to teach or gouern vs , as they haue not : yet by the Apostles rule we are to pronounce them Anathema . And as for Parsons , we are to suppose him a weake fellow , that hath spent the quintessence of his silly learning and vnderstanding to proue that , which profiteth him nothing . If we owe any thing to the Romaines , it is to those , if any such were , that tooke paines to teach vs the faith of Christ. As for the moderne Romanists , that seeke to turne vs from true religion , nay that séeke to blow vs vp , we owe them nothing . Furthermore , as well may it be concluded , that the Pope and his adherents the Iebusites are to be subiect to the great Turke , that now ruleth at Hierusalem , or to his Mufti or chiefe Bishop there , because from thence came the preachers that first founded the Church of Rome , as that we are to be subiect to the Church of Rome , or the Pope , because the auncient Britains and Saxons were first conuerted by preachers , that came from Rome . For the Turkes Mufti is as good a Bishop , as the Pope , and the Popes religion is not much lesse corrupted in many points , then that of the Turke . Howsoeuer it is , the Turkes call themselues Musulmans , or True beléeuers , as the Papists call themselues Catholikes . Finally , I cannot better compare Parsons , that concludeth subiection and obedience of this pretended Conuersion to any , then to him that would inferre , that the Pope is Lord of the whole world , because sometime Rome was mistris of the world , or that the Romains haue obligation to the Turkes of Asia , because they possesse the citie and country of Troy , from whence it is said , the auncient Romains are descended . But saith Parsons , pa. 28. Irenaeus , Tertullian de Praescript . Cyprian lib. 4. cap. 8. Augustine and others are wont to vrge greatly against Heretikes , that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome , then ought it to runne to her in all doubts and difficulties of faith . But first , no one of these Fathers speaketh one word in the places quoted of our Church . Secondly , they do not affirme this of any other Church . Why then doth he not bring foorth his testimonies that hath bene so often taken halting in false alledging the Fathers ? Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres . saith , that euery Church ought to haue respect to the Church of Rome then , for her eminent principality . And others regarded her , when she florished in pietie . But what is this to the moderne Church of Rome , that is departed from the faith , pietie , and vertue of the auncient Church of Rome ? Againe , if other Churches in old time had no great respect to Rome professing the faith ; no Church is now bound to hearken to her , being departed from the faith . Finally , albeit in ancient time other Churches did consult in matters of difficultie with the Church of Rome : yet this prooueth not , that in matters of faith , or ceremontes they were to adhere to her , or that they ought to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for their Monarch . Doth it not then appeare , that Parsons his worke is as fraile as a Spiderwebbe , and as full of foolerie , as frailtie , vndertaking to proue matters , which he could not performe , and which being proued do rather make against him , then for him ? CHAP. VII . That the late Popes of Rome haue deserued nothing of England , or the English nation , but hatred and detestation . GLadly would Parsons haue concluded , if he durst , that the English , being first conuerted to the faith by the Romains , are now to be subiect to the Pope both in matters of doctrine , and Ecclesiasticall gouernment . But well he vnderstood , that the consequent was leud and foolish . He doth now therefore a say onely , That England and English men haue particular obligation to the sea of Rome , leauing it to euery mans priuate supposall , what that obligation is . But we do no more yeeld to this , then to the former conclusion . For whereas the inhabitants of England are descended either of the auncient Britains , or Saxons , or Danes , or Normans and Frenchmen : first , the auncient Britains and their ofspring do owe nothing either to Austin or Gregorie . For when as the Bishops of the Britains came to conferre with Austin , most proudly he sate in his chaire , and would not receiue them with any signe of humanitie or reuerence . Factum est ( saith Bede lib. 2. histor . Anglor . cap. 2. ) vt venientibus illis sederet Augustinus in sella . He confesseth also , that the Britaine Bishops noted his pride . And it appeareth manifestly in this , that ambitiously he sought to be the Archbishop of England , and to rule ouer the Britains . Againe , when the Bishops of Britaine refused him as their Archbishop , and would not submit themselues to his commandements , he animated the Saxons , and stirred them to warre against the Britains . Austin being refused of the Bishops ( saith Thomas Grey in his Chronicle , ) and others the learned of the Britains , made such complaint thereof to Ethelbert king of Kent , that foorthwith he leauied his power , and marched against them , and flue them in most cruell wife , hauing no more mercie on them , then a Wolfe vpon a sheepe . Another old English Chronicle testifieth , That Augustine went with the army to the warre , and that such of the Britains , as were sent to intreat for peace , were killed without pitie . That Augustine was the cause of this warre and murther , we may probably also gather out of Bedes historie . For he doth not onely shew , that the greatest slaughter was made of the Monkes of Bangor , that resisted Austin , and gaue counsell against him , but also that Austin did threaten them and foretell them , that they should haue warre . Augustinus ( saith he , lib. 2. hist. cap. 2. ) fertur minitans praedixisse , quòdsipacem cum fratribus accipere nollent , bellum ab hostibus forent accepturi . Neither is any cause alledged of this warre against the Britains , but that Augustine was by them reiected . Is not then Austin to be taken as a braue Apostle and conuerter of nations to the faith , that came with Pagans against Christians with fire and sword , because they would not vndergo his yoke ? To excuse this matter they alledge the words of Bede , as they pretend , who speaking of this murther , saith , That Austin was dead long before . But a man of meane iudgement may see , that these words are thrust into Bede by some falsarie . For how could Austin be dead long before , that after this warre , as Bede reporteth , ordained Iustus and Melitus Bishops ? Do dead men reuiue againe to ordaine Bishops ? Furthermore , these words of Austins death before the murther of the Britains are not found in the Saxon translation of Beda made by King Alured . Finally , both the Chronicles of Peterborough , and Flores historiarum do witnesse , that Austin died three yeares after the execution done vpon the Britains . The Britains therefore are not bound to Rome , that sent this proud and cruell man amongst them . Neither is the same much obliged to Eleutherius , if he did , as is said , send Preachers into Britaine . The reasons I haue before alledged . As for the Danes , Normans , and French , and their discendants they are cleare also from this obligation . For the Romanists , albeit they séeke out all colours to beautifie the Popes chaire , yet say not that preachers from Rome did conuert them to the faith . It resteth then , that all the weight of this obligation to Rome , which Parsons aduanceth so magnifically , must rest vpon a few Saxons or English. But this cannot be great , as I haue shewed , seeing the Saxons were not then the greatest part of the inhabitants of this land , nor generally conuerted by the Romaines , as hath bene declared . But were the auncient English , beholding in times past to Gregorie , or Austin ; yet the inhabitants of England for this sixe hundred yeares and vpward , haue bene litle beholding to the Popes of Rome , and their adherents . For first they haue vsed all force and fraud to plant their false , hereticall , and idolatrous Religion in England , as their sending of Legates , Agents , Archpriests , Iebusites , and Masse-priests , when they durst openly , and now of late priuily , and the rebellions , and warres stirred vp by them against the Kings and Princes of England do declare . If then we are neither to hearken to false Prophets , nor dreamers of dreames , nor to spare them , or fauour them , that would draw vs from the seruice of God to Idolatrie ; then are we to detest the Pope and his idolatroùs Agents , whose massing Religion and worship of Saints and Images , is nothing else but refined paganisme , and grosse Idolatrie . Againe , If we are to marke them , and auoid them , that cause diuision and offences , contrarie to the doctrine , which we haue receiued from the Apostles , as Saint Paule exhorteth vs , Roman . 16. then are we to haue no communion nor fellowship with the Pope , which indeuoureth to diuide vs from the Catholike Church , and to draw vs from Apostolicall doctrine to his leude Decretaline Heresies and Traditions . Secondly , they haue by their cunning engines drawne infinite treasure out of England , impouerishing both the Kings and people of this Iland by their manifold exactions . Matthew Paris doth in sundrie places complaine of the oppressions made by the Pope and his Agents , and in Henrico tertio saith , That England by the Pope was made like a vine left to the open spoile of euery one , that passed by . Thirdly , for the most part they haue concurred with our enemies , and by all meanes oppugned our nation . Matthew Paris writing Harolds life sheweth , that Alexander the Pope sent a Standard to William the conqueror , when he came with fire and sword against the English nation . Papa ( saith he ) vexillum Willelmo in omen regni transmisit . And call you this a fauour to ioyne with him , that came to conquer our countrie , and to cut the Englishmens throats ? In the dayes of Henry the 2. the Pope fauoured both the Kings disloyall subiects , and open enemies , as appeareth by the discourse of matters passed betwixt him and Thomas Becket . Innocentius the 3 excommunicated King Iohn , and sought to depriue him of his kingdome . By his malitious courses the King lost Normandie , and was forced to surrender his Crowne into his Legats hands . Matthew Paris testifieth , that he gaue the English for slaues to the French. Sententialiter definiuit ( saith he ) vt Rex Anglorum Ioannes à solio regni deponeretur . He committed the execution of this sentence to the French King , and for his labour determined , that he and his successors should perpetually enioy the kingdome of England . Vt ipse & successores sui regnum Angliae iure perpetuo possiderent . And may we thinke , that any is so brutish , as to dispute , that we are beholding to the Pope , that giueth vs as a prey vnto our enemies ? Certes , vnlesse we had read it in Parsons the Popes parasite , we could hardly haue beleeued it . In the end albeit he could not bring vs into seruitude : yet he wanted not much , to make our King and country tributary . That noble and victorious Prince King Edward the third found none , that more ouerthwarted him and disturned the course of his victories in France , then the Pope , as his letters , menaces , and practises reported in Histories declare . To forbeare to speake of ancient wrongs done to our Princes and nation by other Popes , see ( I beséech you ) the indignities offered to king Henry the 8. and his subiects by that impious Pope Paule the third , and to his daughter Q. Elizabeth of famous memorie and her people , by that lousie friar Pius the fift , Gregorie the 13. and Sixtus the fifts seditious , rayling , and outragious Buls . Paule the third rayleth on the King , interditeth the kingdome , depriueth his subiects of trade , and giueth them as slaues to those that could take them . Prohibet commercium cum Anglis , ( saith Sanders in his Glosse vpon the Popes Bull ) foedera cum Henrico dissoluit , Henrici sequaces tradit in seruitutem . Looke what rage or malice can deuise , that he vomiteth out both against the King , and our nation . And will Parsons haue our nation to submit themselues to such monsters ? or can any find in their hearts to yéeld to such tyrants ? Against Queene Elizabeth , Pius Quintus , as appeareth by the discourse written of his life , first stirred vp her subiects , and when that serued not , he animated both Spaniard and French against her , and her people . Gregorie the 13. by his Legate Sanders stirred the Irish to take armes against our nation . The same man , when force serued not , animated the assassinor and murtherer Parry to lay violent hands vpon her person , not omitting withal any course to hurt or trouble her subiects . In the end , by the procurement of Sixtus quintus , the Spanish Armada , supposed and ridiculously called inuincible , came vpon vs , with a full intention to depose the Quéene , to destroy her true subiects , and to marke the rest for slaues . And can any man thinke well of the Pope , so long as any memorie of this action remaineth ? It is no maruell then , if the Pope set on that traiterous companion Allane to speake all the dishonor he could both against the Prince and her nation , seeing he intended the totall destruction of the kingdome , and her subiects . But if we search all histories , we shal neuer find a more bloudie and sauage enterprise , then that which the Papists of late attempted , resoluing to extinguish the Kings line , to destroy the King , his Nobles and the commons in Parliament assembled , and vtterly to subuert the state . Our nation then hath great obligation to the Popes of Rome and their adherents : but it is to hate them , and detest them , and resist them , as most bloudie and malitious enemies of our nation for many yeares . But saith Parsons in his Ward-word , Our nation hath bene twise conuerted by the labour and industrie of that sea . And since he saith , The same hath bene thrise conuerted from Paganisme to Christian Religion . So absurdly doth he confound himselfe in his owne deuise . But neither can he proue his Conuersions : nor should we grant them , could he win any thing at our hands , but hatred and indignation against the late Popes of Rome , which are so degenerated , that they seeke to destroy both the bodies and soules of those , whose auncestors auncient Bishops of Rome are said to haue gained to Christ. And this may serue to answer Parsons his patcherie talking of the obligation , which England and English men owe to Rome . Now because the same man euery where telleth vs of the succession of Romish Bishops , and gladly would smoother the fame of Pope Ioane : albeit the same be somewhat impertinent to the matter of Three Conuersions ; yet shall we examine the title of the Popes succession , turning a litle out of the way , to obserue our aduersaries exorbitant procéeding . CHAP. VIII . That the Popes of Rome of this time are not the successors of Peter , or Eleutherius , but rather of Pope Ioane . MUch doth Robert Parsons boast of the succession of Popes , especially Part. 2. cap. 1. and giueth out , that it is of great importance , for triall of true Religion . Bellarmine De not is Eccles. and diuers others his consorts estéeme it a principall marke of the Church . But when the matter shall be throughly discussed , he shall well perceiue , that he hath no cause so much to boast of these conceits , séeing neither the Popes are successors to Peter , or the auncient Bishops of Rome , nor the succession of Popes is any marke of the Church , or proper triall of true religion . The first is proued by these arguments . First , no man can claime right of succession , but either by right of testament , or proximitie of bloud , or some law or laudable custome . For that is the opinion of all Lawyers , where they talke of successions . But Clement the 8. and his predecessors for diuers ages , can neither produce any Will made by S. Peter declaring the moderne Popes to be his successors , nor any law or custome grounded on the old or new testament . Neither can they shew , that they are of his kindred or affinitie , whereby they may seeme to haue right of succession . The like also we may say of Eleutherius . Secondly , all successors either do succéed , as heires , in the whole right , or as Legataries in some special bequest of land , goods , or right , or else as executers of any office , or charge . But if Clement the 8. should claime to be Saint Peters heire , or a Legatarie ; then must he shew some testament , or will , or lawe made in his fauour . If he claime to succéed him in office , then must he shew both records , how he holdeth his office , and also acts , which may declare him , to haue truly executed Saint Peters office . Likewise if he claime to be Eleutherius his successor , he must both shew a lawfull title , and declare , that he hath executed Eleutherius his function . But neither can he exhibite any proofe for hïs title of Apostolicall or Episcopall function , neither doth it appeare , either that he worketh miracles , or teacheth all nations , as did Saint Peter , or that he preacheth or baptizeth , as did Eleutherius . Wherein then haue Clement , and his predecessors employed themselues ? Forsooth , in stopping the preaching and procéeding of the Gospell , and in murthering the Saints of God , and maintaining the kingdome of Antichrist . None of them ( certes ) can shew any title , either from Peter or Eleutherius , or other godly Bishop . Thirdly , the Popes claime to be Vniuersall Bishops , and heads and spouses of the Vniuersall Church . But that neuer came into the head of Peter , or Eleutherius . Nay Gregory lib. 4. epist. 82. speaking of Peter , and other Apostles saith , they are not heads , but members of the Church vnder one head . Sub vno capite , sayth he , omnes membra sunt Ecclesiae . Likewise in the title of Decumenicall or Vniuersall Bishop he sheweth , that the Pope doth rather follōw Lucifer , then Peter , or any godly Bishop . Quis sayth he , speaking of the title of vniuersall Bishop , in hoc tam peruerso vocabulo , nisi ille , ad imitandum proponitur , qui despectis Angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis , ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ? He sayth also , that none of the Prelates of that sea would euer be called by so prophane a title . The Apostle Paule sheweth , that there is but one head and spouse of the Uniuersall Church , that is Christ Iesus . Fourthly , our Sauiour Christ forbad S. Peter and his Apostles so to beare rule ouer Christians , as temporall Kings did ouer nations . Neither do we find that S. Peter , or Eleutherius did transgresse Christes commandement . If then the Pope doth rule , not as Princes ouer nations , but as King of Kings , & challengeth power to depose Kings , then is he not S. Peters or Eleutherius his successor . S. Bernard sayth , the Pope cannot both beare this rule , and succeed Peter in his Apostleship . Plane ab alterutro prohiberis ; si vtrumque similiter habere voles , perdes vtrumque . And againe , forma Apostolica haec est , dominatio interdicitur , indicitur ministratio . Fiftly , Peter exhorted Christians . 1. epist. 2. to obedience to Kings and gouernours , and Eleutherius , no question , did follow his exhortation . Where either of these perswaded Christians to take armes against their superiors , 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 vs , but fauouring the sea of Rome , and such , as no man can note of partialitie in this behalfe . That Iohn the 8. or as some number the Popes , the 7. was a woman , first Radulphus Flauiacensis in his Chronicle doth testifie . This man was a Monke of Benets order , and liued about the yeare of our Lord 930. as Trithemius reporteth . Secondly Marianus Scotus doth report the same . Anno Domini 854. saith he , anno Lotharij 14. successit Leoni Ioannes mislier . He sheweth also , that she sate two yeares , fiue moneths , and foure dayes . Our third witnesse is Sigebertus , who speaking of this Pope , sayth , that the fame went , that this Iohn was a woman , and being begot with child by her seruant , was deliuered being Pope . These two testimonies of Marianus Scotus , and Sigebertus Gemblacensis our aduersaries now of late haue razed out of all those copies , which now are printed . But this doth nothing relieue their credit , but rather blot them both with the infamy of this whoredome , and also with corruption and falsity . Their owne consciences must néedes herein witnesse against them , séeing they know , that these words are found as well in printed bookes , as in ancient manuscript copies . Martinus Polonus our fourth witnesse telleth plainely , that this woman desguised in mans apparell went with her louer to Athens , proued learned , returned to Rome , was chosen Pope , begotten with child , and deliuered neere S. Clements Church , and that for this cause all Popes afterward shunned this way . Our fift witnesse is Martin a Minorite , in his booke entitled Flores temporum , printed at Vlme in Dutch anno Domini 1486. This Minorite telleth , how Pope Ioane coniuring a Diuell to tell , when he would depart out of the body of one possessed , receiued answere , that he would declare this , when the Pope would tell , when a Pope should be deliuered of child . Papa pater patrum , saith he , papissae pandito partum , Et tibi tunc edam , de corpore quando recedam . Our sixth witnesse is Francis Petrarch , who in an Italian booke printed at Florence anno Dom. 1478. sayth , that a woman was made Pope , and deliuered of child . The seauenth witnesse is Antonine Archbishop of Florence , who in the second part of his history tit . 16. ca. 1. § . 7. doth report this history of a woman-pope , as others do , and addeth , that an image , representing the Popes deliuery of child , was erected in the place where she trauailed of child and dyed : and thereupon exclaimeth , ô the depth of the wisdome , and knowledge of God! The eight witnesse is Iohn Boccace in his booke De Foeminis illustribus , who in the whole report agréeth with Antonine , and his other contestes . The ninth is Iacobus Gulielmus of Egmond a Monke in the rimes following . Papacadit , panditur improbis Ridendi norma , puer nascitur In vico Clementis . Wernerus Rolewinke maketh the tenth , who in his booke called Fasciculus temporum , speaking of this Pope , sayth , That being gotten with child , and afterward going in Procession , she died in trauaile , and therefore was not put into the catalogue of Popes . The same history is recorded by him that wrote the Annales of Auspurg anno Domini 855. he therefore filleth the eleuenth place . The full iury is made vp by Raphael Volateran , who in his Cosmograph . consenteth with the rest . Unto these for a supply we may adde Platina in Ioanne 8. Sabellicus Aenead . 9. Bergomensis and Palmerius in their Chronicles , Trithemius in Catalog . Pontif. Albert Crantz , Baptista of Mantua , Iohn Lucidus , Iohn Stella , Nauclerus in Generat . 29. Iohn Henaldus , and Peter Messias in Silua var. lect . Finally , least any man might forget a matter so memorable , the same report was represented in imagery both in the stréete of S. Clement at Rome , and in the Cathedrall Church of Siena : and that might haue béen yet sene of euery man , but that Pius the 5. ashamed of the lechery and whoredome of his predecessor , caused the statue of marble representing this Tragicall accident to be throwne into Tiber. Finally no man euer denyed , or contradicted this report , vntill the time of Onuphrius a hungry parasite of the Pope , and a lying Friar , who to win some fauour of the Pope , began first to call this history into question , and desperatly to face out the matter . If then Rob. Parsons and his consorts had not faces of proofe , they would haue béene ashamed , being but late vpstarts , and contemptible fellowes , to haue opposed their bare credits against the authority of so many authenticall and vnpartial witnesses in matters done so long before they came out of the bottomlesse pit . They answere and deuise , what they thinke most fitting to discredit the report , or to help their cause . But all is but like dust cast into the ayre , that falleth on the heads of them that cast it , and blindeth their owne eyes . Parsons pag. 389. answereth and saith , that albeit some such thing had hapned , yet it had not preiudicated the Church of Christ. But had any such thing hapned , then had he no reason so stiffly to deny it . Againe , albeit the Catholike Church be not preiudiced by the intrusion of men or women incapable of Ecclesiasticall function , yet the same would wholy ouerthrow the discent and succession of Romish Bishops , vpon which the Romanists do so much depend . For if heretikes , and men or women , vncapable of Ecclesiasticall function , do thrust into the line of Bishops , then is the line of true Bishops interrupted . But of heretikes S. Augustine giueth vs knowledge epist. 165. that they may enter among y e Romish Bishops , where he saith , What if a traytor in those times should haue crept in ? Of persons incapable , the story of Dame Ioane the Pope giueth testimony . He correcteth therefore his first answere , and vpon better aduice sayth , that this whole story of Pope Ioane is a meere fable , deuised first by Martinus Polonus a simple man , that telleth many things by heare-say , and continued by those that fauoured the German Emperours contending against the Pope . And to proue this , he alledgeth first , that Anastasius , Audomarus , Luitprandus , Regino , Hermannus Contractus , Lambertus Schafnaburgensis , Otho Frisingensis , and Vrspergensis , after Leo the 4. place Benedict the third , and next that William of Malmesbury , Henry Huntington , Roger Houeden , Florentius Vigorniensis , and Matthew of Westminster , make no mention of this woman-pope . And thirdly , that Alphred liuing in Rome when Pope Leo died , or thereabout , must needes haue knowne , that one of his owne countrey had beene Pope , if any such matter had then fallen out . Fourthly , that in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus , and Sigebertus this story is not set downe . Fiftly , that Leo the 9. in the contention betwirt the Churches of Rome and Constantinople obiected to Michael Bishop of Constantinople , that diuers Eunuches , had béene Bishops there , and as is sayd , a woman also , which it is not likely he would haue done , if the same might truly haue béene sayd of the sea of Rome . And lastly , that the story conteineth diuers improbabilities , and contradictions . But that the story should be fabulous , or a matter feined , it is not like , being recorded in so many histories , and authenticall writers . That Martinus Polonus did first report this matter no man hath reason to beléeue , séeing the same so plainely set downe in Radulphus Flauiacensis , Marianus Scorus , and Sigebertus Gemblacensis . Baronius sayth , that Marianus Scotus was the first brother of it . Neither was Martinus Polonus so simple a fellow , as is pretended , being the Popes penitentiary , and a writer in that kind equall to the best of his ranke . That y e fauourers of the Emperour should brute this matter abrode to defame the Pope , is a méere fiction . For it cannot be shewed , that any Emperour in the contention betwixt the Emperours and the Popes did euer cast out any such matter against the Pope . Rob. Parsons his arguments brought forth to proue this history to be a fable , are like his owne head , that is , brutish and blockish . For first it is no good argument to conclude from the authority of two or thrée of the Popes parasites negatiuely , viz. that they omit a matter tending to the Popes defame , ergo no such matter was done . Secondly he alledgeth a counterfet author called Audomarus . He may do well to shew , who he was , being neither mentioned by Baronius nor Bellarmine , where they talke of this matter . Thirdly it is ridiculous to inquire of our country writers of matters done at Rome , or to thinke that they would speake any thing tending to the disgrace of the Pope , whose sworne slaues they were . Beside that the author of Fasciculus temporum sheweth , that this woman-pope was not forgotten , but of purpose omitted by the writers of histories , because of the slander that might thereof redound to the sea of Rome . Fourthly no man can tell , whether Alphred knew any such matter , or not . Nay it is not very certaine , that either he , or his father were in Rome about the time of Pope Ioans deliuery . But had they bene at Rome about this time ; yet might they well know Pope Iohn to be English , although not a woman . Fiftly if in ancient manuscript copies of Marianus Scotus , and Sigebertus Gemblacensis this history be not found ; it is plaine , that the agents of the Romish Church , men infamous for falsitie , haue razed the same out . And that may appeare first by the testimonie of Fasciculus temporum , who sheweth the cause of the blotting out of Pope Ioans name ; next , by ancient manuscript copies ; and last , by the testimonie of Baronius , who maketh Marianus Scotus the first deuiser of this matter . So hard is it for lyars and forgers to consent together . Sixthly it may be a question , whether the letters of Leo the 9. to Michael be counterfet , or not . But were they written by him , as is reported ; yet raylers oftentimes obiect the same crimes one to another . Finally , there is no such discordance in the circumstances of the history , but that there are farre greater in matters , which the Romanists beleeue to be most true . Letters , and names , and places , and times may be easily mistaken , and yet the matter reported may prooue most true . Likewise it is no strange thing for one person to be called of two places both Anglicus and Maguntinus . That Athens then was a place famous for studie , it may be gathered out of Gréeke histories , no one writer certes holdeth the contrary . The Popes therefore of this time , if they please , may be successors of Pope Ioane , whom we haue manifestly demonstrated to haue béene Pope , but the successors of Peter and Eleutherius , and other godly ancient Bishops of Rome , they cannot iustly terme themselues . CHAP. IX . That the succession of Romish Popes is neither marke of the Church , nor meanes of triall of the truth . BEllarmine lib. de not . Eccles. ca. 8. would gladly haue the succession of the Romish Bishops to be a marke of the Church . And Rob. Parsons doth estéeme the same a matter of great importance for triall of true religion , and prooueth it in the best sort he can Part. 2. Ch. 1. How much they are abused , these reasons may declare . First the succession of Popes is of no greater force or vertue then the succession of the priests of the law . For from them they borrow diuers titles and prerogatiues . But the high priests of the Iewes did oftentimes withstand the Prophets of God , and Vria the high priest in the time of Achaz as we reade 4. Kings 16. erected a strange altar in the Temple . Finally , they condemned Christ , and his Apostles , and all their doctrine . Secondly the Apostles in their time could not trie their religion by the succession of Bishops , nor was succession then a marke of the Church . For neither did the Apostles succéed the high priests , or sacrificers of the Iewes , nor as yet had the Apostle Peter any successor . But the marks and properties of the Church are always the same . Neither can we looke for better triall and proofe of religion , then that which the Apostles had . Thirdly the Church of Rome , when Paule wrote his famous epistle vnto it , had no succession of Bishops . Yet was it then the true Church . Neither néede we to make question , but that the same had all conuenient meanes for the triall of truth . 4. The succession of Bishops in the Church of Antioch , Hierusalem and Alexandria neither was a certaine marke of the Church , nor a meanes to try the truth . And this , I thinke , our aduersaries will not deny . But if they should , it may easily be prooued , for that Ecclesiasticall histories teach vs , that the Bishops of those seas haue fallen into diuers grosse heresies , and are now condemned for heretikes by the sea of Rome . 5. The Churches of Antioch , Alexandria , and Constantinople to this day shew the Catalogues of their Bishops . Likewise Vincentius Lirinensis in Commonit . Cap. 34. sheweth the successors of Simon Magus for diuers ages . Likewise doth Epiphanius haeres . 34. shew , who for diuers yeares succéeded Valentinus . Yet Parsons will not grant , that either Valentinus , or Simon Magus , or their followers were true Catholikes ; neither will the Papists confesse , that the Greeks of the Churches of Constantinople , or the people of Antioch or Alexandria are the true Church , or that by the succession of their Bishops truth may be tried . 6. If by succession of Bishops either the Church , or the truth might certeinly be discerned and tried , then could not Bishops erre , or teach peruersely . But histories teach vs , that diuers great Bishops haue grossely erred , as Liberius , and Honorius the first in Rome , Macedonius and Nestorius in Constantinople . And this the Apostle speaking to the Bishops assembled at Miletus , Act. 20. doth clearely shew . Of your owne selues saith he , shall men arise , speaking peruerse things to draw disciples after them . Finally the aduersaries themselues sometimes confesse , that succession is no certaine marke of the Church . Lyra in his postill vpon the 16. of Matth. sayth , that the chiefe Bishops haue bene found to haue departed from the faith . But what triall is to be had by succession , if Bishops may depart from the faith ? 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 . Neither can the aduersary iustly charge vs , that we allow any false worship of God , or breach of his holy ordonances . Thirdly , the Church of England for matters of Faith , Sacraments , Gods worship and seruice , beléeueth & followeth whatsoeuer is either expressely commanded in holy Scriptures , or out of them deduced in ancient generall and lawfull Councels , condemning also whatsoeuer is by ancient Councels or Fathers declared to be contrary to the same . Fourthly , Christes true Church is a diligent and wary keeper of doctrines committed to her , and changeth nothing at any time , deminisheth nothing , addeth nothing , cutteth not off things necessary , nor addeth things superfluous , looseth not her owne , nor vsurpeth things belonging to others , as saith Lirmensis Commonit . ca. 32. Likewise ca. 34. he saith , it is the property of Catholikes , to keepe the doctrine of the Fathers committed to them in trust , and to condemne prophane nouelties . Who can then deny the name of Catholikes vnto vs , but such as are false Catholikes ? Fiftly , all Churches , that belong to Christes body , which is gathered and gouerned by his word , nourished and preserued by his holy Sacraments , and inspired and led by his holy spirit and grace , belong to Christes Catholike Church . But nothing can be alledged by the aduersaries , but that these properties belong to the Church of England , and the members thereof , and those which communicate with it . Sixthly , the Church of England doth in all things cōmunicate with the Catholike & Apostolike Church that is spred ouer all nations , & hath continued frō the beginning , & shall cōtinue to the end , & which hath a most certaine succession of true Bishops , which adhereth to Christ only , & to his word , and whose faith is confirmed with miracles , and most inuincible testimonies . If Parsons will deny this , let him cease his railing against vs , and his vaine babling about impertinent matters , and forbeare to impute vnto vs the names of factions , which we renounce , and the faults of particulars , which we defend not , & proue somewhat substātially . Seuenthly the Church of England is iustified by the confession of our aduersaries : for with them we professe one faith in all articles conteined in ancient Creedes , with them we receiue the same Scriptures , with them we allow the sacrament of the Eucharist , & Baptisme , with them we admit the most anciēt generall Councels : and finally , whatsoeuer was deliuered by the Apostles to be obserued , that we obserue . What is then the differēce ? Forsooth , they haue added to the Apostles faith , to Christes Sacraments , Scriptures , Apostolike doctrine & lawes : and that we refuse , for that it is aboue , and beside , yea sometime contrary to the Canon of Scriptures , which is the perfect rule of faith . Unlesse therfore our aduersaries will stubbornly reiect the Apostolike faith , the canon of Scriptures , the Sacraments , and the ancient formes of Ecclesiastical gouernment , & condemne the same , they cannot deny y t Church of England to be y e true Church . Finally , all those exceptions , which either Bellarmine or Bristow , or Stapleton , or Hill , or any of their consorts haue takē to our doctrine or manners , are cleared , & so answered , that still the aduersary , though neuer so full of words , resteth silenced . Parsons in y e second part of his treatise of Three Conuersions of England by him pretended , goeth about to shew , that the Church of England is no part of the Church vniuersally dispersed , and that hath continued throughout all ages . But his arguments are so vaine , that I make this an argument to iustifie the cause of our Church . For if he and his consorts can take no iust exception either to the faith , or manners of the Church of England , then doth it follow , that the same is the true Church of Christ , Et inimici nostri iudices , and our enemies therein iudge against themselues . CHAP. XI . Parsons his idle discourse Part. 2. of his Treatise , wherein he pretendeth to seeke for the originall and discent of the Church of England from the Apostles times downward , is examined & refuted . IT is a simple part , according to the common prouerbe , in the midst of a riuer to aske , where is water ; or in a forrest of trées , to enquire for wood . Yet Parsons séemeth not much wiser , who in the Scriptures and writings of ancient Fathers euery where finding the Apostolike and Catholike Church , with the which y e Church of England holdeth cōmunion , doth notwithstanding still enquire , where our Church was in y e Apostles time , & the ages after . But it séemeth , he was vnwilling to sée , y t which he was loth to find . His search certes , and manner of procéeding , and whole dispute about this matter as it is tedious , and full of words , so it is fond , foolish , and void of substance and concludent argument . In the 2. Part of his turning Treatise chap. 1. he alledgeth diuers testimonies out of Irenaeus , Tertullian , Hierome , and Augustine , concerning the succession of Bishops , and the force thereof . But what ( I pray you ) doth that make against vs , who do well allow of that faith , which was taught and maintained by those Bishops succeeding one another in diuers Churches , which they mention ? Nay , if Parsons talked of no other faith or doctrine , then that which those holy Fathers speake of , and did not hide in this catalogue of good Bishops , a multitude of false teachers , and Heretikes much vnlike to the former ; the controuersie betwixt vs wold soone be ended . Furthermore , where he will not allow them to be the true Church ; which in all points of faith consent with the Apostles and ancient Fathers , and disagrée in nothing , but will néeds exact a discent of our faith by a catalogue of Bishops ; we want not therein an answer sufficient . For the Bishops of Britaine and England , that haue continued since the first plantation of Religion , by Ioseph of Arimathaea , and other Apostolike men haue still retained the Apostolike faith , and the Sacraments instituted by Christ. True it is , they retained them , but yet with many corruptions , although nothing so many , as are now established in the Church of Rome , since the wicked conuenticle of Trent . Although then the Church of England haue purged away certaine abuses : yet the substance of doctrine , and Sacraments we haue not changed , therein varying in nothing from the Apostles , or auncient Bishops of Christs Church for many hundred yeares after Christ. But the Popes of Rome and their adherents within these fiue hundred yeares haue brought in a new Scholasticall & Decretaline doctrin , especially since the conuenticle of Trent , which neither the Apostles nor auncient Bishops euer knew , nay which is opposite to their doctrine and faith . It appeareth therefore , that this argument of succession doth rather make for vs , then for our aduersaries . Secondly , he beareth vs in hand , that Luther and Caluin being pressed with this argument of Succession , did make the Church inuisible . And that Melancthon , and the Magdeburgians dissenting from them , and ouercome with proofes concerning the visibilitie of the Church , did grant it to be visible , yet so , as it did consist not 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 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 doth differ from the Church of Christ , from Constantine to Maurice the Emperor , and Gregorie the first , a he alledgeth first , that M. Foxe speaketh nothing of these thrée ages , nor of the Doctors , that then flourished in the East or West Church , and in Britaine it selfe , or of their doctrine . And all this he supposeth to haue bene omitted , because it made much against him , and nothing for him . Otherwise he thinketh , he would haue set downe somewhat , vndertaking to set foorth at large the whole race & course of the Church from Christ to our times . Next he saith , that the Magdeburgians in their fourth , fift , and sixt Centuries speaking much of the Doctors of the thrée ages from Constantine downward , find nothing for themselues , but rather against themselues : as for example in the matter of Free-will , where they say in the 4. Centur. c. 4. that almost all the Doctors of that age speake confusedly , and against the manifest testimonies of Scripture , and in the Paragraffe of repentance , where they say , it is handled by the Doctors of this 4. age thinly and coldly . And likewise in the matter of the reall presence , where they cite the Fathers abundantly , saue in the matter of the sacrifice , where they reprehend them : and finally , in the controuersie of Good-workes , satisfaction , inuocation of Saints , and concerning ceremonies , where they reprehend the Fathers . But all this brabblement about M. Foxe , and the Magdeburgians is to no purpose . For first , what if either they should haue omitted , or spoken any thing , which they should not ? It is a vaine thing to imagine , that all this should be imputed to vs. Secondly , the reason why M. Foxe speaketh so litle of the 4. 5. and 6. ages , and of the Fathers then flourishing was , for that we acknowledge that faith , which was then professed , and adioyne ourselues to that Church . What then needed any long discourse to deduce our Church throughout those ages , when the same is euery where apparent in the Fathers of that age , whose faith , if we might haue restored without the leauen of the Church of Rome lately brought in , the controuersie betwixt vs and our aduersaries would soone be ended . Furthermore , it was not his purpose to handle controuersies : and therefore no maruell , if in euery question he did not set downe y e sentences of the Fathers . Thirdly , the Magdeburgians do in some points concerning free-wil , repentance , the sacrifice , good-works , inuocation of Saints , and such like , mislike some of the Fathers . But he is a very simple ideot , that therefore would conclude , that they ioyne with the Papists in their moderne heresies . Likewise they alledge the Fathers for proofe of a certaine reall presence . But it is not that corporall and carnall presence of the body and bloud of Christ , of which the Papists dreame . Finally , albeit in some small things the Magdeburgians taxe some one or two of the Fathers , or rather those authors , which haue published counterfeit books vnder the name of the Fathers : yet in the matters of greatest moment they shew the true Fathers to make , for vs. And that shall be made good against Rob. Parsons , if leauing his bangling about these small aduantages , he list to deale with vs in any substantial point of controuersie . In the 4. chapter of his second part , and diuers chapters following , he handleth the discent of times from Gregorie the first , vnto the preaching of Iohn Wicleffe , and therein spendeth much vaine talke to small purpose . For although in those times the tyranny of the Pope increased , and Monkish life began to be in request , and the worship of Images , and Saints departed , together with diuers friuolous ceremonies , by litle and litle entred , and Priests were separated by the Popes practises from their lawful wiues : yet the substance of Christian Religion remained still in the Church of England all this while , and the corruptions , that then began to enter , were nothing in comparison of that which followed afterward , nor generally receiued . In those times neither was the Pope accounted the head or spouse of the Uniuersall Church , nor did he vndertake to depose Kings before Gregorie the 7. or to ouerrule all Churches . The Bishops of England tooke not themselues to be subiect vnto the Pope vnder paine of damnation , nor did he much encroch vpon them before the times of Henry the second King of England . The doctrine of the carnall reall presence , of transubstantiation , of the sacrifice of Christs bodie and bloud in the Masse , of worshipping the Sacrament with Latria , and of Images with the same worship , that is due to the Original , of the seuen Sacraments , and of the degrées of merits of workes , and workes of supererogation , of the force of fréewill in iustification , of the Popes two swords , and superioritie ouer generall Councels , and his power in Purgatory , and in granting Indulgences and such like , was not then knowne in England , but was deuised afterward by schoolemen and Canonists , and established by the Popes Decretals , and wicked conuenticles assembled by their commandement . Nay albeit the Popes by all meanes sought to subdue Christian Kings , and to bring all Ecclesiasticall preferments to their owne disposition , and 〈…〉 the Priests of their wiues : yet could they not do this , but in long time , and after great contradiction of many . Of this discourse then two things may be gathered direct against Rob. Parsons his cause . The first is , that the Church of England from the time of Gregorie the first to Alexander the thirds time , was not subiect to the Pope , nor had receiued the wicked and abominable doctrine contained in the Popes late Decretals , and deuised in the Conuenticles of Lateran , Constance , Florence , Trent , and published in the prophane disputes of schoolemen . The second is , that the tyrannie of the Pope beginning first in Alexander the thirds time to be felt in England , increased by litle and litle vntill King Henry the eight his raigne , and that the greatest corruptions of popish doctrine entred into England after his time . Of which two points we may conclude , that the Church of England from the time of Austin vntill the time of Alexander the third , in fundamentall matters of faith did communicate with vs , and not with the moderne Papists , whose principall corruptions haue entred since . In the 9. 10. 11. and 12. Chapters he quarrelleth with Master Foxe , for building the Church vpon M. Wicleffe , Sir Iohn Old-castle , Husse , M. Luther , M. Caluin , Zuinglius , and others , holding , as he saith , many dangerous points of doctrine , and differing from themselues & from vs , and many of thē noted of diuers great crimes . But while he quarelleth with others , he bewrayeth his owne grosse ignorance . For it is not Master Foxes meaning to frame a new Church of Christ from Master Wicleffes time downeward , or to affirme , that there was no Church in the world for certaine ages before Wicleffe : but rather to shew , that the Church in diuers places , and by little and little being corrupted since the time of the Fathers , by the pride and false doctrine of the Popes began much to 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 command the seruice to be said in Latine , Gréeke , and Hebrew : which languages the common people vnderstand not . But such a Church and so malignant and enuious of the knowledge and profit of Christians was not seene in the world before the assembly of Trent . 4. For a thousand yeares after Christ , and longer , it was lawful for laymen and all Christians to dispute , argue , and reason of matters of Christian Religion . And so long this Popish Church was not seene in the world , that prohibiteth laymen so to do . 5. The moderne Papists teach , that Christs naturall bodie is both in heauen and earth , and vpon euery altar where any consecrated host is hanged , where he is neither felt , seene , nor perceiued , and all at one time . But the Church vntill the times of the Trent conuenticle euer beleeued , that Christ had a solide , visible , and palpable bodie . And certes , very strange it were if the Catholike and mysticall bodie of Christ shold be visible , & not his natural body . 6. They teach , that Christ was a perfect man at the first instant of his conception , and that he knew all things , and was omniscient as man , both then and alwaies . But this neither the Church of England , nor other Christian Church as yet could euer beleeue or comprehend . 7. They teach , that Christians are not to beléeue the Scriptures to be Canonicall , vnlesse the Pope tell them so . They say also that the authoritie of Scriptures in regard of vs doth depend vpon the Church , that is , as they say , vpon the Pope , Cardinals , Masse-priests , Monkes , and Friars . But the true Church hath alwaies taken this to be derogatorie to the Maiestie of God , and of holy Scriptures . 8. They teach , that the Pope hath two swords , and a triple crowne as King of Kings , and Lord of Lords . But the Church of England for a thousand yeares after Christ neuer saw , nor beléeued any such thing . Nay the English know wel y t Greg. the 7. was y e first y t took vp arms against y e Emperor . 9. They teach , that the Pope hath power to depose Kings & to assoile subiects from their oaths of obedience . But this Sigebertus Gemblacensis anno 1088. sheweth to haue vin reputed a nouelty , if not an heresie . The Church of England neuer saw any Pope attempt such a thing before King Iohns time , and then the same did not beléeue it , or allow it . 10. The moderne synagogue of Rome teacheth that the Pope is the head , foundation , and spouse of Christes Church . But no visible Church euer taught this , vntill of late time : the Church of England neuer held it , nor beleeued it . 11. Now they thinke it lawfull to suborne the subiects against their Prince , and to hire priuie murtherers & assassinors to cut y e throte of Kings excommunicate , as appeareth by the excōmunications of Paule the 3. against Henry the 8. King of England , of Pius the 5. and Sixtus the 5. against our late dread soueragine Quéene Elizabeth , and by the doctrine of Emanuel Sa in his wicked Aphorismes . Nay of late they haue attempted by gunpowder to blow vp the King and his Sonne albeit not excommunicated , and to massacre & murther the most eminent men in this kingdome , and wholy to ouerthrow the state . But y e Church of England euer taught obedience to Princes , and disliked this damnable doctrine . 12. They teach , that the Pope is aboue all generall Councels . But no Church euer beleeued this for a thousand foure hundred yeares . The Doctors assembled at Constance and Basil decréed the contrary doctrine to be more Christian. 13. They teach , that the Pope is supreme iudge of all matters of controuersie in religion . But the Church of England euer thought it a matter absurd , to make a blind man iudge of colours , or an vnlearned & irreligious fellow to be iudge of matters of learning and religion . Now who knoweth not , that most Popes are such ? Of Benedict that liued in the Emperour Henry the 2. his daies . Sigebertus in ann . Do. 1045. writeth , that he was so rude & ignorant , that he could not reade his breuiary , but was inforced to choose another to do it . Benedictus , saith he , qui Simoniacè Papatum Rom. inuaserat , cum esset rudis literarum alterum ad vices Ecclesiastici officij exequendas , secum Papam Syluestrum 151. consecrari fecit . 14. They now fall downe before the Pope and kisse his féet ; and when he list to goe abrode , they cary him like an idoll vpon mens shoulders . But no Church for aboue a thousand yeares after Christ did euer kisse the feet of Antichrist , or adore him . Nay the Church of England did alwayes know full well , that S. Peter a farre holier and honester man then Clement the 8. or Paule the 5. would not suffer Cornelius to lye at his feet , or to worship him . 15. They now call the Pope God , and acknowledge him to be their good Lord and God , as appeareth by the Chapter Satis . dist . 96. and the glosse vpon Iohn the 22. his Extrauagant , cum inter nonnullos . de verb. signif . Commonly the Canonists honor him as a God on the earth . But no Church did euer abase it selfe so low , as to vse these high termes to so base a fellow . The Church of England , though patient in bearing the Popes iniuries , did neuer vse any such slauish formes of flattery . 16. They beléeue , that the Pope can change kingdomes , and take a kingdome from one , and giue it to another . Potest mutare regna , saith Bellarmine lib. 5. de Pontif. Rom. ca. 6. atque vni auferre atque alteri conferre . But this no Church of God euer beléeued . The Church of England , certes , when King Iohn would haue made his Kingdome tributary to the Pope , disallowed and detested the fact : and when the Pope would haue deposed King Henry the eight , manfully resisted him . So did the French likewise oppose themselues against Iulius the 2. that went about to wrest the Scepter out of the hands of Lewes the twelfth . 17. They beléeue , that Abbots and Friars may by priuilege of the Pope giue voices in Councels , and that an Abbot may ordeine Clerks , as appeareth by the practise of their late conuenticles , and by the priuileges granted to the Benedictines . But all ancient Councels declare , that Councels are assemblies not of Monks & Friars , but of Bishops : and all Churches according to the Canons of y e Apostles as they are called , acknowledge that ordination of Ministers belongeth to true Bishops , & not to blockish statues , called Popes . 18. They beléeue that Cardinals only now haue voyce in the election of the Bishop of Rome . But this no Church beleeued for a thousand yeares after Christ. The Church of England euer held rather the ancient Canons , that gaue the election of Bishops to the clergy with the people , then these late humorous Canons , and Decretals of Popes . 19. They beléeue , that Monks are Clergy men , and necessary members of the Church . But no Church for a thousand yeares after Christ euer beléeued it . 20. The Friars of the orders of Francis and Dominicke and other begging societies , were not séene in the world before the times of Innocent the third . But these orders are counted principall ornaments of the Romish church . 21. No Church euer beléeued for a thousand yeares , that the state of perfection consisted in Monkish vowes , or that Friers were to be called religious men , or members of the Church . 22. For aboue a thousand yeares no Church euer allowed , that Monks and Friars should make vowes to the blessed virgin , to Saints , and the founders of Monkish orders , as now they do in the Romish Church . 23. Ancient Christian Churches beléeued , that mariage was not dissolued or separated by entring into Monasteries , neither that such as had contracted or maried themselues might depart into Monasteries , & liue asunder . Nay they beléeued Christ that teacheth , that man is not to separate that , which God hath ioyned together , rather then the Pope . 24. The Papists beléeue , that the vowes of Chastity , Pouerty , and Monkish obedience be works of supererogation , and deserue a higher degrée of glory in heauen , then works commanded by Gods law . But no Church of Christ euer beléeued this . 25. The forme of the popish Church is composed of a triple crowned Pope , with two swords , and a guard of Switzers , of Cardinals in broad hats and purple gownes , of shauen Masse-priests , Monks and Friars , and of a multitude of ignorant people , that subiect thēselues to the Pope , and cry Miserere nobis . But such a deformed company was neuer seene in y e world for a thousand two hundred yeares . Let Parsons therefore take heed , least while he contendeth that Christes Church was alwayes visible in the world , he prooue not the Romish Church not to be Christes Church . 26. God prohibiteth the shauing of heads and beards as a thing indecent in his Priests , Non radent caput , neque barbam , sayth Moyses Leuit. 19. neque in carnibus suis facient incisuras . We reade also , that this shauing , and whipping , or lancing of mens selues came from the priests of Baal , and from the Gentiles . We are not therefore to thinke , that the Church of Christ would admit such abuses , rontrary to Gods word . In the Church of England such shauing , and lashing , and cutting of mens selues for a thousand yeares and more , was not commonly receiued , nor practised . 27. In England we do not reade for a thousand yeares , that the Pope did bestow Bistopricks by his prouisions or commendaes , or that he disposed of Ecclesiasticall liuings . Robert Parsons would be desired to shew this out of his reading , and what visible Church it was that allowed it . 28. In Rome the Pope ruled not in temporalties vntill Boniface the 9. his time ; nor had he the patrimony of Peter , as it is called , till after Gregory the 7. his Papacy . Doth it not then appeare , that the visible Church of Rome ruling the temporalties , and Peters patrimonie was inuisible vntill their times ? 29. The Church doth take his forme partly of doctrine , and partly of lawes . But the schoole doctrine of Aquinas and his folowers was not much knowne before the yeare 1●00 . and the Decretals of Popes had no force of law vntill Gregory the 9. his time . Doth it not then follow necessarily , that the Church of Rome that now is , hath risen vp out of the earth , and that but of late time ? 30. For more then a thousand yeares wée do not reade that any Church beleeued to be saued by the merits of S. Francis , S. Dominike , or other Saints . They are therefore of a late stampe , that beléeue this . 31. The Church of Rome neuer receiued the doctrine of the Popes Indulgences , or beléeued his Buls of Iubiley , vnlesse it were within this two or thrée hundred yeares . The true Church euer abhorred them . 32. The ancient true Church neuer did beléeue , that the Pope was able to fetch soules out of Purgatory with his Indulgences . 33. The distinction of the merit of Congruity and Condignity was not receiued of any knowne Church , vntill such time as the Schoolemen taught this strange doctrine . 34. The Missals , breuiaries and offices , that now are receiued by the Popish Church , were not knowne before the conuenticle of Trent . The Church of England vsed other formes in former times . 35. The Church of England likewise for more then a M. yeares did not call vpō Saints in publike Letanies . Neither did this , or any other church in old time say Masses & offices in honor of Angels , Saints , and the blessed virgin Mary . 36. That Church that vseth to consecrate paschall lambs , and to make holy water to driue away diuels , was not visible for one thousand two hundred yeares and more . In England , Parsons cannot shew any Church allowing these formes before that time . 37. Nicholas the 2. in y t chap. Ego Berēgarius . dist . 2. de Consec . was the first that taught his Romish adherents , that Christs flesh was handled with hands , and torne with téeth . 38. The first that taught , that a dogge or a hogge eating a consecrated hoste did swallow downe Christes true body into his belly , was Alexander Hales , Part. 4. sum . q. 53. memb . 2. and qu. 45. memb . 1. In this blasphemous opinion Thomas Aquinas Part. 3. sum . q. 80. art . 3. doth second him . And now the blasphemous rabble of Masse-priests & their folowers do hold the same opinion , contrary to the doctrine of the visible Church of ancient times . 39. The Church of England neuer beléeued , that Christians were eaters of mans flesh , and Canibals . But the moderne Romish Church holdeth , that Christians take Christes flesh with their téeth , and swallow downe his flesh and bloud into their bellies . 40. Innocent the 3. was the first that made his adherents beléeue , that the bread was transubstantiat into Christes flesh , and the wine into his bloud in the Sacrament . Parsons if he can tell any newes of transubstantiation before his time , shal do his friends good pleasure not to conceale them . Otherwise y e beginning of this transubstantiating Church will be deriued no higher then from Innocentius his reigne . 41. The same man did first ordeine , that both men and women should yearely confesse their sinnes to a Priest. Which sheweth the originall of the popish Church , confessing her sinnes in the priests eare . 42. The Masse-priests sacrificing the very body and bloud of Christ for quick and dead , receiued no authority for their massing sacrifice , before the time of the conuenticle of Trent . Who then would not maruell , that these massing companions should brag of the antiquity of their massing Church , whose massing sacrifice had no certaine establishment before that time ? 43. The Church neuer vsed to hang the sacrifice of Christs body ouer the Altar before the times of Honorius the third . It is not therefore much more then thrée hundred yeares since these hangers and abusers of the sacrament of Christes body in the Church appeared . 44. That the accidents of bread and wine subsist in the Eucharist without their substances , the Romish church began to beléeue only from the times of the conuenticle of Constance . From thence therefore the Church beléeuing this point tooke her beginning . 45. That the Priest doth worke three miracles , as oft as he doth consecrate , and that all Masse-priests are workers of miracles , no true Church can beléeue , or euer did beléeue . Only the miraculous ideots , that subiect themselues to Antichrist , and receiue the Romish Catechisme prescribed them by the conuenticle of Trent , are bound to beleeue it . 46. For a thousand yeares Christes Church neuer knew any priuat Masse without Communion . The Church therfore that vseth priuat Masses without Communion , is but a new vpstart Church . 47. The Communion vnder one kinde was not established by law before the conuenticle of Constance . This therefore doth shew also , that the Romish church communicating vnder one kind is but of late continuance . 48. That Masses should be good to cure sick Horses , and mesel Swine , is but a late doctrine . Of a late beginning therefore is that Church that beléeueth these things , and sayth Masses for faire weather , and rayne , against the Plague , and for all purposes , yea for sick Horses and mesel Swine . 49. The first that set downe any certeinty for 7. Sacraments was he that borowed the name of the conuenticle of Florence in the instruction giuen to the Armenians . The 7. Sacramentary church therefore is but new . 50. Then also were the Romanists taught , what were the words of Popish Confirmation , and extreme Unction . But the Church of God hitherto neuer beléeued , that these are Sacraments , or were ordeined by Christ to be vsed by the Church in the forme prescribed by the conuenticle of Florence . Would Parsons shew , when and where Christ instituted these two Romish Sacraments , he might resolue his folowers of a great doubt , and do himselfe great honor . 51. Bellarmine teacheth , that all Sacraments do iustifie the receiuers ex opere operato : and like it is , that the Romanists , as becommeth good schollers , do follow their masters doctrine . But sure no Church of Christ hitherto did euer beléeue , that Christians were iustified by Mariage , Orders , Confirmation , or extreme Unction . 52. The true Church of Christ did euer beléeue , that Christ did perfectly satisfie for the sinnes of the whole world . It must néeds therfore be a new congregation , and opposite to Christes Church , that teacheth or beléeueth , that euery Christian is to satisfie himselfe for the temporall paines of sinnes committed after Baptisme . 53. In the conuenticle of Florence we reade , that it was first decréed , that such as departed this life without satisfaction for sinnes committed , are purged with Purgatory fire , and that such may be ŕelieued by Masses , oraisons & almes . Bellarmine lib. 2. de Purgat . ca. 13. telleth vs , How by many reuelations it hath bene declared , that soules are tormented there by Diuels . It cannot therefore be an ancient Church , whose faith is patched vp by such fellowes , and consisteth of such strange nouelties . 54. Whether Indulgences do profit soules in Purgatory ex condigno , or only ex congruo , the matter seemeth not yet resolued , as may appeare by Bellarmines dispute lib. 1. de Purgator . c. 14. In ancient time the Church of England was ignorant of the popish doctrine of Indulgences . It cannot therefore be an ancient society , that teacheth such new doctrines , and is not yet resolued vpon them . 55. Boniface the 8. did first institute Iubileys . Clement the 6. from a hundred yeares brought the solemnity to 50. and Sixtus the 4. to 25. Where it standeth . We may therefore conclude , that this iubilating Church of Rome differed much from the Church of Christ before Constantines time , and that it was not heard of before the dayes of Boniface the eight . 56. The Romanists worship the Crosse , and Crucifixe , and Images of the Trinity with Latria . But such an Image-worshipping Church is not to be found vntill such time as Thomas Aquinas taught this idolatrous doctrine . 57. They kisse Images , bow to them , offer incense to them , and set vp lights , and say Masses before them . But these tricks were not frequented in the Church of England , for a thousand yeares , nor euer in any true Christian Church were publikely receiued . 58. They call vpon the blessed Virgin , as their gate of saluation , and pray to Saints , and Angels , as mediators of intercession . They do also make vowes to them , and say Masses in their honor , all which proue the erection of their congregations to be new , and of a late deuice . 59. They beleeue , that S. Rock and S. Sebastian cure the plague , that Apollonia cureth toothach , that S. Lewes hath horses in his protection , and S. Antony pigges , of which all true Christians may be much ashamed . 60. With the Collyridians the Romanists offer a rake in the honor of the blessed Virgin , and with many other heretikes bring in diuers heresies , and not only nouelties . Finally , for their owne impure traditions they leaue the obseruance of Gods holy lawes . Let them therefore henceforth leaue to vaunt of the antiquity of their Church , or to tell vs of nouelties , séeing their Church holding these nouelties must néeds be new and of a late erection . CHAP. XIII . That Parsons maketh no conscience to wrest and corrupt holy Scriptures . THus we sée the substance of Parsons his two first bookes of Three Conuersions quashed , and brought to nothing . But because he hath committed diuers other faults , which in the sequele of our discourse we could not particularly insist vpon , we haue thought it good to referre their further examination to this place . For whatsoeuer bragges his followers do make of this braue worke , yet by examination it will appeare , that the Author hath fouly abused and mistaken Scriptures , corrupted , falsified , and falsely alledged Fathers , and other Authors , bragged of himselfe and his conforts most vainely , taken things in question as granted most simply , erred in historyes and other authors most childishly , applyed Scriptures and spoken of God and matters concerning God most blasphemously , behaued himselfe toward his Prince most disloyally , lyed and calumniated honest men most impudently , alledged matters making against himselfe most sottishly : and to reduce all into a briefe summe ; that this whole treatise is nothing else , but a fardle of false allegations , corruptions , lyes and fooleries . That he maketh no conscience to wrest and peruert the words of holy Scriptures , it appeareth by these particulars . In the front of his booke , which he like a man of a front & face without shame entituleth , A treatise of Three Conuersions of England , he tumbleth two sentences of Scripture together , and maketh one of two . He doth also wrest them both contrary to the meaning of the holy Ghost . For whereas Deuter. 4. whence his first place is taken , we are willed to enquire of ancient times , and thereof to learne Gods great works in deliuering his people , he applyeth the words of that text to the times of late Popes , and to their trash and traditions . And out of the words , Deut. 32. whence his second place is taken , where we are commanded to remember the old dayes of our forefathers , &c. he instnuateth , that we are to looke back to the Popes Decretals , and corruptions of former times . But the holy Scripture sendeth vs to the Prophets & Patriarks , and the people of God , which were eye witnesses of Gods speciall fauour towards his people . Both the places do vtterly ouerthrow Parsons his cause , that hath neither help of antiquity , nor testimony of the Fathers of the Church . In his Epistle he applieth these words Philip. 1. To you it is giuen , not only to beleeue in him , but also to suffer for him : to his complices the Papists . But he leaueth out these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , for Christ. Percase his conscience told him , that in England none of his consorts suffer for Christ , but rather for Antichrist . Further , most of them are so ignorant , that they neither know what Christ is , nor what it is to beléeue in Christ , holding it sufficient to beléeue as the Pope doth , who for the most part beléeueth no more then the great Turke . Where the Apostle Philip. 1. saith , Ut vincula mea manifesta fierent in Christo in omni praetorio : he changeth his words , and maketh him to say , Vincula vestra manifesta siunt in Christo in omni praetorio , making the Apostle to speake an vntruth , and applying his words to the Papists , who neuer suffered for Christ , nor were euer called before any barre for his sake , but rather for treason and rebellion , and mainteining the faction of Antichrist , to whose seruice they haue consecrated themselues . He doth also mistake the Apostles meaning vtterly , where he saith , The Apostle gloried of himselfe and his fellowes . For he doth not once mention his fellowes , nor glory of himselfe or his bonds , as this glorious fellow surmiseth . The Apostle 1. Thess. 1. commendeth them , for that they became followers of Christ , and of the Apostles , and receiued the word of God with ioy in the holy Ghost , in great tribulation . But Parsons applieth these words to the Papists . Let indifferent men therefore iudge how madly he applieth , and biolētly wresteth holy Scriptures to serue his leud purpose . For Papists follow not Christ , nor his Apostles , but Antichrist & his false apostles the Masse-priests and Iebusites . The word of God in vulgar tongues they receiue not to be read publikely : nor do they ioy so much in the holy Ghost , as in their owne diuelish practises , treacheries , and murthers . They suffer no tribulation , nor affliction of mind or body , but liue in all delights & pleasures of the world , rather following the sect of the Epicures , then the piety of Christians . Neither can it be shewed wherein y e Papists of England may be resembled in any thing to the Christians of Macedonia , vnlesse it be , in that they be enemies of the crosse of Christ , and make a god of their belly , as the Apostle saith , speaking of some Macedonians Philip. 3. Finally the place is not so euil applied , but it is worse translated : for to the text he addeth these words published euery where throughout the world , and leaueth out these , that we need not to speake any thing . These words of God by his Prophet Isay , chap. 1. I will turne my hand vpon thee , and purge away thy drosse , till thou be made pure , and will take away thy tinne : are so absurdly applied to his consorts , that professe a religion full of drosse and superstition , a religion most impure and full of hereticall corruption , a religion full of base mettall , and that teacheth her clients to worship Images of tinne & lead , y e while he endeuoreth to praise the Papists , he doth vtter words that do vtterly confound both them & their drossy Religion . Intus pugnae , foris timores , saith the Apostle 1. Cor. 7. But Parsons to shew that he mainteineth a peruerse Rèligion , turneth his words contremont , making him to say Foris pugnae , intus timores . It may be , he was much ashamed to acknowledge , that there is such a faction & diuision betwixt y e Secular Priests and the Iebusites throughout England . Further , if vnity be a marke of the Church , as his consorts pretend , then did he well perceiue , that such diuided companies as the Secular Priests & Iebusites cannot belong to the Church , and therefore thought it best to corrupt the Apostles words . Matth. 8. we reade , how Christ arose and rebuked the winds and sea , and how there followed a great calme . But Parsons wickedly applieth these words to the Pope , for Christ honoring Antichrist , and giuing the power of God to a wretched man , who is so far from calming winds and seas , that he cannot appease the troubles of his owne house , nor stop the ouerflowing of Tiber. Nay albeit he endeuor to stop the breaths of true preachers , yet shall the sword of the word of God issuing out of their mouths lay his kingdome wast , and destroy the fortresses of his Antichristian state . 1. Reg. 3. Heli the priest submitteth himselfe to the will of God , foretelling the certaine destruction of his house , saying , It is the Lord , let him do whatsoeuer seemeth good in his eyes . But Parsons doth impiously apply them to the Kings Maiesty , disloyally as it seemeth , wishing and prophecying of some such like destruction to the Kings house , and lignage , as hapned to Heli and his issue : and this the gunpouder and vndermining Papists haue of late attempted . In these words Hebrews 5. Didicit ex ijs , quae passus est , obedientiam : Parsons leaueth out the word , obedientiam , and where the Apostle approprieth them to Christ , he detorteth them to the King. In his Preface alledging the words of Christ Matth. 24. he maketh himselfe to say , That such times of heresie and contradiction should come , whē one sect would say , here is Christ , and another , there is Christ. Where we may sée manifestly , that he neither speaketh of diuers sects , nor of y t contradiction or heresies of diuers sects , but saith indefinitely , If any say here is Christ , or there is Christ , beleeue him not . And this directly maketh against euery seueral sect of Papists , who pretend that Christes body is conteined in pixes , and lyeth lurking vnder the accidents of consecrated hostes , and is offerd by polshorne prièsts in euery corner of their Churches . Citing the words of Peter , Act. 10. who saith , That Christ was not manifested to all the people , but to certaine witnesses before appointed by God , he beareth his reader in hand , that this was done to the end that their faith might be of more merit : whereas we find not any mention made of merit in that place , nor any suspition of any such matter . Out of the words of Marke . c. 16. he concludeth , That we are to captiuate our vnderstanding not only to the obedience of Christ , but also to those that preach vnto vs. But there is great difference betwixt the incredulity of those y t would not beleeue the Apostles teaching Christes resurrection , of which Marke speaketh , and the piety of such , as beleeue not the Friers , Monks and Masse-priests , which are the false Apostles sent out by Antichrist , teaching y e Popes Decretals , and Romish forged traditions . Pag. 21. he endeuoreth to proue by S. Peters words Act. 15. that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles . But S. Paul Galat. 2. sheweth , that the Gospel ouer the circumcision was committed to Peter , and the Gospell ouer the vncircumcision to himselfe . Act. 15. he saith nothing , but that God appointed that the Gētiles should by his mouth heare the word of the Gospel . But that may be true in case any number of the Gentiles should heare him preach the Gospell . The words of Peter certes do not exclude others . Pag. 441. rehersing y e words of Daniel . c. 2. he applieth them to y e Church of Rome , as if y e church were that kingdome , that shal neuer be dissipated , and shall cōsume & weare out all other kingdoms : but by y e sequel of y e text it appeareth , that they are to be vnderstood of the vniuersall Church and kingdome of Christ , and not of any one particular congregation , much lesse of the synagogue of Rome , that is now begun to be dissipated by the true preachers of Gods word on one side , and is greatly straited by the Turke on the other side . He doth also fraudulently leaue out these words in his quotation , Et regnum eius alteri populo non dabit , least he should thereby declare , that euery particular city and people is excluded from the claime of the right of the vniuersall kingdome of Christ. And with this faith he citeth other Scriptures . CHAP. XIIII . A Catalogue of diuers falsifications , false allegations , and corruptions of the Fathers of the Church , and other Authors committed by Rob. Parsons . IN ciuill causes to deale vntruly , it is but falsity . But in matters of faith , to vse false dealing , doth beside falsity imply impiety . He therefore that was not afraide to force Scriptures , will not spare to forge and falsifie the Fathers , and other Authors , as may appeare by the practise of Rob. Parsons . To proue that S. Augustine said , That Christians ought to trauaile by sea and land , countries and kingdomes to seeke out the truth and certeinty of Catholike Religion , he citeth in his Preface first Possidonius in vita Augustini , and next Augustine himselfe lib. 4. & 5. Confess . But in the first place there is not one word for his purpose . In the second , there is not that which he surmiseth . Nay it is not like , that S. Augustine would write as he affirmeth , seeing to find true Catholike religion , and the certeinty thereof , we néede neither to passe the Sea , nor to trauaile to Hierusalem or Rome , but are rather to search the bookes of holy Scripture , which teach the same sufficiently . He saith , that S. Augustine lib. de morib . Eccles. c. 17. and Chrysostome in a certaine Homily reprehend greatly the sluggishnes of diuers men in their dayes , that seeing sects and heresies to arise , and diuersities of religion in almost euery country , did not bestirre themselues to try out the truth . But he abuseth both these holy Fathers , whereof the first hath no such words or reprehension . The second talketh not of the diuersities of religions , but only exhorteth Christians to embrace the Christian faith earnestly . The which doth concerne Popery nothing , which hath béen sowne in Gods field long after the first planting of the Christian faith . Augustine tractat . 73. in Ioan. hath these words , Haec est laus fidei , si quod creditur , non videtur . To these words Parsons addeth the word merit , and translateth thē thus , The praise or merit of faith stands in this , that the thing be not seene which is beleeued . He should haue said thus , Herein consisteth the prayse of faith , if that be beleeued , that is not seene . And this ouerthroweth the doctrine of the Papists , that teach , that the Catholike Church which we beléeue in our Créede , is visible . He maketh Ambrose to say thus lib. 1. de Abraham . ca. 3. If a graue honorable person in this life , especially if he be of high authority and our superior , will take it in disdaine to be asked a proofe , for that he affirmeth , how much more ought God to be credited , when he proposeth vnto vs a matter aboue our reach or capacitie ? But therein he sheweth himselfe neither graue nor honorable , to impute his owne sayings to so graue a Father . S. Ambrose sayth only , How vnworthy a matter were it , to beleeue the testimonies of men concerning others , and not to beleeue Gods oracles concerning himselfe ? Quam indignum , vt humanis testimonijs de alio credamus , dei oraculis de se non credamus ? This also toucheth the Papists very néere , who will not beléeue holy Scriptures , which are Gods oracles , without the testimony of the Pope . Pag. 3. he saith , That Eleutherius conuerted King Lucius and his subiects by the preaching of Damianus and his fellowes ; and for proofe alledgeth Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. ca. 17. & 18. But Bede in these two Chapters doth not so much as once mention any such matter . And ca. 4. where he speaketh of Eleutherius and Lucius , he doth not once name Damianus or his fellowes , or speake of the conuersion of Lucius his subiects . Furthermore it is absurd to say , that Eleutherius did conuert the Britains by Damianus . For if Damianus preathed vnto them , then did he conuert them , and not Eleutherius . Pag. 7. alledging Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 34. he maketh him say , that Austin and his fellowes entred into Canterbury in Procession , with a crosse , and the image of our Sauiour in a banner . But first he misseth the chapter alledging the 34. for the 26. Next he speaketh more then his author doth warrant him . for he neither speaketh of procession , which was a later deuice , nor of the image of our Sauiour in a banner . Crucem pro vexillo ferentes argēteam saith he , & imaginem Domini saluatoris in tabula depictam , that is , carying a siluer crosse for an ensigne , and an image of our Lord & Sauiour painted on a table . So it appeareth they neither louged a crucifixe with them , nor prayed to the crosse , nor worshipped Christes image . Pag. 9. citing Cyprians testimony lib. 2. epist. 3. for proof of his massing sacrifice , he cutteth out these words out of the midst of the sentence qui id quod Christus fecit imitatur . Which argueth , that the popish Balamite priests offer no right sacrifice , digressing from Christes institution . Pag. 11. out of Eusebius he saith , That Peter sate Bishop of Rome for 25. yeares together . And out of Bede lib. 1. hist. Anglor . c. 3. that there began to be such war in Britany , that Claudius resolued to go thither with the admiration of the whole world . But neither doth Eusebius in his story , nor any other good author say , y t Peter sate Bishop of Rome 25. yeres together , neither doth Bede in y e place mētioned speak of wars in Britany , or of the admiratiō of the world in regard of his iourney . Pag. 12. rehersing the words of Malmesburiensis in fastis an . Christi 86. he addeth these words , and brought into a perfect forme of prouince , which is both a notorious forgery & falsity . Pag. 19. he alledgeth a coūterfet Decretal vnder the name of Innocentius , where he affirmeth most falsely , that all the Churches of Afrike and diuers other countries there named were cōuerted by S. Peter , or his successors . To this counterfet epistle Parsons also addeth these words , or his schollers , therein declaring himselfe to be a master in forgery . Pag. 25. he alledgeth out of Cyprian Epist. 45. That he glorieth in that his Church of Carthage in Africa , and all the other Churches vnder her in Mauritania and Numidia had receiued their first institution of Christian faith from Rome , as from their mother . But the words of Cyprian are gloriously corrupted by him . And that may in part appeare by Pamelius his edition of Cyprian , but more clearely by older copies . Neither can Parsons himselfe make these words good out of any other place of Cyprian . Pag. 26. where Tertullian li. de Praeser . aduers. Haeret. vseth the testimonie of diuers Churches , as well , as of that of Rome , he onely mentioneth Rome , and concealeth the authoritie of other Churches . There also he saith , that S. Augustine in Psal. contr . part . Donati , had no better way to defend his Church of Hippo , and other of those countries to be truly Catholike then to say , they were daughters and children of the Church of Rome . But it séemeth he dreamed , when he wrote these things : if not , then he lyed of mere malice . For in that place neither these words , nor any such matter is to be found . Pag. 28. he saith , That Irenaeus , Tertullian , S. Cyprian , S. Augustine , and others are wont to vrge this consequent against Heretikes , to wit , that if our Church be the daughter and disciple of the Church of Rome ; then ought it to runne to her in all doubts & difficulties of matters of faith . Thus doth he write , & this he affirmeth , with one breath belying diuers Fathers . And that shall himselfe perceiue , if he list to alledge their words . We may easily imagine the same to be true , for that y e consequent is so absurd . For if all Churches were to haue recourse to their mother Church for decision of controuersies concerning the faith : then were the Church of Rome and all others to deriue their decisions concerning matters of faith from Ierusalem . But this , Parsons himselfe will not grant . Pag. 30. he telleth a tale of one Beatus a Briton , who being conuerted to the faith , as he saith , was sent by Ioseph to Rome to S. Peter the head of the Apostles , to be better instructed and confirmed . And this he deliuereth to his reader , as testified by B. Rhenanus lib. 3. rerum Germa . sub Hello , and Pantaleon de viris German . part . 3. But he doth grossely abuse his reader in telling grosse vntruths vpon the credit of these witnesses , who onely mention this Beatus , but report no such matter of him . Further Rhenanus doth no otherwise accompt of this report , then as of a Monkish fable , and thereupon saith , That he findeth small helpe from the Chronicles of Monkes , to furnish his storie . Pag. 33. he telleth vs , that few of the Britains obserued Easter after the manner of the Easterne Church , and fathereth this fable vpon Bede in diuers places . But Bede himselfe lib. 2. hist. Anglor . cap. 2. refuteth his foolish tale , shewing , that Austin obiected this obseruance to al the Bishops of Britaine , and how they refused to leaue the same . Pag. 42. he vrgeth an Epistle set out vnder Innocents name , and saith , That the British Churches are put among the rest . But neither are they there once mentioned , nor is this Decretall Epistle to be estéemed , being plainely counterfeit . Pag. 43. he citeth Orosius hist. lib. 2. and saith , that he calleth Innocentius an holy Father . But there is neither holinesse , nor honestie in fathering lies vpon holy Fathers . Pag. 45. and in diuers places he citeth Eusebius his Chronicles , yet he is simple , that perceiueth not , that those Chronicles were neuer written by Eusebius : and shall be much intricated , if he confesse all therein written to be true and perfect . There it is said , That S. Peter sate 25. yeares at Antioch , which Parsons will not confesse . In the margent against the yeare 146. it is said , Hîc omissa est linea de Pio. Parsons for the 146. yeare after Christ alledgeth the 144. yeare . Pag. 46. for proofe , that the kéeping of Easter contrarie to the Romane vse was condemned as an heresie , and so held in all ages after , he quoteth Bede hist. Angl. lib. 3. cap. 19. and Eusebius lib. 3. de vita Constant. cap. 17. & 18. But in the place alledged out of Bede there is not so much , as any colour of this matter . By Eusebius in the place quoted , and Bede lib. 3. cap. 25. we may gather , that an order was appointed for vniforme obseruation of Easter . But neither of them affirmeth them to be heretikes , that did not obserue that order . Nor is it to be reputed heresie , not to obserue all Canons , that concerne such ceremonies . Nay it cannot be proued , that Vlfride saith , That this error might be tolerable in them , that liued so distant from the sea Apostolike , in a corner of the world , albeit this glozing parasite of the sea Apostatike of Rome , do affirme it , pag. 48. Pag. 49. he belyeth Marianus Scotus , Prosper , Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor . cap. 19. and other authors making them to say , That Celestine sent Patritius and Palladius to conuert the Irish and Scots . For neither do the authors mentioned speake of more , then one of these two , nor can he make his assertion good by the testimonie of other authors . Pag. 50. he saith , that Pelagius crept into many learned , and godly mens loue , and friendship , and aboue others with Paulinus and S. Augustine . And for proofe he quoteth S. Augustines Epistle 105. and lib. 2. de Bon. Perseueran . cap. 20. But in neither place is there any such matter to be found . In the second place , it is said , that Pelagius talked with a fellow Bishop of S. Augustines , but it is also said , that he disliked his talke . Ferre non potuit . Pag. 52. he falsifieth Eusebius lib. 3. de vit . Constant. ca. 18. making Constantine there to say , That the greater part of the East held the Romane vse , viz. for the time of Easter . His words are onely these : Nonnullae , quae in locis ad Orientem spectantibus habitant . Pag. 53. out of Nicephorus hist. Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 36. he affirmeth , That the calculation of the Romane vse was hard . But he forgeth a deposition , which his witnesse will neuer agnize . Pag. 112. he maketh Ambrose to say , That the substance of one bodie is changed into another . But that holy Father hath no such words , as this falsarie hath reported out of his writings . Pag. 117. boldly he affirmeth , that in the writings of Athanasius , Hilarie , Optatus , Basil , Nazianzen , Ambrose , Hierome , Chrysostome , Epiphanius , Cyrill and other more auncient Fathers there is euery where mention made of the doctrine , which Papists maintaine concerning the Pope , the Masse , Transubstantiation and Images . But it is a bald course to say euery where , when neither himselfe , nor Bellarmine a farre better disputer then he , is able any where to find the Pope to be supreme iudge of controuersies , and Christs Uicar generall , and that he cannot erre , or that Christs body and bloud is offered in the Masse by the Priest for quicke and dead , and in honor of Saints , or that the substance of bread and wine is turned into Christs bodie and bloud in the Eucharist , or that any Images are to be worshipped with Latria , and such like popish doctrines . Blushed he not then , to bely so many Fathers , in so many matters , and all with one breath ? Pag. 128. rehearsing certaine words of the Magdeburgians concerning factions and opinions , he addeth these words : Among them , that professe the Gospell , which they haue not . He taketh also the word Communicationem , from their sentence concerning the presence of Christs body . Pag. 129. in the allegation out of Irenaeus lib. 3. aduers. haeres . cap. 3. he choppeth off the beginning of his sentence , which declareth , that the tradition of other Churches was as well to be respected , as that of Rome . He maketh him also to say , That all Churches must agree to the Church of Rome : which he neuer thought . Lastly , by tradition he giueth his reader to vnderstand , that Irenaeus speaketh of traditions not contained in Scriptures , where expresiy he mentioneth the Articles of the faith most plainly contained in holy Scriptures . Pag. 177. to shew , that there was conformitie of Religion throughout Christendome , except onely in some places of the world , where were certaine reliques of Pelagians , and Eutychians and other Heretikes , for the first he alledgeth Gregory lib. 5. Epist. 14. and for the second Greg. lib. 10 in lob cap. 29. Whereas in the first place he onely mentioneth & Pelagian booke , and in the second doth not so much as speak one word of the Eutychians , and in neither hath any word concerning the vniformitie of Religion throughout Christendome . Pag. 188. to proue the word Masse he alledgeth Augustines Serm. 237. and 251. de Tempore . Concil . Mileuit . cap. 12. Epiphanius haeres . 5. Euseb. lib. 5. hist. cap. 23. and vit . Constant. lib. 3. cap. 17. and Concil . Carthag . 4. cap. 84. But first Eusebius and Epiphanius are grossely belyed . For how could they writing in Gréeke speake of the Latine Masse ? Secondly , the two Sermons ascribed to S. Augustine , as the rest also De Tempore are counterfeit . And yet nothing is therein concerning the Popish Masse . Thirdly , the Councel of Mileuis speaking of Missae or dimissions of the people by certaine blesings , and the fourth Councell of Carthage by the word Missa , vnderstanding the dimission of the Catechumeni , maketh nothing for the Popish Masse . These authors therefore are fondly and falsely alledged . Pag. 201. he telleth , how Patritius was sent to the Scots after Palladius , and for euidence bringeth foorth Prosper contr . Collator . and Bede lib. 1. hist. Angl. c. 13. but neither of them hath one word of Patritius . Pag. 228. he saith , that Irenaeus accompteth the enumeration of the Bishops of Rome a full proofe against Heretikes . But he abuseth this holy Father , and belyeth him . For of this full proofe he hath not one word . Further , he speaketh of Churches , & not only of the Church of Rome , and with the succession of Bishops ioyneth the tradition of the faith kept in Churches . Lastly , by the tradition which he mentioneth , he meaneth the faith contained in holy Scriptures . Pag. 278. he alledgeth a place out of S. Augustine , lib. cont . Epist. fundam . cap. 4. touching succession , as if he made that a principall motiue to embrace the Christian faith , and a proper marke of the Church , whereas that holy Father reckoneth that among , and after others , and no way accompteth it a marke of the Church . Pag. 282. S. Augustine lib. de Vtilit . cred . c. 7. is alledged for proofe of the succession of the Church of Rome ; but falsly . For he speaketh of the successions of diuers Bishops in the whole Christian Church , which ouerthroweth the pretended prerogatiue of the Romish Church . Pag. 291. S. Augustine in Psal. 44. & 47. & lib. 2. contr . liter . Petil. and other Fathers are alledged , to proue the Church to be so visible , that euery one may sée it , and know it . But it seemeth our aduersarie cited them at all aduenture . For in some of these places litle mention is made of the Church , and in none of them is his intention proued . Pag. 305. To proue these words found in the Legend to haue bene vttered by S. Andrew , Ego omnipotenti Deo , qui vnus & verus est , immolo quotidiè , &c. He quoteth Bernard Sermon . de S. Andrea , and Lanfranc lib. contr . Berengar . But that Sermon is counterfeit , and in neither of the authors are these words to be found . Pag. 383. Bedes testimonie lib. 3. hist. cap. 27. is alledged to proue the sending of Willibrord with eleuen companions towards the conuersion of Germany . But the Chapter being read doth confute our aduersaries falshood . Pag. 401. To proue that Athens had no schooles of learning in it , when that woman , that was afterward Pope , & called Iohn the eight is reported to haue studied there , Zonaras and Cedrenus in vita Michael . & Theod. Anno Christi 856. are produced for witnesses : but falsly and absurdly . For no such matter is to be gathered out of them . Pag. 472. He maketh S. Augustine lib. 1. quaest . Euang. q. 38. and Tractat. 2. in Epist. Ioan. to say , that it is as easie to see in all ages , where the true visible Church goeth , as to see the Sunne at noone time , when it shineth clearest . But this is a tricke of his false dealing . For in the first place he saith onely , That the Church is rightly called Lightning , because it breaketh out of the clouds : which sheweth , that the Church is sometime darkened with cloudes , and not séene . And in the second he hath nothing but these words of the Psalme , in Sole posuit tabernaculum suum . Which do plainely demonstrate , the Church being like to the Sunne , that the same may be hidden or darkened , as the Sunne is hidden in the night , and in the day time obscured with clouds . And such is the mans honest dealing with other Fathers . CHAP. XV. Certaine examples of Robert Parsons his Thrasonicall bragges , and beggarly crauing of matters in question . COmmonly we find by experience , that the greatest braggers performe least . If no man else , yet Rob. Parsons doth verifie it by his example . For albeit he boasteth much , yet when it cometh to performance , he beggeth matters in question , rather then prooueth them . In his Epistle dedicatoris he braggeth of vndoubted Charters , Enrolments , Euidences , writings , and witnesses , which he saith he will bring foorth for proofe of the Romish religion , and giueth out great words of his future doughtie déedes . Yet when we come to the examination of his best proofes , we find that his witnesses depose either nothing for him , or much against him , that his euidences are euident demonstrations of his owne weaknesse & vanitie , and that in his owne writings he hath enrolled himself a bragging foole in great letters . There also he telleth vs further , how he produceth the iudgements , censures , sentences , and arrests of all Christian Parliaments of the world , to wit , the determination of the highest Ecclesiasticall Tribunals in fauour of his consorts the Papists of England . But this shamelesse bragge is refuted by the whole course of his worthlesse worke . For neither doth he handle any one principall point of faith in controuersie , nor doth he produce the Canons of lawfull generall Councels , which haue soueraigne authoritie in externall gouernment , to proue the doctrine of the Papists , but onely prateth idlely of counterfeit Decretals , and mentioneth forged instruments , suborned witnesses , and most weake surmises not woorth one chip . Furthermore , where he calleth Councels the highest Tribunals of the Church , he doth as it were with his putatiue Fathers sledge batter the Popes chaire in péeces . Thirdly , he vanteth of the honorable course of true obedience to God in matters of the soule , and loyall behauiour towards temporall Princes in al worldly affaires held by Papists . And this he saith is glorious both before God and man. But the mans notorious vanitie deserueth to be hated both of God and man. For how can they be thought to hold a right course of obedience toward God , that prohibite the reading of Gods word in the Church in tongues vnderstood ? And how may they seeme carefull in matters of the soule , that bring in new and strange worships of God , and for Christ serue Antichrist ? The disloyaltie of Papists is too too apparent not onely in the rebellions of England and Ireland , and their trecherous plots against his Maiestie and his predecessors , but also in their doctrine , teaching and professing , that Kings are the Popes vassals , and that he hath power to take away their Crownes , and to assoile subiects from their obedience . But if any doubted of their loyaltie before , now he may be resolued not onely by their trecherous plot to blow vp the Parliament house , but also by their open rebellion in Warwikeshire . Speaking of the fact of Pope Clement commanding his vassals in England to kéepe silence , he boasteth of it , as of a miracle . But it is no maruell , to sée the slaues of Antichrist obedient to his command . It were rather miraculous , if they should follow the lawes of God , and submit themselues to their lawfull Princes , and renounce the abhominations of Antichrist . In the latter end of his Epistle he braggeth , That supposing Christ to be Christ and his promises true , he wil ( forsooth ) by his doughtie discourse of Three Conuersions decide all the controuersies betwixt vs and the Papists , and that , as he professeth , with certaine sequele of argument , and necessarie demonstration . But his blustring bragges are passed without effect , and his clients rest more doubtfull then before . Nay his arguments are so ridiculous , that indifferent men do scorne them , and his demonstrations so lousie , that it appeareth plainely , that he is better affected to Antichrist , then to Christ , and groundeth his faith rather on the Popes Decretals , then holy Scriptures . Pag. 114. he beareth his reader in hand , that really and substantially he is able to proue our doctrine to be hèresie , and to shew the beginnings and authors thereof . But his shews are declared to be shadowes , and the substance of his discourse is disproued , as a packe of reall and grosse fooleries . Sooner shall he transubstantiate himself into a messe of Mustard , then either maintaine the masse of Popish heresies , or disproue the substance of our doctrine . Neither doth he more insolently boast of his owne doughtie déedes , then childishly beg , and take matters in question as granted . In the Epistle Dedicatory , and diuers other places , Papists are still called Catholikes , and Popish superstitiō couered and dignified by the name of Catholike Religion . Matters by all true Christians vtterly denyed , and by infinite particulars disproued , and apparently false . For how can they be truly esteemed Catholikes , that embrace the particular faith of the Church of Rome , neither taught by the Prophets , nor Apostles of Christ , nor knowne to y e ancient Fathers of the Church ? Or how can a particular , hereticall , superstitious & idolatrous Religion be reputed Catholike ? There also he supposeth the auncient monuments of the Church to be charters , and euidences for the moderne Romish Religion . A matter alwaies contradicted by vs , and neuer proued by our aduersaries , and yet boldly affirmed by this babling discourser . Let him therefore cease to beg this at our hands , and orderly deduce the doctrine of the Romish Masse , & Popes tyrannical rule , and the rest of their vnwritten traditions out of the ancient monuments of y e Church . Pag. 7. He telleth vs , That the Masse and Images were in vse in Gregory the 1. his time . And no question , but he vnderstandeth the Masse now vsed , and the worship of Images by the Church of Rome defended . But these are matters in questiō , & not impudently to be affirmed , but seriously to be proued . Pag. 311. he nameth the Popes of Rome head Bishops of the Catholike Church . But this would rather be soundly proued , ( and so he should do the Pope a great fauour ) then dissolutely passed ouer , and boldly begged . For wise men do but admire his folly , and scorne such loose dealing . It were an easie matter to specifie his impudencie in this kind by infinit particulars . But what néed more proofes in matters so euident ? CHAP. XVI . Arguments of Rob. Parsons his grosse ignorance and childish fooleries . AMong his followers Robert Parsons , they say , is holden a profound Doctor . But his pitifull failes and errors in mistaking both his authors , and their words and meaning declare the contrarie . In the addition following his Epistle he telleth vs , how Constantine the great entred into the Empire next after Dioclesian . But Ecclesiasticall histories shew , that Constantius and Galerius succéeded Diocletian , and that Constantine succéeded his father Constantius . And if he will not beléeue vs ; yet let him see , what Baronius saith in his second and third Tome of Annales , who putteth thrée yeares betwéene Dioclesian and Constantine , and others betweene them two . There also he saith , that Constantine being of a different religion , when he entred , became a Christian by his pious mother Helena . But the Legend of Siluester saith , that Helena was a Iew in Religion , and endeuoured to draw her sonne that way . And Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles. hist. cap. 26. sheweth , that from the beginning of his raigne he was a follower of his father in pious affection towards our Religion . Se paternae pietatis erga nostrae Religionis disciplinam ae●eulum & imitatorem ostendit , saith he . Further , he mistaketh the historie of Maxentius , affirming That he fained himselfe a Christian , when he heard of Constantines coming toward Rome , whereas Eusebius lib. 8. Eccles . hist. cap. 26. saith , he fained Christianitie in the first entrance of his raigne . His words are , In ipso imperij ingressu . Speaking of S. Martin , S. Nectarius , S. Ambrose , and S. Augustine , he saith , It was presumed and foretold , that they would be such , before they were Christians indeed . But in the Legend of S. Martin it is said , he was a Christian at the age of twelue yeares , and nothing doth Parsons alledge , wherby we may vnderstand , that any prophesie was made by any of the future Christianitie of Nectarius , Ambrose , and Augustine . In his preface speaking of the Church , most ridiculously he compareth it to a mansion house , and the markes thereof to charters , ridiculously I say . For first there is great difference betwéene a mysticall body , and a naturall bodie , the Church being changed , albeit men continue , and a mansion house not being moued , although the right be translated to others . Next Charters do rather shew , which are the bounds and markes of lands , then may be called the marks of them , and are rather compared to Scriptures , then to the markes assigned by Papists . Lastly , this similitude of a mansion house doth ouerthrow the cause of the synagogue of Rome . For the mansion house of the Church is in no one particular place , and the Charters of the Church are rather holy Scriptures , then Popish Decretals . In the same place he alledgeth Alexander Halensis 3. part . q. 79. to proue , That a man hath two lights , whereby he may vnderstand matters of faith . But in that part he hath only 69. questions , and nothing of the two lights . Durandus also is there cited in nu . 39. but neither booke nor section noted . Doth it not séeme therefore , that Parsons , as he hath long since lost the light of faith , so is now become destitute of the light of humane reason ? Pag. 9. he alledgeth Tertullian de Coena Domini , who neuer wrote any book De Coena Domini . It may be , he mistooke Tertullian for Cyprian . Pag. 14. He saith Peter and Paule were put to death the 14. and last yeare of Nero. But Baronius and diuers learned men say , they died in the 13. yeare of his raigne . Others deny , that they dyed both in one yeare . Pag. 43. He citeth an Epistle of Basill Ad Innocentium . But in Basils works no such Epistle is to be found . And , certes , strange it were , if Basill should write to Innocentius Bishop of Rome , seeing he died twenty yeares at the least , before Innocentius came to be Bishop there , as Canisius in his Chronology , and Baronius in his Annales , to go nofurther , might haue taught him . Pag. 54. He alledgeth Eusebius lib. 7. hist. c. 29. where there are but 26. chapters of that booke in Christophersons version . And pag. 55. he mentioneth two bookes of S. Augustine ad quaest . Ianuarij , which are more then he euer saw , or we can find in the workes of S. Augustine . Percase he meant S. Augustines 118. Epistle ad Ianuar. But there is no mention made of such mysteries concerning immoueable or moueable feasts , as our dreaming aduersarie fancieth . Pag. 67. He alledgeth Theodoret lib. 6. c. 9. whereas his historie containeth onely fiue bookes . Pag. 77. He nameth one Photinus a Bishop of France , and Ado Bishop of Treues , whereas he cannot find any Photinus Bishop in the time of Irenaeus , and might well know , that Ado the Chronicler was of Vienna , and not of Treues . Pag. 104. He braggeth , That he will proue the Pope , the Masse , Transubstantiation , and the vse of Images Via negatiua . Which passeth the reach of common foolerie . For who euer heard of affirmatiue propositions proued by negatiues ? Or who is so sottish to take impudent denials for proofes ? Pag. 106. Where S. Augustine lib. 4. de Baptis . contr . Donatist . c. 6. speaketh of the custome of not rebaptizing Christians once baptized by Heretikes , our ignorant aduersarie supposeth , he talketh of the custome of baptizing of infants . Pag. 111. He alledgeth the ninth booke of S. Ambrose De Sacramentis , and supposeth these words : Non valebit Sermo Christi , &c. to be found in the fourth , fifth , and ninth booke De Sacramentis , and these words , Sermo Christi qui potuit de nihilo facere , quod non erat , &c. to be in the same bookes . Whereas these words are taken out of the booke De ijs qui initiantur , &c. and the former are onely found in one booke of Ambrose , and neither make for his purpose . Pag. 119. There can be no doubt thereof , saith he , speaking of the Popish doctrine of Sacraments . And why trow you ? Forsooth , because the conuenticle of Trent , the Master of sentences , and Thomas of Aquine haue taught it . I would therefore pray all moderate men attentiuely to consider this fellowes either madnesse , or ignorance . We do by arguments out of Scriptures and Fathers refute the impious doctrine of the conuenticle of Trent , Lombard , and Aquinas . And yet he thinketh it sufficient by the testimonie of his owne fellowes , most partially deposing in their owne cause , to refute our arguments grounded vpon Scriptures , Fathers , and other authenticall witnesses . Pag. 120. He saith , Popish auricular confession is in it selfe repugnant to mans sensuall nature . As if it were not as natural to confesse a truth , as to deny it . This we find , that nothing is more beneficial to Massepriests , or more pleasing to man , then to haue absolution after confession . And by this engine the Pope doth work many wonders , to maintaine his state . Pag. 123. He signifieth , that Irenaeus lib. 5. aduers. haeres . speaketh for the supremacie of the Pope : whereas the Pope is not once mentioned in that place , vnlesse it be , where he foretelleth , that Antichrist tyrannically shall take vpon him as God. Ipse se tyrannico more , saith he , conabitur ostendere Deum . Pag. 133. And otherwhere , he supposeth , that we are bound to defend all the singular opinions of the Magdeburgians . But if we alledge to Papists the opinions of Bellarmine , Baronius , Suarez , Stapleton , or other Popish proctors , they think themselues not tyed to their particular doctrines . Againe , he imagineth , because the Magdeburgians mislike some of the Fathers in some things , y t therfore we mislike thē . But neither do we in all things hold w t the Magd. nor do they condemne y e Fathers , y t in some singular points dissentfrō thē . Pag. 146. A Treatise De bono pudicitiae , and a Sermon De natiuitate Christi is alledged vnder the name of Cyprian . And yet it is méere simplicitie , to suppose them to be Cyprians . Pag. 165. For the title De Regularibus . In sexto , he alledgeth De Reg. iuris lib. 6. mistaking chalke for chéese . And for the 25. Session of the conuenticle of Trent he citeth 28. whereas there are not so many in all . Pag. 181. He alledgeth an Oration of Chrysostome Contra gentes with this title , Quòd vnus est Deus ; whereas the true argument is , Quòd Christus sit Deus . Pag. 239. He talketh of the burning of William Tracie . And yet by the acts that concerne him , it appeareth he died quietly in his bed , and that his religion was not discouered , but by his testament after his death . Pag. 268. he mentioneth the Bishop of Cardiffe : whereas euery man knoweth , that there is no such Bishop in England . The records of the storie might also direct his iudgement in this matter , but that he vseth to looke vpon no records . Pag. 269. He nameth a certaine sect of Heretiks , Massilians , as if they of Massilia were Heretikes . But he should say , if he were not grossely ignorant , Messalians . Pag. 282. Hierome is cited Dial. vlt. contr . Lucifer . Whereas it is apparent , that he wrote onely one Dialogue against the Luciferians . He is also alledged for proofe of succession of Bishops , albeit he speake onely of the foundation and succession of the Church . Pag. 387. He taxeth M. Foxes words against Pope Ioane , as blasphemous . Yet it is very absurd , to account all to be blasphemie , that is vttered against the Pope . Pag. 444. and 445. in a matter of controuersie concerning Innocent the third , he produceth Blondus and Genebrard , two poore parasites of the Pope , to speake in his cause . Likewise he alledgeth Platina and Sabellicus , as witnesses for Hildebrand . For him also he quoteth Sigebert and Auentine that speake against him , and an Epistle of Anselme , that is not extant . But what is more absurd and foolish , then to vse the testimonie either of hired parasites , or of such , as speaks against the purpose of him that vseth them , or of records no where extant ? But what should we néed to séeke for more arguments of Parsons ignorance and foolerie , when his whole discourse is nothing but a packe of errors and fooleries ? CHAP. XVII . A note of certaine speeches of Parsons in respect of God blasphemous , in respect of his duty to his Prince , disloyall . IF a man would respect termes ; he might percase somtimes estéeme Rob. Parsons to be a man not altogether exorbitant from Religion and loyaltie . But if we looke into the whole course of his writing , we shall hardly find in so finall a volume more aguments of impietie and disloyaltie . In his Epistle Dedicatorie he applyeth these words of the Euangelist , Exurgens , imperauit ventis & mari , which belong properly to Christ , to the Pope , as if he were able to command the winds and sea . In his Preface speaking of arguments of credibilitie for Christian Religion , and naming the sayings of Prophets , miracles , and testimonie of eye witnesses , he saith , that neither they , nor such like are so euident , as philosophicall demonstrations . As if philosophicall arguments were more cleare and euident , then the lightsome word of God , or Gods miracles , or else , as if euery one were better able to vnderstand philosophicall arguments , knowne only by the light of naturall reason , then the truth of Scriptures and Religion proued by the light of Gods holy Spirit , most certaine miracles , eye witnesses , and diuers other arguments . There also he affirmeth , that there are like arguments of credibilitie for the points of Popish Religion now in controuersie , as are for the Articles of Christian Religion . But this is sufficient to ouerthrow all pietie and Religion . For what man can beléeue the articles of the faith , if we had no better ground for them , then for the Popish doctrine of Purgatorie , Indulgences , the Popes Monarchie and infallible iudgement , the popish worship of Angels and Saints and Images , the eating of Christs bodie by brute beasts eating the Sacrament and other vnwritten Popish traditions ? Pag. 102. he compareth the doctrine of the Trinitie , of Christs two natures and one Person , of the procéeding of the holy Ghost , and such like substantiall and necessarie points of the Christian faith , to the wicked and corrupt doctrine of the Popes vniuersal authoritie of the popish Masse , of Transubstantiation , worship of Images and such like taught by the Church of Rome , as if the one were as easily and directly to be proued , as the other . But what can be deuised more impious , then to match the hereticall doctrine of schoolemen , either deuised by Popes , or conceiued by philosophicall deductions , with the faith of Christ not onely proued by diuine Scriptures , but also testified by Fathers , and Catholike Christians of all times ? Pag. 111. he compareth the word Transubstantiation to the word Trinitie , and Consubstantiall . Which is as much , as if he should deny the holy Trinitie , and the Deitie of the Sonne of God , if he cannot proue his Transubstantiation : a matter that passeth his capacitie to proue . Pag. 104. he alloweth the donation of Ethelwolph , that gaue lands to God , the blessed Virgin , and all the Saints . But what is more impious , then to match creatures with the Creator , & to honor Saints , & the Mirgin Mary as Gods ? Likewise doth he shew himselfe disloy all to his Prince . In his Epistle Dedicatorie speaking of obedience due to Princes , he taketh from them all authoritie to command in Ecclesiasticall causes esteeming that he doth them fauor in giuing them obedience in all worldly affaires . But if he were further examined , what obedience is due to Princes excommunicated by the Pope , it is not to be questioned , but he would deny them obedience in temporall affaires also , and defend the rebellions of subiects against their Princes . In an addition following his Epistle he insulteth ouer the late Queene hearing of her death , and rayleth at her , calling her an old persecutor . The which argueth not only a disloyall affection towards his Prince , but also an inhumane malice against the dead . And this reward Princes reape , that shew fauour to these Scorpions . There also he prayseth the King for his learning , iudgement , and zeale . But if he were either good Christian , or true subiect , he should haue commended his piety , and not haue sought to make him subiect to the Pope . Againe if he had loued the King , he would not haue plotted his destruction . Pag. 136. he imputeth the burning of Foster , Freese and Tewkesbury , thrée godly Martyrs in King Henry the 8. his dayes to the King , and yet were the Romish persecutors the causers of their death . Likewise he saith , that others were burned by the Kings authority . So all the fault is laid vpon the King , although the principall agents in these murthers were Romish prelates . Pag. 252. he prooueth , that Kings are subiect to the Pope by the best reasons he could deuise . Can he be thought then loyall to his Prince , that extolleth strangers , and debaseth Kings ? Pag. 257. he laugheth at King Edward the sixth as a child King , as if the children of Kings were not to succéede their Fathers in their Kingdomes : and Pag. 260. he scorneth Proclamations set forth in his name . Percase it would greatly please him , if all matters were ordred by the Decretals of the Pope . But what néede we other arguments , to conuince this fellow of disloyaltie , when his booke of titles is extant , wherein he doth not only oppugne the Kings title to the Crowne of England , but also giueth both the Pope and people authority ouer Kings ? And if that will not serue , yet when we remember the horrible treason of Percy and his consorts animated , no doubt , by Parsons , we may plainely sée that he is a Cardinall traytor . CHAP. XVIII . A particular of Parsons his lyes , calumniations , and false allegations . NOw we enter into a large field . But it shall be sufficient for vs , if of many impudent lyes , calumniations , and false allegations of authors , we reherse some part , and giue you a tast of his false dealing in the whole . For thereby you may coniecture , how this child of the father of lies hath dealt in the rest . In a certain addition following his Epistle he telleth , how it was foretold , that S. Martin , Nectarius , Ambrose and Augustine should be conuerted to Christian Religion long before it came to passe . But if he vouch not his authors , we may boldly auouch , that he hath forged this lye on his owne head without truth or authority . In the same place he affirmeth , that he knoweth most certainely how the Papists desired his Maiesties aduancement before all others . But he that readeth his booke of titles set out vnder the name of Dolman , and considereth not only the practises of Brooke , Watson , and Clerke against the King and the State , but also the matters obiected by the Secular priests against the Iebusites and their faction concerning this point , and especially the attempt of the gunpowder papists and vnderminers of the Parliament house , will say , that neither Parsons , nor the popish faction shewed themselues very zealous of the Kings aduancement . And as for the King of Spaines pentioners , it were great simplicitie to thinke that taking his money they promised , or intended his Maiesties aduancement and honor . There also he telleth tales of the readinesse and forwardnesse of Papists in aduancing his Maiesties present admission to the Crowne . The vntruth whereof is not only testified by their owne consciences , but also by secret conuenticles after the late Quéenes death , and by open practises to the contrary . True it is , that when they saw their owne weakenesse , then they came on forward , but with great sorrow and heauinesse of hart appearing in their countenances , and rather to saue themselues then to helpe the King. He addeth somewhat of his Maiesties Mother , and the loyaltie of Papists towards her . But his glauering leasing may be refuted , first by the history of Sammier a Iebusite , that was the principal motiue to bring her into trouble . Next by the practises of the Pope , Frenchmen and Spaniards , that vsed her name as a pretence for their owne ambition . And lastly , by the practises of the Spanish pentioners , and namely of Parsons for other titles . In his Preface he saith , that Master Foxe ( in his booke of Acts and Monuments ) treateth of the principall pillars of his religion , whereof he maketh some Martyrs , and some Confessors , and distributeth them in a certaine Ecclesiasticall Calendar , according to the dayes of euery moneth , wherein their festiuals are to be kept . But in these few lines he telleth many vntruths . For first Master Foxe neuer accounted these Martyrs the principall pillars of his religion , founding himselfe and his religion principally vpon the Prophets , and Apostles . Secondly , not Master Foxe , but their death and sufferings for Christes faith made these holy men and women Martyrs and Confessors . Thirdly not M. Foxe , but the Corrector of the print distributed them in the Calendar according to his pleasure . Fourthly this Calendar was not made for the Church of England , which abhorreth the abuses of popish Calendars , but for a direction to those that shall desire to know the order and times of their martyrdome and sufferings , that are named in the story . Lastly , M. Foxe neuer presumed to appoint festiuall dayes for the memorials of these holy men ; nor had he presumed so farre , could he haue done it . But in this point both he and we condemne the arrogancy & presumption of the Pope , that challengeth this power to himselfe . In his argument before his first booke he giueth out , that the church of Rome frō the times of S. Peter vntill our dayes hath alwayes mainteined and taught one faith , without change , or alteration of any one substantiall article , or point of beliefe . And this is the maine post whereon turneth his windmil-like discourse . Who then doth not sée , y t his whole discourse is founded vpō vntruth ? That this is a notorious vntruth , it appeareth by the great alterations of Religion made partly by the Schoolemen , and partly by the Popes Decretals , and not least by the decrees of the conuenticles of Rome , Lateran , Constance , Florence and Trent , wherein I hope Parsons will not deny , but that substantiall points of Religion haue béen discussed . Pag. 9. he maketh the Centuriasts , Centur. 2. 3. & 4. to say , that Christian doctrine fell away in the time of the Doctors . But his report is false and slanderous . For they speake only of a decay or declination in some points of doctrine , and in some Doctors , and not of any falling away , or corruption in all the Doctors , or in all points of their doctrine . Pag. 23. he saith , that some hold , that Ioseph of Arimathaea was sent into Britaine by S. Peter . A matter of no moment , yet falsely affirmed by him , y t careth not what vntruth he speake . Pag. 40. speaking of Ieffrey of Mommouth he affirmeth , that lib. 11. ca. 12. there is not one word of not acknowledging the Popes supremacy . And his reason is , for that Austin was not sent to the Britains , but to the Saxons , and for that they had their Archbishops iurisdiction reserued . But his assertion conteineth a manifest vntruth . For Austin Gregories Legat required subiection of them , which they could not deny without impugning Gregories authoritie . He caused them also most cruelly to be murthered , which he would not haue done , vnlesse he had thought his authority to be vniustly resisted . His reason is most ridiculous , and not only false . For neither is there any mention made of any reseruation of iurisdiction in Austins story , nor do y e Popes Legates spare to vsurp all iurisdiction where they can do it . Furthermore it is a vaine thing to talke of Gregories reseruation of Archiepiscopall iurisdiction in Britaine , when before his time no Bishop of Rome was euer heard to appoint either Bishop , or Archbishop in Britaine . Pag. 57. he saith the Lutherans reiect Hester , S. Iames his epistle , and the Apocalyps from the canon of Scriptures . But their bookes and acts declare the contrary . They only make a difference betwixt some Chapters of Hester , S. Iames his Epistle , and y e Apocalyps , and other canonicall Scriptures , which neuer haue been doubted of , or called in question . Pag. 58. he saith , that Luther lib. de Concil . did perswade the German Princes to obserue Easter day , as an immoueable feast . But either he wilfully forgetteth , or slothfully dreameth . For in his booke of Councels he saith only , that it had bin better to haue left the law of Moyses concerning Pase dead and buried . Quanto fecissent consultiùs , saith he , pag. 26. si legem Moysis de Paschali festo reliquissent ibi iacêre mortuam & sepultam ? so farre was he from making it an immoueable feast . Pag. 64. he telleth , how Vlfrides festiuall is kept by the vniuersall Church vpon the 12. day of October . But this leasing is plainely confuted by the Calendars of the Easterne , and African Churches , that neuer knew any such Saint , and Molanus signifieth , that this Saints feast was only kept in England . In Anglia , saith he , natalis Vlfridi . But now the reformed Church hath blowne away these superstitious festiuals , and condemneth the Popes claime in canonizing his disciples . Rehersing the report of Lucius his conuersion out of Baronius , pag. 77. he addeth , lyeth and forgeth , like a forging falsary . That which he telleth of Lucius hating the Romans for their old religion , and how he knew , that the fountaine of religion was at Rome , is both added and false . That which he talketh of Pertinax and Tretellius his conuersion , and Marcus Aurelius his fauor , and of Fugatius and Damianus , who as he saith , were Romans , is false , and not to be iustified by any good author . That Wicleffe and Husse taught , that Kings are no Kings , longer then they rule well , as Parsons surmiseth Pag. 98. is a méere calumniation . Their bookes conteine contrary doctrine . Pag. 103. he saith , The article of the Trinity , and Christes two natures were as little , or perhaps lesse specified in the first two hundred yeares after Christ , then the popish doctrine of the Popes authority , of the Masse , and of Images . Matters not only false , but blasphemous . The doctrine of the Trinity and Christes two natures being directly deduced out of holy Scriptures , and the popish doctrine concerning the Pope , the Masse , and Images , being contrary to Scriptures . Pag. 147. speaking of the Magdeburgians , he saith , They accuse openly , and by name S. Athanasius , Basil , Gregory , Nazianzen , Ambrose , Prudentius , Epiphanius and Ephrem , for the error of praying to Saints . But he that shall reade the 4. Century cap. 4. shall find the contrary . The same is also to be proued by reason . For what néeded they to accuse the Fathers , when neither the writings mentioned are certainely theirs , nor any matter is in those writings contained , that cannot probably be defended , and be wrested out of the hands of our aduersaries , that by them would proue prayers to Saints ? Pag. 152. he beareth his reader in hand , that we cannot say , that the faith of Rome in the time of Gregory the first , was any other , then that which is now in Rome . And for further proofe he referreth vs to Srapleton his translation of Bede , and his Fortresse of faith . But first the translation is wicked and corrupt , and his fortresse of perfidye and heresie is ouerthrowne by D. Fulke of worthy memory . Secondly that which he affirmeth , that we cannot say ; that we both say , and prooue , and thereof haue giuen diuers particulars in our former answere . Finally the points which Stapleton toucheth in his weake fortresse , are neither the most materiall points in controuersie betwixt vs , nor any way proued by him substantially . Pag. 153. he telleth , how , by all meanes we can deuise , we discredit Gregory and Austin . But he doth very much discredit his cause by telling these great vntruths : for we do neither discredit them , nor wrong them , but only report , as we find . Nay we doubt not , but in diuers great points of controuersie to ouerthrow our aduersaries by the testimonie of there two . Pag. 192. he sayth , that S. German prayed largely to S. Albane . But Bede , vpon whose credit this report is made , saith not so , as we may reads hist. Anglor . lib. 1. c. 18. Pag. 205. he affirmeth , that Dinothus was punished by the sword of Ethelfred after the death of S. Austin . Yet Bede lib. 2. hist. Anglor . c. 3. sheweth after this execution done vpon the innocent Britans , how Austin ordeined two Bishops , which he could not well do being dead . Pag. 227. he telleth , how Archbishop Cranmer agreed to breake King Henry the 8. his last will , and that he conspired to put downe and destroy all the Kings children , and was put to death for heresie and treason . Matters certes most grossely deuised , and impudently affirmed by this wicked heretike and traytor . For first King Henries will , if any such were , was not cancelled by him , but by the popish prelates in Quéene Maryes time , and of that the lay Papists brag in their petition to the King an . 1064. Secondly , not Archbishop Cranmer , but the bloody Papists had determined not only to breake his will , that they might conuey the Crowne to strangers , but also to burne his body , if they had not béen preuented by Quéene Maryes death . Thirdly that graue Father and holy Martyr refused to subscribe against Quéene Mary , albeit many Papists did it , and she to requite his kind dealing , cruelly persecuted him to the death . Lastly he dyed for defence of true Religion , and not for heresie . And albeit matters of treason were obiected to him , yet neuer came he to his arraignement for them , as no question Rob. Parsons should , if he might be caught . Pag. 239. he sayth , Latimer stirred a notorious tumult in Bristow , but this is not only false , but also improbable : for the good old man was most méeke and peaceable . Pag. 241. he writeth , that the Abbots of Glastenbury , Whalley , and Reading , and D. Forest , and Powell gaue their bloud for defence of Catholike vnitie . But the acts of their triall shew , that diuers of them were executed for plaine rebellion , and all for treason . And if any Abbots or Iebusites should make the like stirres abrode against the Pope , or the King of Spaine , it would auaile them but little to pretend Catholike vnity . Forest and his fellowes vnder pretence of this Catholike vnity , sought to reuoke and call backe into England the Popes tyranny . Pag. 243. he shameth not to say , that the King gaue Bishop Gardiner speciall commission to procure a reconciliation with the Pope . But his impudent lying may be refuted both by his commission and instructions yet extant , wherein no such matter is signified , but rather the contrary . Parsons therefore may do well to shew , by what commission he lyeth thus shamefully . Pag. 283. he sayth , that all the Archbishops of Canterbury were of one religion vntill Cranmers time . But hardly shall he prooue , that all of them had in them any religion at all . And by no meanes can he deny , but as the church of Rome changed her faith , so her louers likewise changed . The faith of the conuenticle of Trent none of them euer knew . Pag. 287. he alledgeth these words , as out of Caluin lib. 4. Instit. c. 1. § . 3. We are forced to beleeue the Church to be inuisible , and to be seene only by the eyes of God. But he that hath any eyes at all may sée this fellowes impudent lying . In that place he hath no such words , but rather teacheth contrary . Likewise doth he belye Luther , affirming , that he teacheth the Church to be inuisible . Pag. 296. and 297. he saith , that we doubt , that the Church is fayled , and that Master Foxe contradicteth former writers , and that we hold , that all is not true , which the Church held . But we make no doubt , but that Parsons doth grossely lye and faine . For neither do we say that the vniuersall Church faileth , or so erreth , that none holdeth the truth , nor doth Master Foxe either so teach , or contradict former authenticall writers . Pag. 308. he telleth vs , how the Centuriasts Centur. 3. ca. 4. reprehend Cyprian sharply for speaking of offring sacrifice . But he abuséth his reader , and mistaketh the whole matter . For they do not mislike him for speaking of offring sacrifice , but for attributing too much to the priest . In the same place , thinking that he hath found out a lease of priests , Lo heere , saith Parsons , three massing priests , and yet is there not one word in that place of the Masse . True it is , that Cyprian speaketh of a sacrifice , but his sacrifice was not the massing popish sacrifice , but a sacrifice of thankesgiuing . Pag. 310. he saith , that Constantine built 4. goodly Churches within the city of Rome , caried earth to their first foundation , and adorned them with Images : Thrée lyes no where found , but in the fabulous legends calculated by Friers and Masse-priests vnder the shadow of a glasse of wine . Nay the legends themselues are not so false , as Parsons his discourse of Three Conuersions . For they place S. Pauls Church without Rome , whereas he by his cunning masonry hath placed it in Rome . Pag. 316. he chargeth vs with Symbolizing with the Manicheyes . But if to agrée with heretikes is to symbolize with them , then doth Parsons symbolize with heretikes . We do anathematize both the Manicheyes , and all other heretikes . Pag. 318. and 319. he telleth diuers lyes of the Centuriasts , making them to condemne diuers Fathers for inuocation of Angels : whereas it doth not appeare , that either those Fathers which are there mentioned prayed to Angels , or that the Centuriasts do simply condemne them for writing as they did . Pag. 354. he saith Charles the great was made Emperour of the West by Leo the third , which is a ridiculous and vain-glorious lye . For next to God , his owne sword , and the consent of the people of Rome and Italy made him Emperour of that countrey , the rest of his Empire he had by his owne right . As for Leo the third he had nothing to giue , but only by certaine ceremonyes was appointed to declare the Emperours titles , and the peoples voluntary submission . Pag. 373. he giueth out , that the sixth generall Councell was called by Pope Agatho . But vnlesse he bring proofe , it will appeare , that he is nothing scrupulous in giuing out lyes . Pag. 378. he saith , the Councell of Laterane vnder Innocent the third was holden an . 1115. But he miscounteth a hundred yeares , as his own Chroniclers may informe him . He saith also , that all Councels were holden by order of the Bishop of Rome , and confirmed by him , and none held for lawfull without his confirmation . But these are matters méerely forged . For first , not the Bishops of Rome , but the Emperours called the first generall Councels . Secondly , albeit the Bishop of Rome should haue withstood them , yet should their acts haue passed , neither néeded these Councels any confirmation from the Bishop of Rome . Thirdly , diuers things passed in the sixt Councell of Aphrike , in the Councell of Chalcedon , and the sixt Synode maugre the Bishop of Rome , albeit yet a Bishop , and not the head of Antichrists kingdome , as the Pope prooued afterward . To conclude , lyes are as rife with Parsons , as lice were in Aegypt , when they came vpon man and beast , as we reade Exod. 8. CHAP. XIX . Parsons his texts and allegations for the most part make against himselfe and his cause . HE is a simple Fencer , that hurteth himselfe with his owne weapons , and in the common opinion of men they are accounted vnwise , that bring forth furniture into the field , that doth better serue the enemy , then themselues . Yet this is the wisdome of Parsons throughout his discourse . The point of his allegations doth commonly serue to pierce himselfe , and no better allegations néede we then those , which he bringeth to ouerthrow that cause , which he defendeth . In his Epistle Dedicatory he alledgeth these words out of the Psalme 118. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam , & non est illis scandalum . But what could be leuelled more directly against the cause of Papists ? For first they regard not holy Scriptures , nor the law of God. Next their whole confidence is in the Pope , and in his dispensations and indulgences . Thirdly they séeke not for peace , but with warres and seditions trouble the Christian world . No maruell therefore , if the whole world be scandalized by the Popes , Cardinals , Monks , Friers , and their superstitions , idolatries , barbarous cruelties , perfidious dealing & wickednes . In his Preface he citeth S. Augustine de morib . Eccles. Cath. c. 17. and Chrysostome homil . 14. inc . 24. Matth. but both make against him . Crassas omnino mentes , & corporeorum simulachrorum pestifero pastu morbidas ad diuina iudicanda defertis , saith that holy Father , and so we may likewise say to the Papists . You bring with you grosse minds , and distempred with the pestilent norriture of materiall images to iudge of diuine matters . And this is the reason , why they worship Saints , and other creatures , and make grosse similitudes of the Trinity and diuine persons . Chrysostome speaketh of Christian Religion , and not of the Popes monarchy , or of the idolatrous popish Masse , or of Purgatory , or Indulgences , or such popish trash . Out of the 〈◊〉 of Saint Matthew he citeth Christs words , foretelling , that false Prophets should arise and say , lo here is Christ , or there is Christ. But this text doth directly prooue the Masse-priests to be false Prophets and seducers . For one saith , lo here is Christ pointing to this Altar , or that Crucifixe ; another pointing to another Pixe or Crucifixe saith , lo there is Christ. Chrysostome is alledged homil . 43. operis imperfect . in Matth. as speaking against men negligent in trying out the truth of doctrine . Yet will not popish prelates permit Christians to heare Scriptures publikely read in vulgar tongues , nor do they giue liberty to Christians to iudge of the false doctrine of Masse-priests and Friers . Finally they do not like , that Christians should be too busy in trying out the truth , & in disputing of matters of Religion . He telleth vs further , that many of our country this day perswade themselues , that either matters of religion perteine not greatly vnto them , or that they go well as they are . But if this be a fault , then are the Papists herein most faulty . For in Italy and Spayne they are forbidden to talke of matters of Religion , as things perteining to Priests and Friers , and doubt not , but that the Pope and his Cardinals together with inferior Prelates haue ordred all this businesse excellently well . And this is the error of all the Popes puppy followers . Ambrose is there alledged to shew , that God will be beleeued on his word . What indignity were it , saith he , lib. 1. de Abraham ca. 3. if beleeuing the testimonies of men concerning others , we shall not beleeue the oracles of God concerning himselfe ? Do not then Papists offer a great indignity to God , that will not beléeue Scriptures to 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 . Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A13174-e500 a Euseb. de vit . Constant. lib. 3. ca. 62. a Euseb. de vit . Constant. lib. 3. ca 63. Notes for div A13174-e2560 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